Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Sturdy Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jayawardena]

I encourage the hon. Lady to wait to hear the Prime Minister later today.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

T2. From farm to fork, long-term decisions on rising energy prices are being made that could have a devastating impact on food security. Will my right hon. Friend please work with colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that food production businesses and the wider supply chain receive the support they need to tackle rising energy prices?

[Mr Jayawardena]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. I also encourage him to wait to hear what the Prime Minister says later today. It is very, very important to ensure we continue to be able to produce some of the best food in the world and the Government are committed to doing that.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Julian Sturdy Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

As someone who has a farming business, I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I warmly welcome the Bill. I commend the Government for pressing ahead on a matter that is vital for national and global food security, protecting the environment, supporting the developing world and advancing UK science and prosperity at a time of economic uncertainty.

In the limited time that I have, I want to firmly refute the misconceptions that have been spread, in and outside the Chamber, about how gene editing is allegedly bad for animals and animal welfare. It is right that we proceed with careful additional safeguards for animal precision breeding, as the Bill proposes, but precision breeding can provide animal welfare benefits so huge that to my mind it is actually unethical not to allow it. Stopping diseases such as PRRS in pigs, bird flu, swine flu and mastitis is obviously a huge advance for animal welfare, not a threat to it. Put simply, regulation should follow the science. It should be based on the evidence, not on superstition or political agendas.

I reiterate that gene editing is wholly distinct from genetic modification, so it is totally wrong for it to be aggressively restricted in the same way. Genetic modification is the introduction of new material from one species into another; gene editing is the adjustment of DNA within one species. It simply speeds up, and makes more precise, genetic changes that occur naturally through conventional breeding methods. Food from gene-edited plants is therefore indistinguishable from food produced through conventional methods. Gene editing speeds up natural changes that can otherwise take up to 15 years. Do hon. Members seriously want to wait 15 years to protect animals from horrific diseases, to aid farmers in sub-Saharan Africa or to start producing more affordable healthy food in the UK? I think not. That is why we have to support the Bill.

The Whips will not be surprised to hear that I have some concerns about part 3, which risks undermining the legislation aimed at ensuring that innovation and investment, through regulation, reflects the scientific evidence; that is what we must base it on. There is already disquiet that the Food Standards Agency has been gold-plating the innovation-killing precautionary approach inherited from the EU. On top of that, on current drafting, the ministerial powers on food and feed safety risk assessments and traceability in part 3 risk adding additional safety assessments and other hurdles, thereby piling investment-destroying costs on to the breeding process, which could ultimately deter scientists and businesses from innovating. We must be careful about that.

In essence, however, this is a great piece of legislation and must be supported. I look forward to following its passage through this place.

Agriculture: Sustainable Intensification and Metrics

Julian Sturdy Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sustainable intensification and metrics in agriculture.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. In bringing forward this debate, I declare my interest as an arable famer and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture.

The world needs to increase food production and availability by 70% by 2050 to keep pace with the food needs of a rapidly increasing and expanding global population in the face of climate change and the increasing pressures of the world’s finite natural resources. With its good soils, temperate climate, professional farming sector and world-leading research and development, Britain is uniquely placed not only to optimise its capacity for sustainable and efficient food production, but also to become a global hub for agriscience excellence and innovation, exporting technological solutions, attracting inward investment, and fostering international research co-operation. Outside the EU, Britain has a unique opportunity to lead in those fields and to put significant vigour and evidence at the heart of UK policy development.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I also declare an interest as a landowner and as a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union. I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. My constituency of Strangford is able to yield three potato crops a year due to sustainable, innovative farming and premium land. Does the hon. Member not agree that a UK-wide survey of soil quality and climate may enable farmers to slightly change their methods and allow us all to reap the benefits of additional produce with minimal environmental impact?

[Julian Sturdy]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Soils play a hugely important part in the wider metrics of agriculture. Knowing the Minister very well, I know that she shares a passion for soils, so she might touch on that in her response.

Early action by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make gene editing regulations more science-based and proportionate, which realigns our approach with that of other countries such as Australia, Japan, Brazil, Argentina and the United States, is a positive and welcome first step. I am pleased to see that coming forward in a statutory instrument at the beginning of March, I believe—perhaps the Minister can clarify that.

Members of the APPG for science and technology in agriculture led calls for the Government to take action on that issue during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020, and we are grateful to the Minister for listening and responding to those calls. Access to precision breeding tools will bring new opportunities to keep pace with demands for increased agricultural productivity, improved and more efficient resource use, more durable pest and disease resistance, better nutrition, and improved resilience against climate change.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech and I am in complete agreement with his points. I was brought up on a dairy farm, and in those days the Milk Marketing Board secured a price floor for milk. Today, I would suggest to the hon. Member that we have a problem in that the price farmers can secure could undercut everything to which the Member refers. Does he agree that one of the opportunities of Brexit is that it gives Government the power to examine the issue and consider support mechanisms, so that people do not leave farming altogether?

[Julian Sturdy]

I completely agree with the hon. Member that we have to ensure that we protect our farming communities and that people do not leave farming. It is so important that we have expertise both on the land and within the sector to make sure that opportunities are there for future generations. The Government must make that clear in their future agricultural policy, and I will touch on that shortly, because I have concerns about its direction, which is, I think, what the hon. Member was referring to.

When we talk about gene editing, we must ensure that future farm policies embrace and support the use of all the new, innovative technologies. Like many others in the sector, I am concerned about the direction of travel of the Government’s future vision for agriculture. As I just said, I am concerned about where future policy is going. We cannot afford to be complacent with something as fundamental as food security. The global food supply and demand balance remains as precarious today as 11 years ago, when Sir John Beddington’s Foresight report urged Governments to pursue a policy of sustainable intensification in agriculture to meet future food needs in the context of population growth, climate change and the finite national resources of land, water and fossil fuels.

Last year’s “Agricultural Outlook 2021-2030” report by the OECD and the Food and Agriculture Organisation warned that, with 8.5 billion mouths to feed by 2030, a business-as-usual approach will fall short of achieving sustainable development goal 2 on zero hunger by 2030. The report also highlighted the critical role of public and private sector research and development investment in enhancing productivity on existing farmland to alleviate pressures and bring more land into production. We have a responsibility to optimise our capacity for sustainable, efficient food production and to not offshore our food system’s impacts to regions of the world that are more vulnerable to the production-limiting effects of climate change.

Concerns are mounting that, without clear vision and a definition of what is meant by “sustainable agriculture”, the UK is at risk of sleepwalking into its own food crisis. Writing in Food Policy, Robert Paarlberg of the Harvard Kennedy School recently highlighted the transatlantic policy tensions between the EU’s farm to fork strategy, referring to the plans to expand organic farming, reduce synthetic chemical use and reject modern biotechnology and the United States’ approach, which is to emphasise agricultural innovations based on the latest science, articulated through its global coalition on sustainable productivity growth.

Last September, I wrote to the Prime Minister, urging the UK Government to sign up to that coalition, which was established by US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, to demonstrate that farmers can adapt to and adopt environmentally friendly and climate-smart farming practices without sacrificing productivity. I did not receive a reply from No. 10, so I ask the Minister: will the UK Government join other countries, such as Australia, Canada and Brazil, in signing up to the global coalition for sustainable productivity growth? Will the Minister explain where the UK sits in terms of the agricultural policy tension described by Robert Paarlberg?

Last year, the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture held a meeting on the subject “Whatever happened to sustainable intensification?” It included contributions from leading UK experts in the fields of crop science, agricultural economics, rural policy and conservation science. The meeting highlighted serious concerns that current farm policy development lacks scientific rigour, and that policy focus on sustainable intensification has diminished.

We were reminded that DEFRA responded to Professor Beddington’s foresight report by initiating the sustainable intensification research platform, or SIP. That is a £4.5 million, four-year, multi-partner research programme to investigate the challenges of securing the optimum balance between food production, resource use and environmental protection. However, while the concept of sustainable intensification and the scientific rationale that underpins it remains as relevant and urgent as ever, the outputs, recommendations and advice generated through the DEFRA SIP appear to have been quietly shelved and forgotten.

The weight of scientific evidence points to a need to optimise production on existing farmland. Professor Andrew Balmford, a conservation scientist at Cambridge University, told the all-party group that the most effective way to keep pace with increasing human demands for food while protecting habitats and preventing further biodiversity loss is through high-tech, high-yielding production on land that is already farmed, mirrored by explicit policy investments and regulations to make sure that other land is set aside for nature.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent speech that he is giving; I particularly agree with the point about land sparing and sharing. His vison for the future, and the idea of what we need to do around food security, is incredibly important. Does he agree that if there is one Department that should probably be based outside London, alongside the agricultural colleges and the experts in this country, it is DEFRA? On top of that, does he agree that DEFRA must provide clarity for farmers to be able to look at how they can incorporate productivity with sustainability and environmentalism to ensure that our level of farming and food security can be sustained?

[Julian Sturdy]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I thought he was about to call for DEFRA to come to his constituency; I would argue that York would make a fantastic location too. The principle of DEFRA moving out of London and into the wider farming community, where our food production is based, makes perfect sense. I completely agree with him.

It turns out that sustainable intensification is also the most efficient way to meet climate change objectives, through the increased opportunities for carbon sequestration and storage. The Government must, as a matter of urgency, revisit the policy focus on sustainable intensification as the most effective way—perhaps the only way—to feed an increasingly hungry warming planet. If the term “sustainable intensification” has fallen out of fashion, as DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Gideon Henderson, suggested to us recently, then by all means call it something else. However, above all else we must be guided by the science—the science that DEFRA itself has funded.

I am genuinely concerned about a shift away from science and evidence-based policy making in the Department, towards an over-reliance on voluntary and campaigning non-governmental organisations to support the Government’s vision for sustainable agriculture. Nowhere is that more apparent than in DEFRA’s approach to the issue of sustainable metrics in agriculture. While Gideon Henderson suggested to us in January that the Government are a long way from having a mature policy on metrics, correspondence that I have received on this issue from DEFRA Ministers suggests that one particular model, the Sustainable Food Trust global farm metric, is firmly embedded in the Government’s thinking. Not only is the Sustainable Food Trust an activist pro-organic NGO that openly campaigns against technologies that the Government are seeking to enable, such as gene editing, but the model itself is designed to reward less productivity and more extensive farming systems by favouring a whole farm or area-based approach to measuring resource use and the ultimate environmental impact.

Again, Professor Balmford told the all-party group that making meaningful sustainability comparisons between different farming systems would require an assessment of resource use and external impacts per unit of food produced, rather than a per-area-farmed basis. Professor Paul Wilson, an agricultural economist at the University of Nottingham, who leads the Government’s farm business survey programme, agreed that an area-based approach for sustainability indicators such as carbon footprint or greenhouse gas emissions is flawed in principle, and that there needs to be a clear reference point in terms of the amount of food produced to have any relevance.

Professor Wilson also led the metrics component of DEFRA’s SIP, which again does not appear to be feeding into the Government’s thinking. This included a huge amount of work on sustainability metrics and indicators, including the prototype development of a farmer-friendly data and benchmarking dashboard allowing producers to access and compare their performance against those indicators and against a weighted averaging of their peers.

The all-party group has long advocated for the need to embed data science and sustainability metrics at the heart of a policy agenda focused on securing the optimum balance between food production, resource use and environmental impact. We believe that access to metrics capable of objectively and consistently monitoring that balance will be essential to set targets and measure progress for sustainable, efficient production, to develop coherent research and development programmes, to understand and advise on best practice throughout the industry, and to provide meaningful information to consumers about the sustainability impact of each unit of food produced, whether that is a litre of milk or a bag of potatoes.

In addition to my earlier questions about whether the UK will sign up to the global coalition for sustainable productivity growth and where the UK sits in terms of the agricultural policy tension described by Robert Paarlberg, I will conclude with two final questions to the Minister. To be fair to her, this is not quite her brief, but I know that she has great knowledge in this field, so I look forward to her response.

First, in view of the concerns I have raised, will the Minister agree to submit the global farm metric model to a process of independent scientific scrutiny and validation with leading academic experts in the field? Secondly, will she commit to facilitating a joint roundtable with our all-party group to take forward discussions on the development of robust and meaningful metrics for sustainable agriculture?

[Jamie Stone]

I am aware that the hon. Member is reaching his concluding remarks. I would be less than honest if I did not say that farmers in my constituency have raised an eyebrow at the concept of wilding, which is very fashionable at the moment. I wonder whether he has anything to say about that. Should that perhaps also be included in any roundtable discussion?

[Julian Sturdy]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing that up. I could say a lot about wilding, if I am brutally honest; that could fill another debate on its own. I return to the point that I made early in the debate: current farmland needs to be used to produce food in the most effective and productive way possible, but also in the most environmentally friendly way, and unfarmed land needs to be used to protect and preserve the environment. I am fundamentally against the principle of wilding productive farmland because I think it would lead to a food security crisis. We have to very aware of that. There has to be a balance struck between producing food in an environmentally friendly way to feed a growing global population and enhancing our environment. We can achieve that, but a balance has to be struck between the two. From what we are hearing from DEFRA, I worry that that balance is out of kilter at the moment.

[Anthony Mangnall]

My hon. Friend makes the point about his opposition to rewilding and about the need for productivity. Does that mean that he is leaning further towards the idea of regenerative agriculture—producing food in a more sustainable manner?

[Julian Sturdy]

Absolutely. We have to produce more food, but we have to do so in an environmentally friendly way. We have to protect the environment at the same time—there is a balance to be struck. The way we do that has to be led by technology and science; we must go forwards, not backwards. That is the fundamental point that I am trying to get across today. We have to use and be led by science and technology; Government advice and policy have to be led by the science. I hope that the Minister will take that fundamental point away.

I think that I got my request for a meeting with the Minister in before the intervention on wilding. I am more than happy for wilding to be on the table, and I look forward to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, and all the hon. Members involved in this morning’s debate, joining that meeting. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

Agriculture Bill

Julian Sturdy Excerpts

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

The SNP has voted to protect food standards almost a dozen times over the course of the debates on the Trade and Agriculture Bills, and we will not stop there, unlike this Government. The very latest poll released this weekend showed once again that Scotland has tired of enduring a series of Governments we did not vote for dragging us into situations we do not want to be in. I am delighted to say that it showed once again clear majority support for Scotland making its own way and deciding its own priorities for vital issues such as the quality of the food we eat and protections for our environment, our animals, and our food and drink and agriculture sectors. It is clear that the Conservative party had better get used to it.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interest in the register.

I want to speak in support of amendment 16. I had also hoped to speak in support of amendment 18. I commend the Government for introducing amendments 2 and 5 to 8 in the Lords. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture, which sponsored Lords amendment 275 on improving regulation of gene-editing techniques, I thank the Government for responding positively to this with the offer of a public consultation this autumn, meaning that we do not have to discuss that amendment here today.

Having called on Report for producers to have more time to plan and restructure their businesses under the new agricultural policy, I warmly welcome the Government’s Lords amendment 2 mandating the publication of multi-annual assistance plans at least 12 months ahead of implementation. I also strongly support the Minister on Lords amendments 5 to 8 responding to the calls from me and others on Second Reading for the Government to report on British food security more frequently than every five years. Personally, I would have liked the Government to go slightly further, but the three years that is now proposed is a step in the right direction, and I welcome that.

I firmly back the broad aims of the Bill and believe that the Government have improved it in the Lords in response to suggestions from the sector and parliamentary colleagues. However, I continue to support amendment 16 and will vote for the proposed changes in line with the principle of the amendment. This is an important piece of legislation and we have to make sure that we get it right. Amendment 16 has the same intention on food import standards as the Commons amendment tabled on Report by members of the EFRA Committee, as touched on by its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I believe that our arguments remain now as strong as they were then, if not stronger. Ministers have frequently suggested that this is not a trade Bill, but I would reiterate that the issue of fair terms of trade for high standards in British agriculture simply cannot be separated from farming and environment legislation, which is what we are discussing.

I have listened closely to what the Minister has said, I have been encouraged by her words, and I know that she has worked extremely hard on this, but, as I said, I will vote today to write concrete legal protections into the Bill. I hope that a continued stand on this issue will encourage the Government to put our manifesto commitment to maintain UK standards on to the statute book—something that will reassure consumers as well as the industry on this issue.

[Steve Brine]

On amendment 16, my hon. Friend—and neighbour on this Bench—is absolutely right. Is not the wider point that we would be sending out a message that we want the rest of the world to change their practices? It is not just about what we do domestically; it is about Britain being a beacon for the right thing elsewhere in the world.

[Julian Sturdy]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

On that issue, it would be helpful for the Minister to address whether the legal guarantee regarding amendment 16 would impact on the UK’s progress towards our climate change and net zero goals. I think it would, and without that guarantee, it would be much easier to bring in Brazilian beef, for example, which would increase the carbon footprint for a family shop—it would be much higher. That does not even touch on the issue of palm oil or the destruction of our rain forests, which have already been mentioned.

I will finish by talking about the fate of amendment 18. I really do think that the Minister should look at strengthening the role of the Trade and Agriculture Commission in the way the amendment suggests. I know that, technically, we cannot vote on it or debate it tonight, but I do think, as she has already heard from Members across the House, that this issue is not going to go away, and it must be addressed.

[Hilary Benn]

I, too, listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say, and I have to say that I agree with the hon. Members for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), because I do not understand the Government’s resistance to putting these sensible changes into legislation. The problem the Government have is that the more they claim to want to do what the amendment is seeking, but then say, “But we can’t do it”, the greater they raise in the minds of everyone watching—farmers, consumers and others, as well as colleagues on both sides of the House—the idea that something else is going on here. So, let us be honest about this.

We all know how trade negotiations work and the pressure that trade negotiators come under. Let us consider the United States of America—with which the Government, to be fair, are very keen to get a trade agreement, because they have decided to move away from the best trade agreements they have, with the European Union. The fact is that that pressure will exist regardless of who wins the presidential election next month. I think the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) put his finger on it when he read from the letter, in which it appears that Ministers are saying, “Well, don’t do this because it will make it more difficult”. But how is doing what the Government promised to do in their manifesto more difficult—and it is only fair?

The Minister talked about undesirable side effects. I listened very carefully but I heard her give only one example, which was her reference to hedgerows in Africa. I understand the point she was trying to make, but it does not really work when we look at the new clause in amendment 16, because subsection (2)(b) talks about standards that

“are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to”

the areas we are discussing. Furthermore, the very next subsection gives the Secretary of State the power to determine what those standards are equivalent to. The argument made by the Minister, for whom I have great respect, that somehow there will be a fixed process that would lead to absurdities does not really wash when we read what is actually in the amendment that their lordships have put together.

I want to talk about sow stalls, which were banned here in 1999. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the new cruel confinement law, as it is called in California, which not only bans the use of sow stalls in that state, but bans the sale in California of pork produced in other American states that still use sow stalls. I am advised that that includes Iowa and Minnesota. Could the Government please explain why it appears that California is able to ban food products produced by what we regard as cruel means in other states of the United States of America, but that we somehow have difficulty in doing the same in deciding our new rules?

The final point I want to make is on the new clause in amendment 17. Again, I do not understand the Government’s argument. The Minister said that sector-specific targets were not really helpful, but the basic and obvious point is this: if we are going to meet our climate change targets, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pointed out, we are going to need progress in every single sector of the economy, agriculture, land use and forestry included. Therefore, it seems that it would be really helpful to have an interim target to help the farming industry to make the changes that we know will have to come. I am pleased to hear that quite a few Government Members will vote for them, but I urge the Government at this stage to think again.

Agriculture Bill

Julian Sturdy Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). I support much of what he said.

We support the spirit of the Bill, especially the movement to reward farmers for public goods. Today, the Government can introduce one of the most successful changes in agricultural policy in history. Equally, today could be remembered for one of the most catastrophic disasters. The principles are good, but the real value of the Bill will be determined in its implementation.

Farmers in Cumbria and throughout Britain could fall at the first hurdle if the Government insist on beginning the phase-out of the basic payment scheme from next January, long before its replacement is ready. Universal credit is the example of what happens when a good idea is introduced in a hasty, penny-pinching, cloth-eared way. I want to spare the Secretary of State the ignominy of being the person responsible for doing the same with the new environmental land-management scheme. Even more, I want to spare our farmers the hardship, spare our environment the damage and spare our people the loss of British food-producing capacity. In the end, it will cost less to do the right thing than it will to do it badly.

The Government’s plan is to remove 50% of basic payments by 2024, costing farmers 46% of their net income, yet the new scheme will be fully rolled out only by 2028. There are currently 89,000 basic payment claimants; how many of those farms do we expect to survive the long period during which their incomes are slashed before a replacement is ready? It is obvious that the disruption will be huge, undermining the good purposes of the Bill. We cannot care for our environment, guarantee food production and deliver public goods if, by 2028, we have allowed hundreds of farms to close by accident. The answer is a no-brainer: do not phase out basic payments until the environmental land-management schemes are ready. The Secretary of State must listen to farmers on this issue before it is too late.

The ultimate public good that farmers provide is, of course, food. Those empty shelves in March and the disruption to the supplies of imported food must be a wake-up call. Almost 50% of the food consumed in the UK is now imported, compared with 35% just 20 years ago. Successive Governments have contributed to us sleepwalking into a real problem when it comes to food security.

We will suffer a huge blow if the Bill fails to impose import standards, which is why I tabled new clause 10 and will support other amendments of similar intent. We must protect our British standards on food and food production. That will not be possible if Ministers allow the market to be flooded with food produced at a lower standard than we would tolerate here. Let us be clear: if Ministers will not accept amendments ensuring that Britain does not compromise these standards in trade deals, they are clearly saying to British farmers, “Please give us the freedom to sell you out in trade negotiations.” Britain has the best standards in the world, and they will be completely irrelevant if we allow Ministers to strike trade deals that lead to imported goods with lower production, animal welfare, environmental and labour standards.

For us in south Cumbria, the landscape of the lakes and the dales is a breathtaking public good—although, given that we have one of the oldest and most vulnerable populations in the country and the third highest covid infection rate, I strongly urge people not to rush to visit us here until it is safe to do so, at which point we will welcome them with open arms. These landscapes are of global significance. As a UNESCO world heritage site, they underpin, in normal times, an economy worth £3 billion a year. Their contribution to the heritage of our country, its economy and the nation’s wellbeing are astounding, and it is our farmers who are responsible for stewarding and maintaining those landscapes. Will Ministers commit to there being criteria within the environmental land management scheme for payments for aesthetic maintenance and for heritage, especially in the uplands?

Finally, I urge Ministers to ensure that the good principles of the Bill are reflected in wise and effective practicalities. I am convinced that this Bill will be seen as truly historic, but it is up to the Government to ensure that it is for the right reasons.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) [V]]

I start by drawing Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to speak in support of new clause 2, new clause 1 and amendment 6. Like other Members, I very much support the broad thrust of the Bill, which has been much improved over time. The revised text, which we debated on Second Reading in January, now recognises the importance of food production and food security, funding to support innovation and productivity improvements, and the proper financing of environmental provisions.

However, the laudable aims of the Bill will come to nothing if the Government do not secure fair terms of trade for UK producers. The new public money for public goods and innovation funding model has to be considered together with the Government’s broad trade policy. Having the right framework for British agriculture is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the future prosperity of the sector, which is why I warmly endorse the amendments proposed, which seek to provide a concrete guarantee on future import standards.

Our producers have worked and invested for decades to raise our standards, and that could easily be lost if they are set at a structural disadvantage by our allowing in a flood of low-quality imports produced with poorer animal welfare and environmental standards, which could ultimately cause economic damage to British agriculture and the social fabric of our rural communities. There is also the risk of environmental damage across the globe if the UK became more reliant on imported produce.

The climate change angle will be increasingly important. UK farmers have a key role to play in our progress towards the 2050 net zero carbon target, as British agriculture accounts for 9% of national emissions, but that opportunity could be wiped out if we allow the importing of food produced overseas in a far more carbon- intensive way—for instance, bringing in Brazilian beef grazed on former rainforest land.

I do not believe that these amendments would damage our ability to strike reasonable trade agreements, so I do not agree with what the Minister said at the start of the debate. The whole argument on standards in trade deals is not unique to this country. We should be looking to base much of our trade on the exchange of quality products. Trade deals should be about the desirable goods we can offer to overseas consumers, not just the market access that they can seek to gain from us. UK agriculture has a huge amount to offer in that regard, already earning the UK some £22 billion a year and representing 6% of overall exports.

I also strongly support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), which would delay the start of the transition to the concept of public money for public goods from the basic payment scheme to 2022, rather than 2021. This would allow the transition to run more successfully and much more smoothly by giving producers more time to restructure their businesses in order to provide those all important public goods. Though DEFRA’s approach is evolutionary, as everyone has said so far, this is still a big shift for British agriculture, and I believe the Government want UK producers to make good decisions, not hasty ones, during the transition. They should therefore give them time.

The amendments I have touched on all have powerful arguments behind them in the best of times; for me, those arguments are substantially strengthened by the new landscape that coronavirus has created. The current situation demonstrates the value of maintaining a strong UK food sector, so that our national food security does not depend on long international supply chains, which have proven fragile in such periods. The outbreak has also showcased the importance of small-scale and regional supply chains that can be relied on for food and drink when all else fails.

I hope the Government will listen to the arguments behind the amendments, and I look forward to hearing their response.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his work in progressing the Bill to this stage.

No Member needs reminding of the importance of a sustainable UK agriculture industry and of our own food security. Amid the covid-19 crisis, it is the UK’s farmers who are feeding the nation. We owe them not only our thanks for working day and night to provide us with food but a future that is economically viable, that ensures farmgate prices are fair and that supports them as they face growing challenges, be they market driven or environmental.

Agri-food is one of Northern Ireland’s greatest economic assets, sustaining approximately 100,000 jobs and bringing an added value of almost £1.5 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. That underpins our need to ensure a sustainable platform moving forward. We must protect those jobs and this cornerstone of our economy, and to do so we need to ensure that the Bill not only allows for the continuation of financial support for farmers but offers protection.

With those two core tenets in mind, my party and I broadly support new clauses 1, 2 and 6. We need to protect our farmers and consumers from cheap imports that do not meet the standards we demand of our farmers. The standards that British farmers work to come with significant cost implications. They ensure that our food is safe and our environment is safeguarded for future generations, while our animal welfare standards are exemplary. Speak to any British farmer: their desire is to maintain these standards—indeed, they want constantly to develop and innovate so that they always ensure that best practices are adopted. In our opinion, it is a major failure of the Bill that it does not enshrine standards for the future. We must not sacrifice these standards, which we demand of our own farmers, on the altar of free trade. That must be rectified.

I also wish to speak directly to the amendment tabled by my colleagues the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry), for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). I, like my colleagues, am a devolutionist. The Northern Ireland Assembly debated and agreed a legislative consent motion on 31 March. In that debate, my party colleague, Edwin Poots, Minister for Agriculture, stated that he did not support a sunset clause. That was the agreed will of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

With that in mind, and given the respect we ought to afford the devolution settlement on this and other matters, we will not be supporting the amendment. We do not believe the Northern Ireland Assembly requested it.

Indeed, adopting the amendment and imposing such a timeline could leave a legislative gap, leaving our Minister with no legal authority to issue agricultural support payments, which currently total some £300 million, to Northern Ireland farmers. Such a situation would spell disaster for our farmers, particularly in the context of challenging farm-gate prices.

Agriculture Bill

Julian Sturdy Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion
Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I warmly welcome this vital Bill. I support the broad aims of shifting support for the sector to public money for public goods, alongside support for innovation and productivity gains. The new public goods model could be good news for upland areas in Yorkshire and other regions, as farmers there will finally be able to get direct payments for providing public goods such as iconic landscapes, flood defences with upper river catchment management schemes, and maintaining the quality of the 70% of our drinking water that comes from the uplands. UK peat has capacity to absorb carbon similar to that of the Amazon rainforest, soaking up more CO₂ than all the world’s oceans combined, so paying farmers to restore and maintain peatlands could make an important contribution to public policy priorities relating to climate change.

As chair of the all-party group on science and technology in agriculture, I stress that the new technologies of the fourth industrial revolution are transforming agriculture as we speak. It is wise to concentrate support on facilitating the growth and efficiency gains of tomorrow.

The need to introduce the Bill afresh has allowed the Government to make substantial improvements incorporating many of the changes that would have been made via amendments to its previous incarnation. In the Second Reading debate on the previous Bill, I shared the sector’s concerns that food production and food security were not sufficiently central, so I am glad to see that clause 1(4) of the current Bill states

“In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers”.

That clear recognition of the importance of food production—something that was absent from the previous Bill—suggests that food has not been forgotten in the shift to public money for public goods.

There is also a specific legal requirement for the Secretary of State to conduct regular audits of food security. I welcome that, but share other Members’ concern to ensure that those audits are more frequent. I want reporting back to Parliament to be much more frequent than the recommended five-year periods. I am reassured by further evidence that the revised Bill shows greater awareness of the needs of agricultural production and a positive relationship between that and protecting the environment. These are entirely complementary goals and it is important that that is reflected. I am also really pleased that soil quality has been included in the Bill and recognised as a public good.

There is a lot to be positive about in the Bill. However, despite a lot of improvements, I urge the Government to remain alive to the possibility of unintended negative consequences, as with any such legislation. The Minister will be fully aware of the classic example of the notorious three-crop rule from the common agricultural policy. We cannot have a situation where policies incentivise farmers to take many acres out of possible food production, to cease farming altogether or to lay off workers and just to receive payments for managing land for public goods. We need balance and food production must be part of that. The new state-funded environmental land management system that the Government envisage must not serve to reduce our country’s capacity for domestic food production or drive down the numbers employed in agriculture.

In conclusion, I am really positive about the future of agriculture. The Bill is a great start, but we have to bear in mind our future trade talks and trade policies. They have to run at the same time as the Bill. If they do, we will be in a good place. If they do not, things might be difficult, but I support the Minister and the Department on what they are trying to achieve, and I look forward to seeing the Bill through Second Reading and into Committee.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill

Julian Sturdy Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point, which I am leading on to. As we deal with farm payments in the future, we have to make sure that we build on our environment and that we do not forget food production, healthy food and delivering British food at high standards. I think it is the NFU that says:

“You can’t go green if you’re in the red!”

That is the issue. We have to make sure that there is enough money flowing into farming businesses to ensure that we have good healthy food.

The one little criticism I have of the new Agriculture Bill is that there is possibly not quite enough in it on farming and food production. It is better than it was, and I give great credit to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench who have worked very hard to get that into the Bill, but I still want to ensure that an Agriculture Bill is actually about food production and about agriculture. It is also about the environment, but I would like those to be equal parts of it, and I think that is the great challenge.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a really important point. Does he not agree that we have to make sure we secure fair trading arrangements for food producers in future trade deals? If we do not do this, we can talk about the vast environmental policies we want, but ultimately if we do not get those correct future trading relationships, that could destroy British agriculture.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend, who was on the previous Select Committee, raises an extremely good point. Again, not only does the income of farmers come naturally from the support payment, but much of it comes from what they sell. Of course, farmers would like to be able to make sure that they can sell their product at a good price so that they do not have to rely so much on public support, so these trade deals are going to be very important.

I do worry about the future trade deals, but provided we are sensible and put forward a trade agreement that maintains our high standards of environmental, crop and animal welfare protection, and that we make sure those products coming in from trade deal are meeting the same standards, then I have not got a problem. What I do not want to see is this being massively undermined by lower standards, because with lower standards come lower costs and, basically, that is what will put farmers out of business in the end.

I think there is a bright future for farming provided we get this right. I think we can, and I know that the agriculture Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), is very keen on reducing bureaucracy and on delivering a more simple payment. I am looking forward to all this coming before us so that the Select Committee can look at it in great detail, because this is a great opportunity.

I made this point in a debate last week or the week before, but we now have the interesting idea that we must have a three crop rule. The three crop rule was introduced because eastern Germany has produced maize after maize for a generation, and to break that continuous maize production, the three crop rule has been brought in. However, in a country like our own—especially on the western side of this country in particular, from Scotland right down to Cornwall—we find that there is so much grass production, including a lot of permanent grass, that we really do not need a three crop rule. It is completely unnecessary.

We also do not need re-mapping every three years when we make payments, and there is an issue there. I think farmers should be considered innocent until they are proven guilty. At the moment, they are guilty until they can prove they are innocent. They are always being checked on, and then fined if there is a slight discrepancy between the maps and the areas of claim. If there are some rogues out there—dare I say it, and I speak as a farmer, but every community has one or two rogues—and they are really defrauding the system, we should come down on them like a ton of bricks. However, for a lot of farmers, what they do is very genuine and the way they make their claims is very genuine, and even if there is a small discrepancy, we should not have to be checking on them all the time, giving fines and all of these things. There really is a great deal we can do there to simplify this, and I look forward to my hon. Friend coming forward with those ideas. We can make farming the solution for the countryside, and ensure that we deal with the environment. The Opposition talk about having zero carbon emissions by 2030. We cannot get there by then, but much of farming could get there by 2040. When we take payment from direct support systems, perhaps we could put those payments into getting agricultural and other buildings to store slurry and the like.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend, the new MP for Totnes, makes a good point. When considering an agricultural policy that is, rightly, much more linked to the environment, we must ensure that we do not stop the means of production. We must look at new technologies. Some in this House will throw up their hands in horror when I talk about gene technology and other things, but there are ways to reduce the amount of crop protection we use, while still keeping a dynamic and productive agricultural industry.

Take oilseed rape, for instance. In this country we cannot use neonicotinoids, yet all the oilseed rape we import has largely been treated with a product that we cannot use here. We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater—we want a productive agricultural industry and to produce food in this country, and that will be the great challenge for us. As we look for a new policy, plant trees and help our environment, let us ensure not only that we plant those trees, but that we are smart about where we plant them. At the same time we can help to stop soil erosion and flooding, and we can make a real difference. During the election there was a sort of bidding war over how many trees each party could plant, and it got to some ludicrous figure in the end. I am not sure where we will plant all those trees, but I think we can plant them and do so smartly.

I have made this point in the Chamber before, but as we plant trees we must ensure that there is an income from doing so. Let us return to my dear bank manager. If I bought some land, had a big mortgage and said, “I will plant some trees and come back to you in 50 years when there might be an income”, I think he would say, “It’s probably best not to buy it in the first place, and do not borrow the money from my bank if you do so.” To be serious, however, if we are to look at land and those who own it, we must ensure that there is a support system, so that the right trees are planted in the right places. We also need a support system that takes people through a period of time, and ensures a crop of trees. People should be able to replant trees where they need to, or take wood from those areas, because they are sustainable. I am putting on my hat as a farmer and landowner, but at the moment people might be cautious about planting too many trees on their best land, because they cannot be certain that they will get an income from it in future, or that they will ever be able to cut those trees down. This is about ensuring that we improve the environment, but also that we have enough land for really good food production.

We have spoken a lot about the Agriculture Bill, and that is for the future. I expect you want me to shut up in a minute, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] I am still waxing lyrical, because I am keen to ensure that we have good food and enough land to produce it. We also need affordable food. If I have any criticism of the Agriculture Bill, it is that it rightly focuses on high welfare and high standards, but also probably on quite highly priced food. This country has a highly competitive, productive poultry industry that delivers good poultry to good standards and at an affordable price. Dare I say that most of us in the House—I can talk about myself in particular—are fairly well fed, and we probably do not worry about buying food? To make a serious point, however, a lot of the population have to look at their budget and be careful about how much they spend. We can produce food in this country, even under intensive conditions, to a much better standard than the food we import. We must be careful that we do not exclude intensive production, but then import it from elsewhere in the world where there are much lower standards, including on welfare. That is key.

[Julian Sturdy]

It is also about importing environmental damage.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend must have read my mind because—you will be glad to hear this, Mr Speaker—my final point is that as we consider ways to improve the environment in this country, we must remember that part of that involves food production. If we reduce our food production but import food from Brazil, where they are ploughing up the savannah and cutting down the rain forest, that will not improve the world environment—it will make it much worse. When we import food from drier countries, we also import their water to grow that food. There is a great drive to have a good agriculture Bill that is linked to the environment, but we can also produce a great deal of good food in this country, and I think we have a moral duty to do so.