Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Carrington and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

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

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner, as set out in the register.

I welcome the provisions in the Bill that will allow the Government to provide financial assistance where there is a disturbance to markets for agricultural commodities causing producers to face reductions in income. However, I am concerned that the Bill unnecessarily constrains the Government from acting in all relevant circumstances. The Bill as presented to us will not provide the Government with sufficient ability to intervene in markets where disruption has been caused by environmental factors such as weather—for example, drought or flood, both of which we have had examples of in recent years.

I have taken on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, when similar amendments were debated in Committee and, while I agree that farm businesses need to take responsibility for resilience and sustainability as far as they can, we are looking here at events which are, generally, one-off events which occur outside the control of the farmers affected. For instance, in the case of floods, the farmer has no input into the maintenance of sea walls and other major flood defences.

I am aware of past suggestions that farmers should look to use some form of insurance facility to cover those eventualities but, in reality, such insurance is either unavailable or accessible only at disproportionate cost. In other countries, Governments have offered such insurance, but this has proved extremely costly to the taxpayer and has encouraged moral hazard.

There are also farming disasters which continue on a chronic rather than an acute basis, such as animal disease—for example, bovine TB. The Bill provides only for acute circumstances. In highlighting the issue of chronic or long-running issues, the amendment does not require the Government to intervene in those widened circumstances but provides a mechanism for the Government to do so if it believes it necessary. This seems an entirely sensible approach within an enabling Bill, which contains so much about providing the Government with powers to act when necessary. I emphasise that this amendment provides a power, not a duty.

Although the Minister indicated that the objective of the Bill’s provisions is to deal with acute rather than chronic issues, I believe it would be a major missed opportunity not to include power to deal with chronic issues within the legislation. Without the power to intervene in markets where environmental or chronic issues prevail, the Government could be rendered impotent in responding without bringing forward further primary legislation. Surely it must be better to ensure that the powers are available in the Bill on a forward-thinking basis rather than belatedly having to take them when an issue needs to be addressed. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on tabling these two amendments, both of which I support; I am delighted to have co-signed Amendment 108.

I have just one question. I spoke at some length in Committee, and my noble friend the Minister was generous in her closing remarks in that debate, stating that there is current legislation that would pre-empt these provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to the specific example of flooding; obviously, one could refer to others, such as the current pandemic. In this instance, I am delighted to say that farmers managed to get the food into the shops and on to the supermarket shelves, and worked all hours to do so. There could, however, be shocks and other glitches to the supply chain. These two amendments provide for such circumstances and it would be neat, in my view, to include them in the Bill.

My question to my noble friend when she sums up is very specific. I think she referred to the new farming recovery scheme as a case in point where there is current primary legislation on which farmers could depend if such assistance was required. But to my certain knowledge, when farmers in North Yorkshire, in the constituency of our right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, applied for the scheme, they were given the proverbial raspberry. We saw the devastation caused to the farms and to tourism in the area. They are still reeling from that result. That was in January—it seems an awfully long time ago, but it was only January this year—and they were still not back on their feet when they had to deal with the total lockdown from March onwards.

I should like my noble friend to revisit that legislation and, if she does not have time to do so today, leave a note in the Library on why she is convinced that that legislation covers the scenario set out in these two amendments, because in my experience it certainly did not in the case of North Yorkshire and our right honourable friend.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Carrington and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

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

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner as set out in the register. Briefly, I support Amendment 5, in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, if the intention is to make public access a precondition of eligibility to obtain financial assistance for the purposes set out in Clause 1. Many farmers welcome public access and understand that, in many instances, it is most helpful to their businesses, leaving aside any altruistic intent. However, there will always be circumstances in which, for one reason or another, it is inappropriate. Reasons may range from it being environmentally detrimental to safety concerns and privacy reasons. While encouraging public access, surely it should be granted voluntarily by a willing and perhaps enthusiastic farmer, rather than being imposed. Public access may well devalue the farmer’s property and might lead to a reluctance by the farmer or landowner, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has said, to make an application to the relevant ELMS.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be back discussing the Bill on Report. I declare my interests in the register, particularly that I sit on the rural affairs group of the Church of England and that I am an associate fellow, I think, of the British Veterinary Association. I have one comment and a question for the Minister. I do not think that these amendments are necessary, as we discussed in Committee. It would be most helpful if the Minister in summing up could refer to the figures on current public access and rights of way, both in numbers and in miles, that are currently available but not being used and may lapse as a result, before we go on to create any new ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I supported the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the same amendment in Committee and I continue to support him. I will not repeat my previous remarks but emphasise that, without access to funding for advice, the take-up of the proposed environmental land management schemes will be more limited. I certainly agree with the interesting hypothecation idea of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood.

Farmers will be considering new ventures of which they may have no experience, so they need funding for advice. The average farmer is not a rich man; his success is likely to have come from concentrating on what he knows best. Our capricious climate has clearly demonstrated that sticking to what you do best is a sensible policy in farming. The farmer is therefore unlikely to rush into a new scheme without considerable thought and encouragement. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, he is also aware that under previous schemes, including BPS, the sanction regime has been tough. So, once again, he is unlikely to move swiftly into ELMS without a great deal of thought and advice.

I raised in Committee the issue of the digital divide, which was identified by the University of Sheffield and the Institute for Sustainable Food. For many in rural areas, access to good broadband may be limited. This, together with lack of time and, perhaps, age and social isolation, has made it difficult to follow developments on the ELM schemes. All this means that it is so important to provide financial advice to farmers for training and guidance so that they can be encouraged into ELMS on the basis of knowledge and confidence.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and his co-signatories on bringing this amendment forward. It is absolutely essential that farmers have the best advice available before they make a decision. I notice that the explanatory statement for the amendment given by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, refers to

“training, guidance and advice to be made available to persons receiving financial assistance.”

I make a plea to the Minister that this advice should be given before they even apply for financial assistance to enable them to decide how best to seek that financial assistance and to put it to good use.

I urge the Minister, when she sums up this debate, to agree to the sentiments behind the amendment and to consider who would best give such advice. Agriculture societies, such as the Yorkshire Agricultural Society, and many farming charities are very well placed to do so, in addition to many government bodies such as Natural England and others that the Minister might have in mind. I commend the amendment to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move and speak to Amendment 36. This group of amendments covers a range of activities relating to the transition period. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for their support in co-signing the amendment. The attraction of Amendment 36 is its clarity and straightforwardness: it calls for a simple deferral of commencement, moving the start of the seven-year transition period away from direct payments from 2021 to 2022.

Why is this necessary, given that the House has just agreed to government Amendment 35? I listened carefully to what the Minister said. He was clear that he could not give a precise date when the Environment Bill will reach this House—that is obviously not within his control, so I am grateful to him for that—and the department is keen to make progress. However, we owe farmers and other land managers a degree of certainty as they prepare for the biggest change in nigh on 50 years in farm support and agricultural policy.

I was disappointed that the Minister was unable to give a specific date, much as he would wish to, for the business plan setting out spending for the initial five-year period. We heard only that it will be published in the autumn. The autumn finishes on 30 November but potentially could run until 21 December. That could be after both Houses have risen—if we do rise—for the Christmas recess. That is very disappointing, although I know the Minister couched his remarks by saying he would like to see the spending and financial plan in place as soon as possible.

The difficulty I—and, I think, other signatories to this amendment—have is that I do not see any logic at all in why, for subsequent plans, a period of at least 12 months before the beginning of the plan period should take effect. My humble submission to the House this evening is that it is even more important for the Government to set out in their initial spending plan what the consequences for farmers will be. We are asking farmers, land managers, growers and others—I know my noble friend Lord Naseby takes great interest in horticulture—to take decisions for the forthcoming year without any of us knowing in any great detail what the terms of this financial assistance plan under Clause 4 will be. My noble friend helpfully points out in the explanatory statement to government Amendment 35 that

“the first multiannual financial assistance plan under Clause 4 must be published as soon as practicable before the beginning of the applicable plan period”,

but, as I have said, only subsequent plans would need 12 months’ notice.

I humbly submit that it is incumbent on the Government to bring forward this first plan, which—if my understanding is correct—will last for the whole transition period. I am not asking for the transition period to be reduced, as others have done. That would be quite wrong. We owe it to farmers, growers and others to have seven years to prepare, but for the life of me I simply cannot understand why we are not having a 12-month period and a delay. I therefore urge the House to look favourably on this simple delay of one year so that we all benefit from the results of the pilot schemes and the ELMS projects. I see newspaper reports that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, has been to visit local farms in his constituency in North Yorkshire, but other than the farmers themselves—and Defra, presumably—none of us has any detail whatever.

I shall listen carefully to what support there is for this amendment in the course of the debate on this group. I seek greater clarification from my noble friend the Minister. I would like to know why there is not a 12-month lead-in to this crucial first business plan and why we are not seeing the results of the trials. I express my concern at how little knowledge there is at grass-roots level about how any plan will affect decisions that, frankly, are being made as we speak. I beg to move.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as farmer, landowner and a recipient of BPS payments and their predecessors for many years. I will speak to Amendment 37, to which the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has kindly attached his name, and Amendment 40, to address the problem of the likely payment gap that will affect farmers as the direct payments are reduced in 2021, while the revenues from joining any new environmental land management scheme will not arrive until 2024.

I covered this in some detail in Committee and will not repeat that speech. However, the subsequent response from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and his office, together with the progress made on issues I identified at that time, has not made me rest any easier—indeed, the reverse, which is the reason this amendment has been tabled on Report.

First, we have no information on the cuts to BPS after 2021. Although promised for the autumn—which has arrived, of course—it might well be delayed until after the Bill comes into effect.

Secondly, we still have no real details on ELMS that would enable even elementary planning. Instead, during July Defra organised webinars for farmers to introduce ELMS. These were excellent and slick presentations of the concept but, when it came to the Q&A session with farmers afterwards, there were no answers to be had.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Carrington and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who is the illustrious chairman of our EU sub-committee. For the record, however, I would like the transition period to remain as it is.

I want to speak to Amendment 143, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for lending their support. It is a simple amendment, which would delay the start of the seven-year transition period away from direct payments coming into effect from 2021 to 2022. I should like to pause here to explain why this is necessary.

In seeking to delay the start of the transition period to the new policy framework to 2022, I accept that there is wide support across the House for the government objectives in the Bill to move towards a new framework of support for agriculture that focuses on public payments for public goods and increasing productivity. Much of the detail will be set out in supporting regulations and in the Environment Bill, of which we in this House have not yet had sight. However, the changes being envisaged will be the biggest in a generation and look set to be in place for many years to come.

I accept that we are leaving the European Union but note with regret that, in the four years since the vote in June 2016 signalled the beginning of a process of change, particularly in leaving the CAP, we have made very little progress in developing the necessary mechanisms, policies and schemes that would be worthy of the major changes that we are expecting in this Bill. I accept that much of this is down to the political impasse leading up to the last general election and, more recently, to the pressing issues around controlling Covid-19, which I am sure have affected Defra as they have many other departments.

It is essential that we take the time to introduce new schemes and measures that will stand the test of time, rather than simply bringing them in quickly for the sake of it. I fear that there is an overarching desire through the Bill to show that things have changed as a result of our departure from the European Union, rather than to ensure that we put in place good, made-for-purpose, fit-for-purpose, resilient schemes. Let us face it: our track record in delivering new schemes and new IT to support them is not that great.

Following the environmental land management scheme tests and trials, which themselves have been impacted by the issues surrounding Covid-19 and are ultimately delayed, the Government intend to conduct a pilot in England of a new ELM scheme in 2021, with a view to it being fully operational by 2024. However, if it is true that the Rural Payments Agency will be in charge of running these pilots—I hope that my noble friend can put my mind at rest on that—we have to question its capacity to run such a pilot when it is already struggling to deliver business as usual. Once again this year, the RPA has had to ask the Treasury for funding to bridge payments to environmental stewardship and countryside stewardship applicants before being penalised for failing to meet the required payment targets by 30 June this year. What reassurance can the Government provide that there is adequate capacity within the RPA to deliver the pilot, or does my noble friend think that another body would be more appropriate?

I also place a question mark on the extent to which the Government would be able to spend any money saved through the reductions in direct payments starting in 2021. I understand that Defra has identified this as a potential problem and is therefore looking to make an announcement in September about enhanced options for countryside stewardship and productivity schemes. However, we have none of the detail available to us today. In my view, the sensible thing is to delay the start of the transition period until 2022. That is not kicking the can down the road but giving the Government and Defra the time and space to deliver the good schemes that we know they are capable of, rather than producing half-baked schemes.

The reasons for this delay are these: we are being asked to take a lot on trust; we have not had sight of the Dimbleby food strategy, which I understand will not reach us before Report; we have not had the results of the trials of the ELM schemes; the OEP has yet to be set up; and we do not know what its relationship to the Environment Agency, Natural England and the RPA will be. We owe it to Defra to give it time, because of the Covid pandemic, to reach a proper conclusion to these schemes. I therefore ask the House to commit to supporting Amendment 143.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, whose analysis I almost completely agree with, although my conclusion is a little different. I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner, as set out in the register, and that I have been a recipient of the basic payment over several years.

I tabled Amendment 144, to which my noble friend Lord Curry of Kirkharle has kindly attached his name, and Amendment 145 in order to address the problem of the likely gap that will affect farmers as direct payments are reduced in 2021, while the revenue from the joining of any new environmental land management schemes will not arrive until 2024—although this will be mitigated for some farmers who have existing countryside stewardship schemes. This is no small issue. As we have heard in the debates on the Bill, the BPS accounts for some 58% of farm business income, varying from sector to sector, and around 25% of farms are unprofitable without it.