Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (Variation of Schedule 8) (England) Order 2015

Nick Smith Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 General Committees

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Buck. I thank the Minister for his speech.

This amendment to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 looks to widen the range of improvements for which an agricultural tenant can be paid compensation at the end of their tenancy. The order recognises the broader range of animals that can be kept on a farm, such as llamas and alpacas. It also recognises the value of manure and soil improvements applied to the land and provides compensation no matter how the improvements were obtained.

Labour broadly welcomes the order, as it ensures that tenants receive a fairer deal for their efforts on the land. In addition, any measure that encourages stronger stewardship and care in farming at all stages of the tenancy must be welcomed. Importantly, stakeholders have told me that they believe an uplift payment will be an incentive for tenant farmers to prioritise environmentally and socially responsible farming practice.

There has been a worry that, as tenancies wind down, farmland will be left to degrade. The order will help to address that problem. I will, however, note points that I hope the Minister can answer today.

I understand that the consultation on the proposals raised several concerns about the definition of “improvement” and whether that could be too broad a term and open to interpretation. For instance, a landlord may not think that an improvement to the land made by the tenant is an improvement at all, because it would not benefit any new tenants in the future. As arbitration can be an expensive process, can the Minister assure us that the Government will monitor the level of any disputes that arise as a result of the changes and, if there are many disputes about what an “improvement” is, act accordingly?

Finally, how will the Government work with the Tenancy Reform Industry Group—TRIG—to disseminate information about this change across the sector?

Food Security

Nick Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for introducing the debate, and I thank the many colleagues who intervened and made contributions. The hon. Gentleman raised important concerns about the dairy sector and spoke with real energy about supporting British producers. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) showed his usual deep rural knowledge, and suggested three courses of home-produced food for us; his serious point was about reducing food imports. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) raised important questions about the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and sought visitors to his great county’s shows this summer. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) talked about the importance of consumers buying more fruit and veg. He spoke in support of country of origin labelling and, unsurprisingly, Scottish branding.

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) reminded us about the impact of climate change and flooding in recent weeks on people around the country, and she expressed strong support, as we would expect, for Cornish fishermen. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) said that her fishing industry was optimistic, and she gave us the best pun of the afternoon when she suggested that we could have our hake and eat it. She was making an important point about public procurement and eating our great fish from this country.

The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) talked about the impact of climate change on food production in Kenya, and made a powerful point about how it is reducing the certainty of food imports from that country. He also spoke with real vigour in support of the red tractor label. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) gave a great round-up of the debate, and warned everybody about the loss of EU funding for farming across the country.

The Government’s chief scientific adviser said in 2013 that food security in the UK was dependent on two things: well-functioning markets and a vibrant farming and food industry. I celebrate every penny of the contribution that agriculture makes to this country, and the millions of jobs and the billions of pounds in exports that it creates. Against those factors, however, I see not a job well done, but a job that should be done better. I see farmers at the mercy of a supply chain where they hold none of the cards, gaps in research funding in areas that are vital to enable us to compete on a global scale, and a market where the food that we can and do grow is supplanted in the supermarket aisles and at the tills by billions of pounds worth of imports. All the while, the Government, who rejected a Labour plan that made food security a priority, have dragged their heels over an alternative.

The problem cannot be solved with quick fixes—although with the heavy cuts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I doubt that quick fixes will be possible anyway. Instead, we need to tackle the issue of food security properly. The difficulties that farmers have faced over farm-gate prices are one area in which real differences could be made. Despite the price boost to some producers, the average farm-gate price for milk is lower than it was in October 2014. Lamb prices are under pressure, and even wheat has fallen 9% since January last year.

Although organisations such as the NFU recognise that such problems are among the perils of farming, they put at massive risk the sort of investment that is needed for farmers to grow and thrive—that is, for the farmers and businesses that are lucky enough not to go under as a result of the price drops. Unfortunately, as has been said several times today, when policies have been suggested such as increasing the powers and scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to give producers more bargaining power, the Government have poured cold water on those ideas, because they would require legislation. Why is that too great a hurdle to clear, if such action would protect our food producers across the country?

I turn to the question of the food that fills our shelves. Like many colleagues, I have delighted in the range of foods from around the world that we can now buy in our supermarkets and shops. Of course, there always will be food imports, but why does the UK supply just 23% of its own fruit and vegetable needs? The £7.8 billion trade gap between exports and imports in that area is shocking. The Government will soon embark on their “Great British Food” campaign. Promoting our foods to be sold around the world is a good venture, and to be applauded, but can the Minister assure us that the campaign will include efforts to promote British fruit and veg on our shelves?

I note that the Department has made little headway with convincing Europe on country of origin labelling for the likes of dairy products. Instead, it has “encouraged” retailers in Britain to use the voluntary country-of-origin labelling scheme, even though 86% of shoppers want to buy more traceable food that has been produced on British farms—and in Scotland, too. Will the Minister ensure that the supermarkets play ball and give British producers a chance to stand out?

Although such measures can help to ensure well-functioning markets and a vibrant industry, food security is something that will play out over decades and centuries, not just over years. Climate change, which has come up a number of times this afternoon, and the rapidly increasing population of the UK and of the world may stretch, or even render obsolete, current farming methods.

We need a long-term strategy that ensures sustainable gains in economic growth while replenishing the natural environment over which we hold stewardship. Top agri-tech research will be required to meet that challenge, but both the Committee on Climate Change and our all-party group on science and technology in agriculture have noted Britain’s stagnation when it comes to research and development. In a global market in which other countries are surging ahead, the NFU predicts, as the hon. Member for St Ives has pointed out, that by 2080 we will be forced to import more than 50% of our food unless we do something now. We have finally had a commitment from the Government for a big investment in agri-tech support, but my question is simple: why, when organisations across the spectrum have called for it, has that taken so long? Valuable time has been wasted.

It would be remiss of me, in a debate on food security, to ignore the plight of the more than 1 million people who now use food banks in the UK. Food bank usage increased by 18% from 2013-14 to 2014-15. Any food security policy must be about not just producing more food but giving everyone in the UK access to safe, healthy and affordable food. The previous Labour Government knew how important food security was for the UK; in our “Food 2030” strategy, we reckoned that it was as important as energy security to the country’s wellbeing. That strategy would have been the start of a consumer-led, technological revolution, with the aim of producing more food in a sustainable manner with a smaller environmental footprint. Instead, 2010 saw this Government consign those plans to the scrapheap. I believe that they are playing catch-up to this day, and our food and farming industries have paid the price.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Smith Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The Government’s position is very clear: we want to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union and see some powers come back to the UK. We will put that to the British public in a referendum and they will decide. Should the UK decide to leave the European Union, at that point the Government would obviously set a national agricultural policy.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

DEFRA’s mismanagement of the CAP delivery programme saw very senior managers embroiled in childish squabbling. This flagship IT project then spiralled £60 million over budget. It was so useless that farmers were forced to switch back to pen and paper. With the NAO predicting millions in penalties as a result, why did the Minister not intervene to save farmers and taxpayers from this IT disaster?

[George Eustice]

I simply point out that we did intervene. We acted in March, once we realised there was going to be difficulty, to ensure that all farmers could get their applications in on time on a paper-based system, and we have worked very hard since then to ensure that we enter it on the core of the system, which has worked well.

Neonicotinoids on Crops

Nick Smith Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I thank the Petitions Committee, the thousands of petitioners and the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) for introducing the debate this evening. I also thank the many colleagues who have intervened and made contributions. Let me also say that it is of course a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Many happy returns of the day to you.

This debate is timely. The public are very engaged on this issue; I have received more correspondence on this than on many other parliamentary matters in recent years. We are all in no doubt about the importance of pollinators to our food supply, biodiversity and our economy, but they are in very serious decline. In 2012, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that England had seen the greatest decline in the diversity of wild bees of anywhere in Europe. It stated:

“Since 1900, the UK has lost 20 species of bees…A further 35 bee species…are considered to be under threat of extinction.”

This debate is a chance for the Government to reassure the public that those concerns are being taken seriously, as they review the evidence underpinning the 2013 EU ban over the next year. I am pleased that the Government now seem to have an open mind to considering the best available scientific information, given their previous opposition to the ban.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I wish you a very happy birthday, Ms Vaz. Was my hon. Friend as disappointed as I was when the Government did a U-turn on their implementation of the 2013 EC regulations in full? I had a letter on 17 July saying that the regulations would be implemented in full and then, two days later, they decided to approve the usage of two neonics on 5% of the national winter oilseed rape crop area.

[Nick Smith]

Yes I was, and I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.

The Government still have not clarified what their current assessment of the latest evidence is and whether they consider it sufficient to support the EU ban. Since the ban, more scientific evidence has appeared emphasising the risk to bees. Examples include a link between the use of neonics and the decline of UK butterfly species, an impact on the pollination that bees provide, resulting in lower-quality apples, as others have mentioned, and emerging evidence that neonics could also affect the soil in which seeds are planted and the wild flowers that grow in it.

The more conservative analysis provided by Professor Charles Godfray and Angela McLean to the Government found a strong scientific consensus that bees exposed to these pesticides in fields suffer harm. However, it could not yet assess whether that harm ultimately leads to falls in overall bee populations. Professor Godfray’s paper highlighted one “gold standard” field study from Sweden, showing significant damage to the bumblebee populations. There was no effect on honeybees, but it is worth noting that honeybees pollinate only 5% to 15% of insect-pollinated crops. I would argue that the lack of a conclusive link with population decline should not, however, be used as a reason for ending EU restrictions. Where are the Government in their judgment of that evidence? Can the Minister give us an insight into how evidence-based policy will be applied?

Everyone here will have sympathy with farmers who are facing considerable difficulties establishing oilseed rape crops in areas under high pressure from cabbage stem flea beetle. In April, it was estimated that 5% of the winter oilseed rape crop had been lost to CSFB.

I appreciate the understandable desire to have every tool available in the toolbox to respond to CSFB, but although 70% of the oilseed rape crop was previously treated with neonics, this is the first harvest without neonics and DEFRA’s statistics for this year’s harvest have shown no change in oilseed rape yield. Waitrose has reported that, since it stopped using the pesticide on oilseed rape in 2012, it has not picked up any differences in yield, other than those attributed to seasonal, field and soil differences. Declines in yields in the eastern region, which have suffered the most from CSFB, have mirrored drops in other areas where that pest is not a problem. It would be good if the Minister said what assessment the Department had made of the effect of restrictions on yield. What amount of loss is considered an emergency warrant authorisation for the use of these pesticides?

There are concerns that farmers are having to resort to pyrethroid, an older pesticide, which is worse for pollinators and honeybees in particular. However, research seems to show that there has not been an increase in the use of that pesticide in the spring, which is the time of the highest risk to bees. The farming press have been publicising guidance from the Rothamsted institute on using sprays only when absolutely necessary, alongside other measures for avoiding flea beetle damage, including reducing cultivations and delaying drilling. Farmers Weekly has even advised farmers that spraying pyrethroid for flea beetles is a “waste of time” and could kill beneficial insects that prey on the pests, as well as fuelling insecticide resistance.

It seems that the farming community has responded to those calls. A Newcastle University study found that 19% of farmers had changed their practices to take account of the non-availability of neonics. New technologies and redesigning crop rotations have been shown to reduce reliance on pesticides by 50%. There has also been valuable work in promoting beneficial insects, some of which are predators for the pests. I hope the Minister will outline what assessment his Department has made of the impact of using alternatives to neonics, which is one of its reasons for opposing the EU ban. What work is the Minister doing with the farming industry to ensure that independent advice is provided to farmers on sustainable pest management approaches?

Although today’s debate has focused on neonics, there are, of course, many reasons for the decline of pollinators, including habitat loss, climate change and pests and diseases. There are many positives about the national pollinator strategy in addressing those causes, most critically the way in which it provides a call to action for many amazing local projects across the country to increase food, shelter and nesting sites. This has rightly tapped into what the Environmental Audit Committee describes as

“an invaluable and committed resource”,

but is this enough? I agree with the Buglife assessment that the national pollinator strategy is more of a framework than a programme. I would like to see more effort from the Government in creating better farm habitats. With three quarters of our land used for agriculture, our agri-environment policy is the best tool we have for effecting large-scale change.

There are concerns about the way in which the new greening requirements of the basic payment scheme are being implemented and there is no guarantee that it will deliver improvements for pollinators and other wildlife in the farmed landscape. What assessment has the Department made of implementation of the greening requirements of the basic payment scheme, particularly its effectiveness in delivering improvements for pollinators in the farmed landscape?

The new countryside stewardship scheme has targeted support for pollinators, but it has been a real worry that while 11,000 farmers have come out of entry-level stewardship agreements, only just over 2,300 applications were made by the deadline for the mid-tier stewardship scheme that replaced them. Will the Government agree to the NFU’s request for an urgent review of the Government’s implementation of the countryside stewardship scheme?

[Phil Wilson in the Chair]

Ms Vaz—[Interruption.] The Chair has changed. Mr Wilson, in 2013, the last Government were found to be failing in the majority of their environmental commitments, with 30% of UK ecosystem services, such as pollination, found to be in decline. They comprehensively failed to deliver on their biodiversity strategy and their promise at the beginning of that Government to leave the environment in a better condition than they found it. Over the next five years, with their 25-year plan to restore the UK’s biodiversity, they have an opportunity to start to put that right.

Low Emission Zones

Nick Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) on securing this debate, and I thank other colleagues for their contributions. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon.

We need to introduce a network of low emission zones. The health impact of air pollution places a huge burden on this and future generations, so we need a genuine long-term solution. Air pollution-related conditions cause thousands of premature deaths in this country every year. Children growing up around severe air pollution are five times more likely to have poor lung development, and long-term exposure leads to an increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease.

Although the majority of harmful substances come from industry, in urban areas as much as 70% of harmful pollution comes from road traffic. Diesel emissions are a particular culprit, as other hon. Members have said. The World Health Organisation has identified diesel fumes as a cause of lung cancer; it classifies diesel exhaust as a group 1 carcinogen, which places such fumes in the same category as arsenic and asbestos. That tells us how dangerous pollutants from diesel are, and it puts the seriousness of the Volkswagen scandal in perspective.

We urgently need to introduce low emission zones to protect the vulnerable from exposure. Concentrations of nitrogen dioxide on London’s Oxford Street are three times over the EU limit and are the highest concentrations in the world. A low emission zone has been implemented in London, and an ultra-low emission zone is on its way, but much more needs to be done, not least because this is a UK-wide issue. The EU’s limits for nitrogen oxides are regularly breached across the UK. Some 31 of 43 areas in the UK already exceed the limits set out in the 2013 EU ambient air quality directive.

[Rachael Maskell]

In addition to low emission zones, is it not important that we also carry out congestion commissions to look at the issues behind emissions? Vehicles with lower emissions can contribute to the cumulative impact.

[Nick Smith]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The more information that is available on this topic, the better. We need more ambition to clean up the air we breathe.

Worse still, the glaring inconsistencies between test data and real world emissions mean that the accuracy of the Department’s assumptions on air quality improvements must also be called into question. Given all the recent media coverage—colleagues might have seen Monday’s “Panorama”—which has seriously challenged testing data, will the Minister assure us of the robustness of the Government’s current consultation and that projections are based on accurate modelling and real world figures?

The consultation is right to suggest that there is more we can do to tackle air pollution, but the Government describe the plan as

“a plan for a plan by others”

and dodge any time-bound targets or real responsibility. The UK is also facing fines from the European Commission of £300 million a year for contravening emissions limits and failing to have a plan to reduce the levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air.

A few years ago, the Government gifted themselves the power to pass such penalties on to local authorities in areas of high air pollution. At the same time, those local authorities faced deep cuts to their budgets. In Wales—you may recognise this, Mrs Moon—we call that a hospital pass. The buck is being passed without the real power to fix the problems being identified. While the Government’s approach relies on devolving obligation and accountability to local authorities, it does so without providing any additional resources or the tools for the job.

Local authorities of course have a significant part to play, but the scope of the problem absolutely requires national oversight and guidance, which is the sort of thing that the hon. Member for Bath was talking about. We should be shaping a clear path by granting local authorities the powers that they need to reduce air pollution from vehicle emissions. That means delivering a national framework for low and ultra-low emission zones, implemented locally and informed by local intelligence. The decision-making and responsibility for reducing air pollution cannot be palmed off if local authorities have insufficient direction or investment.

While the Government’s plan refers to a national framework of clean air zones, the proposal lacks detail and needs development. Providing local authorities with a national framework would enable far more coherence. Examples from elsewhere, including from the Netherlands, show that such an approach would be a step in the right direction. How does the Minister intend to achieve the necessary improvements given the hefty budget cuts to his Department and local government announced earlier today?

In conclusion, a framework of low emission zones in the UK would be worth while and cost-effective and would make a real difference, but the Government need to throw their full weight behind the framework to ensure that it delivers the benefits it promises for our health and for the health of generations to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

That is a very good challenge, which will apply to many of us. We see the same challenge in the installation of broadband and insulating historic buildings, as well as in electric infrastructure, and DEFRA tries to use different mechanisms to address that. We sit on taskforces on housing and infrastructure, which provide good opportunities to raise that point. I absolutely take the point that historic cities are different. They operate differently and it will not always be possible to have a solution for an historic city that can be applied to a new city.

[Nick Smith]

I thank the Minister for accepting my intervention and for his contribution. There seems to be a lot of willingness across the UK to introduce these schemes and he has spoken about introducing cameras and background administrative systems to help implement them, so how will the Government financially help local authorities to implement these good ideas?

[Rory Stewart]

The answer to that, I am afraid, is that we are still completing our consultation on the plan. The plan will be printed by the end of the year and a final answer will be presented to the shadow Minister on exactly that. We have just compiled more than 700 different responses and we are going through them to try to understand what local authorities wish to do in their different towns. We are trying to work out how many projects will involve cameras and how many will involve light goods vehicles, HGVs and taxis. Some will want to invest money in hybrid buses, while others will want to go for electric charging schemes and others will want active traffic management systems to move traffic around in different directions.

The plan, which will be the answer to that, will be scrutinised carefully by the Opposition and also by ClientEarth, the Supreme Court and the European Commission, all of whom will look at it to ensure that they can be confident that we can deliver by 2020. That is the document that we wish to present at the end of this year.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for attending. This is a really important issue on a change. We did not know much about nitrogen dioxide until relatively recently: the first scientific evidence on it came out of when the “Six Cities” study in the United States that began on particulate matter and moved on to nitrogen dioxide began to identify correlations between pollution and morbidity. We still do not completely understand the chemical processes and health implications. We know that there is some kind of correlation between these substances and effects on human health and that we have to act to reduce these substances, but this is something that Governments were not really focused on even as recently as five to seven years ago.

Science is changing all the time. New research is coming in and we have doubled our numbers in a lot of these areas. I am very grateful to those who have participated in the debate and we look forward to working with everyone around the table and every local authority and devolved Administration to ensure that we provide what everyone in the United Kingdom wants: that the invisible substance that we breathe and on which we depend and our children’s lungs depend is safe and clean and that British air remains something that we proudly breathe.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the introduction of low emission zones.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Smith Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Given that farmers are struggling, may I ask by what date the last farmer will have received this year’s cheque from the Rural Payments Agency?

[George Eustice]

As with all years, the payment window runs from 1 December until June. In each year there are some highly complex cases—typically involving non-governmental organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which run large schemes and do not receive their payments until later—but, as I have said, we expect to issue the majority in December and the vast majority by the end of January. We hope to issue the payments in respect of common land during February, because those cases are more complex.