Agriculture, Fisheries and the Rural Environment

Lord Plumb Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Plumb (Con) (Valedictory Speech)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lindsay for raising this issue and putting forward this important Motion. It is equally important that we debate the issue a little more often than we have done in the past. It is good for us to know where our food comes from, who produces it and how and where it might come from if we do not produce it here.

As I move towards retirement, after 30 years and a rewarding and enjoyable education among so many distinguished colleagues, I thank the clerks and the staff for their tolerance and understanding in recent times. I thank in particular my Whip, my noble friend Lord Sherbourne, and the Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Taylor.

As I look back over a long life and career, I recognise that agriculture has been at the very core of it, in both practice and political interest. My formal education was cut short in March 1940, when my father and headmaster both agreed that the war could not last more than six months and so I could return to my studies in the autumn. Therefore, I had to leave and go back to work on the farm. That suited me fine as I was not too happy at school, but I was in at the deep end and well into hard work and a lot of responsibility, with bombs falling round us on land between Coventry and Birmingham. But then the land girls came to the rescue as farm workers.

You could say that my politics started through the Young Farmers’ Movement, an organisation able to advise and provide mentorship for young entrepreneurs in agriculture and rural business. My CV reads as if I was a collector of presidencies. My father used to say that anyone can become a president. Well, I have proved him right. I moved from the Young Farmers’ Movement to the presidency of the National Farmers’ Union in 1971, as noble Lords have heard. My path then took me from the presidency of the Society of Ploughmen to Chancellor of Coventry University, and from non-executive roles in finance and business to a fellowship at Ohio University, where the agricultural faculty was created in 1860 by Professor Charles Plumb. The Plumbs get around everywhere in interesting times.

Among other organisations, I was best known through the NFU. I remember a farmer once complaining, “If you’re joining this old common market, don’t hold it on a Wednesday because that buggers up ours”. Negotiations on our entry, changing from one policy to another, required six steps in five years to change to the common agricultural policy. I ask the Minister: will this happen in reverse? I was an enthusiast for our membership and the opportunity it presented for co-operation and competition for the food market of 500 million people. However, with a £22 billion deficit with European countries on food and farming products alone, our exit will not be successful without government assistance and encouragement, and changes in the method of support.

Retiring from the NFU presidency came at a time when it was agreed that we should hold direct elections to the European Parliament. Discussing this with my son, who had just come back from Argentina, I said that I would welcome his advice. “If I come home instead of going elsewhere, where do I start?”, I asked. His reply was short and sharp. “You can start by sweeping the yard because you always complain that it is untidy when you get home”. So I decided to stand for membership of the European Parliament. It was a pleasure to represent the people of the Cotswolds over the 20 years I was there. It was a great experience.

In Parliament I had no particular ambition to get too involved, but I found myself as the first chairman of the 50-strong agriculture committee, with Barbara Castle as a member. I then became leader of the Conservative Group for Europe, which also included members from Northern Ireland, Spain and Denmark. In 1987 I was elected President of the whole Parliament, as your Lordships have heard, and I can now say that I was—and, presumably, will be—the only Brit to have been elected to that position. I was a bit surprised when I received a very complimentary letter from Mrs Thatcher inviting me to become a working Peer. It did not happen at once but it certainly happened later—and I have enjoyed my 30 years.

Even our friends in New Zealand and Australia, after some years of heavy criticism, accepted that by joining Europe we had helped at least to widen the world market for their products. We had of course helped to shield them when we joined Europe by obtaining import quotas for their products—quotas on which in later years they were no longer dependent.

Whenever agriculture is debated, in this House or elsewhere, there is always a tendency to underestimate its importance in the life and the economy of the nation. Some 0.7% of GDP does not sound like a lot, but let us not forget the sector’s massive input into the food and drink industry, which employs some 14% of the workforce and generates £96 billion-worth of business. It is a major part of our economy. Therefore, we must not think of agriculture purely in terms of its product; as we have already heard, we must remember its jobs and its contribution to our GDP. It is a major factor in determining the success or otherwise of our national environmental policies.

My noble friend Lord Ridley, who unfortunately is not with us today, is right to predict that we can all reap rewards from robotised farms—what he means by that is for your Lordships to imagine—drawing on existing technical and scientific advice. Developments have taken and are taking place. However, I enter the two caveats that matter as regards development. First, we have to ensure that the rural environment is not negatively industrialised. The character of our countryside is something rightly precious to all of us, wherever we live. Furthermore, as we face the challenge of increasing agricultural production, whatever happens we must keep a weather eye on the land available for that purpose—farming. For example, the HS2 rail project alone is estimated to require 100,000 acres of agricultural land and, of course, the need to increase housebuilding will make further significant demands. I do not say that that is wrong, but it is a fact as we see it at the moment.

With a food trade gap of over £22 billion, we need to increase production and it is not obvious that all the countries which are supposed to be queuing up to do a deal with the UK are motivated by sentiment; the US, Canada, China, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and the like all have their own interests. We are also in danger of losing benefits from joint research and development with our European friends.

In today’s debate many have not taken on board that agricultural support post Brexit is not something over which the UK will have an entirely free hand. The fact is that whatever the UK will do must fall within the framework of rules set by the WTO. The reason why the cap changed so radically over the years was not principally because EU politicians saw the light about the need for reform; it was much more because world trade agreements made the reform inevitable.

We have to admit that it is difficult to imagine precisely what the world, the EU and the UK will look like on the other side of our withdrawal. At the end of what we hope will be a successful negotiation, we will pass across the yet-to-be-designed bridge of an implementation stage. The media are currently focusing the national gaze on that period of five years or so as our “future”. As I look back on almost five decades of the European project, I also look far beyond those mere five years.

The UK is moving on—but in ways not yet agreed upon in detail, because inevitably the EU will also move on. It will be for another generation altogether, both here and there, to determine whether the respective directions of travel will tend to diverge or converge. My instinct tells me that the future generations in Britain and Europe will favour a reconvergence.

I hope to spend some time in the future with many young people, encouraging them to develop their skills in rural affairs, business and enterprise, and always to remind them that they make a living by what they do but make a life by what they give. I am sure that agriculture will provide many of them with many opportunities to do just that and still be proud to be British.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Plumb Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Plumb (Con)]

My Lords, I am a countryman, a farmer and someone who has much experience in the centre of England of the problems before us at the moment, which concern allowing people to move freely in various areas for enjoyment. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, speaks of the area that is a natural walking area and he spoke as one who would never dream of passing through anyone’s garden and so on. I am sorry—I will not say he is alone but a lot of people would not see it that way. In fact, they might do the reverse. Speaking as one who comes from the Midlands—I farm between 10 miles from Coventry and 10 miles from Birmingham—there is a mass of people there and they do walk. However, things have changed and, while I agree in principle with both amendments that have been tabled and with the thrust of the proposal that has been made, we must realise that we are deregulating and not creating yet more legislation. Therefore, I hope we are simplifying this so that not only the people who live in the countryside can understand it but also the people who wish to come to the countryside.

The key is education. As many farmers do, I handed down a large portion of our property to my son many years ago and things began to change, as they do when things are moved from father to son. Not long ago, I met an old boy who lived not very far from the farm. I had not seen him for years. He said, “You know, guv’nor, what they say about you up here?”. I said I had no idea. He said, “They say when Henry farmed this farm, anybody who set foot on it got shot. His son brings them in by the busload”. In the past year, he has had 90 visits from schools. He has two people carriers to take the children around the farm, and that is real education. I have been with him on one or two of the trips around the holding and it is very encouraging to see the change in those children, the change in how they look at green grass and, certainly, the changed way they look at animals.

There is a lot to be done here. I only plead that we get it right and we do not make it so complicated that it is almost impossible for people to understand. It must be understood by the property owners and by country people, who are happy to receive people who come to the country as long as the rules are in place and are understood by both parties in the interests of facing a very important area for the future. It is no good doing what was suggested by that old man. I have never shot anybody and I would never stop anybody if I saw that they were reasonable. However, I believe that my son now has less damage done to his property than was the case in my day because he has freed up the footpaths and provided an opportunity for people to visit and walk more freely through the area.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken in Grand Committee and I need to declare my interests in relation to this issue and to other aspects of this Grand Committee. I am a member and vice-president of the Open Spaces Society; I am a member and patron of, and am active in, the British Mountaineering Council; I am a member and the deputy leader of Pendle Borough Council; and I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. There are probably others that I have forgotten but those will do for the moment.

I hope that the mover of this amendment will have listened very carefully to the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, who talked a lot of common sense. When you are dealing with footpath diversions and those footpaths go through or are adjacent to housing in the countryside, common sense is the most important thing that is required in solving the problem. I shall come back to that.

The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that at the moment people have no right to make a claim. I do not understand that and perhaps he will explain what he means by it. I am a member of a local authority committee which deals with quite a few of the requests for footpath diversions and extinguishments in my area, which is the Colne area of Pendle. We do so on behalf of Lancashire County Council, which is the highways authority and it has devolved that to us at the moment. We deal with quite a lot of these requests.

Perhaps I may explain the context. We are talking about an area of the Pennines with a very intense network of public footpaths, which were originally used by people to go from one farm to another. That was their original use, although nowadays of course people get in their vehicles and take a much longer route. There is a very dense network of public footpaths across the fields and, because they originally went from one farm to the next—this is an area where the farms are scattered over the landscape—they inevitably went through farms and into the farmyards, because people went from door to door. In the modern age, the farms may still be working farms in some cases but, even if they are, the barns or the former farm workers’ cottages will be occupied by people who are not working farmers; they live there and commute into the towns. In such areas, there is no reason at all why the footpaths need to go along the front of people’s cottages, past their windows and to their front doors. The sensible thing is for them to be diverted around a little settlement of two or three houses that exist in the middle of the fields.

As I said, we get a lot of applications for footpath diversions and footpath extinguishments, although mainly diversions. They are all very sensible and we look at them from a common-sense point of view. This is where I come back to having problems with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. If they were put on the face of the Bill and became legislation, they would make it very difficult to apply the kind of common-sense decisions that we make at the moment.

As I understand it, the legislation says that a footpath diversion should be convenient for people wanting to use the footpath. I think that “convenient” is the word that is used but, anyway, that is what it means. So, if you have a footpath going through a farmyard, or a courtyard that used to be a farmyard, and there is a proposed diversion, you look to see whether that diversion is sensible from the point of view of the people walking on the footpath and that the diversion is not too far or too difficult or perhaps goes through difficult terrain, as well as looking at the effect that the footpath has on the people whose houses it goes past. I remember one example where a footpath went through a group of three houses, which now would be quite expensive, and it literally went along the pavement in front of the windows of someone’s house. Quite reasonably, they said that this was an intrusion and was unreasonable. We went on a site visit to look at it and we walked that route and the proposed alternative, but the proposed alternative, which went around the back, gave us a very good view, through some huge glass windows, into the bedrooms and bathrooms of their neighbours. Under those circumstances we said, “No, we’re not diverting this because we are moving one problem and creating another for the neighbours who in fact had objected”.

You have to look for solutions. Our footpaths officer, who we employ, went out to talk to them all and tried to find an alternative diversion that solved it for everyone. That kind of common-sense practical work on the ground has to be done. In most cases it can be done perfectly acceptably and reasonably, and, where councils can do that, it works. In many cases, though, it does not work, and I will explain why in a minute.

I turn to the noble Lord’s amendment. He wants to suggest that there should be a presumption for a diversion or a stopping-up so long as the council and the Secretary of State are satisfied that privacy, safety or security are not adversely affected by the existence or the use of the path. Where I live, which I suppose is an urban street in a rural area, I could argue that we are adversely affected by the existence and use of our front street because people can go along it, our front garden is not very big and they can see in. It is a question of degree and looking at what is reasonable. Is someone unreasonably affected by the existence or use of the path in context? If you simply say “adversely affected”, full stop, that is a pretty draconian test. The wording talks about it being “possible” to divert a path, but at the moment the test is whether the diversion is reasonable for people wanting to use the path. It does not say that it cannot be any longer than the existing route but is it unreasonably much further, or is it reasonable that people should have to walk another 20 or 50 yards to remove the problem caused by the path? So all the checks and balances—and it is all a matter of balance—would be taken away by the wording of this amendment, which would put the balance far too much on one side, not the other. Maybe the present system is not perfect but I think that these amendments go far too far the other way.

I will not repeat the points that my noble friend Lady Parminter made, with which I completely agree, about the stakeholder working group and the fact that it has come up with an agreed package.

My final point is that at the moment there is a major problem with all these things, but in my view it is not about the legislation or the rules; it is about resources. In the present situation in local government, where most local authorities, certainly in the north of England, are in dire financial circumstances, desperately trying to keep resources going for old people’s care and that kind of thing, highway authorities simply do not regard this as being of a sufficiently high priority. There is indeed a great waiting list in many areas and it takes a long time. That is the real problem. If they are going to have to deal with these in four months in future, they will not be very pleased because they will have to put resources into what they regard as not being a top priority. For those of us who care about our footpaths, let us see whether that does the trick.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Skelmersdale]

Does my noble friend want to comment? No? Anyway, they have spoken with one voice, whether accidentally or intentionally. My noble friend Lady Parminter says that it is nice to know.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lord Cathcart said that Amendments 17 and 18 were agreed by the specialist working group and asked why they were therefore not in the Bill. We have heard a lot on that from my noble friend the Minister. My noble friend Lord Plumb agreed that there are occasions when walkers—was his word “misbehave” or have I interpreted what he said?

[Lord Plumb]

I put it more kindly than that.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

Okay. My noble friend Lord Greaves questioned my comment that there was no right to make a claim. He said that in his local authority area there most certainly was. Would that all local authorities behaved in such an exemplary fashion.

Rural Economy

Lord Plumb Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Plumb (Con)]

My Lords, I have the pleasure of congratulating, thanking and supporting my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. He opened a debate of great importance to all of us about investment in rural areas. Much was said earlier about the speech made by my noble friend, Lord Bamford. Many of us will never forget his maiden speech. He started, “I am an engineer”, and went on to describe how he makes things. I am a farmer, and I grow things. The pioneering spirit of the manufacturer and the farmer are why today we can claim agriculture as a huge success.

Living in the countryside is not always the idyllic life often shown in pictures or stories. Even the most sophisticated methods of husbandry cannot remove the risk of seasonal changes, as we witnessed this year. The demand for land in rural areas increases as the population expands—and they are not making any more. Land becomes scarce and expensive. We need it to grow more food for a growing population. The scale of the challenge is enormous. More needs to be done to remove obstacles to increased production from less land, and to get greater access to new markets while protecting the environment and preserving village life. More needs to be done to understand the implications of volatility, get better value out of science and technology and drive domestic growth.

The Minister may agree that we need a policy framework to help the economy which is right for consumers and producers. The most recent reform of the CAP was unnecessarily complicated. I have been involved in reforms of the common agricultural policy since 1973, and I can honestly say that it is more complicated than before. We need subsidiarity and to retain the emphasis on protecting the environment and the countryside as a whole. Of course, we need less red tape. The Minister may like to tell me whether the reduction of red tape since the report came out has changed very much. We need greater freedom to increase production. Declaring policy is one thing; the implementation of that policy is another. It still seems that the image of rural occupation is less important than industrial employment.

Land occupation is changing as farm size increases, and it is increasing rapidly. There are 3.7 million people involved in agriculture and food. The food industry cannot exist without the farming industry. Our colleges and universities are full of young people, enthusiasts and entrepreneurs who want to get into the countryside. They want to work and to produce. Many organisations are helping, not least the Prince’s Trust. I am often asked how in this changing world I would define the small farmer. I always answer, “It’s a chap about five feet tall”. It is the size of the business and the size of the production area that matter, not the size of the farmer. Often people say, “I haven’t heard ‘The Archers’ lately”, or perhaps, “We like ‘Countryfile’ on a Sunday evening sharing with us the wonderful views of our hills and valleys, and Adam and Matt are such charmers”. So how can we educate more urban dwellers to understand rural development and country living? It is insulting to say that farmers have created a degraded, horrible landscape. The countryside is obviously a diverse place, and it is neither wild nor natural. To keep a healthy industry, we need the birds, the bees and the butterflies, the hedgerows, the tracks, the fields and the crops in a land which is often described as “Farmageddon”. They are all there under the good management of today’s generation, which is the one thing that embraces the conservation challenge encouraged by Natural England’s scheme. Agriculture can make a much larger contribution to the economy given the investment it contributes.

There are three things I wish to mention briefly: education, the Arthur Rank Centre and rural crime. Many noble Lords have mentioned the importance of skills, which is second to none. Education starts with schools. There is an organisation called FACE—Farming & Countryside Education, which helps in schools. It is not very big. The organisation visited 362 schools last year, representing more than 18,000 pupils and worked with a further 12,000 pupils in 137 schools.

The Rank centre combines a lot of the organisations that support farmers in one form or another. It was started by that great entrepreneur himself. The centre pulls together many bodies and organisations by identifying the needs of local communities. It is a progressive organisation which recognises the many risks of living and working in the countryside. Its leader often reminds us, talking of risks, that Jesus never said, “Blessed are the cautious”.

Rural crime has already been covered by the noble Earl but I hope the Minister can agree that we need an adequate police protection system in rural areas. In many areas lengths of cable have gone off the electric poles, taken overnight. It is quite unbelievable. As the noble Earl so rightly said, £42 million was the cost of that crime last year. Rural theft is an issue of great concern to us and 38% of farmers have been the victims of crime, including arson, criminal damage, poaching and illegal fly-grazing. The insurance company NFU Mutual conducts an annual survey of rural crime. As the insurer covers around 70% of the rural market it provides a useful snapshot of rural crime patterns. Rural theft and its cost is of great significance in country areas. The link between rural crime and serious organised crime should not be underestimated.

Agriculture: Common Agricultural Policy

Lord Plumb Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, we have a legal obligation to implement what is known as greening from 2015. No decisions have yet been taken on implementation. We will consult stakeholders, including farmers’ representatives and NGOs. We need to achieve genuine environmental outcomes from greening, without impacting unnecessarily on farmers’ business activities.

[Lord Plumb]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer. First, to satisfy 28 nations with a policy that is acceptable to all, when we see such a diverse structure of farming there, is a recipe for an uncommon market rather than a common market. Secondly, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that the emphasis at this time should be on the growth of food and the food security part of that, rather than just on greening? The whole emphasis seems to have turned to greening, switching from one pillar to the other. How do the new greening rules overlap with the existing agri-environmental scheme commitments, and what changes will those produce, as against the existing commitments faced, when the greening comes into effect?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, there are a couple of questions in there from my noble friend. Our priorities for CAP reform have always been to help EU agriculture become more competitive and market-oriented while improving the capacity to deliver better environmental outcomes. It is unclear precisely what the greening requirements will look like since the detailed rules have yet to be drawn up. However, we are working to ensure that all these elements are complementary and coherent so that we have a smooth transition to the new programme in 2015.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Lord Plumb Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

That is an interesting question. Although bovine TB is present in other wildlife, such as deer, badgers are the main species responsible for transmitting the disease to cattle because of their specific ecology. Evidence from the RBCT demonstrates conclusively that badgers contribute significantly to bovine TB in cattle. While deer in Britain are generally considered to be a sentinel or spillover host of infection in cattle, rather than a source of the disease in cattle, current evidence suggests that TB infection from deer is not a significant disease risk to cattle.

[Lord Plumb]

My Lords, as a farmer, my question is based on some history. I will be very brief. In 1944 we eradicated TB on my farm. In 1964, as a junior officer in the NFU, I had the privilege of announcing that we had totally eradicated bovine TB from this country. Since then, of course, history has shown us a different picture. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, posed a large number of questions, and I noted all of them. Those questions were posed more than 10 years ago, and we have gone through that period of time with few decisions being taken. To say, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, that farmers are dishonest is an insult to the farming community and I cannot accept it. That is not the reason. All the farmers concerned, particularly those who have been held up for 12 years, have been unable to sell one beast off their farms over that time. They do not see this problem as scientists see it; they see it as men who are concerned with the welfare of animals and they do not want to see their herds suffering, as they are doing and have done throughout this period.

My question is exactly the same as that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. Surely we have to move towards vaccination. However, if the current vaccine is effective for only one year, that is a very expensive mechanism for doing the job. Surely to goodness we are in an age when an oral vaccine can be found to cope with this situation. It can be put in either the water or the food so that the affected animals are removed. Perhaps that would be a better way of dealing with the matter than the ways that have hitherto been thought of.

[Lord De Mauley]

I can only say to my noble friend that we are pursuing vaccine options as hard as we can and as a high priority. We have been investing significantly in developing TB vaccines for both badgers and cattle for a long time. I have mentioned a licensed injectable vaccine that can be and is being used on badgers but, as I have explained, it is extremely expensive and needs to be repeated annually. As my noble friend says, we need an oral vaccine, which we are still searching for. We will continue that search and expect to spend another £15.5 million over four years.

Drought

Lord Plumb Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not know the details of the particular case to which the noble Lord refers, but it is certainly useful to be advised of that. Thames Water is not in as acute a situation as some of the other water companies. Indeed, it is helping out water companies in Essex by transferring water from its area to Essex. This co-operation between water companies is a very good strategy, and one which the Government are anxious to encourage.

[Lord Plumb]

My Lords, may I confirm what the Minister has just said? I was a member of Denis Howell’s committee, and I confirm that it rained the moment we met and did not stop for weeks. One hopes that if we can form a committee again, the same sort of thing will apply. I congratulate the Government on recognising the importance of water, its usage and its conservation. It is more crucial than people in this country perhaps realise. However, would the Minister agree that in the interest of food security, irrigation is essential? It is going to be a major problem in many areas. I realise that the Environment Agency has the responsibility for maintaining the main arterial rivers. Many of these have been neglected in recent times, which is a matter of importance that needs to be considered. However, restricting water for irrigation for certain food crops would be catastrophic and would result in crop failure.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It is very good to have my noble friend volunteering yet again to deal with this matter on behalf of us all. There are considerable concerns in agriculture, particularly about establishing crops. However, farmers are used to dealing with the weather. They are by nature adaptable creatures. They are changing cropping programmes in some parts of the country, and they will change them in others. It is far too early to say what impact this may have on the food supply. All I can say is that the NFU and the Environment Agency are involved in the weekly bird table meetings that are held on this subject, and that is an extremely effective mechanism for getting the flexibility that we need to deal with this problem.

EUC Report: Agriculture

Lord Plumb Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Plumb]

My Lords, first I share the joy and pleasure on this occasion in having the noble Lord, Lord Curry, with us. He is an old friend of mine; we worked together and shared many platforms over many years. We have not always agreed, but we have been mighty near agreeing most times. It is great to see him here and I know, as do all who know him well, that he will make a great contribution to this House, not just on agriculture but on many other issues as well. We are delighted to have him here on this day.

I declare my interest as a farmer, one who has witnessed working in the dirt and the cold many years ago, and I have seen all the changes in policy, structure, technology, science and production methods since the 1947 Act and under the CAP since 1973. I was often told that it was my fault that we had all those surpluses of food not so many years ago; no one can claim the credit for bringing that into some sort of balance, so that we now talk about not surpluses but security. That is a big change—not just a change in attitude, but a change in the general situation.

I did not have the privilege of sharing in the preparation of this report, but I congratulate the chairman, the members of the committee, the clerks and their adviser on producing what I believe is an excellent document—a wide, proactive report on the importance of science, technology and innovation in the practice of farming and horticultural systems. The team of witnesses, as one reads the document, is very impressive. The contribution they made and the way they have been reported has been absolutely first class, and it makes this one of the best documents I have read on agricultural development for some considerable time.

As has been said already in this debate, the European Union has to be competitive in the global marketplace, not forgetting its social and environmental responsibilities. It cannot be assumed that innovation will happen incidentally, due to the nature of farming, different sizes of farms and different techniques and methods. When one assumes that they are all in one lot, I always say that the only sensible definition of a “small farmer” is a chap about five feet tall.

Farming as we know it is often risk averse and isolated, facing difficulties in investment and producing unbranded commodities. I often regard fellow farmers as frustrated research workers, instinctive experimenters and innovators who are prepared to use new products and practices to be more efficient and productive, following of course—as they do—scientific approval.

One impressive side of farming that is not just related to this country is our agricultural colleges and universities. They are providing excellent training and skills for a new generation of farmers, many of whom are keen to become leaders in the industry, with conviction and passion. Nothing gives me more pleasure than to visit those colleges, to talk to young people—and to wish that I was 40 years younger. Both the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and my noble friend Lady Byford have said it was important that we do not just relate this to product. It is investment in people, particularly young people—Care was mentioned as an organisation that is doing a great job in that respect.

My son has near his farm 44 schools, which have adopted, if not him, the farm. They visit it on a regular basis, which I know gives him a lot of pleasure. He has two people carriers, which take the children around the farm while he talks to them. The same schools come back time and again. He even gets them planting potatoes, other vegetables and all sorts of things. They put their names on the plants so that they can come back and see the growth of the product, which they are keen to do.

We see those changes. Today we talk about the use of precision farming with satellite-guided machinery, yield mapping, conservation tillage, which is increasing, on-farm bioenergy equipment, heat and power units, anaerobic digestives—all the sort of things that were unheard of a few years ago but are now becoming commonplace on many farms. In future we will see new crop varieties developed through the process of further improved management and possible use of genetic modification and so on.

We know that, to be innovative, farming must be profitable so that it can invest in the future. Farmers have to be confident that they can remain in business. As I read this document—and I have read it more than once—one thing struck me in particular. It is worth quoting from box 2, above paragraph 40, which cites three theories of innovation as applied to agriculture. I thought that they said it all and they are:

“Innovation as a top-down dissemination of new technologies … Innovation as a bottom-up process”,

in which,

“local context and farm-level networks shape innovation outcomes”,

and, thirdly,

“Innovation as a socio-technical process”,

in which farm businesses mix with all the other bodies and organisations that are involved in the business. That is the big change as I have seen it over recent years. It is a welcome development because different producers can better see the part that each of them plays in the production of food.

Therefore, I hope that in replying to this debate the Minister will agree that there is cautious optimism for the future. It will depend a lot on the simplification of policy under the CAP. We want less red tape and fewer regulations. Above all, in the reform of the CAP— I agree entirely that it must be radically changed this time, rather than tinkered with, as it has been over the years—it is imperative to keep a sensible balance between the support of Pillars 1 and 2, which allow famers a margin to compete in the global marketplace.

Agriculture: Egg Industry

Lord Plumb Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Plumb]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a farmer—not as an egg producer, but one who recognises the egg industry as one of the most efficient sectors of British agriculture. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury on securing this short debate on an issue that is pertinent to today's problems and that affects producers and all who are concerned and involved in the industry. As my noble friend said, the pig industry went this way some time ago, when welfare standards were improving in this country; not so in some other countries from where we are still importing pig meat. This relates to the Council directive, agreed in 1999, that battery cages should be phased out and welfare standards improved. I remember it vividly because it was my last year serving in the European Parliament. I well remember the debates that we had then, but it went through and here we have it. It should now be fully implemented on 1 January.

The estimated cost to the industry of £400 million to convert from battery cages to what are called enriched colony cages, which afford the hen 50 per cent more space than in a battery, is something that we must obviously take note of. For a producer who has a medium-size unit of 100,000 birds, the cost of erecting a new unit will be in excess of £2 million. In addition to people who have been in that situation and are converting, we are seeing free-range producers, and those who are also involved in free range from battery hens that they had before, being involved heavily in the preparation for the 1 January deadline. This follows that European directive on the welfare of laying hens, which prohibits the use of battery cages from 1 January. We should be proud of a business whose people have responded to the demands of consumers concerned with welfare standards. I understand that the majority of birds are going into the enriched cages by the deadline. In this country, under the egg industry’s assurance scheme, producers have agreed that they will meet the deadline by 2012.

As my noble friend said, the UK is not self-sufficient in eggs, with some 15 per cent being imported. We produce 9 billion eggs in this country every year, with 10,000 people being involved directly in the egg industry and 13,000 indirectly. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can satisfy British producers that the Government will not agree to eggs being produced in lower welfare battery cages, which can be imported into the UK, undermining the market and therefore distorting prices. From the figures submitted by the Commission, after requesting all member states to submit figures on the number of hens in cages, it would appear that there is still a significant number of hens in conventional cages, particularly in major countries such as Spain, Portugal, France and Italy. The single market surely has to be based on equal standards on trade and welfare grounds and there has been ample room and time for this to develop since 1999.

British consumers can be satisfied that the 31 million eggs consumed each day are a key source of food and nutrition. The salmonella scare of the 1980s sparked panic in the country and among producers but, in a test of 28,000 British eggs in 2004 the Food Standards Agency found no salmonella; tests in 2008, 2009 and 2010 showed further improvement. There is continued satisfaction, therefore, in the quality of the product. The progress made in the United Kingdom is a great success story which must not be undermined by cheaper imports produced in countries with lower welfare standards.

Agriculture: Global Food Security

Lord Plumb Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Plumb]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Byford for so ably opening this debate. If I was at a farmers’ meeting, I would probably stand up and say, “Hear, hear. I agree with every word”, and then sit down again. However, she might like to hear a few words from an old farmer who has been associated over many years with the struggle and progress in farming and food production.

The growth in the quantity and quality of food produced is very much down to the application and development of technology and science, funded from both private and public sources. I pay tribute to the many research workers who have been involved over the years.

It is 59 years since my father died. If he came back today, he would have a considerable shock and would be surprised at the development and the progress that has been made throughout the whole land in this country over the years. He would recognise, as we all recognise, that the farming sector faces many challenges—from the pressures to scale-up production and the growing demand for affordable food to the impact of disease outbreaks, many of which still occur in this country. One cannot bypass the importance of trying to move towards the eradication of TB, something that I know has to be done correctly to ensure that we are on course to eradicate that scourge, which is causing the country and those in the business of producing cattle great concern at the moment. We also face greater market liberalisation throughout the world.

The industry has been and still is remarkably resilient, adapting to the many policy changes and coping with the complicated rules and regulations. They apply whether a farmer is farming in the uplands or in the more fertile lowlands, on arable land or in the livestock sector, on the hills or the lowlands. As we face the next reform of the common agricultural policy, we surely have to look forward to greater simplification and incentives to improve the balance in policies for all sectors in agriculture. We know and must surely accept that the challenge for the next 50 years is likely to be of even greater magnitude.

The problem at the moment is that agriculture has never been more out of balance from one sector to another. I heard the other day that the average price of lambs at Lancaster market was £150 per head. It is not many years since they were £20 per head. There is a reason for that; the demand in other countries where a lot of our products are already going. That has happened on one side. The cost of input affects all of us, not just those involved in agriculture. The problem is the input against product price and the volatility that is linked to oil and energy. Some of our energy needs could be met from renewables in this country. We are way behind countries such as Germany in using renewables such as the waste products on farms, which are going to infill sites instead of into anaerobic digesters. Planners should wake up to the importance of getting through legislation and allowing this to happen in order to make better use of those products for energy.

Looking at costs, a local farmer told me only the other day that the cost of putting oil into his combine harvester last year for a day's work was in the region of £500 a day. He recognises as he starts the next harvest that it will be more than £700 a day for the same product, for use in the same job that it did last year. As my noble friend Lady Byford said, the weather in April has meant increased costs. I am told that wheat had to be irrigated on many farms, which farmers do not normally do at that time of year, and it cost something like £100 an acre.

In all this, our natural resources—our soil, water and biodiversity—must be safeguarded. That is the priority as we see it. To meet those global needs, farmers everywhere need to respond, and indeed they will. The young farmers who are entering the market, contrary to some opinion, are so enthusiastic. If you had been at the young farmers’ conference in Blackpool last week—I was not but I know all about it—you would have seen those young farmers keen as mustard to get on. I was, when I was a young farmer. Of course, we see the difficulties as time passes, but it is wonderful that those young farmers are there and that the colleges are bulging at the seams at the moment with young people who really want to get into the business. However, much of the market share in the global economy will of course come from elsewhere—India, China and developing countries, where there is tremendous potential. In the interests of our economy, British agriculture has to play a very important part.

It is right to question why agriculture is unique in benefiting from an integrated European policy in the form of the common agricultural policy. Without that common policy, member states would determine a policy that could distort the single market. The CAP helps to address the failure of markets to deliver fair returns; and, contrary to a lot of public opinion, without a single market there would be massive adverse consequences for consumer benefit. Farmers share the aspiration of reducing the reliance on public support. They will all say that at the moment, but at the same time they want a fair deal and a fair marketplace. To achieve that, we need a strategy that ensures that there is a process around the world. Our higher production and welfare standards are not always matched by our competitors, which often means that imports have a price advantage, so the objectives of the CAP are still valid: increased productivity, a fair standard of living, stabilised markets and the availability of supplies at reasonable prices.

As my noble friend said, to face the future after 2013 we have to maintain that production capacity and increase it. I am so pleased that both she and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the importance of developments in genetic modification, which is obviously there on the doorstep; we are consuming vast quantities of genetically modified products at the moment but are ignorant of the fact that they are coming in and are not allowed to compete on an equitable basis. There is also a greater role for food security—with fewer food miles, hopefully—so that we can produce more on the doorstep and prepare for the effects of climate change, which can, ultimately, as we learn more about it, be to our advantage; provide a buffer against the threat of market volatility, which undermines investment; and improve environmental performance, which is very much an overriding factor.

Successive reforms of the common agricultural policy since 1992 have sought to reduce the interference of the European Union in managing the market. The two pillars of European support should of course continue: to embrace the economic components of the CAP and to cater for different environmental needs in the different states. I believe there should be a third pillar that focuses on applied science and investment in a knowledge-based economy and deals with targets for research, development, training and education. What we are after is key consumer satisfaction.

The Minister will be aware of the Defra survey, which said that two-thirds of consumers regard British food products as important, that three-quarters look to buy British fruit and vegetables, and that half say seasonal food tastes better. I did not think I would live to hear the day when one-third of those same consumers support and like British farmers. It does not, I hope, mean that two-thirds of them do not. I am optimistic that farmers will accept the challenge and satisfy consumers and still remain competitive in the export market. We can play a big part in the economy, with more than £7 billion of gross value added supporting 500,000 jobs. In the interests of meeting those growing demands for supplying the food chain for distribution, I look forward to less form filling and the introduction of a grocery code adjudicator—an essential role in the food chain. Freedom to farm and care for the countryside in a friendly environment is all that we seek.

Agriculture: Regulation

Lord Plumb Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Plumb]

My Lords, we all await the result of the Task Force on Farming Regulation led by Richard Macdonald, but I congratulate my noble friend Lady Byford on securing this time for a preliminary debate. As she said, every sector of society suffers from excessive burdens of red tape, rules and regulations, not all from Brussels, but in agriculture the time spent complying with a data request is increasing.

Regulations cost money—money that is being spent unnecessarily in times of recession. Under the previous Government, the Better Regulation Programme measured the administrative cost alone of meeting regulations in the private sector to be £458 million. This does not include the compliance cost of the general regulatory burden on business. The Institute of Directors estimates the cost of business regulations to be almost £112 billion, of which farmers are very much a part.

In this short debate there is no time to speak of the specific areas. I appeal to my noble friend the Minister and I hope he will agree that we end the so-called gold-plating of EU rules; that we reduce the number of forms needed to register a business and move towards a one-click registration model; that we cut red tape by introducing a one-in, one-out rule; that we end the tick-box regulation culture and target inspections on high-risk organisations and improving professional standards; and that we do as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said and impose a sunset clause so that regulations can be regularly reviewed.

The burden of regulation, as we know, is at its heaviest with inspections, and different agencies have been found to inspect to different standards, bringing the looming risk of penalty and appeals on the understanding that regulatory requirements become crystallised.

Finally in the context of overregulation, planning authorities often cause problems, sometimes determined not by Government but by national parks and very much by local authorities through the localised Bill, and we need quicker and more positive decisions. Successful businesses need helpful understanding from planning authorities, particularly as agriculture moves into production energy and makes good use of waste.