Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Neil Parish and George Eustice

Thursday 12th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I believe that the discard ban is absolutely right, although it will obviously take some time to get its implementation right. What will be done about fish that are landed and may or may not be fit for human consumption, but could be used as fish food, or even for farming purposes?

[George Eustice]

We are discussing that with processors and port authorities, but we believe that we have enough processing capacity to create fishmeal, although there may be problems with transport from the ports to the locations where the fishmeal is processed. We want to change fishing behaviour, and to reduce the amount of unwanted fish that is landed by means of more selective gears and changes in fishing patterns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s help for dairy farming through exports, public procurement and general support, but what talks has she had with the banks? I think milk prices will improve, but the banks need to support farmers in the meantime.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There will be short-term cash-flow pressures on farmers who are currently receiving low prices and in some cases have quite high costs. I have had a meeting already with the banks to discuss this and to encourage them to show forbearance. As the Secretary of State said earlier, we have also been encouraging HMRC to show forbearance to those farmers facing difficulties, and I will continue to monitor the issue closely.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Neil Parish and George Eustice

Thursday 11th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I met Northern Ireland representatives from Dairy UK when I was in Brussels last week and they raised that point with me. The European Commission is looking at the intervention price, and our officials are working on what the appropriate price would be. Generally, an increase in that intervention price would tend to benefit other countries that have lower prices before it benefits UK farmers, but we are considering the issue.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The dairy price of 25p and falling means that farmers are producing at a loss. The dairy trade adjudicator can look at parts of the trade, but are there more ways to deal with the price, especially of processed cheese in the supermarket sector? The price of milk is dealt with by supermarkets, but processed cheese is not.

[George Eustice]

I have considered those issues, which I discussed last week when I appeared before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. My view is that our grocery code, together with the adjudicator, adequately covers retailers, and the Competition and Markets Authority has powers to consider issues further up the supply chain. Our dairy supply chain code is working successfully—the recent review by Alex Fergusson confirmed that—but we must focus on making it work better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Neil Parish and George Eustice

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady has raised this issue with me a number of times and we have had meetings on it. It was also raised with me at a meeting in Northern Ireland at the beginning of this year, and we continue to raise it with the Chinese authorities. When Mr Zhi, the Chinese farming Minister, was in the UK in April we took the opportunity to raise it again. We want more meat processors to be able to export pork to China and we need clearance for their plants. We will continue to keep up the pressure.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Exporting beef would improve the market here, and I know the Secretary of State has done an excellent job in China. Japan still bans our beef, right back from the days of BSE. We now have BSE completely under control, so it is time those markets were opened up again. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister do their very best to make sure that happens?

[George Eustice]

All I can say to my hon. Friend, who has been a champion of this industry for many years, is that we are working on many different fronts to create new markets. In the past year, we have opened markets for breeding cattle to countries such as China, for pig meat to Chile and for dairy to Cuba. In the year ahead, we will continue to look at exporting beef to Singapore and poultry meat to Papua New Guinea. The country is working incredibly hard to open as many new export markets as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Neil Parish and George Eustice

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

An increase in the number of illegal imports of puppies has been reported, but the trading standards authorities are monitoring the position carefully, and intercepted the illegal movement of a number of puppies last year. We consider the pet passport scheme to be proportionate to the risk, but we also monitor the position carefully and work closely with agencies in other European countries.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

T4. Flooding has continued in my constituency, as it has in many other constituencies throughout the country. Seaton sea defences have held, but will the Secretary of State carry on devolving powers and money to parish councils and local land and property owners so that they can clear culverts and ditches when they become blocked? Will he also ensure that silt from rivers can be spread on fields as a fertiliser rather than a waste?

Beef Cattle and Sheep (Carbon Footprint)

Debate between Neil Parish and George Eustice

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Like me, he was a farmer before first entering the House and as farmers we are used to getting the blame for a lot of things. There are certainly environmental consequences to certain farming practices, but does he share my disbelief that farmers are in the dock for—of all things—causing climate change and being responsible for it, given that we all know that the real problems with carbon come from the transport sector, energy generation and general industrialisation rather than from farming?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend and I should probably both declare an interest; I should certainly do so as I am a farmer, and proud to be so. He is absolutely right, because what we have with methane gas from ruminants in particular is a very natural gas. It may come out perhaps too much for people’s liking, but it is very much there. We are taking lower-quality proteins—I had better be careful what I say—and developing them into high-quality meat. Therefore, the animal is doing a great deal of good, and I want to balance the amount of methane gas that the animals might produce compared with the amount of carbon that is kept in the land. I repeat the fact that if we do not keep that land as permanent pasture and plough it up, we will release an awful lot of carbon.

Farmers feel that the real basis of livestock farming is almost under threat. The whole idea of this report is perhaps to try to flag up in advance where the world might go to in a few years’ time, and that scenario is what I am particularly keen to avoid. People need to know the benefits of livestock farming.

I will move on to the next paragraph of the report. Food security is one of the most pressing issues for Governments across the world. By 2050, the global population is estimated to reach 9 billion, and food production will need to increase to meet growing demand. However, that has to be achieved using the existing agricultural land, while making more efficient use of water and mitigating the existing and future impact of farming on the environment.

The challenge is no less great on the home front, with the UK population set to increase by 10 million in the next quarter of a century alone and after the percentage of agricultural land in the UK fell from 39% in 1989 to some 25% in 2009. This means maximising the value of available land, by getting the best possible outcomes in terms of food production. British agricultural land comprises many different land types, and not all are suitable for the production of arable crops. This point was eloquently made by the food climate research network in its evidence to the all-party group:

“Not all land can support crop production and the question then arises—what should be done with this poorer quality, more marginal land? Traditionally the answer has been to graze ruminants which then provide us with meat, milk and other outputs. This represents a form of resource efficiency—the land is being used to produce food that would otherwise need to be produced elsewhere”

That is particularly important.

Almost 65% of UK farmland is only suitable for growing grass where sheep and cattle are grazed. We should be utilising this marginal land, which cannot be used for arable crops but can grow good grass and provide good biodiversity and environmental benefits. Beef cattle and sheep play a vital role in food production, because of their ability to turn non-human food into edible proteins and nutrients. Limiting the role of British livestock will reduce the efficiency with which we use our land for food production and will therefore reduce our ability to be self-sufficient.

These points are often neglected, or at least not adequately considered, by those who advocate meat-free diets. If, for argument’s sake, we were all to switch to a diet free of meat, much of our agricultural land would be unfarmed and we would see a considerable drop in the efficiency of our land to food conversion, in addition to the negative impacts on biodiversity, as outlined above.

When the developing world is eating more meat, and choosing to do so, there is a greater need to produce meat across the world. Therefore, Britain should do its fair share of meat production, and grazing both sheep and cattle on grassland is essential, in my view. Grazing cattle and sheep are often given disproportionate blame for carbon emissions from agriculture, and there is not enough recognition among some conservation groups of the role that livestock farming, particularly of grass-fed beef and lamb, plays in storing carbon, protecting biodiversity and utilising marginal land that cannot be used for arable crops.

I thank you for listening to this debate, Mrs Brooke, and open it to colleagues to join in.

Common Agricultural Policy

Debate between Neil Parish and George Eustice

Thursday 1st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

I understand exactly where the hon. Lady is coming from, but looking at Scotland, dare I question whether the highlands and the bare rocks need the same payment as some land that can be farmed, such as grasslands? Averages of payment throughout Scotland are interesting. How I dare even suggest such things, I do not know—I do not want to get into a war with Scotland—but there are statistics and statistics.

We are at a crossroads, and at a place where Britain is well in advance of others, with regard to environment payments. We need to ensure that we can pay for those payments. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton that modulation is unfair to British farmers. However, I also know that the Treasury is not noted for its generosity, and if we do not modulate, we will not have enough money to pay for our stewardship schemes. If the Minister and the Secretary of State with responsibility for agriculture went cap in hand to the Treasury, saying, “We already receive £2 billion or £3 billion from the CAP, but we need more money from the Treasury to prop up stewardship schemes,” I suspect that they would be told in good Anglo-Saxon terms to go on their way. As we negotiate the new agricultural policy, we must ensure that those stewardship schemes are funded through it in some shape or form. We must be careful when we say that we will throw the modulation out with the bathwater, because that may not be the right way forward.

This debate is a great opportunity, and I wish Ministers well in their negotiations. The argument in Europe is always that we should have an agricultural policy for the whole of Europe and a budget to fit that policy, but in the real politics of the European Union, there is a budget for agriculture, and agricultural policy is then fitted to that budget. That is exactly what will happen this time.

We must get the best deal for our farmers and the environment. I wish our new Minister and the Secretary of State well in their negotiations with our European partners. We must be tough to ensure that we move our agriculture forward to competitive food production and a green agriculture policy, but we must not lose sight of the fact that in the end, much of the food that our farmers produce is also part of the green environment.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a problem with a one-size-fits-all policy such as the CAP is that it is difficult to have policy innovation, because any such innovation is stifled by the need for negotiations between 27 member states? Does he think it might be better gradually to move to a system with a common agricultural policy with common objectives—safeguarding the environment, improving animal welfare, and food security—so that those policies are increasingly delivered on the ground by national Governments from their own budgets, and we do not recycle funds through the EU in the first place?

[Neil Parish]

Yes. My hon. Friend raises a good point. What needs to be brought in is not only a policy, but co-financing, because each member state would then pay for its own agricultural policy, and might not be quite so keen on throwing money away on strange projects, as some countries do. Olive oil is produced in Greece, and reindeer are supported in north Finland and Sweden. Wheat and barley are grown across much of Europe, and rice is grown in parts of Italy and Greece. It is difficult to support a policy and have one aim. It would be much better to ensure that member states had their own money. The downside of that is that we do not want the French throwing all its money into supporting suckler cows and beef production, and that highly subsidised beef then coming across the channel to compete with our beef, which may not be subsidised in the same way.

[George Eustice]

I completely accept that point, but does my hon. Friend agree that for any other goods, and in any other part of the single market, state aid rules, which the European Court of Justice enforces, prevent that from happening? It would be possible to have an agricultural policy with common objectives, but delivered nationally, with those state aid rules to prevent the sort of behaviour he mentioned.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend has heard the phrase, “The law works for the law-abiding,” and we can be certain that the French would find every reason to distort the market in their favour, wait until that was challenged by the European Commission, and drag it through the European courts for years, so I am not as sure as he is that state aid rules will stop the French or anyone else distorting the market. We must be careful if we go down that route. State aid rules are a blunt weapon, and I believe the Anglo-Saxons in Europe conform to them more closely than those in other parts of the European Union. State aid rules alone will not be enough.

We must ensure that CAP reform is done in a way that does not distort the market further. We should green it, but have food production, and ensure that as we deal with farmers in this country, we have food production on the best land and increase it sustainably, but have conservation on our more marginal land. That is the way forward, and that is where we must be careful in our negotiations on the greening of the CAP. I look forward to Ministers doing a good job.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr Chope. I am conscious that I was not here for the opening of the debate. The title of the Select Committee’s report is “Greening the Common Agricultural Policy,” but more specifically the Commission’s proposals are about greening pillar one of the CAP. It is worth noting that supporting the greening of pillar one represents quite a significant departure from the long-standing British foreign policy position, which is that we should gradually phase out pillar one and direct payments all together and put our support into pillar two, so that we can have more tailored local and national support for environmental stewardship schemes.

My concern is that by going for the greening of pillar one, we will end up with what is already being called in some circles green taping—rather than red tape, we will have green tape. There will be quite bureaucratic and centralised diktats coming out about what farmers can and cannot do, which invariably will not have been thought through properly. We might lose the opportunity to achieve the more satisfactory long-term objective of removing pillar one altogether and having effective, well thought through countryside stewardship schemes. In recent decades, British Governments of all colours have led the way in developing some of the successful ones. The entry-level and higher-level stewardship schemes are held up as exemplars for others to follow. There is a danger that we will lose that momentum towards a more sensible CAP and end up reverting to and getting bogged down in, again, quite a bureaucratic process.

I shall highlight a few key problems that I see with some of the proposals. There is the idea that we should go back to set-aside. We moved away from set-aside 15 or 20 years ago because it was not working. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) that it is not always right to have just 7% of every farmholding set aside and not farmed intensively. The evidence is that if we really want to encourage wildlife, we should have wildlife corridors. Some parts of the country where the agricultural value of the land is lower might opt to do more of these environmental schemes—

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the set-aside argument. Do we get value for money in greening with set-aside, counterbalancing the fact that we are taking out a lot of land that could be used for food production? There is a moral duty to produce food as well as taking land out for so-called environmental set-aside.

[George Eustice]

That is right. The environmental stewardship schemes in pillar two are much more proactive about encouraging wildlife and improving biodiversity, whereas the problem with set-aside is that it becomes something that has to be done and everyone finds all sorts of ways around the rules so that, for instance, they can graze a particular type of goat on the land and get away with it. There is an issue with the bureaucratic system of set-aside.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton also alluded to the crop rotation requirement. Anyone who has been a farmer, as I once was, knows that crop rotation is a good thing. A farmer who farms without rotating their crops, particularly in the arable or vegetable sectors, will soon run into problems, such as crop disease, which causes a great deal more expense than any subsidy would have been worth. I question the value of insisting, in the latest proposals, that each farmholding must grow three crops. It proves that whoever came up with the idea is not a farmer; they are a bureaucrat. One could grow three brassicas—cabbage, oilseed rape and cauliflower—which would satisfy the three-crop rule, but the farmer would have clubroot disease in all those crops within two or three years.

I understand why some would regard the proposal to cap subsidies to individual farmholdings as superficially attractive; they think, “Why should we give a huge amount of money to very large farms?” However, no one has thought through the likely impact. Large farmholdings might break themselves into small farmholdings to get around the rules. There would be all sorts of avoidance problems, which would need a suite of anti-avoidance measures and people to ensure that farmers did not break up their holdings to circumvent the provisions. There would be major problems with that, so one must question what we are trying to achieve. If an objective of the CAP always has been and should be to promote food security and competitive farming, why would we want a policy designed to undermine the most productive and efficient farms in Europe and reward the least efficient? Although I understand why some would find the proposal superficially attractive, it is a mistake.

[George Eustice]

That is an interesting proposal, which I would like to look at more closely. I have previously argued that we could develop a system in which environmental obligations became transferable in some regards. The lettuce grower on the Cambridgeshire fens, who has a model that getting the single farm payment is irrelevant to, might forgo the payment, which could instead go to a farmer on more marginal land in, let us say, Wales—I do not want to offend anyone with a Welsh background. Such schemes could therefore receive more investment.

A problem that we all recognise in the EU negotiating process, which I alluded to in my question to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, is that rather than going into negotiations saying, “What is the best possible agricultural policy we could design?” and “What is the optimum policy we could pursue?” we are always hamstrung by voices in DEFRA and the civil service that say, “You can’t do that because Denmark won’t agree. If you advance this idea France will reject it, and we will lose our allies in Poland and eastern Europe.” Everything about agricultural policy ends up being seen through the prism of an incredibly complicated 27-way negotiation, which frankly leads to a poverty of vision of what our agricultural policy could become. We instead plod along like a blinkered horse, trying to achieve what we can. It is all about the lowest common denominator, rather than genuinely successful and thoughtful policy. Pillar two is a classic case of that.

[Mr Dai Havard in the Chair]

In the last Parliament, our Committee, before I was on it, criticised the Labour Government for arguing that we should phase out pillar one and have pillar two only, because it was not achievable and undermined our negotiating position. If we do not even articulate what we believe because we are concerned that doing so will undermine our negotiating position, there is a problem.

I would like a much looser CAP in future: a common policy about common objectives. We could set common objectives for improving animal welfare, safeguarding the environment, enhancing biodiversity and promoting food security. There could be much looser policies and arrangements centrally and much more decision making and responsibility for implementation devolved to national Governments.

[Neil Parish]

This will tempt my hon. Friend further from the topic of debate, but would a looser common agricultural policy, or an agriculture policy, be part of a new relationship that we might negotiate with Europe?