Agriculture Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

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

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, the last time that I can remember being called to speak by the noble Baroness the Deputy Speaker is when she was chairman of Lancashire County Council and I was a somewhat dissident member on the back benches. The reception and politeness that I have found in your Lordships’ House since I came here a long time ago is of an altogether greater level than the shouting and ranting I got in Lancashire County Council from time to time. Noble Lords can decide whether they ought to be a bit more robust when I speak—I do not know.

I spoke in the debate last Thursday afternoon about what I might have said today on this amendment, so I will not repeat it. I was accused of being gloomy by the Minister and one or two other people; I thought I had perhaps gone a bit over the top—in a Lancashire County Council sort of way—until I read Hansard. Having read Hansard, I thought that what I said was rather good, but Hansard sometimes has that effect on what noble Lords say in this Chamber.

I very much support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said this afternoon. I understand the point that my noble friend Lord Teverson and others are making about the need to get on with transforming agriculture and the countryside in this country for ecological reasons and climate change and so on. Nevertheless, the thought that this new, extremely complex, top-down system of working out what people are paid for, with individual assessments of every farm and three tiers that have to be linked together, will be carried out by the Rural Payments Agency fills me with dread. I say to the Government—in a friendly way, because I do want this to succeed—that, in modern parlance, it is a huge car crash rushing over the horizon. We will see. It requires huge resource, effort and ability to introduce large, complex computer-based schemes, which British Governments—not just this Government—are not terribly good at doing. I say no more about it.

I was very pleased indeed to put my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Again, the particularly small hill farms are the main concern here. As I said on another amendment, which now seems a long time ago in this Committee, unless these farmers get a considerable amount of subsidy, which not only allows them to do things that are desirable environmentally and for the landscape but to carry out their basic job of hill farming and make at least some profit from it, they will simply go out of business. I do not believe that the Minister and the Government have, so far, explained how such farmers will survive under the new system and continue to do their farming. We all know how the sheep farming system in particular works in this country: the people who rear sheep in the lowlands require the sheep to come down from the hills; it is all pretty integrated. If the hill farms close down and stop keeping their sheep, it will have an effect right across the industry and the country. The most important thing is that the hill farmers themselves get the support they need for their own benefit and the benefit of their communities and landscapes.

Can the Minister explain how the new system will do this, when it is supposed to provide only for what are known as public goods and is not meant to be a production subsidy? I do not see how hill farms can continue unless a significant part of the money they get from public funds is, in effect, a production subsidy, whether or not the Government disguise it as something else.

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as on the register. It is a pleasure to the follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and in relation to his comments on Hansard, I tell him, and indeed the whole Committee, that I once asked the late Lord Armstrong, who I rate as one of our greatest ever Cabinet Secretaries, “Robert, when you wrote up the Cabinet minutes, did you write what the Minister said or what he thought he had said?” He told me, “Oh, no, David. I wrote what the Minister would have said if he had thought of saying it.” I sometimes wish Hansard would do the same with my speeches.

I oppose the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in that the seven-year period should not be reduced to five. However, he is right to draw attention to the importance of CBD15 next year. It is every bit as important as COP26. Indeed, in a sensible world, there would not be two conventions but one, since they are inextricably linked. Habitat loss leads to more carbon and more zoonotic diseases as animals are forced closer to humans. However, that is not for this Bill. I think Defra has got the seven-year period right, and so has my noble friend Lord Randall; moving the deadline does not necessarily buy us more time.

This is the greatest and most exciting change in British agriculture since 1970. I am old enough to remember those UK White Papers produced by the ministry of ag, fish and food—MAFF, an excellent department, if I may say so—such as Food from Our Own Resources, which exhorted us to “produce, produce, produce”. One of the many excellent things about leaving the EU is that we will once again be able to design plans to produce food from our own resources and protect the environment at the same time. But let us not pretend it will be a simple change. Studies on ELMS are being undertaken, and the three tiers are being designed, but it will be a mega change for UK agriculture.

The EU system of giving every farm money based on acreage is simple, but utterly wrong, yet giving farmers payments for undertaking environmental land management schemes is infinitely more complicated; farmers need time to adjust, and Defra needs time to tweak the schemes. Of course, we want rid of the perverse EU payments system as soon as possible, but I prefer to take seven years and get it right than five years and get it wrong.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggests in Amendment 130 that the period of the first plan should be five years rather than seven years. In Amendment 142, he seeks to reduce the seven-year transition period, during which the direct payments scheme will be phased out, to five years. Farmers are already anxious about how their business models will have to change, and would not welcome the shortening of the transition period. Particularly because they do not have enough information on the new scheme, the noble Lord’s amendment is unwarranted and would be damaging.

However, there is considerable merit in Amendment 143 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in that the seven-year transition period should start 18 months from now, rather than six, which would give more time for the Government to work out the details of the scheme, and would be neutral in terms of costs to the Exchequer.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in Amendment 144, is right to seek to ensure that payments under the new schemes compensate for the reduction in and ultimate removal of payments under the direct payments scheme. But I think his intention to limit the reduction in total support to 25% is rather modest. I believe direct payments for larger farms are set to be reduced by 25% in 2021, and the noble Lord’s amendment would still permit this to happen, even if such a farm receives zero under the countryside stewardship scheme and other current schemes. As I said previously, the larger farming businesses employ the majority of agricultural workers.

I would not support Amendment 146 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, except in so far as it equates to Amendment 143 to delay the changes by one year. The seven-year transition period is not too long, given the extent of the changes farmers will need to carry out.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to use this Bill to advance her concerns regarding animal welfare, but I cannot agree with her Amendment 147, which assumes that animal welfare standards are higher or lower, whereas different standards may produce different outcomes, and it is a fine balance. I regret that I do not see the justification for supporting her Amendments 147, 148 or 154.

My noble friend Lady Rock has eloquently explained the reasons behind her Amendments 150 and 151. I can see that where moneys are unspent, the amount provided in a subsequent year might increase if the Government accept carryover procedures. As for her Amendments 152 and 153 on delinked payments, they seem to provide an improvement to the Bill.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

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

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is an honour to have participated in the debates today. They have been informed by the wisdom and farming experience of noble Lords who collectively have farmed this country and made our land what it is with over 1,000 years of experience between them. I refer to two Dukes, four Earls, a Viscount—and of course we Barons, who are 10 a penny. As a Scot, I might be right in saying that the nobility of Dundee and Montrose have about 1,000 years of experience of farming in Scotland between them.

However, tonight, I want to commend in particular a Baroness, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and her words of wisdom. We do not need a new ADAS; the best advisory service on nature-friendly farming, the environment, wildlife and ELMS is Natural England, and I declare my interest, as per the register, as a member of its board.

I did not seek to speak after the Minister, my noble friend Lord Gardiner, at the conclusion of his last wind-up but, wearing my hat as chair of the Delegated Powers Committee, I stress that the codes of practice that he referred to should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny simply via the negative procedure. Far too much government guidance and far too many codes that avoid parliamentary scrutiny are coming out, imposing possibly quite severe consequences for business and subjects. Parliament should have a chance to look at those codes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and I often agree on things—to our joint consternation—but on this amendment I disagree with her. I trust and have trusted the Government, the Secretary of State and his predecessor before him when they have said that the Government will spend the same amount on supporting British agriculture, although by different means, as has been spent under the EU regime. I passionately support maintaining the same level of funding.

I am afraid that it is a bit naive of us, and it is also fairly meaningless, to try to put that commitment on the face of the Bill, since it guarantees nothing. If a Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to reduce the amount in the future, a simple amendment in the Finance Bill would negate such a provision and remove this clause. If it were possible to tie the Treasury’s hands to a future level of funding when passing a Bill, the statute book would be awash with such Acts of Parliament. I am confident that the Government will honour the promises they have made and that there is no need for this amendment.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, this group also deals with funding and the snappily titled “multi-annual financial assistance plans”. We have heard much about the level of funding that the Government are guaranteeing for the farming community. This is set at £2.8 billion. It sounds sufficient, but exactly what it is proposed to cover is unclear. Many of the amendments that we debated on the first day in Committee sought to ensure that certain aspects of our agriculture were included in that funding.

Many noble Lords have spoken in favour of Amendment 105. Payments to farmers should definitely arrive on time. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is seeking to ensure that the overall financial assistance is not reduced and that no more than 5% of this assistance is spent on administration and consultancy. I am sure that we have all had experience of the costs of consultancy spiralling out of control. My noble friend Lord Greaves referred to this. The Government will have difficulty in reining consultancy back once it has begun. Similarly, it is important that any funds unspent in one year are carried forward to the next and future years, rather than being returned to the Treasury, when they will likely be lost to agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, drew attention to that. Can the Minister give us some reassurance that this will happen?

The question of public access to farmland, water and woodland, and how it will be funded and monitored, was raised by my noble friends Lady Scott of Needham Market, Lord Addington and Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. This is also extremely important for the health, well-being and enjoyment of the public in general. It is necessary to understand how the plan will work to deliver public good in this area.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

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

Debate on Amendment 29 resumed.

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, for all amendments on which I may speak today, I declare my interest as on the register.

When we concluded last Thursday, we had heard some excellent speeches on nature-friendly farming and agroecology, and I will comment on the amendments in this group that speak about those subjects. They are not the same thing, as I recall my noble friend Lord Caithness saying in his speech. As an aside, he also mentioned an anecdotal indicator that highlights the severe decline in our biodiversity. Like him, I cannot recall when I last saw bugs or moths squashed on my car windscreen—at least 20 years ago. Where there are no bugs and beasties, birds will be in decline also.

I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, kept referring to “nature-friendly farming” in her excellent speech. I have had the benefit of looking at examples of farms in the agroecology network and the Nature Friendly Farming Network and, while both do excellent work, it is important that we get it right if we build either of these terms into legislation.

I am grateful to my friend Professor Michael Winter of Exeter University, the UK-renowned expert on this subject, who is also on the board of Natural England. He has briefed me as follows: “There is a significant difference between the Nature Friendly Farming Network and Agro-Ecology. The Nature Friendly Farming Network is a broad grouping that includes organic and the Linking the Environment And Farming the LEAF/integrated approaches. Agro-ecology dates back to the 1980s and the term was coined by a Chilean scientist (now a professor at Berkeley) called Miguel A. Altieri. It is resolutely organic and anti-GM, and closely linked to the food sovereignty movement. In the UK, agroecology has been adopted by the Landworkers’ Alliance. There are many things to commend agro-ecology but it is not easily compatible with mainstream broadacre UK agriculture, and I am sceptical about the hegemony of organics and the wholesale opposition to mainstream food retailers.”

Professor Winter goes on to say: “I advocate three things in this space: 1) more policy attention and encouragement to agro-ecology as just one part of the tapestry of ensuring faming becomes more nature-friendly; 2) a pragmatic acceptance that most UK agriculture for the foreseeable future is not likely to radically divorce itself from the conventional food chain (as advocated by the Landworkers’ Alliance), and therefore that LEAF/integrated and nature-friendly approaches are needed within the mainstream food system; and 3) the need to encourage research that bridges the gap between the agro-ecology-based approach and the conventional Research Council/Sustainable Intensification approach.” In light of that, I am content that any amendments that mention nature-friendly farming are opposed to those that advocate agroecology, unless they are part of a nature-friendly farming system, which I passionately support.

Finally, I will comment on the speech on pesticides from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which has tempted me to say something. On Thursday, we heard the excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. He described how new robotic technology now makes it possible for machines to travel down a field and place a tiny drop of pesticide on a single weed leaf and kill it. No pesticide touches the food crop or soil. I do not want Roundup sprayed by aerosol over everything—weeds, food, trees, humans and animals—but we must look again at some of these banned pesticides, if they can be applied in the future in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. We must not demonise all pesticides and herbicides. If someone invented a herbicide that killed Japanese knotweed or the fungus that destroys ash trees, would we not grab it with open arms, provided it did not harm humans or wildlife? So let us keep an open mind on pesticides and be prepared to change our mind if the technology changes.

[Lord Burnett (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I shall speak to Amendment 38, in the names of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall. This amendment adds implementation of comprehensive integrated pest and weed management measures, based on an agroecological approach, as an additional criterion for financial assistance.

Before I speak to Amendment 38, I shall say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to whom the previous speaker referred. She made a compelling and valuable contribution last Thursday evening in support of her Amendment 259. She was powerfully supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, a co-signatory to the amendment. I have considerable sympathy for the principle of a periodic review of the safety of herbicides and pesticides.

Reverting to Amendment 38, I start by declaring that of course I understand that competition is valuable when it is fair and based on common rules and standards. I think that all noble Lords will agree that British agriculture has high standards of animal welfare, and that farmers and growers strive to protect the environment and our landscape. They rightly strive to produce healthy and safe food, not only for human consumption but also for animal consumption. I remind noble Lords that much of the grain produced in the UK goes toward animal feed, and that some of those animals are slaughtered for human consumption.

The experiences of foot and mouth and, prior to that, BSE vividly illustrate the consequences for individuals and this country when standards are allowed to slip. Our growers produce much-needed high-quality vegetables and fruit for human consumption and, to grow the crops, there has to be a system of pest, weed and disease control. This process should be

“based on an agroecological approach”,

in the words of Amendment 38. Unfortunately, when the transition period ends on 31 December this year, many of our likely new trading partners will not be inhibited from using methods and chemicals that are toxic and potentially damaging to human physical and mental health. These products are also potentially damaging to animal health. Some of them have carcinogenic side-effects. Even exercising rights of way by walking or running near crops sprayed with toxic sprays would be a danger to health from inhalation.

There are reports that British consumers face being exposed to toxic chemicals linked to serious health problems if they buy food imported from, for example, America, under the terms of a new trade agreement being negotiated with the USA. Experts say that supermarkets and restaurants will be flooded with cheap produce that has been sprayed with toxic pesticides which are currently banned in Britain and the European Union. I have seen a list published in a respected national newspaper of 70 pesticides that are widely used in the USA but banned in Britain and the EU.

A Toxic Trade study also shows how US farmers use vast quantities of pesticides compared to producers in Britain. If we allow these products to be imported into this country, the price will include a significantly increased risk to human health, which will be borne by the British consumer. It is my hope that Members from all parts of your Lordships’ House will come together to enact legislation in the Bill to ensure that the British consumer is protected from this threat. With the financial assistance provided for in this amendment and with other statutory provisions, we should go some way to keep our standards high and our food safe.

Finally, the Government have manoeuvred us out of the European Union on terms yet to be agreed. This leaves all businesses scandalously and perilously short of time to plan and prepare. The Government themselves have rightly been manoeuvred away from a reliance on the People’s Republic of China. We are not in a strong bargaining position. It is up to Parliament to ensure that the Government comply with the commitments they have repeatedly made to farmers, growers and the public to keep our food safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra [V]]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the wise words we heard last week and today from my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who always brings not only wisdom and farming experience to our debates, but sound common sense, which seems to be a government policy at the moment.

I am afraid that some of the amendments here are misguided in that they talk of farmers producing healthy food. I submit that all food that leaves UK farms is healthy, but it may not be so healthy when it is processed and on the supermarket shelves, exactly as my noble friend Lord Caithness so rightly said.

Many amendments mention the word “food”, but I can see only one with the word “diet” in it. In fact, I think the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was the only Peer to mention “diet” until the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, mentioned it a couple of minutes ago. There are no bad foods, just very bad diets, yet people keep demonising certain foods which are perfectly okay if eaten as part of a balanced diet or in moderation.

Many years ago, when I and others did winter warfare training in the Cairngorms, we would scoff an enormous fry-up for breakfast, two Mars bars on the top of some mountain and a very big dinner. We would come away half a stone lighter and a lot fitter at the end of a week. We are becoming a nation of inactive, obese blobs, and that is nothing to do with British farmers.

I am perfectly willing to be informed, but I cannot think of anything grown or produced on a UK farm that is intrinsically a bad food of itself. Since we have the tightest controls on pesticides and antibiotics of any country in the world, healthy food leaves the farm gate. Are we to tell farmers to stop growing potatoes because some people eat far too many chips? The chickens and lettuces leaving our farms are healthy, but by the time, say, Pret a Manger has slathered them in mayonnaise—making them taste delicious, I accept—in their giant sub sandwiches, then they are very heavy on the calories.

I do not see any benefit to the environment in trying to stop UK framers producing meat, then flying in avocados from Brazil and almond milk from California. We should concentrate on people’s overall diets and their lack of exercise, and not tell farmers to produce healthy foods, which they already do.

If we want farmers to grow different food, that means getting food manufacturers to create the demand based on what their customers demand. There is no point in farmers growing what noble Lords in this debate have called healthy food if there is no market for it. It is the role of the whole of government—not just Defra, but especially the Department of Health—to attempt to educate the public to change to healthier diets, and I stress “diets”.

Every amendment here concentrates on the production of, rather than the demand for, food. Like it or not, the demand has to come first. Farmers do not need to be encouraged to switch to grains and pulses production. If the supermarkets want more tofu, quinoa or lentils then British farmers will soon find a way to supply it, just as they rapidly moved into growing oilseed rape and linseed as soon as the EU started paying for it. British farmers will rapidly adjust what they produce if the demand is there. I agree with and passionately believe in the need for healthy diets, but that is not the job of British farmers.

[Lord Carrington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner as set out in the register. I support Amendments 56, 60 and 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, as it is so important to encourage the production of food by our farmers in an environmentally sustainable way.

I also believe that farming with new technology will be possible and appropriate in the urban environment, so I very much support Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and Amendment 63, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. Industrial farming is moving to farm to fork, which looks more sustainable. Localism and resilience are the current watchwords, but some products, whether fruit or vegetables, can be grown only in hot climates. This is where technology comes in and where Amendment 63 is so important. Vertical, indoor farms are emerging, as fruit and vegetables can be grown in confined spaces, with light, heat and water controlled by technology. This can take place in cities, next to consumers, and, of course, uses less land. The Bill needs to provide for the next generation of farms, whether rural or urban. Look at Singapore, which imports 90% of its food and aims to produce 30% locally by 2030. Much of this is urban, using new technologies. I therefore support these amendments, which provide a setting for food security in the United Kingdom.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

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

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

I now call the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. There is a problem with connecting to the noble Lord. We move on to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I think we have all been slightly caught out there. For all the amendments on which I may speak today, I declare my interest as in the register.

I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lord Lucas. While I am in complete agreement about the need to improve agricultural technology, robotics and genetics, I just do not think his amendment is necessary, since my reading of subsection (2) is that it does just that. It says that the Secretary of State may give financial assistance to

“starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity”.

To me, that seems to cover what my noble friend has suggested in his amendment.

I agree entirely with him that we need a huge leap forward in technology, especially in the horticultural sector. I have read that one side-effect of President Trump’s curtailment of cheap Mexican and Latin American labour has been a big increase in robotics and technology in the United States to plant and harvest crops. We need to do exactly the same here. Exciting robotic machines are now being developed in the UK. In swotting up for this amendment, I looked at a recent video showing a machine operating in a vegetable-growing area; it had what I would call very fine fingers or tines knocking out the weeds between the plants but leaving the lettuces completely intact. Technology is the solution, not cheap eastern European temporary workers.

I also look forward to changes in the rules when we leave the EU so that we can do gene editing—not genetic modification, just gene editing. It is terribly important that we move to do that as quickly as we can when we leave the EU. We do not need anything in this Bill to give us the powers to do so.

I cannot support Amendments 43 and 54. These small local community farms do a good job, and they may currently qualify for support under ELMS, but they cannot feed the nation. I do not accept that they can supply up to 80% of the food this country needs. Huge changes are coming to mainstream farm production. I want all Defra’s efforts to be concentrated on the big picture of delivering ELMS and not diverted on to something nice but at the moment irrelevant to feeding the nation. It is quite possible that many of these local enterprises may qualify under the ELM schemes when they are fully developed. We should leave it at that.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 12, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and Amendment 13, which improves on the original amendment. We confirmed last time that forestry was included in the Bill. Amendment 13 spells this out, making the link between forestry and climate change. We all appreciate that trees have a massive beneficial effect in capturing carbon and climate change. We all want to try to take that forward.

I spoke in the first day of debate on this Bill about trying to open up forest areas for public access. I explained how the Forestry Commission had decided that all its freehold land should give access on foot under the right to roam legislation. Since then, issues have been raised. Could the Minister take these on board and give them some thought, not necessarily today but moving forward? We in the Forestry Commission, as a government department, took the decision to dedicate that land for open access in perpetuity. It has been suggested that, if the land is sold, that right falls. That is not what we thought was the case at the time. What is the case?

This has a bigger implication for how we work and give farmers greater freedom to farm in upland areas, where there is a lot of opportunity for increased tree- planting, which helps the economy of the area and the farm, and helps with climate change. If a piece of land on a hillside, currently subject to the right to roam under the freedom to roam access legislation, is converted to forestry, does that right of access fall? These two examples are quite important, because it might affect how this piece of legislation will help build the future sustainability of upland areas—or not.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

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

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests, as on the register. I too regret that I was unable to participate in the Second Reading, but I will be mercifully brief with my comments on this group of amendments.

My worry with this group is the same as that which I had with the first two groups, on which I desperately wanted to speak but, through my incompetence, I notified the Whips incorrectly. My worry is that these amendments, like the others, are too prescriptive and not necessary to achieve the objectives on which all noble Lords agree. I counted and, if all the amendments in the first two groups are agreed, Clause 1 of the Bill will have 42 new and additional purposes added to it. I think that is unnecessary.

I am very keen on access to the countryside and to all green space, and I share the views of my noble friend Lord Randall that we need to increase the number of people from minority groups who visit the countryside. Studies show that the problem is that some youngsters will not go to a park 500 yards from their home. In such circumstances, it is difficult to get them into the wider countryside. This is a huge educational problem.

I do not support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Randall and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on a small but important technicality. I believe that the word “supporting” can include “enhancing”; therefore, changing it is not necessary and could be damaging. If the definition is simply enhancing, it may freeze out farmers who have done a lot of access work, above the minimum, but can do no more to enhance it and would not qualify. It would therefore be a bit unfair if those farmers, having already reached a high access standard, got no payment, but those who had done little got payment for enhancing by just a small amount. I submit that the word “supporting” is adequate and can do all the enhancing work that colleagues suggested.

I say to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that the NHS and Public Health England are working with lots of organisations, including Natural England, on something called social prescribing. I believe that, until a few months ago, about 2,000 NHS staff were being trained in GPs’ surgeries to get people to do various things other than queue up for pills. That put it rather crudely; I do not mean that to be unfair on people who need pills. But social prescribing could save the NHS billions. Once this Covid-19 crisis is over or under control, I hope we get back to social prescribing.

On Amendment 34, I agree it would be good if the wider or urban public understood what agriculture does or where their food comes from, but this is not a job for government. Farmers themselves and their organisations—the NFU, CLA and Tenant Farmers Association—through farm open days and schoolchildren visits, must promote public understanding and engagement with agriculture. That is their business. No one knows it better. They are the best people to educate the public, rather than the Government.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Government deserve congratulations for bringing forward this Agriculture Bill. It offers the same potential as the Attlee Government’s efforts in 1947 and the common agricultural policy that has dominated us for so long. I am particularly pleased that the Government have realised that farming is changing and changing quite dramatically. I sometimes feel that those at the centre do not quite understand the subtlety of those changes.

I have an advantage: I live in the area where I started work, on the land, 50 or 60 years ago. I can determine the changes in agriculture. I will come back to that in a moment on these clauses. This has been a particularly interesting eight hours of debate. There were issues in the previous two groups of amendments related to those we are discussing now, but I held back because I wanted to speak on rights of access, which I think are critical.

Before I develop that, it seems as if this has been a Second Reading debate, made even more confusing by the considerate and detailed response of the Minister, who has gone out of his way to sum up, on two occasions, which has been an advantage. One point has kept coming up about forestry and woodland. There is confusion on what the Government have in mind; perhaps they have not got their sights completely set at this stage. I was led to believe that certain parts of woodland, and certain forests—which were a bit different—might receive a public grant. We were certainly looking at huge areas of new woodlands being created up here in Cumbria, just outside the national park. There is a great deal of potential for access in and on forestry land.

I had the honour of being chair of the Forestry Commission for nine years. It will be no surprise to the Minister that I was very keen to promote the right to roam in forests. We were not covered by the legislation—that was mountains, moorlands and heath above a certain height. But, when I was chair, we decided that there would be a legal right of access in all our freehold Forestry Commission land. This has not caused any fundamental difficulties in running our forests. I press the Minister to look at the possibility of permitting access to forestry land as well.

I also want to make the point that, amazingly enough, quite a lot of forestry land is near the centres of big towns, cities and urban areas. There is great potential for access in those areas. You can often get there much easier, but there are difficulties. I remember trying to negotiate access to a large forest within two miles of the centre of Newcastle. The Forestry Commission—we the people—owned the freehold, but I could not grant access, because when the land was bought it was agreed that the shooting rights in the forest would remain with the original vendors. To this day, people in a concentrated, built-up area are not allowed to use that forest, because of the shooting rights. I hope it might even be possible that some of the money available under the new government proposals could be used to buy out those rights. I know that there are difficulties, but I cite this because it is the way we ought to be moving forward. The holistic approach which the Government are taking to agricultural support in the future is the right one.

I mentioned earlier the subtle changes. Just outside the Lake District National Park in the lower levels of the valleys there were a lot of small mixed farms. Those farms provided employment and were viable, but I can tell the House that in the Bowness-on-Windermere area in which I live, I cannot think of a farm that has a single cow. There is the odd steer about, but all the land is grazed by sheep. That means that most of the small farmsteads have been sold off to be converted into country cottages. We are now finding the cost of that. Field upon field which used to be pristine hayfields are now covered in reeds. Stone walls which were maintained and rebuilt if they fell over—you had to do that to keep the cows in—are now left unbuilt. It is a real problem when you are trying to have countryside that deals with so many people. The Lake District National Park—I tell the House this repeatedly, and I do not apologise—has 19 million visitors a year, a vast number.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

The next speaker on the list was the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, but she has indicated that she does not wish to intervene at this stage. Therefore, I now call the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, although subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in the amendment states that the UK Secretary of State must consult fishing bodies and the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the clause would require this United Kingdom Parliament to legislate for the devolved Administrations in a manner that is not consistent with the devolution settlement. I do not think that Mrs Sturgeon would like that very much, and I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell.

The Bill is carefully constructed to devolve as much power to the devolved Administrations as legally possible, and we should not adopt an amendment that requires the UK Secretary of State to legislate for the devolved Administrations on a devolved issue. Furthermore, it is not necessary. I refer noble Lords to Schedule 3 to the Bill, which states, inter alia:

“Power to attach conditions to sea fishing licence


1(1) A sea fish licensing authority may, on granting a sea fishing licence, attach to the licence such conditions as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the regulation of sea fishing (including conditions which do not relate directly to fishing).


(2) The conditions that may be attached to a sea fishing licence include, in particular, conditions—


(a) as to the landing of fish or parts of fish (including specifying the ports at which catches are to be landed);


(b) as to the use to which the fish caught may be put”.


There is more but it is not relevant to this part of the debate. Therefore, the Bill already provides the powers necessary for each of the fisheries Administrations of the United Kingdom to introduce a landing requirement designed by them for their own specific national conditions. Thus, it is not a national landing requirement for the UK; it is four national landing requirements for each of the countries of the UK.

Indeed, each fisheries Administration has a landing requirement as part of the economic link condition in the licences it issues. This is one of several economic link criteria that ensure that the UK receives economic benefit from UK-registered vessels that fish against UK quota.

The amendment requires 65% of fish caught in UK waters to be landed in the UK. That is a desirable aspiration. Superficially it is appealing, and it appeals to me instinctively. However, at the moment there are good reasons—commercial or economic—why a vessel might want to land its catch abroad. The current economic link criteria allow this flexibility while requiring vessel owners to contribute to the UK economy in another fashion. The amendment would seem to place unjustified restrictions on the ability of vessels to seek the best market for their catch and therefore would not necessarily be in the best interests of the industry.

I suspect that I am the only Peer taking part who is a supporter of Fishing for Leave. Indeed, I am probably the only Peer in the whole House who is a member and supporter of this organisation. I commend Fishing for Leave for its splendid work during the referendum and its campaigning on fishing issues since. I think I am right in saying that it is a Fishing for Leave point that the UK has lost fish processing capacity. It must be a key objective to rebuild that capacity in our ports once again. However, at the moment our UK fishing ports cannot handle and process the fish which British boats could land. The noble Baroness made the point that some ports cannot take big boats, and time is required to reconstruct those ports. Now that our fishing grounds, catches and landings will be back under UK control, I look forward to that capacity being rebuilt, but we are not nearly there yet.

Finally, the fishing industry has long objected to the inflexibilities imposed by the common fisheries policy. One of the much-anticipated outcomes of Brexit is the opportunity to move away from the CFP. That was a key demand from Fishing for Leave, which I strongly support. The amendment requires that the landing requirement be imposed by secondary legislation, but the current economic link criteria exist in licensing conditions, enabling alterations to be made fairly quickly in response to changing circumstances. I do not think that we want to leave the CFP while introducing a more restrictive approach to our management of the economic link policy. That would seem to waste the opportunity that leaving the EU has provided us with to improve our fisheries management.

Therefore, although the amendment is well intended, I submit that it is wrong in devolution terms; it is unnecessary, since Schedule 3 already provides for it; and it is inflexible when there are faster solutions.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I can see the superficial attraction of this amendment but, in my view, very serious questions arise from it. First, I understood that this was just a consultation but, of course, it is not. The proposed new subsection (1) makes it clear that

“the Secretary of State must make regulations establishing a national landing requirement”.

One has to remember that we are still negotiating fisheries arrangements with the EU. If there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to make such an order as this, it must be possible under the negotiations with the EU. It does not seem wise to make these negotiations more difficult by interposing a requirement of this sort.

On Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, made an impassioned speech on the difficulties of the arrangements with the EU on fisheries. He inclined to the view that they might lead to a difficulty about the whole arrangement, with prejudice to other matters which, in his view, held larger significance economically for the United Kingdom. That is my first point. It is a requirement to regulate, not just a consultation—and it is a requirement that would impinge on ongoing negotiations between the European Union and the UK.

Fisheries interests—that is, people who are actually involved in fishing—have suggested to me that these are impractical requirements being set down from above when, in fact, the conditions under which a vessel goes to a particular port vary from time to time. For example, if a good market is near the fishing ground—nearer than any route that would get to that market otherwise—there is no economic reason why the boat should not go there and get a higher price for the fish than it might get if it had a much longer journey.

Secondly, there is the problem of the weather, an important consideration in deciding which port you go to. I also take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, as well as my noble friend Lord Naseby, about the nature of the arrangements available at the different ports. I am an ardent supporter of the ports in the north-west of Scotland, particularly Lochinver and Kinlochbervie, which have a considerable number of landings from vessels other than British vessels. It means a tremendous amount to them, but that is because people choose to do that—fishermen choose to do it because of the convenience to them. Surely, if we are to have a flourishing fishing industry, it is important that we do not put obligations on fisherman which are not particularly good, from their point of view, for the practice of fishing.

I am also told that it is quite common for people to find the nature of the establishment at the port an important consideration in whether they can go there, and whether it could be suitable for them to land there; the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, has already made this point in relation to ports near the area in which she has an interest. It is really not wise for us to legislate in this way. It is much better that we rely on the economic link arrangements in the licensing. My noble friend Lord Blencathra has referred to this in some detail, which I do not need to repeat. It is a very flexible arrangement with regard to particular licences and therefore much easier to apply than a top-down thing that is supposed to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom.

It would not be wise for us to go down this road at present. It may be that, at a later stage in the history of this matter, some consideration could be given to it, but to do it while the negotiations with the European Union are still open and being conducted would be unwise.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

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

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments made by the proponents of the amendment and I understand the desire to promote environmental quality as the highest priority, since sustainability itself affects the amount of fish available to catch. But I am not convinced that we should downgrade all the other noble objectives in Clause 1, which would be the case if sustainability was classed as the prime objective.

The Government have constructed the Bill with a number of important objectives that contribute to environmental protection, including objectives covering science, the precautionary principle, the ecosystem and climate change. However, the Bill also allows policymakers and fisheries managers to balance actions across these objectives to achieve sustainable outcomes that protect the environment and still ensure that we have a viable and thriving fishing industry. Sustainable development recognises the needs of society alongside the environment and thus points to a balanced approach. If we place environmental sustainability as the prime objective, we will prevent fisheries managers taking balanced decisions by always favouring the environment over social, scientific, national and economic matters.

I am not being facetious, but as a Star Trek fan I am aware of the Prime Directive—not to interfere—but I do not know how the “prime” objective would be implemented, and nor has the mover of the amendment sought to define it. I looked up some meanings and synonyms of the word “prime” and got the following: “main”, “chief”, “key”, “central”, “principal”, “foremost”, “first”, “most important”, “paramount”, “major”, “dominant”, “supreme”, “overriding”, “cardinal”, “pre-eminent” and “ultimate”. If that is how our courts would define “prime”, I am concerned if that is how it would be interpreted in the Bill.

Of course the sustainability objective is essential, but so are the precautionary, scientific, bycatch, ecosystem, equal access, national benefit and climate change objectives. The lawyers and no doubt my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern will correct me if I am wrong, but the wording of the clause means that all of these must be complied with, so all of these other objectives must still satisfy the test of being sustainable. It is not an either/or list. Thus, if the Government are making rules under the national benefit objective, the bycatch objective, or any other objective, these rules must still satisfy the test of being sustainable. Setting one objective above the others would create confusion and undermine the basic construct of the Government’s future fisheries legislation.

Managing trade-offs is complex and not easily amenable to simple rules, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, just warned us. I believe that the current drafting of the fisheries objectives strikes the best balance between requiring Ministers to respect the science and be precautionary, and also to consider the impact on our fishing communities before acting.

We all recognise the need to protect our precious marine environment, but we must find a way to do so that supports our equally precious coastal communities. I urge the House to consider the potential costs to those communities if we constrain the Government’s ability to make balanced decisions—a balance that appears to be central to this Bill’s ambition to support both the environment and the people living and working in fishing communities.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, I fully support Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others. It would make it clear that fish and aquaculture activities must not compromise environmental sustainability. The Government have said that they will continue to strive for the ambitions of the relevant directives in this regard, but many are concerned that these could be weakened. That is why it is important to set this out clearly in the Bill with the amendment.

If the Minister will not accept the amendment today, will he set out how the Government will ensure that the important principles in directives such as the European marine strategy framework, the bathing water directive and the water framework directive will be taken forward and not compromised, as my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, highlighted in her speech? If they are compromised, what mechanism will there be to ensure that they are properly enforced, since we will have no access to the Court of Justice of the European Union? What mechanism is proposed by the Government?

Proposed new subsection (b) would put commitments in the Bill on economic, social and employment benefits and not overexploiting marine stocks. Again, it is important that this is clearly in the Bill because the devil will be in the detail and we must have clarity that the principles are set out without any dispute. The details will be issues such as licensing powers, catch limits and other restrictions on fishing.

As my noble friend Lord Hain set out in the previous debate, the reality of today’s British fishing industry is how much of the catch is in fact exported to the European Union and beyond, and how much of the fish we eat—cod, haddock, langoustine, salmon—is in fact imported into the UK. That has not been made clear in the debate, in the media and elsewhere over many years, much to the detriment of the debate, to the reality of the situation, and to the British fishing industry and the UK at large. The Government should aim to get this right by accepting the amendment.

Food Supply and Security

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on securing this important debate.

I have no worries about food security in this country. We will always have more than enough—except fish, possibly—but we might not get what we want all year round. I do not particularly want a choice of 20 different lettuces in January, nor Moroccan strawberries for Christmas. I believe in eating UK-produced food in season when it is a delicacy and a treat. Nothing from anywhere else in the world can beat it for taste, not to mention food miles. In that regard, will my noble friend the Minister give all his encouragement and support to those excellent initiatives to create massive glasshouses near sewage plants, where they can get cheap heat? We have the capability to supply a huge range of more produce grown under glass in this country. I look forward to the report from Henry Dimbleby on a food strategy, which should address these issues.

Will the Minister also give encouragement to agricultural innovation and technology, as articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles? This has had a huge boost in the USA because President Trump has curtailed cheap foreign labour from planting and picking crops. We must go this way in the near future too, rather than toward a permanent supply of cheap EU labour.

I come to fish, where I am worried about supply. The common fisheries policy is quite evil and destructive of this finest of natural resources. I want a cast-iron assurance from my noble friend that we will not sell out our fishermen, that we will take back full control of our fishing waters, that we will impose our own catch limitation so that we conserve and increase stocks, and that any deal with the EU will be on an annual basis.

Finally, in these dire times, let us raise a glass to the English wine industry, which is a superb example of innovation. English champagnes and white wines are beating the French in international wine tastings. What is more, vineyards are excellent for wildlife in that they are not being ploughed up every year—a good example of not digging for victory.

Fruit and Vegetable Harvest

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, that is precisely why we have launched Pick for Britain and the DWP Find a Job website. This will be escalated. We think that currently, there is sufficient labour on farms, but there will be a peak in late May and therefore much more work. A public-facing campaign will be launched so that many more people are aware of this and of the demand in their local areas.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, in the short term it is vital that all steps be taken to make sure that crops are planted and picked this year, but has the Minister seen reports of a huge expansion in horticultural technology and automation in the United States because President Trump has curtailed cheap immigrant labour? What can the Government do to give a big boost to horticultural automation and technology in this country?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

It is important that we advance technology to bring about improvements and more sustainable production. The government-funded transforming food production initiative and sustainable productivity schemes are all about increasing automation. I was interested to read of Tiptree and the University of Essex developing a robotic strawberry harvester, for instance.

England Coast Path

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I may have to write to the noble Baroness on that precise stretch. I have not walked it yet; I have walked some of them. There are certainly advantages in terms of physical well-being and for local economies. I hope that farmers in rural areas will find this a useful part of diversification. There is a lot to be said for walking, which is why the new national trail pledged in the Conservative manifesto—the Coast to Coast trail in the north—is a very good part of that project.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, as the deputy chair of Natural England, I support what my noble friend said. The money for this is ring-fenced. We were delayed slightly for 18 months because of the court case—that is the only reason why the path has not been completed according to the regional schedule—but we are on schedule to complete it properly and we look forward to more stretches being opened this year.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am most grateful for my noble friend’s confirmation from Natural England. I want to confirm the enthusiasm within Natural England to secure this path and all that it represents: 2,711 miles.