Agriculture Bill

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

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

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the Minister for the superb way he has replied to so many of our debates in this marathon Committee.

I want to speak to Amendment 271, in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, and Amendment 280, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Amendment 271 goes to the heart of our anxieties about the future of agriculture and, indeed, the food we eat. Having heard a great deal of the arguments in the course of the Bill’s passage, there is little I can add, so I will be comparatively brief. As my noble friend Lord Grantchester put it so succinctly, this amendment is of vital importance and should be enshrined in law. I welcome an assurance given in the past, but this is so crucial that it should be put on the face of the Bill, as so many other noble Lords have indicated.

I am a member of the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee of this House, and we are examining future trading agreements in detail; it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage. I am particularly concerned with proposed new subsection (2)(b) in Amendment 271. It would be intolerable if we lowered our standards of agricultural food imports so that we imported at a lower standard than our existing domestic standards in animal health and welfare, food safety and hygiene and liability in general. I would be firmly opposed to any lowering of our standards.

I also support Amendment 280, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Wigley. As I said at Second Reading, many of my family have been, and are, sheep breeders—my family has been doing this for centuries. Some of them may regard me, given my occupation as a lawyer and not a sheep breeder, as the black sheep of the family.

As agriculture was among my responsibilities as Welsh Secretary—indeed, I got responsibility for this transferred to the office—I attended most, if not all, of the meetings of the EU Council of Ministers whenever sheep were discussed. I did so because sheep and livestock farming were so important to Wales.

The price of lamb is heavily influenced by how much we can get from exporting, and the price of exports reflects back on the domestic market. A tariff would put many sheep farmers out of business: the economy and their viability are fragile enough as it is. Many of them have no alternative, hence the need for a report in the terms of the amendment if no agreement is reached, so that this House can give proper consideration to it.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has rightly put the case of a catastrophe if no deal is reached. Specifically, I would like to hear the Minister’s views, and if, and to what extent, he dissents to the case put so admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with those noble Lords who have called this probably the most important group of amendments we have discussed on the Bill; I concur with that. I say to my noble friend Lord Trenchard that, just because we support these amendments, it does not mean that we are anti-American, any more than he is anti-British because he does not like our side of the argument. That does not add to the value of our discussions.

I would like to congratulate the Government on creating the commission today, but I ask the Minister to clarify what it is called. The government press release today refers to the “Trade and Agriculture Commission”, and also to the better-named “Agriculture and Trade Commission”. Which is it? If the Government cannot make up their mind, perhaps the Minister could clarify this for them.

I was pleased to see that the chairman, Tim Smith, said that its report will give evidence-based advice. That is hugely important, but it begs the question that so many noble Lords have raised: what is going to happen to that advice, and what will happen when it has given that advice? The launch of the commission today is just the first stage, which is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle—indeed, my noble friend Lady McIntosh has another amendment—which would prolong the life of the commission. It needs to be there, it needs to report to Parliament and it needs to have its advice acted upon by the Secretary of State.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, both these amendments are very difficult to argue against. They are telling us to be careful about how we use chemicals designed to kill things. My noble friend beat me to the word “poison”, but that is what they are for: to kill the organic life that we do not want in certain places at certain times.

Having controls about where you can use such substances is fairly basic. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, describing a farmer effectively getting into a biohazard suit before using them gives a hint that they are potentially dangerous. If can think of examples just from this Chamber. I look across to where the noble Countess, Lady Mar, sat for many years: organophosphates ruined her life and she led a campaign to get rid of them.

Many people have told us that we do not know what we are talking about and to just use these substances sensibly—but we can then discover that they are lethal. Another example is DDT, and I could carry on. The fact that these chemicals cause problems when they get into ground-water is very well established. We should be more cautious and targeted about their use—there is a lot of technology which enables us to be more targeted, and we should embrace this.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on her amendment. I think that something like the study she suggests should be in the Bill. My gut reaction is to say yes to Amendment 221, but unlike the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I would like it to be more specific, so we know what we are dealing with. Such guidelines probably would depend on work that would be done under the later amendment.

There is potential risk here. We have tolerated a degree of damage to ourselves and to members of our society because we did not know what we were doing in the past. We would not tolerate that now and our standards are probably going to get tighter. Therefore, tightening up the process of observation should be encouraged.

I have one last anecdote: how many people have still got a bottle of blue slug pellets at the back of their garden cabinet which they are not quite sure what to do with? We have discovered that these destroy far more than just the slugs. I have used them in the past, and probably should not have done.

We are tightening our standards and becoming more targeted and smarter all the time with chemicals. It is about time we took this on in a more coherent fashion, and these amendments are a good step forward. I salute the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on her amendment.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with these amendments. I like the way that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has drafted his amendment so that it is not prescriptive, because further work needs to be done.

We are used to buffer strips already: you cannot spray near a watercourse and you cannot put organic manure near bore-holes or wells. Why are human beings excluded from those same provisions? It seems to me a little perverse. I listened with care to my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Blencathra; yes, most farmers are good and are careful, but sadly we all know bad farmers. They are the ones causing the damage and are a major cause of the problem that pesticides create.

My noble friend Lord Naseby was right to say that “pesticide” is a generic term. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether she would consider different schemes for fungicides, pesticides and insecticides? Herbicides are probably the least damaging to human beings, but they do leach through the soil, particularly sandy soil, very quickly. The others—for example, insecticides—can be particularly nasty to human beings. It does not require much breeze for there to be quite a fine spray which goes much further than most people recognise. Even in the United States, they are beginning to clamp down on the excessive use of these sprays and have better buffer zones. I think it is time we followed suit; this is something which should be researched and then implemented.

[Baroness Northover (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I too wish to speak in support of these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, gave a passionate and well-informed explanation for why he has tabled Amendment 221.

Amendment 226 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State must

“monitor the use and effects of pesticides”

and

“conduct research into alternative methods of pest control and … promote their take-up”.

The proposals include assessments of the

“effect of pesticides on environmental health”

and “on human health”. The amendment covers

“farmers, farm workers and their families, operators, bystanders, rural residents and the general public.”

This is wider than Amendment 221.

We have become increasingly aware of the dangers of pesticides. We know that intensive farming has driven the loss of wildlife; I was brought up on a farm and recall birds and flowers that you rarely see now. Chemical pesticides also damage human health, and I recall chemicals everywhere, spilling out of sacks. When pesticides were spread, they drifted over us if the wind picked up or changed direction, which it was always doing.

Farmers have a higher than average incidence of kidney cancer, which my father had. That is not down to chance—it is not a common cancer. There must be a risk that this is associated with the use of chemicals. I hope that our outstanding cancer registries will continue to draw effective conclusions here. From that we get data, not just datum. Professor Ian Boyd, former chief scientific adviser at Defra, and Dr Alice Milner compared the overuse of pesticides to that of antibiotics, and they are surely right. The Food and Agriculture Organization is seeking to combat this worldwide, and the first step is collecting data on pesticide use.

As we seek to reduce the use of pesticides, it is extremely important that farmers can access advice, independent of merchants and manufacturers, as specified in this amendment. For so many years, farmers have depended on industry advice, as I recall my father having to do. However, as a tenant farmer with his head just above water, he usually cut in half what they recommended, simply on the basis of cost and the assumption that they had overestimated what was required. I therefore recognise the Friends of the Earth statement that:

“Farmers support the need to cut unnecessary use of pesticides—and it’s better for their bottom line too.”


I am concerned that going it alone, out of the EU, will lead not to higher standards, as the noble Lord so often assures us, but to lower ones. I recall a debate over neonicotinoids—neonics—when I was in Defra. Trials in the EU had led to the conclusion that they should be banned because of their potential effect on the bee population, which has declined dramatically. The United Kingdom opposed, slowing down action in the UK and across the EU. Also, with reference to the last group of amendments that we discussed, the UK also opposed stopping the transport of live animals, despite what was said in the referendum. These are not encouraging examples. Therefore, it is important to have this commitment on pesticides in the Bill. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, but I particularly support the wider-ranging Amendment 226, which could immediately be added to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, the evidence we received when I sat on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Committee, the Rural Economy Committee and then the Food Poverty, Health and Environment Committee convinced me that we need a land strategy plan in this country. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, it does not need to be a detailed one; that is not the objective, which is to take a holistic look at the countryside in the way the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, just said so that there is no contradiction between various types of development.

There is only a finite amount of land in England, but there are often many competing demands for that land. If we take the north face of Scafell Pike, for instance, there is not much competition for that land, but if we take the triangle between Milton Keynes, Cambridge and Oxford, there is huge competition—from agriculture, horticulture and forestry, with the demand to fulfil the Government’s requirement to plant more trees, from industry, new roads, new railways and new housing. We are told that we need to grow different types of crops, to change our diets or to grow more fruit and vegetables in this country, but there is only a limited amount of land that can grow those sort of crops and there is no security for that land.

The National Infrastructure Commission and developers will be keen to take any agricultural land it possibly can to fulfil its development ambitions. Can the Minister confirm that the National Infrastructure Commission does not have to take biodiversity and climate change into account in its proposals? If it does not, then farming is at real risk and the proposals that my noble friend is so ably putting before the Committee are in jeopardy.

We need to assess what agriculture needs over the next period to secure production and the growth of the right crops so that it does not conflict with forestry ambitions or the Prime Minister’s demand to “build, build, build” wherever we can, and so that our countryside is not ruined as a result. We are at the brink of making a huge mistake for our grandchildren and future generations. In our effort to improve this country’s economy and drive it forward, which we very much want, we must also secure the landscapes and the agricultural land that needs to be kept for production of food and which is now under threat.

--- Later in debate ---

If this amendment is not accepted, we will be effectively increasing the price of wine and lowering the choice for consumers, and missing the opportunity of taking positive steps in a specific area to demonstrate how digitisation can transform how we do things, not just in agriculture but as a nation state. Will the Minister seriously consider Amendment 253 and the wider issues that it sets out?

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support Amendment 236A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, with whom I agree that there is an appetite within the House to put climate change more to the front and centre of this Bill, although it is in Clause 1. She picks up on the point that I tried to make last time we discussed climate change, about making a payment scheme for the farmers, so that climate mitigation is what they are aiming for when they are farming. That is well covered in subsection (b) of her proposed new clause.

Turning to Amendment 253A in my name, I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She has already underlined the importance of accurate food labelling, which I so agree with. My amendment makes provision for information on the greenhouse gases emitted during the lifecycle of agricultural products to be available to consumers at the point of sale, such as on packaging, and offers financial assistance for producers and accreditation bodies to compile this information.

There are three key points to bear in mind. About a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions come from food. On average, each person in the world causes six kilos of emissions every day because of the food that they eat. By 2030, only 10 years from now, we will need to halve our emissions. That will correspond to the average person causing three kilos of emissions every day for food. In assessing how the greenhouse gas figure is calculated, we must add up the greenhouse gas emissions from all parts of the food chain, including growing, clearing the land, processing, manufacturing, packaging and transportation, as well as cooking the food at home and disposing of any waste. That is not an impractical proposition. Some food is already labelled for greenhouse gas emissions, but this gives us all a role that we can play in tackling climate change. For most people climate change is too big a subject, and they feel they cannot actively contribute themselves. However, they can by changing their diet.

On labelling, I draw my noble friend’s and the Committee’s attention to our recommendation in our Hungry for Change report. In paragraph 324, we recommend that

“the Government should conduct a review of labelling on food and drinks products.”

We go on to say:

“The new regulations should be compulsory for all food manufacturers and retailers.”


It was for that reason that I included in my amendment the paragraph relating to provision of financial assistance for businesses towards the cost of providing that information. A lot of work has to be done on this, but it is a market for the future, and one in which everybody in this country can play their part.

The Minister has not warmly accepted any of my amendments, but I hope he will accept my recommendation that he and his officials read a book that is about to be published, called Food and Climate Change Without the Hot Air, by Professor Bridle of Manchester University. It will be published on 3 September, but advance copies can be obtained in August. It would be extremely useful if my noble friend, and particularly his officials, could read that book before Report, because I hope it will influence their thinking.

I commend my amendment on greenhouse gas labelling to the Government.

[Lord Hope of Craighead [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I wish to speak to Amendment 255, to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, have kindly added their names. It seeks to insert into Clause 35 a provision that is designed to protect the interests of the devolved authorities regarding the exercise of regulation-making powers concerning marketing standards in England that are conferred on the Secretary of State by that clause.

Clause 35(1) tells us that the Secretary of State may make provision about marketing standards with which the agricultural products listed in Schedule 4 must conform if they are to be marketed in England. The products listed in that schedule include milk and milk products, beef, veal—although, curiously, not lamb or wool—poultry and poultry meat, eggs and egg products, and fruit and vegetables other than olives. The list of matters that the regulations may cover is extensive, and that is leaving aside the points made by noble Lords who preceded me on this group. There are 14 matters on the list as it stands. They include species, plant variety, animal breed, the type of farming, the production method, the place or origin of farming, and restrictions on the use of certain substances and practices.

The clause makes it clear that the power to prescribe food standards extends to agricultural products that are to be marketed—I stress the word “marketed”—in England, not just to those produced in England. Nothing is said in the clause about where these agricultural products may come from, but it requires little imagination to appreciate the power may extend to agricultural products that are sent for marketing in England from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

We are told that Clause 52 extends to England and Wales only. It is odd, then, that the power does not cover agricultural products that are to be marketed in Wales as well as England. The Minister may be able to explain why that is so. If, as I suspect, the reason is that the standards to be applied to the marketing of agricultural products in Wales is a matter to be determined by Welsh Ministers, one wonders why Clause 52 does not say that Clause 35 applies to England only. But that is not the point that concerns me.

I am concerned that Clause 35 appears to overlook the fact that agricultural products marketed in England, listed in Schedule 4, may include things that have been produced in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I do not have figures at my disposal, but we know that

“Northern Ireland sells more to the rest of the UK than to all EU member states combined”

and that

“Scotland sells more to the rest of the UK than to the rest of the world put together.”

My source for that is the Business Secretary’s foreword to the UK Internal Market White Paper, published on 16 July. What is said there about Scotland must be true for Wales too.

Much of what comes to England from those other parts of the UK consists of agricultural products. To take just one example, it is common for farmers in Scotland who grow seasonal crops such as peas and raspberries to do so under contract to the supermarkets, which distribute them to serve the needs of markets throughout the UK, including England. There must be many farmers in Wales and Scotland, especially those close to the borders, who look to England as the place to take their goods to market. Because their business is agriculture, which is devolved, they must look to the Governments in Wales and Scotland to set the standards with which they must comply. The same is true for farmers in Northern Ireland. It cannot be assumed, then, that the standards set by the devolved Governments as regards species and farming methods will be the same as those the Secretary of State will think appropriate for markets in England.

This raises the crucial question of how Clause 35 is intended to fit in with the concept of a UK internal market. I appreciate that the White Paper to which I have referred seeks to meet the needs of marketing across the whole range of products that move around between our nations and that it was not produced by Defra. But the whole must include the sum of its parts, so I read its comments as applying to products for food as well as everything else.

We are told that under the plans in the White Paper, the UK will continue to operate as a coherent internal market, with a guarantee that UK companies—this must include farmers—can trade unhindered in every part of the United Kingdom. The White Paper states:

“If a baker sells bread in both Glasgow and Carlisle, they will not need to create different packaging because they are selling between Scotland and England.”


The principle of mutual recognition is explained further in paragraph 48 of the White Paper, which states:

“The fundamental aim of all mutual recognition systems is to ensure that compliance with regulation in any one territory is recognised as compliance in the other(s). For example, if a good produced in Scotland, and adhering to the Scottish labelling regulations, can be placed on the Scottish market, it can … be placed on the English and Welsh markets without the additional need to comply with English or Welsh requirements.”


With respect, it seems that Clause 35 as drafted does not address itself at all to the concept of a UK internal market, as explained in that paragraph. I suggest that it could do that in one or other of two ways. It could include a requirement that the Secretary of State consult with the devolved Governments when exercising the regulation-making power, which is what my amendment seeks to do. That would at least ensure that barriers were not erected to trade in agricultural products coming from elsewhere in the UK by accident or through a misunderstanding. Alternatively, exemptions could be written into the regulations for the English market to serve the needs of growers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The other way might be to write into the clause a provision, such as that in the White Paper from which I have been quoting, stating that products grown there that comply with standards laid down by the devolved Governments could be marketed in England without having to comply with the English requirements.

I add that my amendment was conceived by me and not prompted by what I have read in the White Paper. It was drafted several weeks before the White Paper was published, but I am encouraged by what the White Paper says to suggest to the Minister that there is a real issue here, about the structure of the internal market in agricultural products, that needs to be thought through very carefully before the Bill leaves this House. Of course, I will listen carefully to what he has to say, but the issue seems so important to the working of the internal market that, depending on what he says, I may have to come back to it on Report.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

I turn to Amendments 151 and 153 in my name. As any farmer will tell you, cash flow is the number one consideration. This is particularly true for tenant farmers, who have to pay rent twice a year, irrespective of their cash position. A large proportion of farmers are reliant on BPS payments as part of their farm income and any delay to these can have a serious impact on a farmer’s ability to run their business. Ensuring that those entitled to payments receive them within guaranteed timescales will help ensure certainty of cash flow. That certainty will encourage productivity and investment—two clear ambitions of our Government’s wide-ranging agricultural policy.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the Committee has already heard some powerful speeches. The more the Bill is discussed, the more respect I have for farmers who, in a time of uncertainty, have a future that is even more uncertain than the present. We do not know where ELMS is going; we have not discussed the Environment Bill. We are threatened with ELMS being run by the RPA, whose record we cannot respect hugely. Farmers are, therefore, in a difficult position. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said last week, the advice he has received is to stop all investment. That is a terrible situation to be in at this time. Our farmers should be investing but, in the uncertain world we are faced with, the right thing for them to do is sit on their hands. That is going to cause huge problems. I agree with noble Lords who have said that small farmers, particularly hill farmers, face the most problems and are most likely to fall by the wayside as the current situation continues.

I have put my name to Amendment 143, which would delay the process of implementing ELMS for another year. Given what has been said, there is nothing for me to add, except that I support the principle of all the amendments that have been spoken to. I hope that the Government will show some flexibility on these, because the current situation is untenable for quite a number of farmers.

[The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 143, to which I have put my name. I too have very real concerns that Defra will simply not be ready for the transition period to begin in 2021 and that farming will suffer as a result. To provide the Government and farmers with sufficient time to prepare for transition, we should start it in 2022, rather than 2021. This way, we can ameliorate the transition chasm that I have discussed before. The House has spent four long days in Committee, debating many variations of ELMS, and has made its way through Clauses 1 and 2 of the 54-clause Bill. We hope to rush through the bulk of this legislation in another two days, under huge time pressure. Scrutiny cannot be sufficient in these circumstances and major aspects of this crucial legislation will be barely considered.

The Government have suggested that time is of the essence and that this Bill simply has to be passed so that the transition period can begin on 1 January 2021. They say that farmers will not be able to be paid if it does not. This is simply not true. It was easy for Parliament to extend direct payments to farmers for 2020; we can simply repeat that process. Given that the Government have confirmed that they will maintain the level of agricultural funding until the end of this Parliament, this will have no negative impact on the Treasury or on budgets. What it will do is permit Defra to prepare for ELMS in an orderly manner.

Despite the best efforts of its overstretched and underfunded staff, Defra is transparently far behind where it needs to be. The EFRA Committee took evidence on 16 June 2020 from Defra’s two leads: Tamara Finkelstein, its Permanent Secretary, and David Kennedy, the director-general of food, farming and biosecurity. I recommend the transcript of their evidence to all noble Lords, as it provides a valuable insight into its much-delayed progress. They admit to considerable delays in the tests and trials programme caused first by Brexit, which took many staff for emergency no-deal planning, and then by coronavirus, which meant that many key tests and trial programmes have not begun.

Defra is triaging. For example, it has confirmed that it has abandoned plans to build a new computer system to administer ELMS. Instead, it will be delivered using the current SITI Agri system, which is used by the RPA to administer BPS. Reading between the lines, it appears that tier 1 of ELMS is effectively going to be little more than BPS plus greening obligations by a new name, administered by the same team, using the exact same technology. I would appreciate the Minister’s confirmation of this.

On Thursday, the Minister helpfully confirmed that Defra would publish a multiannual financial assistance plan this autumn. Given the incredible delays disclosed by Defra, what details is it really able to provide? Will the Minister confirm whether, but for Brexit meaning Brexit, Defra would prefer to agree to this amendment and give itself longer to prepare for the transition?

I warmly support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which also relate to the transition chasm. However, I cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. ELMS is optional—the quicker the transition, the less uptake there will be and the worse the outcome for our environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

There are a number of points there. I think I said that under Clause 8 the Government allow for an extension of the agricultural transition period, should that be necessary, so there is an important safeguard there; we can extend the agricultural transition period.

I think I did reply to my noble friend; it may not be satisfactory to the noble Lord or my noble friend. We believe that direct payments offer poor value for money, and that is why we want to start in 2021 with, as I say, a modest reduction. I have deliberately said that this will be no more than 5% for around 80% of farmers, so that we can redirect that money into an ELM national pilot, Countryside Stewardship agreements and productivity grants.

Yes, we are all scarred by computer systems. I am the first to say that I am not a computer expert; that is why we have people who are. I repeat that everyone working on these matters is experienced in them, because clearly—as I have said—we want payments on time and a successful outcome for farmers. We also want to make sure that the ELM and all we do hereon in is value for money for the taxpayer. In the end, it is the taxpayer who will reward the farmer for doing the things that we as a society know the farmer can do very well.

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his response. I have two questions. He said the RPA would do the trial next year, then he came to a full stop. Does that mean his mind is open and that another body could be responsible for implementing the ELMS in future? Secondly, he referred to the autumn announcement. Can he be more specific on the timing of the autumn announcement and whether we will get that before Report?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I cannot give my noble friend the precise date. I know noble Lords would like that announcement to be as soon as possible—I will take that away—but I am afraid I cannot give your Lordships a precise date. In fact, I do not know the precise date, but it will be in autumn. I am fully seized of the importance of that.

As to whether the delivery body is the RPA in the long term, I believe it is well placed. I cannot give a direct answer as to whether the RPA will in fact do all the ELM. I suspect it may, but that is obviously a matter we will consider.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, last week the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was pleased to support what I said about the sequestration of greenhouse gases. This week, I am very pleased to support him on what he said about upland farmers and the concern that a number of them are going bankrupt and their land is becoming part of larger holdings, which is altering the nature of the countryside. It is not just the small upland farms that are under pressure. Small lowland and small family farms are under pressure throughout the UK, and there is now an inevitable drift towards bigger farms, more contracting and fewer tenancies—that is a sad thing.

Amendment 159 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dundee is an interesting proposal. It would be a very good way to start development on green-belt land adjacent to towns, but what happens when the idealistic thoughts of smallholdings do not become viable or the owners cannot cope, and the whole area turns into “horsey culture”? This is not good for biodiversity or the land. One sees an enormous amount of potentially good land being ruined by horses because the land is not properly maintained. It takes a great amount of extra work to keep land where horses are kept, on a small acreage, in good health.

I have put my name to Amendments 237, 238 and 246. I support Amendment 246 because I would like to see longer farm tenancies. This an important part of the structure of farming in the United Kingdom, and in England in particular. That is what the Bill is about, and I would like to see this amendment in the Bill.

I support Amendment 238 because it has the interesting additional wording of “full and efficient farming”. This comes back to our discussions on Clause 1, because there is a push from the Government to turn much of our agricultural land into recreational theme parks, whereas this amendment is geared to making certain that the land is farmed in a proper and efficient manner.

I have spoken before of my concern that tenants sometimes do not get a fair deal: because of their tenancy agreement, woodland, streams and things like that are often excluded, particularly from old Agricultural Holding Act tenancies. This hampers the ability of the tenant to carry out full farm biodiversity and restricts the amount that a tenant can diversify.

Looking to the future, what will happen under ELMS tiers 2 and 3? What happens if a tenant is attracted by a scheme under tier 2, or perhaps is included in the ambit of a tier 3 scheme, which involves inappropriate public access? What is the situation for the landlord in these circumstances? The land might be the landlord’s asset, and he might in due course wish to take that land in hand when the tenancy agreement comes to an end. If the tenant takes part in an ELM scheme which includes public access that depreciates the value of that land in the longer term—undoubtedly the public access will become a common established right over time, if not immediately—is the landlord consulted in a tier 3 scheme? Does the landlord have a right of refusal under the proposals that the Minister has in mind that we do not know about?

There are a lot of questions here that need digging into and explaining. I supported these amendments because the tenant should be not only encouraged but treated fairly when they have a holding.

[Baroness Rock [V]]

My Lords, again I declare my interests as a director of a tenant farming enterprise. I support Amendment 237 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was pleased to add my name to Amendments 238 and 243 to 246. I welcome the clear intention to ensure that tenants are not excluded from financial assistance schemes.

Amendment 238 seeks only to ensure that all potential circumstances that could arise for a tenant to need their landlord’s consent are covered. Some schemes, by their nature, require tenants to seek the consent of their landlords, regardless of legislation or their contracts of tenancy. Those individuals would not be able to use the provisions of this legislation to object to a landlord’s refusal, in those circumstances. This amendment merely extends the opportunity for reasonable objection to apply to any and all situations where the landlord’s consent is required. The amendment is not seeking to expand the remit of the legislation beyond what the Government intend, just to ensure that no one is left out of being able to use this provision.

I welcome the provisions of Schedule 3, in particular those allowing tenants to object to a landlord’s refusal to grant consent to enter a financial assistance scheme, but the exclusion of farm business tenants is a mistake. By their short-term nature, restrictive terms and high levels of rent, FBTs deserve the protection of this legislation. Over time, FBTs will become the major way in which non-landowners become farmers, and it is important that the legislative basis for their occupation is secure. As the Government rightly move towards a new mechanism to support farm productivity gains and public goods, it would be tragic if FBTs had no recourse against unreasonable landlords who refuse consent for them to be part of that new direction of travel.

I recognise that there is a balance between ensuring that we do not disincentivise landlords and ensuring that tenants have sufficient opportunities to take part in new schemes. However, given the restrictive terms of many FBTs and the lack of impetus to improve them in the marketplace, the balance should rightly ensure fair scheme access for all tenants.

While it is government policy to ensure long-term FBTs, it is disappointing that the Bill does not contain the provisions to assist with this that were proposed by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group—TRIG— which formed part of the Government’s consultation. Amendment 246 rectifies this. The marketplace does not currently deliver a sufficient number of long-term FBTs and the Government could do more to promote their use. These provisions should provide comfort to landlords who have to deal with tenants who breach the terms of the agreements or when land is required back for non-agricultural use, planning consent for change of use having been obtained. While these new provisions will have direct benefit for landlords, who are prepared to let for longer periods, they will provide indirect benefit to the tenanted sector as a whole, by providing scope for a greater degree of longer-term tenancies.

Finally, on Amendments 243 and 244, many successful businesses are family enterprises, no more so than in agriculture. Tenancy succession provisions ensure the longevity of farming businesses, and it is right that there should be eligibility criteria for who can succeed to a tenancy. Other bits of the Bill speak to that issue. One area that is limiting for many farm businesses with succession rights is the close relative test. Often it is nephews, nieces and grandchildren who are involved in the farm, rather than the children of the retiring or deceased tenant. It is important to recognise that these wider members of a family farm may be the most appropriate individuals to succeed. This issue was considered by TRIG and formed part of the Government’s consultation on agricultural tenancies.

The tenanted sector is responsible for farming at least one-third of the agricultural area of England and Wales. We must ensure that tenant farmers are able to participate fully in schemes to contribute to the future of farming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, particularly those to which I have added my name. This is probably one of the most important debates in Committee, because it deals with food security and insecurity, which is key to the development of a new agricultural policy in the UK, in the context of both Westminster and the various devolved regions. That is the opportunity afforded by the new dispensation in a post-Brexit relationship, notwithstanding the fact that I would have preferred to remain in the European Union.

In relation to the amendment, there is a need, as has been pointed out by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for a greater level and frequency of reporting, and I have added my name to Amendment 162, which deals with reporting on an annual basis: it should be mandatory and it should be in the Bill.

I have also signed Amendment 167, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, which addresses food insecurity. This really goes back to the issue of individual food insecurity, the issues around resources and the need to improve general health and well-being. That should also be explicit in the Bill.

Looking at the issues of food security and insecurity, there is a clear need for those food security targets to be met and monitored. If we are serious about underpinning food security, the legislation needs to be toughened and strengthened, as stated in Amendment 171. We therefore need a dynamic report, on an annual basis, with a food plan in place.

I was also a member of the Select Committee, under the very able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which produced the report entitled Hungry for Change: Fixing the Failures in Food. As outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the report dealt with issues to do with resources, and the nature of the current welfare system that prohibits people having proper access to the money to buy good-quality, nutritious foods. It dealt with: the lack of availability of nutritious food for certain groups of people; the impact of marketing; the impact of having to go to food banks on people who rely on benefits—raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott; and the need to deal with reformulation.

Another issue is trade deals. We have to ensure that we have better-quality food and that we are not forced to deal with food from other countries that is poorly produced in inhumane conditions, or food that may be infused with hormones or chlorine. Our report asked that the Government commit to detailed and routine monitoring of the levels of food insecurity. That data should be published transparently and be subject to scrutiny, to ensure that trends in food insecurity can be linked to wider socioeconomic reforms and can inform policy in other areas, such as public health and welfare, so that efforts to tackle food insecurity can be targeted effectively.

In summary, it is vital that the Minister is willing to accept these amendments, which strengthen the Bill. Our report has been mentioned in previous sessions. Has the Minister had time to peruse it? Does he have any initial thoughts, in advance of Mr Dimbleby’s report on the whole area of food? I support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 160, 162, 167, 171 and 173, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch.

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, I am the fifth member of the Select Committee which, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, produced Hungry for Change, to speak on this group of amendments so far. I commend to the Minister the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which covered so many points.

This part of the Bill is headed “Food Security”. As the noble Lord said, there are two meanings of that. The first is the household food security so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I support what she said; she is renowned for her expertise in this area. The second area of food security concerns food coming into this country. That was part of the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who quoted a figure on how self-sufficient we are. Again, there is a dichotomy here. There is our total self-sufficiency in food and the self-sufficiency in food produced by the UK for consumption or use in the UK. Instead of the rather low figure of about 60% for total food, we are 75% self-sufficient in homegrown food.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 16th July 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Earl of Caithness]

73: Clause 1, page 2, line 35, at end insert “, and to reduce and sequester climate change emissions.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that financial help can be given to help reduce climate change emissions.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 73 stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. This is a simple amendment. About 25% of greenhouse gases come from agriculture. That percentage will increase as more green energy production comes online. What we can grow, and what we will be able to eat, will be determined by climate change.

We are watching the rapidly changing climate in the Arctic with some horror. That is of huge importance to us, as four of the six main systems that determine this country’s weather are driven by conditions in the Arctic. One example, and a pretty sobering one, is that the “beast from the east” that we experienced in March 2018 cost the UK about half the annual budget paid to farmers.

The Paris Agreement states that countries should be

“holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C … and pursuing efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5°C”.

We are likely to break that threshold of 1.5 degrees before the next general election.

All of the pathways in the IPCC’s special report say that there has to be the use of negative emissions; that is, the removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere. This is not an alternative to reducing emissions but an essential extra if the planet as we know it today is to survive. Our land is not absorbing as much CO₂ as it could, and the priority should therefore be to restore nature to allow it to sequester increased amounts of CO₂. That is what my amendment seeks to do.

I commend the NFU on the progress that it has made on this and on its template aim of net zero by 2040. We must give every encouragement to farmers to help them meet the reductions that will be necessary, and I believe that the Bill could do more on that. I had thought that my amendment would sit well at the end of Clause 1(1)(j) relating to soil, but I prefer it where it is, so that any financial payment would be conditional on meeting the reduction in sequestration condition. That is no more than what the Climate Change Committee asked for in its 2019 report, when it recommended:

“Financial payments in the UK Agriculture Bill should be linked to actions to reduce and sequester emissions, to take effect from 2022.”


I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

As I have said already, from next year we will bring forward grants and new countryside stewardship and productivity schemes that will prevent the backsliding that we all want to prevent.

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and for the very helpful comments that have been made all around the Chamber. It was interesting to hear my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s statistics. I would only say to him that the whole pattern of rainfall is changing. Last winter, the rainfall in Caithness was significantly below average, whereas in parts of Hampshire it was about 170% or more above average—so the year’s average might equate, but the time and quantity of rain and drought that one is now getting have changed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, was absolutely right to say that the amendments are of prime importance and something should be included in the Bill. Therefore, I was a little disappointed by what my noble friend said in her reply. I will read with care what she said, but I think that she missed two crucial points that I sought to make in justification of my amendment. Her examples were all of mitigation. I am not worried about mitigation: mitigation is to make less severe or alleviate, which is but one aspect of what we are talking about. Adaptation is to adjust or modify. That is another aspect. What the Bill does not cover satisfactorily, according to the legal advice that I have had, is the word “sequester”, which is a hugely important addition that needs to be made to the Bill at the next stage.

The other point that I sought to make in justification of my amendment was that it should be a condition of financial assistance that sequestration of climate change emissions is included in whatever ELM one is talking about. We desperately need to take more carbon out of the atmosphere, not just mitigate it. I hope that, between now and the next stage, the Minister will meet me to discuss this because, as the Bill stands, it does not meet the point that I have been trying to make. Meanwhile, I am reluctantly content to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 73 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 90, I will also speak to Amendments 196 and 206 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which concern animal welfare and which I commend to the Committee, and Amendment 207, which concerns the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.

I shall speak to Amendments 90, 184, 188, 189, 286, 287, 288, 292, 293 and 294; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her support on them. They are all about references to fungi. I have to credit the campaigning group Plantlife, which identified this issue for me and did all the fine-comb work to produce these amendments. I feel that I am contributing to successful answers to pub quizzes up and down the land in saying that there are three kingdoms in the living world—plants, animals and fungi—which together make up the eukaryotes: the organisms with complex cells with features such as mitochondria and nuclei. In fact, fungi are closer to animals than plants. They are not producers of energy but use external sources of it; indeed, the world would soon be covered in undigested waste if they did not.

On many occasions in your Lordships’ House, I say, tongue in cheek, “I am sure that the Government will agree with me,” but in this case I say it with absolute sincerity. I am sure that the Government want our legislation to be scientifically literate. As this legislation currently says, “‘plants’ includes fungi”, it is not. It is like saying, “For ‘apples’, read ‘pineapples’”. That is very easy to fix—and would, I believe, have the added virtue of legal clarity. I am sure that we all recall the arguments about the classification of Jaffa Cakes as cakes or biscuits with regard to VAT. We do not want to see similar arguments in relation to support under this Bill. This Committee must consider why we currently have such confusion. The importance of fungi is grossly understated and still little understood.

I outsourced this speech in part to social media, where mycologists leapt in to offer some suggestions. To start with the familiar, I point your Lordships to fly agaric, the red and white fairy tale favourite, but until mycologists started talking to me, I did not realise how crucial it is, to the growth of birch trees in particular. I also cannot resist noting Phallus impudicus—I leave noble Lords to look up its common name—which is thought to have a close ecological relationship with badger setts. Its scent attracts blow-flies that quickly clean up the bodies of badgers, which most typically die underground—unless there is a badger cull, of course. I note that up to a third of plants’ products of photosynthesis feed fungi and bacteria in the soil. For example, relationships between bacteria help mycorrhizal fungi to use their hyphae to seek out and scavenge particularly biologically valuable elements such as phosphorus from rocks or decaying organic matter.

These are immensely complex and little-understood natural systems. Other noble Lords have said that they imagine the countryside operating like a giant, human-directed machine, with robots buzzing around and everything controlled by chemical application and genetic modification. I would point to the complexities I just outlined to illustrate how faulty that vision is. We do not understand all that, but we do understand the basic biology and we can get it right in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 177, 179, 180, 182, 186, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194, which are in my name. We are moving away from fungi, but I say this to my noble friend the Minister: it is not helpful to group such a mass of contradictory and different issues together. My amendments deal with the supply chain and the collection and processing of data, which are rather different to what the noble Baroness was just talking about.

The Bill has incorporated some safeguards around the collection and processing of data to ensure that it is clear how information will be used and how it could be used in accordance with data protection legislation. However, I still have concerns that not all the purposes for which information can be processed relate directly to improving supply chain transparency or supporting the development of risk management tools to help farmers to manage volatility. I therefore want to see these purposes drafted in a more focused way to ensure that they achieve the legitimate aims of improving transparency and managing volatility.

The purpose for which information can be processed under this clause should be linked directly to the overarching objective of improving fairness and transparency in the supply chain. The requirements to provide information will inevitably lead to an increased administrative burden for businesses, and it is therefore important that any information collected is focused on helping those in the agri-food supply chain to make improvements—hence the need for Amendment 177.

Turning to Amendment 190, the Bill as currently drafted provides for information to be processed for wider environmental and waste purposes which do not link specifically to assisting those in the agri-food supply chain. This amendment would focus the processing of environmental and waste information and avoid it being used to pursue wider environmental objectives more appropriately pursued under other legislation such as the Environment Bill. It would enable the Government to collect the kind of information they have stated they are interested in, but would curtail the use of the provisions for purposes which go beyond specific issues in the agri-food supply chain in future.

The Minister will know that the data collection provisions are welcomed by farmers. They should be used in a focused and proportionate way to ensure that the additional administrative burden placed on businesses directly improves the fairness and transparency of the agri-food supply chain. Most of us will be able to remember the days when MAFF was notorious for gold-plating regulations. Therefore, it is very important that these regulations and this part of the Bill are sensibly drafted so as not to impinge too much on farmers.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has indicated that he will not speak on this group, I call the next speaker on the list, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

My Lords, first, I thank those responsible for the speakers’ lists for heeding my words and those of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The present speakers’ list is in a much better shape and leads to better debate than was the case previously.

I have put my name to Amendment 70. I think that the words “have regard to” in Clause 1(4) weaken the importance of producing good, healthy food. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that they should be deleted, and I congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh on sponsoring this amendment. I was happy to sign up to it.

All noble Lords have been speaking about food security. I hope that every single one of your Lordships participating in today’s debate has read the recently published report of the Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment Committee entitled Hungry for Change: Fixing the Failures in Food. The report goes into the subject in some depth, covering many of the points raised in this evening’s debate.

I would like to make one point about growing healthy food. It sounds as though our farmers do not grow healthy food at the moment. I think that, in the present circumstances of the CAP, our farmers grow very healthy food but it is the food industry that turns it into ultra-processed food, and that is the poison that contaminates our diets. Rather than just concentrating on farmers, the food industry has to be looked at as a whole.

We make a number of recommendations in our report Hungry for Change, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to them in due course. Food security covers a vast number of departments. We talked to three different ministries during our deliberations, which were somewhat hampered by the Covid pandemic, but it is clear that this is a whole-government rather than just a Defra problem.

Given what everybody else has said, I can now terminate my remarks, but I hope that my noble friend will agree to Amendment 70.

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 35, which was so comprehensively moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I did so for one simple reason: it explicitly recognises that a key part of the output of farming must be its effect on human health. It is somewhat strange that Clause 1, which lists all the ways in which public money can be spent to support the output of farming—the improvement of land, water, woodlands, the environment, natural heritage, the countering of environmental threats, the welfare of livestock, the health of plants, plant and livestock conservation and so on—contains no mention of human beings.

The biggest impact of farming, both in its production methods and in what it produces, is on human beings. I was provoked, to some extent, to add my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, because I received advice on pesticides when I was tabling a different amendment that comes much later on in this Bill. Some of the issues relating to this have already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in the earlier debate today. However, I asked that this amendment be headed “human health”, and I was told that this was beyond the scope of the Bill. It must not be. I have amended that amendment to conform, obviously, but human health is central to this Bill.

It is not just the potentially negative effects of some farming processes; it is much more positively the effect of the produce of farming on the balance of our diets and nutrition, and the way it gets to the public. Like the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others, I was a member of the Select Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which produced its report very recently. That report spells out that farming has to be seen as part of the totality of the food chain, and one of its principal impacts is its being directly or indirectly responsible for the health and nutrition of our population.

As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has just said, much of the responsibility here lies with the big processors, the wholesalers and the retailers, which both specify and advertise food that is quite often not so healthy. However, the responsibility also lies on farmers and government policy towards farming. The Krebs report makes quite a wide range of recommendations that relate to this, and the Bill does not fully reflect that priority because the availability, quality, pricing, convenience and affordability of nutritious food is vital to turning around the declining quality of our diets, which is causing such things as our obesity being the worst in Europe and examples of malnutrition and so forth in our population—mostly, but by no means exclusively, among the least well-off families.

Good food is a public good. This Bill needs to reflect that. A more plant-based diet is a health benefit. More domestic production of fresh fruit and veg is a key part of any strategy for healthier food. Hence I—and I think the whole of the Krebs committee—would wish to see, in Clause 1, a reference to health and diet as a public good derived from the output and methods of farming, and therefore worthy of our support. Therefore, I support Amendment 35, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 36 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which refers explicitly to healthy food.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas [V]]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 58 I shall speak also to my other amendments in this group. There are two basic ways of managing the flow of funding under the Bill: through penalties or through encouragement and advice. I hope that the Government’s intention is to focus on incentives—broad-brush, bottom-up, banded, with plenty of room for local initiatives and a clear understanding that initiatives will often fail—rather than opting for top-down micromanagement. I hope that the Government will institute a strong supply of advice and the funding for it, so that good practice and ideas find it easy to spread, rather than relying on audit and enforcement.

The management of chalk grasslands is a challenge local to me. These are a potentially immensely rich, if sometimes rather small, environment. They were created by a pattern of agriculture that has gone: cattle and sheep herded in large open areas, then folded in the lowlands at night, with a plentiful supply of shepherds and rabbits to keep the scrub from spreading. That has all gone, but we still want the chalklands ecosystem. It is the principal objective of the South Downs National Park.

We have to take the overloaded pastures that have resulted from wartime needs and subsequent agricultural policies, with lots of parasites and consequence high use of biocides, and end up with fields full of insects and wildlife, and a profit for the farmer. We have to find ways to allow the public to enjoy the results of the system that we create; to allow larks to nest undisturbed and people to listen to them; to have fields full of orchids that people can picnic in; and to combine dog walkers and sheep, and old ladies enjoying the outdoors and a herd of bouncy cattle.

Finding a way to do that will take lots of experimentation and there will be lots of failure. Farmers will participate in this over the whole of the chalklands. We do not need, “You can have money to do this, but if you don’t succeed, we’ll be after you”; we do need lots of advice, recording and sharing of data, experimentation and supported failure. That is expensive. The Government would have to fund a team of people over decades. To hazard an estimate, £10 million a year might be the basic level for 200 field staff. However, that £10 million would multiply the benefit of the hundreds of millions being spent elsewhere, because it would make that larger expenditure much better focused and better directed. It would also set the tone of the whole agricultural support system and make it a pleasure to interact with, since it would look for ways to make better things happen. That would make a huge difference to compliance and effectiveness in a fragmented industry.

Of my three amendments, Amendment 135 is key. That is the one I want the Government to get behind.

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to support my noble friend Lord Lucas. I have put my name to Amendments 58 and 119. The Minister will recall that I majored on the whole question of advice in my Second Reading speech. I dedicated all my time to it because I think it is so important.

Farming has been partially insulated from market pressures by the support schemes of the CAP. In particular, the area payments developed by the CAP since 1992 and subsequent steps in 2003 and 2013 have acted to reward land occupation, not business activity. This has been associated with reduced flexibility in land occupation markets, and thus with the relative weakness in the United Kingdom’s agricultural productivity growth.

The progressive removal of area payments and the prospect of more open trading agreements seem likely to drive an accelerated process of change in who is farming what land and how, by both unwinding the protectionist effects of past area payments and responding to the coming changes. This might affect poorer businesses on more marginal land in particular, whether cropping or livestock. My concern is that this process of change should be managed to maximise its economic, environmental and social benefits, while minimising costs.

Farming’s adaptation to the new policy and business environment will not be a simple and swift transformation, but will take much time and effort. The scale of the challenges and the changes associated with them should not be underestimated. Success will require attention to skills and training, investment, approaches to sustained innovation in business policy, technology and marketing. It will be all the better if this is enabled by a new positive regulatory regime after Brexit, ensuring flexible and open markets in land occupation and use. All this must be supported by effective and practical advice and facilitation.

The outcome will be a much less standardised industry than the one we created since the war through policies before and under the CAP, which were largely dedicated to full-time commodity protection. Achieving this will be a major call on all those involved, not only Governments and farmers.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 9th July 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Earl of Caithness]

13: Leave out from “production” to end and insert “, forestry, and the impact of climate change on agriculture and forestry;”

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 13, which is a very simple amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has made a simple and correct speech about his amendment, but his amendment does not include a reference to “forestry”. However, forestry is included in the Bill, in Clause 1(1)(b), which refers to “countryside, farmland or woodland”. I believe that it is just as important for people to be educated in forestry as it is for them to be educated about farming, the environment and climate change, and that is why I propose to add these words.

I totally support what the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has just said. When I was a trustee of the Queen Elizabeth Castle of Mey Trust, we had a small area that was set aside for children’s visits in order to educate them. The noble Lord was absolutely right to mention the huge disconnect between rural communities and the urban people of this country. However, there is also a disconnect in rural communities, because there were people in Caithness who were living very close to farmland but did not know how the farms worked or about the management of sheep and cattle and why it was so important in terms of the effect that had on the environment. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. Those are very important points, and I will be happy to provide answers to that further range of questions.

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, I first thank my noble friends Lord Colgrain and Lord Shrewsbury for signing my amendment; that was very kind of them. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken in favour. I think half the noble Lords who spoke specifically mentioned and approved of my amendment and nobody spoke against it, so that was good to hear.

I spoke only on my Amendment 13, but that does not mean I do not support a number of the other amendments; I do. I have one specific point on another amendment, that of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I ask my noble friend Lord Gardiner whether Defra will be able to support vertical farming, because that could be a great and very environmentally friendly source of vegetable production.

I very much like what my noble friend said in reply to my amendment. I was particularly pleased to hear his comment that he would like to see the educational groups that would go to farms go to the wheat, the barley and the sugar beet, and then into the woods. Does this indicate that Defra is now taking much more of a whole-farm approach? Will we see this in ELMS? One of the great drawbacks of the current system is that farming and forestry have been split. Does he now envisage a whole-farm approach in everything Defra will do? That would be a useful answer to get.

My noble friend did not explain particularly clearly to me why he thought the rather vague wording in the Bill was better than the more specific wording of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and me. I think he said that there might be other issues the Government would like to fund that are not covered by a more specific wording. Do I take it that more specific wording will come in regulations that we will debate in the House? Before I decide what to do, I would be grateful if he could give me an answer to that.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am getting conflicting advice as to when there should be further questioning of a Minister, but I am happy to answer as best I can.

The tier 1 ELMS will be to the farmer across their farm. My understanding of most people’s farms is that they involve agricultural land and may involve copses, covers and other parts that would be involved in a whole-farm project. Tiers 2 and 3 are on a wider landscape level and may involve a range of either farms or other landowners. We discussed the different tiers before, so I am a little confused as to whether my noble friend thought that a farmer was going to apply for tier 1 for the arable land and work for environmental enhancement and Clause 1 objectives, and then have a separate application for what they might do with their woods and covers. No, this will be a farmer undertaking work on their farm.

My noble friend is right that, as I said—I thought I said this on Tuesday as well—the Government distinctly want to have a broad definition, not to curtail it, because we want to work with the farmers, foresters and growers to ensure that when we devise the scheme we do not find ourselves ring-fenced because noble Lords have decided that they have an important point that they must have in the Bill. That would start to make it more difficult. That is precisely why I have said that our definitions are deliberately broad in order to enable us to work with the farmers, the foresters and the growers to ensure that we get the right schemes for them.

I am not sure whether I was permitted to reply to my noble friend in this way, but I intervene now because it is important that he realises that a lot of what we are going to be discussing is best discussed with regard to the regulations, many of which will be made by the affirmative procedure. Then we will we have more flesh on the bone, having had the result of our work with the important people who are going to make all this happen for us.

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said, which has clarified the position. I think that I am perfectly entitled to ask such questions in Committee for elucidation of what he has said—as he will appreciate, I cannot ask him a question about what he has said until he has said it—and that is the great value of Committee stage. With that, I am happy not to move my amendment.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the support that all noble Lords who have participated in this wide grouping have given. I thought that many of their comments were extremely interesting and helpful on the need for local food, sustainability, productivity, ensuring that our environmental objectives are being met and, of course, diversification. I am particularly encouraged by the support for Amendments 12 and 13.

I thank the Minister for his usual excellent, comprehensive, fulsome and detailed response, a lot of which was extremely valuable. I am grateful for the endorsement of the importance of education and of the educational experience of schoolchildren. I absolutely agree with what he said of his experience of that: it is life-changing for schoolchildren, as he described, to experience running through crops and to experience how milk is produced. I stress to him that this support is provided at all levels within the ELM scheme. It is essential that we maximise the benefits available through farms that are willing to host school visits.

In the interests of brevity in my introduction, I resisted the temptation to mention the senior leadership group on skills and the intention to establish a professional body. I thank the Minister and welcome his comments on that and support for it. As he said, it is a critical and essential development. Through him, I thank his department and officials for the invaluable support, advice and guidance that they have given on this issue. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[The Earl of Caithness]

14: Clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert “, and financial assistance to pay compensation for damage and additional costs caused by such access;”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to highlight the extra costs that farmers and foresters can face and discuss the effectiveness of the Countryside Code.

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, I fear that I might not be quite as brief as I was when I spoke to my last amendment. My concern is that at present the Government give access to farmland without compensation or appreciating the impact on the farm. The coastal footpath is one example of farmers having access rights forced on them and this even goes as far as public access to private beaches free of charge. My amendment simply seeks to rectify that by allowing the Government to pay compensation where there is damage and for public access. I believe that the Bill only makes matters worse and I fear that, if we are not careful, the Government will, sadly, start to alienate the farming community as the consequences of this legislation become more apparent.

On Tuesday we talked about rights and the provision of access. Today I want to discuss the consequences of those rights and the other “R” word—responsibility. It is a word that does not seem to crop up much now in the way that we work and it is often ignored. When we talk about responsibility and the countryside, it is the mess that people leave behind that I want to focus on, although there are other issues that I will mention. We have all seen the dreadful amount of detritus that has been left on recent visits to the countryside and parks: the glass, the laughing gas canisters, the soiled nappies, the plastic bags, the fast food containers and every other sort of rubbish. The 25-year environment plan has a lovely picture of Durdle Door in Dorset. Three tonnes of rubbish were collected in one day off that beach alone. In Morecambe Bay, 25 black plastic bags of rubbish were picked up and 12 tonnes of rubbish was taken off Bournemouth beach.

Litter is a hazard to animals and wildlife as well; it is not just an ugly sight for us human beings. In Port Meadow in Oxfordshire, five horses and 10 cows needed treatment and a cow died from eating plastic. We are talking about people’s livelihoods. Sadly, what is not being left on the land is now being washed out to the ocean. We saw yesterday comments about the number of face masks that are being washed out into the seas as people chuck them away after use to try to combat the virus. It was rather dismaying to read that one face mask alone could kill a whale. It is we human beings who are making all this mess and putting such a hazard in wildlife’s way. The RSPCA receives over 7,000 calls a year over litter-related incidents.

The removal of litter costs a lot of money. In the last month it has cost Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens nearly 20% more than at the equivalent time last year to pick up the amount of litter that has been thrown down.

This is not a recent aberration and it is incorrect to blame it on the excitement of being able to get out after lockdown. A survey last year showed that one in five visitors to the Royal Parks left litter behind after their visit. The LitterAction group tells us that the problem in rural areas is more than it can contend with. Worst of all, the Hygiene Council has proclaimed us the dirtiest developed country in the world. That is a bad record to have.

Fly-tipping is a cause of litter, and the Defra figures published last November show that local authorities dealt with over 1 million fly-tipping incidents in the 12 months to the end of March 2019. That was another annual increase, this time of 8%. What should be done about this? I was delighted that my noble friend the Minister said on Tuesday that

“dropping litter should be an anti-social behaviour.”—[Official Report, 7/7/20; col. 1104.]

I hope my noble friend who replies will not use the facile comment that there is going to be another anti-litter campaign. We tried that in 1987, when I was Minister for the countryside. The Secretary of State, Nick Ridley, persuaded the Prime Minister to get involved and there was a great photoshoot in St James’s Park. It helped for a bit, but we seem to have an ingrained ability to forget about these things and to continue in our bad, old ways. Will my noble friend the Minister consider on-the-spot fines or an alteration of the law to increase fines—and to not only increase them, but to enforce them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

I think many noble Lords will have every sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and her experiences on her smallholding. Damage, theft, poaching and the theft of diesel are all criminal acts. If the perpetrator is caught, they can, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, correctly suggested, be charged with trespass, which can be brought by farmers and owners for damage done while trespassing. The criminal justice system already has these things at its disposal.

My noble friend Lord Northbrook makes an interesting point about the difference between direct damage to livestock by dogs off leads and such things, but I do not believe that fly-tipping has a place in the Environment Bill. It is already covered in legislation. The key to all this, as many noble Lords have said, is better enforcement and perhaps more video cameras installed by landowners so that some of these perpetrators can be caught.

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the discussion of this amendment. I am delighted that I degrouped it from the group that we discussed on Tuesday because it was well worth a discussion in its own right.

Let me first say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—I am delighted to see him back with us—that I am not against access. As I said on Tuesday, access to the countryside was essential in getting better after my accident. I was on footpaths in a wheelchair and then on crutches and on sticks, so I am a great believer in public access. What I am trying to balance is the right for us to go to the countryside and get all the benefit from it and what is going to happen to people’s livelihoods and property.

We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, of some of the problems that she faced. The Minister’s reply was “Well, they’re criminal offences anyway”, but they are not being enforced. Rural crime is rising, and there is great concern among those in rural areas that they are being left out. There are not enough police to go around, and the police are too busy to take rural crime seriously. There is a fundamental problem here that the Government need to address. I hope that the Minister will take this a lot more seriously than she appeared to do when she replied.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that there is going to be no fly-tipping on footpaths. Let me draw his attention to the Defra statistics. In the 12 months up to March 2019, fly-tipping on footpaths and bridleways rose from 164,000 cases to 187,000 cases. That is a substantial increase. Footpaths and bridleways cannot be ignored in this problem. If there is a place that people can fly-tip or drop litter, they will do so. As the statistics from the Royal Parks show, one in five people is prepared to do that. Yes, we are talking about a minority, but it is a minority that can cause severe damage and impinge on people’s livelihoods.

This comes back to enforcement, and I hope that the Minister will spare time between now and the next stage to meet me to discuss this. I think the Government’s intention is right and that their hearts are in the right place, but action is not going with it. I am very frightened, as, indeed, are a great number of farmers, that the provisions of the Bill are not going to help. Yes, they want public access, and I am against farmers who do not give that access and embrace it enthusiastically, but it is only fair that the balance is set out in a better way than it is at the moment.

I thank the Minister for her reply. I hope she will write to me on the questions that she did not answer, such as about what has happened to the fire severity index, and a number of other questions that I posed to her. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Therefore, I commend Amendment 77 to your Lordships’ House in its own right, as animal welfare is hugely important to the British public. I agree with the noble Earl that there is no doubt that welfare and health are inextricably linked. These are issues that the British public are gravely concerned about. We need to consult with them directly as the Agriculture Bill is rolled out, put into practice and adapted according to circumstances and events; indeed, that should apply to all elements of the Bill. The Whips will probably be pleased to know that I am going to stop there.

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, I would like to support Amendment 26 in the name of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. When I read the Bill, I was surprised to see that

“health or welfare of livestock”

is mentioned in Clause 1(1)(f). Welfare and health have always gone together. When I was a land agent and was much more involved in farming, it was always health and welfare, not health or welfare. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury was absolutely right to point out that the terminology is important.

There is a doubtless a very good reason why the legal eagles and the department have used these words, but it is going to change how we look at animal welfare. If it is now “health or welfare”, a cultural change will need to take place throughout British farming. This will not take place easily, because that is not how farmers look at their livestock. They look not at one aspect, but at the whole situation.

My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury was also right to raise the question of making us more resilient against disease and health problems. We are susceptible to more diseases as a result of climate change. This is an area on which the Minister, with his biosecurity hat on, is particularly knowledgeable; it would be useful to hear his opinion. What further action is being taken to update our defences, particularly once we leave the EU, against further diseases coming in? I think bluetongue came here from Europe, so defence against disease is going to be important to any livestock farmer and to the health and welfare of our animals. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this; it is a problem that needs to be addressed.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 26, in my name and in the names of my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Shrewsbury. They have—[Inaudible]—so I will not repeat what they have already said. [Inaudible]—and thus need more health interventions, and I am thinking particularly of indoor poultry and pigs.

I hope that we can transpose “or” with “and” to ensure the highest welfare for poultry and livestock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, during the last two, three or four months, like everyone else I have had quite a lot of spare time on my hands and have been able to get out into the countryside around where I live, which is on the edge of an urban area where you can walk straight into Pennine pastures, fields with gritstone walls and, beyond there, rising up to the moorland massif of Boulsworth Hill. Two valleys run down from the hills to where we live; they are really contrasted at the moment, as I will briefly explain.

Before I do so, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, is not in his place. He talked about going out of Sheffield on to the Peak District hills and delighting in what I think he called the song of the curlews, which are one of the evocative birds of the Pennine moorlands. The others are the skylarks and the lapwings, which locally are traditionally known as “tewits” after the sound they make.

During the past three or four months, I have been woken up every morning by the sound of curlews, which is wonderful, but when we first lived there 40 or 50 years ago, we were woken up by flocks of lapwings. I have not heard a lapwing from our house for a long time. Lapwings have declined most in that kind of area up on the moors, particularly in what the amendment refers to as “semi-natural grasslands”.

For us, the grasslands are pastures and fields; they have got tall, quite coarse, natural native grasses, and some better ones. We have some of what the amendment calls “dicotyledonous herbs”, although that really refers to lowland meadows rather than the sort of meadows we have, and lots of clumps of rushes, which are important for giving cover, along with the tall grasses, to ground-nesting birds such as curlews and lapwings—the tewits.

Over the years, the fields have been improved. Those nearest to us used to be buttercup meadows. They have long gone, and now a lot of the coarser semi-natural meadows have gone as well. The farmers scrape off all the vegetation which has been growing there and seed it with one or two species of much richer and, from their point of view, more productive grass, mainly for the sheep but also for mowing, haylage and so on.

The landscape has been transformed. The fields in spring, instead of being a greyish green—natural, as they were, or semi-natural—are now sparkling bright green, and no doubt some people find them attractive. The two valleys, however, are contrasted. One is the Wycoller valley, which largely belongs to Lancashire County Council—Wycoller Hall is thought to be Ferndean Manor from Jane Eyre—and the other is the Trawden valley, which has the old mill village of Trawden it and lots of farms around. The Trawden valley is bright green and the Wycoller valley is still very much as it was. How do you know where you are? If you close your eyes, in the Wycoller valley you can hear the tewits and in the Trawden valley there are none. It is as simple as that.

So it is not just lowland meadows that the amendment is talking about. I hope the new regime will stop farmers turning even more of the pastures into modern bright green pastures and driving away the tewits, which is still taking place at the margins and the moorland margins. The tier 1 or tier 2 deals that come about, whichever they are, encourage a reversion of at least some of the fields to what they used to be. If you have a farm of six or 10 fields, you do not need a lot of it to revert to the traditional pasture that it used to be to provide a flock of lapwings with a habitat; you might need one or two, and that is all. As you walk through that area, you can plot the flock of lapwings to the fields that are still traditional.

I hope that kind of thing will be part and parcel of the new regime, not to destroy farmers’ livelihoods in any way but to provide them with some finance to provide a natural, or semi-natural, environment that superb birds such as lapwings and tewits require.

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, before I go on to talk to the amendments, I want to reiterate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made earlier today and make a plea to the Minister and the Whip to talk to the Chief Whip about the groupings. Can we please go back to the old way that used to happen in Committee, whereby the movers of amendments spoke first and then the other signatories spoke afterwards? All the signatories to my amendments have spoken before me, and on the next group of amendments I am a signatory to an amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but she, as the mover, is speaking after me. It really does not help proceedings unless we get back some sort of structure like we had in the old days.

I turn to the amendments. This is a hugely important group because I believe that the only way that farming will survive in this country is if we work with nature. All these amendments are designed to help farming to do just that. There is considerable overlap between them. I shall speak to Amendments 39 and 96 in my name, which relate to nature-friendly farming. Not everything that nature-friendly farmers do is covered in the Bill. For instance, what about the creation of new habitats, ponds and wetlands? That leads to another problem, because the creation of some ponds will require planning permission. Therefore, as I said, you need dedicated farmers who are very keen to help nature to carry out such work. A farmer taking these schemes solely to get money from the taxpayer is not someone who is going to apply for planning permission for a new pond. There is no mention in the Bill of field margins and hedgerows. These are hugely important as wildlife corridors, and nature-friendly farming is a great help in that respect.

It is tragic that we have seen the decline in 600 farmland species over the last 50 year. Of course, none of us now has the problem of having to wash our windscreens having driven through the countryside, particularly at night. That is long gone. When I first started driving, one had to wash one’s windscreen after every drive because of the number of insects that got stuck on it and impeded the view. It would be nice if we could go at least half way back to the situation that we were in.

I will just make a point on what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said about lapwings. I know a farm in Caithness where the farmer has farmed organically since he took over the farm—gosh—it must be 30 years ago now. He has farmed in a nature-friendly way, but the number of lapwings has decreased hugely. There used to be lovely big flocks, but now there are very few. The problem is, it is not the farming system—that is not totally responsible—but the fact that we do not control the predators of lapwings and lapwing eggs and nests, such as the hooded crow. When I was a boy, the hooded crow was a very scarce bird; it is now very common. When I last lived in Caithness, about four years ago, I remember seeing five hooded crows on the lawn outside my little cottage. They just would not have been there when I was a boy. Unless we get to a stage where we can control the number of corvids and the abuse by corvids of ground-nesting birds, there will be a continual decline, whatever system of farming one operates.

I have also put my name to the agroecology and agroforestry amendments, because these are hugely important too. They are slightly different ways of farming from nature-friendly farming, but they of course work on exactly the same principle of working with nature.

I pay tribute to the work of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, Nature Friendly Farming and Agricology, which have been working together for five years. The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, the Organic Research Centre and the Daylesford Foundation have together done a tremendous amount of work in this area and I can tell the Minister how grateful they are for the financial support that Defra has given them. It is exactly from institutions such as this and the demonstration farm at Allerton that other farmers can learn how to carry out these works and the benefit that they can contribute to their own farms. I hope that, when responding, my noble friend will say that this funding will continue.

I turn to Amendment 224, which is on soil. It requests that the soil metric index is instituted. This was of course in the 25-year environment plan, from which it is worth quoting:

“Farmers and land managers can struggle to monitor the quality of their soil, which in turn makes it difficult to improve. We will develop a soil health index (including indicators such as the level of humus and biological activity in the soil) that can be used on farms to check whether their actions are having the desired effect. At the moment, data on soil health is held piecemeal by different institutions and businesses. It is not easy to access or use. Defra will invest at least £200,000 to help create meaningful metrics that will allow us to assess soil improvements, and to develop cost-effective and innovative ways to monitor soil at farm and national level.”


Can the Minister say what is the result of that work? Is there any progress? What is the progress? Can she please update us on it?

It was encouraging to hear the Secretary of State respond to the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place recently, saying he was considering a combination of approaches to address soil problems, and a more sustainable approach to grade 1 and grade 2 agricultural land, focusing on soil health and crop rotations. What is this going to involve? Can the Minister shed some light on these very encouraging statements?

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be here today and to contribute to a debate on this wide-ranging group. I was quite taken aback to be balloted out of speaking at Second Reading. I could barely be more steeped in agriculture. I was brought up on a family farm in Wiltshire and used to stand in gateways from an early age to help my father keep the cows in order; I even knew their names. My Civil Service career was mainly at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, where I was responsible for the farm woodland scheme and the Food Safety Act. I spent more than 15 years as a director at Tesco and devoted a lot of energy to farming matters and green issues. I was a director at 2 Sisters Food Group before joining the Government. Now, to declare my current interest entered in the register, I am chairman of Assured Food Standards—Red Tractor, as we call it—which is responsible for assuring some £15 billion-worth of British food a year from all four nations of the UK.

In my view, anyone should be able to speak at Second Reading, and I hope the powers that be have learned from the unjustifiable exclusion of several of us. I also express my concern that my noble friend Lord Dobbs was excluded from proceedings in Committee today owing to the loss of an email and the deadlines laid down by the House under Covid. All this underlines the need to get back to normal working, as Peers on all sides of the House are beginning to say. However, I put on record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Gardiner for the courtesy of a meeting to discuss my thoughts.

I turn to my Amendment 82 on impact assessment. This Bill, especially Clause 1, represents a huge change in farming and countryside management in the UK; just look at its extraordinarily long title. This needs to be quantified. We need to look at the economic costs, benefits and risks that the new framework will entail, so it is a perfect candidate for an impact assessment at the Bill stage, when the parameters are being settled.

Interestingly, the Regulatory Policy Committee, which has the important responsibility of independently—I emphasise that word—vetting the quality of government departments’ impact assessments, agrees. From its relatively narrow perspective, it advised on 20 February that the Bill will have “significant impacts on businesses”. I cite the radical changes to financial assistance and its tiers and conditions, and the shift in marketing standards and carcass classification, which we will discuss next week.

The fact is that impact assessments should have been submitted to the RPC for independent scrutiny, seen by Ministers and provided to Parliament. I know how valuable this can be to us. For example, DWP did a high-class job on the Pension Schemes Bill, which eased its passage. The RPC added value to an MHCLG assessment on plans to exempt extra floors on housing developments, pointing out the need to provide for the cost and risk of moving telephone masts—vital to HMG’s important plans for digital connectivity. Data, cost and risk assessment are essential to good government—allegedly one of the reasons why the Prime Minister and his consigliere Dominic Cummings are reforming the Civil Service.

Although the subject of my amendment is the framing of the financial assistance scheme itself, that stage would be far too late. I believe the Government could help themselves and Parliament by submitting an impact assessment for this scheme—and, indeed, for this whole Bill—now, and promising to act similarly for future Bills on the environment and trade. They might even adapt the assessment framework to encourage the sort of data analysis favoured by Mr Cummings. I hope the Minister will seriously consider my request before I return to the matter on Report.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I will pick up a theme started by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, when he mentioned the importance of this Bill. This is an absolutely vital Bill—a watershed Bill in British agricultural terms. It is going to be a template for the future, very much as the 1947 Act was a template for farming for about 50 years. It is a privilege to be allowed to take part in these proceedings, which demonstrate how important it is for the Government to get the Bill absolutely right, because it will set the tone for farming for many years to come.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, was also right to question the wide spread of the Bill because the wider the Bill is spread, the less money there will be to go around, and important projects could well fall by the wayside. I too urge the Minister to clarify exactly how far this Bill is going to spread, whether reservoirs are to be included and whether the whole of forestry is to be included. There is a definitional problem here as far as I can see. In Clause 1(1) we talk about woodland and in Clause 1(2) we talk about forestry. Do these mean exactly the same things? I hope the Minister can be clear about that before we move to the next stage.

I added my name to two amendments in this group and I will first talk to Amendment 37, moved by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I was attracted to this amendment because it refers to

“protecting or improving the management of landscapes”.

Farmers do not exist in isolation but within a landscape, and farming is absolutely crucial to that landscape and its productivity. I am a great believer in multi-functional landscapes. There is no such thing as the average farmer: farmers vary hugely, as does the soil on which they farm. What is able to be grown in one field could be very different from that grown in an adjacent field, perhaps because the soil has changed from green sand to heavy clay and there are two different products to deal with it. Farming is therefore a much more complicated business than a production factory.

The idea of landscapes is gaining momentum, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said and I agree with him on this point. The key factor in making landscapes work sensibly is to work on a big, cohesive basis. The Minister knows a lot about the great success of the Northern Devon Nature Improvement Area, which is a template for how such projects could work. It is working on a water catchment area, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, and it brings farmers and other users of the countryside together to get the right policy for that area.

Amendment 7, which is a probing amendment, concerns growing crops for biofuel. There is potentially a very big future market for farmers growing bioenergy crops such as miscanthus for carbon capture and storage. I would not want them to be unable to obtain taxpayers’ money, considering the public good they would be doing. Can the Minister confirm that bioenergy crops are also included in this ambit?

Turning to Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I like the idea in principle of trying to attach the rewards of this Bill to the Environment Bill. Of course, there is a fundamental flaw in the noble Lord’s proposal. If, for instance, he had a farm that was subject to a tier 3 grant in a nature recovery area, he could well be signing up purely to get the money. If I were farming outside that area—not a nature recovery area—but wanted to increase my songbird population, I would be excluded by the noble Lord’s amendment. I hope the Minister will take up this point because it is key to the success of this Bill. We have to enthuse the farmer: I would much rather the farmer was enthusiastic about biodiversity and improving the ecology and the soil—wanting to spend the time doing it—than in the scheme purely in order to get the grants.

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

I am happy to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I certainly identify with his comments on the 1947 Act and its significance. God help us if agriculture went back to the state it was in in the 1930s. There needs to be a reliable, transparent and dependable framework which our farmers and everyone involved in the countryside can depend upon. I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register.

This Bill applies primarily to England, although Wales will also come within its scope until such time as Welsh Ministers decide to have our own legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned a moment ago, Amendment 66 addresses the question of the relationship between Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland and the new regimes that will emerge. In the context of the European Union, there has been a framework for some understanding, whereas at the moment, unless some mechanism is brought in, there is a danger of us not having such a framework. My Amendment 66, which is in this group, attempts at least to flag up this question and seek an answer. This issue is probably better addressed later in the Bill, when we have already dealt with provisions relating to Wales—Schedule 5 and Part 7. Amendment 290, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, is probably a better point at which to address it. None the less, my amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to explain the initial thinking on it.

I agree with what was said in introducing the first amendment about the need for certainty and clarity. We need transparency regarding what exactly is going to replace the existing regime. The CAP can rightly be criticised for being expensive and bureaucratic, but it had one benefit: it brought certainty. It is important that farmers and others have certainty. In order to invest in the land, they need long-term certainty. We need to investigate that issue in Committee.

I also accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and others said about less favoured areas. We need clarity and certainty there, too, because they depended so much on the European regimes. I support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the question of reservoirs and water storage—an issue that might become even more important, given the climate change dangers we are facing. Having said this, many of these issues will be discussed in greater detail in considering later amendments, so on that basis, I will curtail my remarks at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 106 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. There are two principal points here. The Government want this Agriculture Bill, which is a major Bill and the first in many years, to be about public money for public goods. The second point was raised by the previous speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Devon: who is to receive those funds?

I believe that money should support those actively involved in farming activity. They used to be known as active farmers but, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, that definition has probably broadened now to the wider issue of agricultural activity. If that is the case, and the Government support it, then we can ensure high standards in environmental works on the farm and in food production. We can ensure high standards of food security and perhaps in so doing, we will be able to ensure, along with good food security, good accessibility to food for all in terms of the food chain.

On reallocated entitlements, applicant farmers must be able to demonstrate that they enjoy the decision-making power, benefits and financial risks attached to the agricultural activity on each parcel of land for which an allocation of entitlements is requested. That is right and proper; it is also ethical and moral.

Furthermore, the Minister referred during the previous group to the ongoing work and discussions between Defra and the devolved Administrations. What actual work has been done on broadening agricultural activity? Who will be eligible for such payments and what grades of activity will be eligible? Land ownership probably varies throughout the devolved Administrations compared with what pertains in England. Coming from the Northern Ireland context—there will possibly be some separate legislation for Northern Ireland—I know that we have a conacre system, which is an ancient Irish system whereby people keep land under conacre for one year. It differs from the tenant farmer situation that exists in Britain. What discussions have taken place on agricultural activity between the Minister, his ministerial colleagues in Defra and ministerial colleagues in the devolved regions?

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

In introducing the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that farmers would have to get paid to do all these good works in the future. We should pause and thank all the many farmers doing exactly these now without any money at all from the Government. They are doing it of their own free will because they love the land that they farm—they might have been farming it for generations—and the biodiversity and nature that goes with it. We must pay them a big thank you for continuing the work.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, jogged my mind. It slightly irks me that we paid farmers to take hedges out and destroy landscape and biodiversity. We are now going to pay the same farmers to put those things back. It is worth remembering that a lot of farmers did not take out any hedges and kept the biodiversity but got no money at all for that.

I put my name to Amendments 65 and 106 and I was pleased to do so. Amendment 65, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would add the words,

“agriculture, horticulture and forestry in England”

to the end of Clause 1(3). At the moment, the wording just stops at “England”. It seems logical to put the words in the amendment into the Bill.

While I am on forestry, my noble friend Lord Gardiner did not say on the first amendment—I am not surprised —what he actually means by “woodland” and “forestry”. Are they the same or two different things? If there will be grants for help for forestry and biodiversity, presumably there will be no grants for people planting vast acres of Sitka spruce, which are biodiversity unfriendly.

Forestry also raises another issue covered by Amendment 106: who gets the benefit of these payments of public money? I will focus on tenant farmers, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering did. When I was a land agent, my experience was that pretty well every tree was not in the tenancy agreement; it belonged to the landlord. Tenants were not allowed to plant woodland. That was excluded and outside the tenancy agreement.

We have an imbalance here and two different classes of farmer. We have the owner-occupier, who can do everything on their own land, and the tenant, who will be severely restricted. Who will get the benefit from these payments? If the tenant signs up to a scheme, I know many landlords who will say to them, “Thank you; I’m glad you signed up to that scheme. I’m glad you’re getting the money. Your rent is now going to increase and I’m going to take most of that money from you because you can afford to pay it.” Who will get this money? Is there a way one can incentivise tenants to do these schemes and reap the benefit that they deserve for putting the risk, capital and expertise at stake in doing so?

[Lord Wigley [V]]

My Amendment 94, which I will speak to solely, addresses a central weakness in the Bill, identified in this debate and the preceding one: the open-ended nature of the powers given to the Secretary of State under Clause 1, which states that money can be used for

“managing land … in a way that … improves the environment”,

or cultural heritage, or mitigating climate change, or improving the health of livestock, presumably including racehorses et cetera. That strikes me as far too open-ended an approach in a Bill that is, after all, an agriculture Bill.

Therefore, later in Clause 1, at page 3, line 12, I propose that these words be added:

“‘land’ means land that is used for agricultural, horticultural or forestry purposes or which is intended to be so used, or used for purposes ancillary to those functions.”

That gives a clear definition, to my mind, of the purposes of Clause 1(1). Without something along those or similar lines—no doubt the wording could be improved—it is far too open-ended. Although the present Minister and Secretary of State would want to work within the confines of the Bill, once it is on the statue book it will be open to all sorts of abuse. I do not think that is the intention of an agricultural Bill and that is why I propose this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

On the other hand, the people who are getting access must ensure, given that risk, that they do not interfere with the pathway of the animals or with areas where there are crops. We have to ensure that balance, so that farm activity and husbandry can continue, while at the same time allowing public access. I am happy to support this amendment, subject to those provisos and to the Minister stating that in his view, “people’s access to it” would enhance subsection (1)(b).

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, first, how nice it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, back with us and participating. We have missed him; I wish him very well and good health for the future. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, for picking up the question I have asked the Minister twice, so far, about forestry and woodland. I hope that, third time lucky, we might get a reply from him.

I want to address the provision of public access; we will come to the consequences of public access in two amendments’ time, so I am not going to mention those. I am a great supporter of public access. It was absolutely crucial to me when I came out of hospital, and was being pushed around in a wheelchair, to be able to get out into the countryside on footpaths that could accommodate a wheelchair. They were quite difficult to find but we found them. It did my health and whole well-being a power of good. Having got out of the wheelchair, I have been using the footpaths to get as fit as I can. Some footpaths have certainly been good, but the bridleways are an absolute nightmare for anybody with bad knees or bad feet, and who has to use sticks.

What does the Minister mean by “public access”? There is no definition in the Bill. I believe that this is the beginning of the right to roam in England; I am sure that will come as a logical consequence of the Bill. Many farmers fear that public access will turn parts of England into a recreational theme park, rather than places with farming communities. The problem with public access is that it is a legal minefield. What public access is to be granted? Is it to be a permissive path or a bridleway? Will it be a BOAT—a byway open to all traffic—or a restrictive byway? We do not know. As my noble friend Lord Gardiner said, we want farmers to participate in this scheme, but they will not do so until they know what the consequences of these amendments are and what they actually mean.

Balance was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan. We all would like a sensible balance in this, but there has been a huge amount of warfare between farmers and public access groups. There is a big history here. Let us take the example of two schools that have had huge problems just trying to divert footpaths: Helmshore Primary School in Lancashire and Wardour Catholic Primary School in Wiltshire. The ramblers have refused and have contested every opportunity to deviate the path along the edge of the field rather than through the playing fields, meaning that a school has lost a large chunk of its playing fields and, because of coronavirus, has had to fence that path off. That path must be monitored by staff when the children are out and cleared of dog mess regularly. It has caused the school a whole lot of problems. That has not helped in getting towards a balanced system.

Similarly, as the Minister will know, there is a huge backlog of applications to create rights of way where there may not be any at the moment. He will be aware that the South Somerset Bridleways Association has 261 applications to create new routes under the existing legislation. If we cannot get the existing system right, people will be very fearful of the future system. The British Horse Society trying to open a bridleway in Derbyshire contributed to the suicide of one of the owners; a suicide in Somerset was also linked to the aggressive attitude of Somerset County Council when trying to open a right of way that did not exist. There is a big history here. We must get this right, and that will take a lot of resolve by the Government.

One must also look at what the Open Spaces Society says on its website. If we are talking about balance, where is the balance in saying that your position is to oppose path changes? That is a complete no-no. It does not want any path changes. It goes on to say:

“Diversions out of farmyards should normally be opposed”


and that if spreading disease is given as a reason, it is invalid. How can it be invalid with coronavirus rampant?

We have a massive problem with the existing legislation. It is a legal minefield, it is costing owners thousands of pounds to prove a negative in many cases, and we are now faced with a Bill in which public access is to be opened up. I approve of that, but there will have to be a huge effort by the Government to get the present situation under control to reassure farmers about the future situation.

What will happen after 2026? If a landowner agrees a scheme over a public right of access before 2026, will it retrospectively become a bridleway or a public footpath? Will they be able to claim that when it was on a temporary basis or part of some project? These are the legal questions that farmers must face, and the Government must face up to, because at the moment it is a mess. We debated this in the Moses Room, and afterwards, a number of people who had come in to listen were very heated about the lack of progress.

I know that there have been problems and staff have been seconded to look after the Covid-19 situation, but can the Minister tell us where we have got to in trying to correct the present situation regarding footpaths?

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, to begin, I take my reference point from the Book of Genesis, where Adam and Eve were told that they had to be stewards of all creation. That was further defined in the Book of Leviticus, which makes clear that the use of land is to provide abundant crops but also that it is to be a place of sanctuary. Of course, Leviticus goes further, for those who wish a literal interpretation and application of the holy book, because it says that all land must be owned for only 50 years and then passed back by the owner. So landowners who have had land for many centuries need to bear in mind that their tenancy over that land also incorporates long-standing rights of access.

I was a little surprised to hear the noble Earl, Lord Devon, suggesting not just that the NHS budget be diverted to landowners but that access was a major problem. It has certainly not been a major problem at Powderham Castle for the hundreds of thousands of revellers who have visited to watch Noel Gallagher, Coldplay or the range of other concerts that have taken place there. We need the facts to be accurate in these debates.

Health, sanctuary and well-being are fundamental to humanity. Society cannot function without them. Access to the sanctuary of quietness away from the towns and cities is fundamental to the physical and mental well-being of the citizens of this country. There is therefore a balance to be struck between the subsidies demanded and received by the farming community year on year—be it through the new government policy or, previously, the excessive common agricultural policy—and the right of citizens to access rights of way without hindrance, to go out into the fresh air into the sanctuary, as Leviticus defined, in order for our well-being to be preserved. At this time, with the horrors of coronavirus, those rights of access are fundamental. In my view, these amendments are apposite in getting the balance right.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

It is a great pleasure and a bit of luck for me to follow two such powerful speeches from my noble friend Lord Blencathra and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I agree very much with what they said. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, that this is a devolved matter. For the UK Ministers to consult but then set regulations in this Parliament would be quite contrary to any devolution settlement. I was very surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, did not pick that up as she is a stalwart defender of the rights of Northern Ireland.

I agree with my noble and learned friend about the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, that this is merely consultation. It is not—this is hard regulation. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that the fishers in Wick 110 years ago remember Grimsby and Yarmouth without much pleasure, as they suddenly introduced bigger and faster boats than the Wickers had. The fishing industry in Wick suffered horribly from the activities of Yarmouth and Grimsby, but that is history.

The noble Baroness who moved the amendment, which has good intentions but is very faulty, gave no real justification for why 65% should be the figure. I think she woke up one morning and thought, “That’s a good idea; we’ll try that one.” There is no justification for 65%. It made me wonder what I would I do if I were the French Fisheries Minister. I see that the Brits are now getting very protectionist; they want 65% of their catch. How would it affect our fishing fleets if the Europeans said to all their boats, “You can land your catches only in EU ports—you can’t land them in UK ports”? That would do huge damage to our fisheries, reducing their flexibility and the economic benefits that they currently produce for all our coastal towns, which we all want to see improve and provide better economic opportunities than they currently do. It is quite clear in Clause 16(1), covered by this amendment, that this relates to non-UK boats.

Another thought that struck me was: if this clause comes in, will we return to something like the klondykers of the 1980s and 1990s? When I was Fisheries Minister, I remember going up to Ullapool and seeing those big Russian klondyke boats in Loch Broom. We would potentially return to a situation where you have one big British fishing tanker taking fish from all the smaller boats, bringing that back to the UK and claiming it as the landing of the catch. That would be a retrograde step.

All my other points have been covered, but I want to stress one briefly mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. She said that, besides the 50% landing at the moment, there are other economic links. This amendment does not cover any other economic links. It takes out just one of the economic links that currently exist and distorts it. Huge difficulties could result from that. It is worth remembering that the vast majority of UK vessels already meet the landing requirements; I think the current figure is 99%. But, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said, it is so variable; it depends on weather conditions and on the sea—and the fishermen require that flexibility. I cannot support the amendment.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, what interesting speeches. I get the impression that almost all those who supported us leaving the European fisheries policy would have had their speeches applauded by Michel Barnier, a previous French fisheries Minister, whom we spoke to in the European Union Committee, particularly the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I do not want to take away the fire of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on some of this, but let us go through some of the points.

First, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, asked in Committee about facilities: could we actually cope with landing more fish in UK ports? What a question. During Committee stage, one of the people I spoke to—I did not know he was coming but he happened to be here—was the chairman of the harbour commissioners of Newlyn, one of the largest fishing ports in England, although still dwarfed by the Scottish ports. He said to me, “If I had just one or two more of these foreign-owned, British-flagged vessels into my port, it would make a huge difference to me and what I am trying to achieve”. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that if we could give the UK fishing ports, particularly the English ports, that challenge, they would love to have those vessels here.

The point was made about this Bill being a framework Bill. I am sorry, but it does not say that. Surely, as parliamentarians we want to be able to affect the key issues, to make changes and to have policies that are better and amendments that improve Bills. We are not here just to have framework Bills. If we think something is of crucial national importance—and this is—then we should be able to debate those amendments and decide whether we accept them.

On devolution, yes, there is an argument there, but if the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, really feels that there should be complete devolution of fisheries issues, he should have voted against the Bill at Second Reading, because the whole Bill is completely concerned with devolved issues; therefore, some of the amendments will be as well.

As for the landing obligation, yes, we have one, but what have the Government done about it over the last few years? It has not changed and there are a number of opt-outs, so some of those economic links will still be there. However, it is vital, surely, that we look at the most important ones, those that actually protect or improve our coastal communities and our fishing industry. We can ask ourselves why the fishing industry has not strongly campaigned for this. I remember going, soon after the Brexit vote, to a fisheries conference elsewhere in London where I raised this point with the main fishing trade associations, and they did not really want to discuss it. Why? Because their members are primarily owned by foreign owners, so it is not particularly in the interest, certainly in England and Wales, of the main fisheries representatives to argue this.

Let us remember that some 55%, by value, of our fisheries are fished by foreign vessels owned primarily by Spain, Iceland and the Netherlands. Those interests are there; what we are trying to do here is to defend all those people who are excluded: the coastal communities we are talking about do not have a vote and do not have a piece of the action at the moment. We are trying to improve that. That is why this amendment is so important and why I back it. In Wales, the by value figure is 85%. One foreign-owned vessel, as I understand it, has 85% of Welsh quota. This is a real issue and it is absolutely appropriate to deal with it in the Bill. What I particularly like about the amendment is that it actually says that something has to come out of this consultation—the 65% or more—but it allows the fishing authorities to make exceptions, such as where the long-distance fleet has to land, perhaps.

Interestingly, Norway has been particularly mentioned. What are the statistics on Norway? Norwegian interests own 100% of Norwegian-flagged vessels, so Norway does not have this problem; indeed, Scotland hardly has it either. In many ways—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on this—we are being global Britain: we are claiming back, as an independent coastal state, rights over our economic zone and our fish stocks. We are putting them out for sale to the world and the world is enjoying the benefits of our biomass and our marine stocks.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the clear way in which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, introduced this amendment. That was helpful.

I have a concern about the word “entrants” in the amendment. We are talking about a fishing industry which comprises both crew and owners. In 2018 the Seafish review put the average age of crew at about 38 and of owners at about 50. Surely we are trying to get more boats and therefore more owners, who will then employ more crew, into our fishing fleet. I particularly welcome the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, of focusing on helping boats of under 10 metres, but that will all depend on the economic viability of fishing. If fishing is not a viable, sustainable industry, there will be no owners wanting quotas and, as a result, no crew employed. That will have a detrimental effect on coastal areas, as we have already discussed.

The quota system, which is how the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is attacking the issue in this amendment, is perhaps not as beneficial for increasing the overall ability for new entrants to come into the industry as another way might be. I do not know quite what that way is, and I will rely on my noble friend Lord Gardiner to help me with that, but focusing on the new entrants will not be as beneficial because the quota belongs to the boat owner.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]]

My Lords, I am minded to support this amendment, as it addresses an issue I have raised ever since we had the informal briefing with the then Minister for Fisheries, now Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am slightly concerned because, in spite of what we hear about various schemes for new entrants, I have not identified a great rush for new entrants over and above what the current provisions allow. I raised this at the informal briefing and was given an assurance on it; currently the under-10 fishermen—I had the privilege of working with them most recently in Filey, but also in other parts of the country—rely very heavily on shellfish, but, as was said previously, are given scraps of other whitefish under the table through the very complicated system of top-slicing discards which are then gathered into a pool from which the under-10s can benefit.

We were led to believe in the informal briefing that an official mechanism would be put in place to ensure a stricter, clearer, more transparent situation in which the under-10s would benefit from any remaining quota on an annual basis. My noble friend the Minister may well be able to put my mind at rest here, that that provision is somewhere and I am not immediately seeing it, but that promise was made and I invoke it here: that under the provisions of this Bill, under-10s will benefit from a higher and more regular quota going forward.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 22nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

Lord Mackay of Clashfern. No? I call the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am sorry that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern is not able to join us just now. I hoped that he would elucidate the picture with regard to case law on this. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned a case, but there are other cases, going back to 1803, that clearly establish that, if fish belong to anybody, they belong to the King’s subjects. That is well established. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is perhaps taking a slightly Napoleonic view of the situation, rather than the common-law and case law approach that is usual in this country.

I want to pick up a point that my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering raised: the question of the “quotas” in proposed new subsection (2). What quotas is the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talking about? The overall quota is set by the UK Government, but quotas are a devolved matter as well. I think that the noble Lord is in grave danger of complicating the Bill and treading hard on the toes of the devolved Governments. This is something that we have to be extremely careful not to allow in this Bill, which has been carefully crafted to achieve a balance between what the UK Government are able to do and what the devolved Governments rightly should do. I do not think that this amendment helps that situation in any way at all.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Teverson has set out the reasons for this amendment, which we debated in Committee. Fish are a resource that is not owned by any one region, corporate body or individual. Unlike farm animals, which can be corralled and shepherded into barns, pens or open fields, fish are free-swimming. The oceans and shores around the UK have no physical barriers. It therefore follows that fish in our waters are a UK-wide resource.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, said that 1% of the UK economy is dependent on fishing. But the UK is totally encircled by the seas, so fishing is extremely important. I agree that the Brexit deal is vital to how we move forward. The Fisheries Bill is a golden opportunity to set exacting principles on just how the fishing rights around our shores are managed to best maintain, and at the same time increase, fish stocks, with sustainability at the heart of the Bill.

The UK exclusive economic zone is a resource owned by the UK on behalf of its citizens, and must be preserved as such, whether they are in the devolved Administrations or not. No one should be allowed to claim that fishing rights in any particular area belong just to them. This is a national resource, and it must remain so. It is vital that fish stocks are protected and increased. This can happen only if the fish are not seen to be the property of any one individual private organisation or corporate body.

I note the comments of noble Lords about what they see as the complication of the issues in this amendment, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say. But this is an extremely important principle, which we feel should be included in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have received a request from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to speak after the Minister.

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

Can my noble friend the Minister comment on what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said? She seemed to be in favour of arbitrarily taking away fisherman’s quotas that are already established, which sounds like a pretty draconian socialist measure to me.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

On the noble Baroness’s intention, we do not think that it would be helpful to the fishing industry to take away the current system of FQAs and the certainty that that allocation provides. That is why the Government are clear that we do not intend to change the current quota arrangements, except where we will want to look at ways in which any additional quota is allocated. I am sure that the noble Baroness was articulating a view that was not necessarily partisan or political. To be clear, we want the British fishing industry to be successful. I hope that that helps my noble friend Lord Caithness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]]

The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, speaks with great knowledge and wisdom on the pressures brought by the Scottish fishing industry, and of course, with over 98% of it owned by Scots, it will be a powerful lobby on politicians. It is a shame that half of England’s quota is foreign-owned, and so we are talking about an industry rather than a national facility—or at least, half of one.

I want to draw attention to what happened on Saturday at Verkhoyansk in Siberia: it was 38 degrees centigrade, the highest temperature ever recorded in the Arctic. Since 1930, we have had a 4% loss in fish stocks worldwide, but in the North Sea we are talking about a much higher percentage of permanent loss. Therefore, this amendment is about the sustainability of the industry itself.

A report published in the last few days has reinforced how artificial light in the Arctic is disrupting fish and zooplankton, destroying the very origins of the fish stocks. I hope that, in the light of this new evidence, the Government are reassessing their stock assessments of what will be there in the future. Also, I trust that the Government have signed—and, post leaving the European Union, remain signed up to—the agreement on no fishing in the Arctic, in that large amount of sea which until recently was ice cap but which, sadly, has now melted.

Anyone who listens to the scientific evidence from the Arctic—that fish that have never been seen there are now commonly viewed and how warming is changing the entire ecosystem—will hear the evidence first hand that sustainability of fishing stocks in our waters is directly related to dealing with global warming and climate change. Therefore, this amendment is about the future of our fishing industry, and I support it.

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. My instinct is to support this amendment wholeheartedly, because I am a great believer in environmental sustainability, but we must also look very carefully at sustainability, because in all our discussions sustainability has rested on the three pillars: economic, social and environmental. If we change our understanding of that, it will affect not only fisheries but also every other industry.

The noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, gave the game away completely when he said that it should be introduced to every other piece of legislation. I do not think that this House has given enough thought to that. If this amendment is accepted, it will become a precedent for the Agriculture Bill. That will mean that the son of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, will now be told that he cannot farm a certain crop because it is not environmentally sustainable in the way that people would like it maintained. It will mean foresters being told that they cannot cut down trees because it is environmentally unsustainable to cut down a tree when that will happen anyway through natural regeneration. There are huge complications that we have not considered if we alter the balance now, because this will go into legislation and become a very firm precedent for the future. That gives me great concern.

I strongly believe that the environment should be given priority, but it must be in a way that respects the other two legs of the sustainability stool. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said that, legally, this is almost impossible. We are in a real quandary here. I hope that, between now and Third Reading, the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, can get together to achieve what I know they both want. We are all on common ground regarding where we want to get to, but the wording of this amendment will cause us problems.

The noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, also mentioned the effect on coastal areas. If suddenly a report said that fishing must stop in a certain area since environmental sustainability was the prime objective, the effect on that area socially and economically would be immense, and the Government would not be able to mitigate it in the way that they could as the Bill is presently worded.

Although I support the spirit of this amendment, I cannot support it in the way that it is worded. My noble friend Lord Lansley was right to highlight the question of “fishing fleets must”, which is a wording that we are not used to in legislation. I do not see how that can be implemented. I look forward to what the Minister says and hope that we can reach a common position on this, rather than bringing into law something that we may all regret in a few months’ or years’ time.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, if I may just respond first to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, this amendment does exactly what he asks. It gives priority to environmental sustainability, but the other elements are there as well—so, bingo, we are there. We do not have a Content Lobby, but if we did, the noble Earl would need to go through it.

I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Cameron of Dillington, on their amendments, both of which I put my name to. The irony in this debate is that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, are arguing for the old-style common fisheries policy. What they are asking for is exactly what the CFP did. It gave a range of options to politicians—Commissioners or the Council of Ministers in that bun-fight that happened every December—which allowed fudge in decision-making about future quotas and fishing rights over the next year. They could look at some other objective or reason and decide to take an easy way out, forget environmental sustainability or put it second, third or fourth, and go for a short-term decision on fisheries.

And what was the outcome of that? We have hugely depleted stocks in our own EEZ and globally, because of all those fudge factors. Tell me an organisation that can survive with eight objectives but without anything being said about which is the most important. You cannot do that. You must have some idea of what the priorities are. None of us could run our lives on that basis; it would be impossible.

I come back to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, when he criticised the word “prime”. I did Classics up to O-level—pause for a “wow” from the Chamber—and “primus” means first. We know what “first” means, and it does not push the others aside. We have a first Secretary of State in the Government but that does not mean to say that the other Secretaries of State are all redundant; they are not. It is just giving a priority.

We also know, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has said, that if we do not have environmental sustainability first, then everything else falls aside; it just goes away. Sometimes we have zero quotas, as I think the Minister said earlier about my first amendment, and they are dealt with by finding ways around them, either with financial compensation or otherwise. That means those stocks, the health of the industry and jobs in those coastal communities are there for the long term. That is why this is inarguable; you cannot have it any other way than that environmental sustainability has to be a prime objective. That would not get rid of the rest of the objectives; they are in the Bill for us to see.

I want to take a point that has not been mentioned: devolution. We are told by the Government that this House is not competent to amend the Bill because of devolution; we are going through this process for no reason at all because everything in it is devolved. The Government have brought a Bill to us that they may have agreed with the executives but, as I understand it, it has not gone through any of the democratic assemblies or parliaments of the nations. We have been given a Bill that we have to make decisions on. The Government cannot put a gun to our head and say, “Because we have done a deal with the other executives, the Bill can’t change at all”. If the Government hold that view, they should dissemble this Bill, bring an English Bill to this House and let the assemblies and parliaments have their own fisheries Bills. That is the solution. However, we do not have time for that because we need to get this right and we need to do it before the end of the year when we move out of the transition period. All we can do is ensure that the Bill is right and protects the industry and our marine environment for the future—for the long term as well as the short and medium terms—by making sure that the amendment is passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker]

Do we have the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge? We do not seem to. Perhaps we will try to get him later. The noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, have both withdrawn from this group, so I call the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Oh, do we have the noble Earl?

[The Earl of Caithness [V]]

My Lords, you are going too quickly; the unmute button did not come on, but I have got it now.

These are two interesting amendments, but a lot of this is already covered under existing legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, wants to put climate change at the heart of the Bill, but we now have environmental sustainability as its prime objective and everything else is secondary to it. Climate change is surely already taken care of under the national adaptation programme, published in 2018, which sets out what is needed for the next five years. I am sure that this will need to be ramped up as the effects of climate change become clearer.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering referred to fish moving north. Species will move further north into colder waters, undoubtedly, and that could well put huge pressure on the fisheries to the north of Caithness and around Orkney and Shetland. There will be a huge demand from the EU fishing fleet to get into those waters in a way that they have not to date. I ask the same question as her: is the Minister cognisant of this? It will affect how quotas are distributed within the UK and, at a lower stage, how the devolved Administrations deal with it.

In principle, I agree that climate change will have a huge effect. The fishing fleet is not a very big contributor to climate change. Only 10% of domestic shipping CO₂ emissions come from our fishing fleet; nevertheless, it is an important area. However, while perhaps the principle of the amendment is right, I think that its inclusion in the Bill at the moment would be otiose.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate and to the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. Climate change is upon us. Sea temperatures and sea levels are rising, and this is having a dramatic effect on our landscapes and on the fish in our seas. Some fish are moving to colder water; other are moving with the warmer water. Many of the changes in water temperatures and flows will have damaging effects on some species, especially on their spawning grounds. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, spoke about fish moving with colder water.

Mitigating climate change can be fulfilled partially through carbon sequestration, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, laid out. The 2050 target set in the Climate Change Act 2008 is 30 years away, but it is no good waiting until we are five years from that date to decide that catastrophe is upon us and that the nation needs to do something. It is far better to begin the process now. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, trailed, the Committee on Climate Change will publish its report on Thursday, and it will not be an uplifting read. Setting an interim emissions target for 2030 is essential. Only by setting interim targets and seeing how progress is made towards them can we effectively calculate whether the 2050 target is achievable at the current rate of improvement—if there is any—or whether much more drastic action is needed.

Climate change is not something that is happening elsewhere; it is happening all around us. Every country in the world is affected. Snow is melting in Siberia, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said in the debate on an earlier amendment, and this is uncovering mammoth remains. Antarctica is losing vast icebergs and ice shelves. The sea is rising at an alarming rate, affecting the breeding and feeding of many aquatic animals and species. It is unwise for Parliament and the Government to see all three Defra Bills in isolation. They should be seen as a holistic package, with the Environment Bill being especially important. Through the Fisheries Bill we have an opportunity to ensure that the fishing industry plays its part in slowing climate change. We must set an interim emissions target for 2030. I fully support these two amendments.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his introduction of the Bill. First, I pay tribute to three people from whom we shall not hear during our discussions on the Bill: the Countess of Mar, Baroness Byford and the Earl of Selbourne, who have retired. We will miss their expertise, wise counsel and first-hand experience in agriculture. However, I welcome the interest in agriculture from those who do not usually take part in debates on this subject. Sadly, one-third of those who put their names down to speak cannot do so because of the unusual and regrettable way in which this House is now being run. Can my noble friend confirm that there will be no curtailment of debate whatever in the following stages, so that the House can fulfil its function properly?

Like others who have spoken, I have concerns not only over environmental and welfare standards for trade agreements, but also that the Bill should provide for proper environmental standards in the UK with appropriate regulations, long-term funding and certainty, so that farmers are properly rewarded. In the last 50 years, the amount of land available to feed each person on this planet has dropped from two acres to less than half an acre, and it is still falling. The UK is only 75% self-sufficient in indigenous-type foods. Therefore, food security and food strategy must be included in the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ridley that high-yield farming and improved biodiversity are not mutually exclusive. The Allerton project has scientifically demonstrated that more than successfully for more than 25 years.

Farming is currently an administrative nightmare. I want to focus on one key practical point of the Bill, which is the scale of change and adjustment for farming as it moves from the arrangements inherited from the EU CAP to those founded on markets in food production. It will become more of a marketplace for farmers to sell public goods to the state acting as buyer on behalf of society, as well as probable private sector activity. The outcome will be a much less standardised industry than the one we have created since World War II, as we move away from full-time commodity production. Achieving that will be a major call on all those involved, not only government and farmers. Thus, I hope my noble friend, like me, will endorse the Welsh Government’s observation:

“Advice should be seen as an investment in the capacity of farmers and farms rather than a cost”.


Farming needs a climate positively supportive of sustained, useful advice, with the necessary conversations and time for reflection and delivery of everything from cost control, the adoption of new technology and generational change to repositioning the business, implementing a diversification project, accepting that land should be let out or understanding the value in public good contracts. This will involve both the private and public sectors and we must ensure that it happens.

This is a watershed moment for British agriculture, and this is a hugely important Bill. Although frustrating in many respects, because it is largely an enabling Bill, it puts in place the legislative framework for many years to come. I support it, but I also say to my noble friend Lord Gardiner, who, with his officials, has, as usual, been so helpful with briefing and information, that it would be disappointing and utterly inappropriate if all amendments, particularly the many cross-party ones that will be tabled, were to be rejected.