Agriculture Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, the red meat levy has been debated earlier in our deliberations on this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, wishes to rename the red meat levy “the animal slaughter levy”. Essentially, the rest of Clause 33(1) remains the same, with the levy going to help farmers move from livestock to plant-based food production. This amendment is not trying to introduce something by subterfuge, since here we are debating it on television. There is no compulsion here.

The noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Wigley, and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, have spoken in favour of the repatriation of the red meat levy to the country of origin. Livestock often travels across the border from the farm where it was raised to the slaughterhouse, and we have previously debated the long journeys that some animals have to make. The levy is currently collected at the point of slaughter, and this may not be the country of origin. I support the repatriation of this levy to the relevant devolved Administration where the livestock was reared. This is where the majority of the cost of rearing occurred, so the levy should be used in that area. That is the most sensible and equitable way of dealing with this levy, and I hope the Minister will agree.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Hain for raising these issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has made an interesting point about extending the levy, but I would like far more detail about the economic and perhaps unforeseen animal welfare consequences of broadening the levy via some kind of impact assessment. I would also like to see the proposal underscored by a commitment to consult on the proposals in advance.

We have touched on the benefits of diets based more on plants and less on meat on several occasions. I believe that measures like this should be introduced as part of a wider national food strategy, rather than in isolation. To the noble Viscount, Lord, Trenchard, I say that there are plenty of sources of vegetable protein; we do not have to rely on eating meat.

My noble friend Lord Hain is right to raise the issue of the repatriation of levies raised to the point of slaughter, rather than where the animals were raised. This is particularly concerning in the case of Welsh lamb, as he very eloquently pointed out, and it will become more of an issue as smaller slaughterhouses close down and animals are forced to travel greater distances for slaughter. This point was made well by my noble friend Lord Blunkett.

It has been good to have this short debate. A number of useful issues were raised, but if we are serious about it, a great deal more work would need to be done. In the meantime, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for Amendments 211, 213, 214 and 216. Perhaps I could tell her at the outset that we have the red meat levy; it was established in 1967 under the Agriculture Act.

The term “red meat”, or “cig coch”, is written into Welsh legislation to describe the cattle, sheep and pig industries and has been used regarding the levy for those sectors for many years. Changing the name of the red meat levy in the Bill would necessitate amendments to related legislation across the UK and risk confusion and complications with the existing provisions. A further levy extending to all meats and carcasses of animals slaughtered in the UK would probably require a new levy body to be established, or the scope of the existing levy bodies to be broadened, to cover the additional species, such as goats and deer, that do not fall within the remit of the existing levy bodies. Consultation to determine the need for, and the benefit of, such a levy would also be required. This is set out in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. More importantly, agriculture is a devolved matter, as are these industry levies. It would therefore be for the devolved Administrations to choose to take forward their own regulations in this area, should they wish to do so.

Turning to Amendment 215, plant-based food production already benefits significantly from the UK levy system. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board collects levies that are used to fund activities in this area, valued at approximately £27 million. Legislation providing for our levy bodies clearly sets out the collection of these levies and that they are to be spent to benefit the industry from which they are collected.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering also asked some questions about how they are collected, and I should say that the red meat levy collected in one country can be spent only to benefit the contributing industry in that country. For example, any pig levy that is collected in England must be spent to the benefit of the pigmeat industry in England. Currently, levy cannot be spent for the sole benefit of producers in another jurisdiction.

Clause 33 addresses an acknowledged unfairness in the GB red-meat levy system that has existed for a number of years. It is not intended to change the way these levies are collected or spent. The Government wish simply to right the wrong that has been identified in the red-meat levy system. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering also asked when we would have the government response to the AHDB consultation. The government response to the request for views on this was published in April 2020.

Turning to Amendment 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, Clause 33 was introduced to provide for a scheme that allows for the redistribution of red-meat levy between the levy bodies of Great Britain. It will provide a fair approach to resolving an inequity that has been acknowledged by the Governments of these Administrations for several years. The provision in this amendment is based purely on the origin of the animal, rather than where it has gained economic value. It will allow for the repatriation of levy to the devolved Administrations themselves, whereas the scheme established using the provisions in Clause 33 would allow for the redistribution of levy between levy bodies in the three Administrations. By widening the provision of the scheme from that of Great Britain to that of the United Kingdom, the amendment extends the repatriation of red-meat levy to Northern Ireland. However, the scheme is to be made jointly by Ministers of England, Scotland and Wales, and is not needed by Northern Ireland.

In addition, the repatriation of levy is restricted by this amendment to the devolved Administrations. This could create a disparity between the devolved Administrations and England, as the devolved Administrations will be allowed to repatriate levy dependent upon origin, but England will not.

The noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Wigley, also brought up the question of small abattoirs, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, made the point that slaughtering animals close to the point of production is an important consideration in animal welfare. I am delighted to say, since they may not have heard my earlier response to this issue, that they are included in Clause 1(5) of the Bill, which provides for small abattoirs, under “preparing” and “processing”.

With this reassurance, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

218: After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to sustain the UK agricultural industry workforce
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a strategy outlining the steps that Her Majesty’s Government proposes to take to—(a) ensure an appropriate supply of seasonal agricultural workers,(b) increase the number of people undertaking—(i) practical training, and(ii) formal qualificationsrelating to agricultural work,(c) ensure agricultural workers have sufficient access to—(i) financial advice,(ii) mental health support, and(iii) any other support the Secretary of State deems appropriate, and(d) ensure agricultural workers are subject to fair sectoral terms and conditions.(2) In preparing the strategy under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must consult—(a) other relevant UK Ministers,(b) the Scottish Ministers,(c) the Welsh Ministers,(d) the Northern Ireland department, and(e) bodies that appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of the UK agricultural industry.”

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, my Amendment 218 is on the issue of a duty to sustain the agricultural industry workforce. I also welcome Amendment 219, tabled by my noble friend Lord Judd. Our amendments would require the Government to draw up and consult on proposals to put employment in the farming sector on a more secure and better-rewarded footing.

It is clear at the outset that the workforce will be fundamental to delivering the changes that we are envisaging in this Bill. For example, in 2017, there were 474,000 people working in agriculture across the UK—about half a million people—with about 80,000 seasonal workers in that mix. However, the recent Covid-19 crisis has highlighted what we have known for some time: the sector relies too much on casual workers from the EU, the temporary and permanent opportunities are currently unattractive to most UK workers, there are few opportunities for training and career advancement and the pay and conditions have not kept pace with comparable employment opportunities in other sectors. So far, the temporary fixes put in place by the Government, such as the Pick for Britain scheme, have not provided a permanent solution to a problem that is symptomatic of a more fundamental lack of good training and career prospects in this sector.

Of course, there are good employers, with good employment practices and workers who are valued and well trained. I pay tribute to them. They know that investment and support for their staff bring rewards for the individuals and for the prosperity of their farm. However, many other workers, particularly those living in small, isolated communities, have local employment as farm labourers but are not in a position to bargain over their work conditions, and for them, exploitation is all too common. The fact that we had to introduce gangmasters legislation, in part to protect casual agricultural workers, is an indication of how lowly this work is, and how much exploitation there can be.

We also know that, sadly, this sector is characterised by low mental health and an indefensible safety record. The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board in England has compounded the problem. Predictably, surveys show that, since the board’s abolition, there has been a reduction in pay awards and increased working hours. There is also evidence of increased wage theft, illegal clawbacks and non-compliance with employment law. England is now the only country in the UK without an effective collective bargaining body for agricultural workers, and it is time that we addressed that gap.

My noble friend’s amendment also talks about affordable housing; he is right to raise this issue. Many farm workers are provided with accommodation tied to their jobs. It can be a blessing but also a burden. Mobility is curtailed and alternative housing options are rare. It is also a major barrier to new entrants wanting to work in agriculture, who simply cannot find affordable homes anywhere near where they would like to work. So we are a long way from where we ought to be in terms of training and employment in this sector.

The world of farming is changing. It will require far greater technical skills in the future. The outcome of all the exciting agritech research will need practical applications, such as robotics, IT and scientific measurement. It will require a much greater knowledge of land management and biodiversity. It will also need—dare I say it?—some understanding of the record-keeping and bureaucracy needed to ensure that farmers can make claims successfully under the new ELMS. All this will require a structured training programme, with progression and rewards. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Curry, talk about the skills leadership group in a previous debate and I hope that he will say more about that today.

Although I fully acknowledge that Michael Gove was a good Environment Secretary, he was a disastrous Education Secretary. During his tenure, many of the practical agricultural and horticultural courses were abolished. However, we have to start from where we are now and face that reality, rather than going back and rehearsing old arguments.

This sector faces one of the biggest transformations of any in the UK, moving very rapidly from low skilled to high-tech, and we will need the training courses to deliver that change. This could make employment in the agricultural sector a really exciting proposition, provided it is accompanied by pay and conditions that will encourage people to stay. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will support this amendment as a serious contribution to making the rest of the ambitions set out in the Bill a practical reality. I beg to move.

Amendment 219 (to Amendment 218)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 219 (to Amendment 218) withdrawn.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, since we strayed quite a lot into innovation, robotics and so on, I thought that, in retrospect, I should declare an interest regarding my involvement with Rothamsted Enterprises, which is on the record.

I thank all noble Lords for the pretty fulsome support for my amendment from around the Chamber. I emphasise that this is not a prescriptive amendment; it simply asks the Government to pull together all the strands that we have talked about this afternoon—and the issues the Minister has flagged up in the work that is already ongoing—into one coherent strategy, which I feel we would all find useful. So often when we have these debates, the problem is that we find that there is some work going on in the Department for Education over here and other work going on in BEIS over there, but this is a fundamental part of how we are going to deliver the new agricultural programme that we are all enthusiastic about and aspire to. It is so much at the heart of it that bringing the strands together in one document that we can all see, sign off on and understand would be a really welcome step.

As I and many noble Lords have said, training and skills are absolutely key to this, and we cannot afford to be behind the curve—it is moving so quickly. I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Curry, talk about his recommendation of a professional body, which I would like to see in the strategy. I was interested in the Minister’s comments about the Peter Kendall recommendations. Again, it would be good to see some of that spelled out in the strategy. All of this information and these recommendations are great, but they need to be brought to fruition and this is the Bill in which to do that. I am not saying that the current wording of my amendment is perfect, but something like it needs to be on the face of the Bill.

I will pick out a few questions. I was asked about seasonal workers. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that not all seasonal work needs to be 12 hours long and back-breaking—I know that the Minister has a different view on this, and I understand that some seasonal work has to go with the weather. However, it does not all have to be back-breaking, 12-hour shifts. One of the problems we have is that a lot of UK workers do not come forward, precisely because of the length of the shifts; personally, I do not understand why there cannot be shorter shifts running in parallel.

The Minister talked about all workers having a buy-in and working 24 hours a day if needs be. For longer-term workers, I can see that that is the case, but casual workers maybe do not have the same buy-in to the outcome. This is what we are trying to find: we are trying to build longer-term relationships where, year after year, people care about the produce and outcomes, and feel that they have a say, a buy-in and some ownership of the profitability of the companies they are employed by.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked whether migrant workers should be covered. I thought that that was implied by what I said, but I am happy to say that of course that is the case. I will go one step further: if you are going to have training courses, it is absolutely vital that migrant workers and UK workers have the same training courses, particularly when it comes to safety issues or the use of machinery. You cannot afford to have one person who is less well trained and could let the side down by not knowing how to use the equipment. All of that training should be available to migrant workers and other workers alike.

I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that issues around vets very much underpin this issue. We absolutely need to have a system where everybody is treated equally and where the proper pay and conditions apply equally to UK workers and those from the EU.

A comment was made about the minimum wage. If this sector has a future, I do not see it being a minimum-wage sector. Of course, there will always be entry-level jobs that will be minimum-wage, but there needs to be career progression and extra pay for the extra skills that you develop. One of the things that is lacking at the moment is that when people upgrade their skills, they do not necessarily see that they will automatically get a higher rate of pay for doing so, which is what would happen in many other sectors.

At the outset of the Bill in the other place, evidence was taken from the agricultural workers’ unions. That evidence was that even people on the minimum wage were having part of it docked for clothing, food and all sorts of other charges. I am not saying whether or not these were legitimate, but there is no standard scheme to say that if your clothing is provided, you can have your wages docked by a certain percentage. All the evidence they gave was that wages have gone down since the Agricultural Wages Board was abolished. I am not saying that it should be brought back in its old form, but something is needed to bring all of these collective bargaining bodies together. As I think I said in my opening, they already have such bodies in the other UK countries of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; it is only in England where we do not have a means of providing advice on wages and conditions.

I reiterate that change is coming fast in this sector. If we are to deliver the Bill, we need the subsidies, the finance that goes with that and all the advice and expertise we can bring into this sector, but we also need the labour force and the skills. That is the third leg of the stool that will prop this whole enterprise up. Unless this is an essential part of the Bill, I do not think the Bill will be sustainable.

I was pleased that the Minister said there is work going on—that is great. I really feel we need to pull those themes together, and this is the time to do it. I am grateful for his offer of discussions and would like to take him up. If not our amendment, something akin to it should be in the Bill. I really hope the Minister will not close his mind to the idea that the Government could put down their own amendment to deliver that; maybe that is an issue for another day. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 218 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 220 relates to animals being exported from the UK for the purposes of slaughter or fattening prior to slaughter. The sanctions imposed on those found guilty are severe and will, I hope, act as sufficient deterrent to prevent it happening.

Moving animals long distances causes extreme distress and is unnecessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, spoke passionately against the export of live animals for fattening, especially young animals. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, and the noble Lords, Lord Randall of Uxbridge and Lord Trees, made compelling arguments against exporting live animals, which I fully support. Does the Minister agree that the export of animals should be stopped? I know that he is passionate about animal welfare and I look forward to his support.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, spoke to Amendment 277—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, will shortly—on banning the import of foie gras from 31 December 2021. This is plenty of time for regulations to be put in place for producers of foie gras to adjust and find other markets. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, intends the ban to extend to individual tourists returning from a holiday in a country where it is possible to buy foie gras. I support the whole impact of the foie gras ban but not penalising individual tourists.

The vast majority of the experienced and knowledgeable noble Lords who spoke on this amendment support it, except the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. While the loading and unloading of trucks may have improved in some cases, the length and nature of the transportation in many cases has not. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, drew attention to that and confirmed that this is the case. I ask the Minister to support this amendment and look forward to his comments on the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 277 but also in support of Amendment 220, which would ban the export of farmed animals for slaughter or fattening. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and many other noble Lords set out the case for this extremely well.

My amendment has a very specific intent: to ban the import of foie gras into the UK and to introduce fines for those found guilty of the offence after 31 December 2021. This is an issue of blatant animal cruelty, which has been widely recognised. Foie gras is created by force-feeding ducks and geese massive amounts of food to make their livers swell to 10 times their natural size. It causes enormous suffering. The birds are kept in tiny cages with wire mesh floors and no bedding or rest area. The process of jamming food down their throats several times a day causes disease and inflammation of the oesophagus. There is no higher-welfare alternative for making foie gras. It is intrinsically cruel.

The production of foie gras on UK soil has rightly been banned since 2000. However, imports have sadly not been banned, with the result that the UK continues to import around 200 tonnes of foie gras each year, mostly from mainland Europe. It is time to put a stop to this. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, that it is not about the odd tin of foie gras in someone’s luggage; it is about commercial profit from animal suffering.

When a similar amendment was considered in the Commons, the Minister, Victoria Prentis, agreed that it raised serious welfare issues but that we should consider the matter after the transition from the EU. However, noble Lords will have spotted that the implementation date in my amendment is a year after we have left the EU, so there is plenty of time to bring this law into effect. Noble Lords might also like to know that force- feeding animals is already prohibited in a number of other European countries, including Germany, Italy and Poland.

We need to join the international movement against this cruel activity and implement a ban on imports of foie gras here as soon as we can. Let us hope that if enough countries take a stand on this, it will make foie gras production uneconomical and end this cruel practice for good.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for participating in this debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Fookes —the word “tenacity” comes to mind. I think everyone agrees that animals should be slaughtered as close as possible to where they have spent their productive lives. I understand, and indeed share, the sentiments behind this amendment.

Over the last 30 years, EU free trade rules have prevented previous Administrations from taking meaningful action on live exports. Having left the EU, the Government are clear that we want to tackle this issue. However, any restriction on trade must of course be in accordance with WTO rules. We are giving careful consideration to the animal health and public morals exceptions in the design of our policy. My noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge used the word “complex”, which is apposite.

The Government committed in their manifesto to end excessively long journeys of animals going for slaughter or fattening. In 2018, along with the devolved Administrations, we tasked the independent Farm Animal Welfare Committee, or FAWC—now actually called AWC—to look into controlling live exports and at what improvements should be made to animal welfare in transport. FAWC produced a report that provides a good basis for future reforms to control live exports and improve animal welfare in transport more broadly, which is also very important.

My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach and others referred to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will continue to apply the current EU rules as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol, and so cannot prevent the export of live animals to the EU and beyond. While the amendment recognises that fact, it would regrettably create a loophole which would be detrimental to animal welfare. Animals could be transported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, rested for a short time in accordance with EU law, and then transported to the EU or a third country. There is also a risk that, to ensure enforcement was possible, we would need to introduce greater restrictions on animal movements from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

I say to all noble Lords that the Government are actively considering how they will take forward their manifesto pledge. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked whether the amendment would hasten this; as I have said, the Government are actively considering how they will bring forward their manifesto pledge to end long journeys to slaughter and fattening, using the FAWC report as a basis for future proposals.

I turn to Amendment 277. While allowed under EU law, the production of foie gras from ducks or geese by using force-feeding raises serious welfare concerns. The domestic production of foie gras by force-feeding is not compatible with our animal welfare legislation. However, this amendment would penalise someone for bringing foie gras into the country for their personal consumption. The individual British consumer or retailer currently has the choice to engage with the product or not. I understand the strength of feeling on the issue, but in the Government’s view the Bill is about reforming domestic agriculture, not introducing penalties to consumers.

As I ask my noble friend Lady Fookes to withdraw her amendment, I hope that she will not suggest that I am weak or vacillating. We are seeking to plot a course through a complex issue to adhere to and achieve our manifesto commitment. With that, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, this should have been the last group of amendments debated on Tuesday evening, dealing with pesticides, which we had previously debated. This debate has roused passions on both sides of the argument. Whichever side you come from, we all seem to agree that being sprayed with chemicals is unacceptable. I fully support Amendment 221 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who has also added his name to Amendment 226 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, as has my noble friend Lord Greaves.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked of the protection of wildlife biodiversity. Terrible damage can be done to humans by ingesting chemicals which can cause health problems and deformities. The noble Lord gave a graphic example of the sprayer of pesticides who was wearing full protective clothing but taking no care to ensure that those nearby, not protected by clothing, were not covered by the spray. This is not right. Rural residents deserve to be protected, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, reminded us of the previous contributions by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Will we remove toxic chemicals from our environment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, said? There is a cumulative effect on humans, as well as the decimation of the insect population.

I regret that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. Not all of us who have gardens spray our plants, fruit and vegetables with noxious chemicals to prevent pests. There are other means of discouraging pests and blight which do not contain poisons or spray up on our produce.

Over the years we have seen the devastating effects on humans of the use of pesticides and insecticides. Some noble Lords mentioned Roundup. I have experience of the effect of sheep dip. My noble friend Lord Addington mentioned DDT and organophosphates. We take an unconscionable time to act when presented with evidence of harm. It is, therefore, much better to ban toxic sprays and move to more environmentally friendly means of pest control, such as nematode worms to control slugs, instead of slug pellets, which kill birds that eat the slugs that have eaten the pellets, and eat the pellets themselves. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for his valuable contribution to this debate. These amendments are linked; both monitor the use of pesticides and alternatives. We cannot monitor the use of pesticides if we do not collect data on their use, as my noble friend Lady Northover indicated. I am grateful for her contribution and her attention to the UK’s history in preventing the banning of neonicotinoids and the transport of live animals—we should be ashamed of our part in that.

Noble Lords taking part in this debate have made important points. In earlier debates, the noble Baroness the Minister gave reassurances on the implementation of alternative pesticide use. It is important that the public are protected from possible pesticide spraying. The IPM should be implemented as soon as possible. When will it be consulted on and then implemented? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 226 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Randall and Lord Greaves. I also support Amendment 221, which was expertly introduced by my noble friend Lord Whitty. I remind noble Lords of my Rothamsted connections in the register.

Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to monitor the effects of pesticides on livestock and the land, conduct research into alternative methods of pest control and consult on a target to reduce their use. It complements the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty, which focuses more on the impact of pesticides on human health, which is, rightly, also a great cause for concern. As I mentioned in an earlier debate on the agricultural workforce, there are nearly half a million people working on the land who have immediate and worrying exposure to pesticides and herbicides on a daily basis. It is right that that should be properly regulated.

My noble friend Lord Whitty also raised the concerns of those living in rural areas adjoining fields where crops are being sprayed, sometimes indiscriminately. They come with health warnings that are rarely shared with the local population. Clearly these practices can cause substantial pollution, not only to the individuals concerned but to the air quality in nearby areas. It was notable that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, rightly pointed out the irony that water courses seem to be better protected than human beings. As my noble friend Lady Henig said, it is a sad fact that the health impacts of these chemicals often become clear all too late in the day. This is certainly the case with glyphosate, a widely used agricultural and domestic weedkiller.

This is why we argued emphatically that we should retain the precautionary principle when we transpose EU law into UK law. In response to noble Lords who have been critical of these amendments, my noble friend’s amendment calls not for a ban but for a minimum distance between spraying and homes and schools. That is a reasonable prospect, on any measure. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, not everybody operates to the high standards to which he referred and aspires. We cannot just assume that human nature will operate to the best and highest standards.

The amendment in my name concentrates more on the effects of pesticides on the land and its biodiversity. The objectives in Clause 1 place a welcome emphasis on managing land to improve the environment, to protect it from environmental hazards and to embrace agroecology. If we are serious about land management schemes that deliver for the environment, we have to be serious about a review of our pesticide use. As we have debated before, this needs to be based on an integrated pest-management principle which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, understands the interrelationship between insects and the need to keep their presence in balance, rather than wiping them out indiscriminately with pesticides. A few months ago, I talked to a farmer who described the success of the beetle banks that had been laid in rows between his crops. The beetles come out in the daytime; they roam around the field eating aphids; and then they return to the bank at dusk, and everyone is happy. These are surely the kinds of innovations that we should be supporting, along with precision application where pesticides are absolutely necessary.

We also need to be aware of the threat from imported foods with lower restrictions on the use of pesticides which might flood our market post Brexit. We need specific measures to ensure that UK farmers cannot be undercut by cheap food from non-EU countries with less strict controls, which might be contaminated by pesticide residues. Will maintaining pesticide standards and the precautionary principle apply to all imported food post Brexit?

When a similar amendment was put forward by my Labour colleagues in the Commons, the Minister, Victoria Prentis, agreed that the use of pesticides should be minimised and their usage and effect carefully monitored. She argued that further details would be included in the 25-year environment plan. But I see no reason why this issue cannot be progressed as part of this Bill. All we are asking for is up-to-date research on the impact of pesticides and alternative methods of pest control. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley; it is happening at Rothamsted and a number of other research institutes. But we need to pull that evidence together in one place, so that we have a strategy for alternative and better use. This is necessary if we are to have the good practice that the environment land management in the Bill desires. If we are serious about this, the future is about alternatives to pesticide use. All we are asking is that we capture that and put it in the Bill in a constructive way.

I urge noble Lords to look closely at the wording of my noble friend Lord Whitty’s amendment and mine. They are both very modest in their aspiration and scope. They do not ask for a great deal, but they do ask for practical solutions for the way forward. I hope that noble Lords will support both amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell remarked that this is a wide-ranging debate and that the whole Committee stage has been. There is an inevitability about that, because our shared objective of a thriving agricultural sector delivering a range of public goods can be met only if certain foundations are in place. It is those foundations that I think are troubling many Members of your Lordships’ House. We discussed one in the previous Committee session, namely the lack of an overall food strategy.

Today we discuss another: the total absence of any kind of comprehensive land use strategy. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, had it exactly right when he remarked about having no framework on which to balance and manage the competing demands we make of our land. In May the RSA published a report and said:

“Land use is not an aspect of policy that can be compartmentalised, parcelled away and deemed to matter only in certain places and to certain people. We all live with the choices over how land is used every day.”


The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, highlighted that this was just one of a whole number of reports and organisations doing a lot of thinking in this area.

We know that Scotland has a land use strategy, Wales has a spatial plan and Northern Ireland has a regional development strategy. It was fascinating to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, how that is used to help new entrants. On the other hand, England has no overall framework. What it has for planning is a morass of strategies, plans and initiatives, so I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her cosignatories for tabling the amendment to set out the vision for a land use strategy that could help the Government to deliver their agriculture and forestry aspirations, as we are debating today, but also the 25-year environment plan, the 12 policy statements for critical infrastructure, and this sense of place, which is something on which the Government have based their civil society strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was quite right to highlight just what a crowded island this is, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, talked about the lack of coherence; he is quite right too.

Amendment 228, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, addresses this problem of new entrants to agriculture and the difficulties they face. In some ways this links with amendments on county farms in earlier groups, because county farms were intended to do just this, but, as we have heard, are becoming rarer. That links with land use, of course, because if you are a cash-strapped council and can sell some land on the edge of town for a housing development, I am afraid you are likely to do that. It is a fact that land for agricultural purposes will struggle to compete against the land demands of housing, for example.

Finally, Amendment 228A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves, would create this link with local development plans and the neighbourhood plan process. This is absolutely the right thing to do. It has seemed to me for some time—clearly the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, tends to feel the same—that in this country we are very good at development control but not very good at planning. We had some elements of it up until about 2004 in the form of county structure plans. They did not cover the whole country, but they were at least strategic. However, they often got stymied by differences with district councils, which had the development control function. County structure plans disappeared in 2004, replaced by regional development plans, which bit the dust in 2010. It seems sensible to include local planning in any provisions and thought in Amendment 227.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone for raising the case for an integrated land use framework today and in her very good contribution at Second Reading. She makes a very important point.

As all noble Lords have said, there are huge competing pressures on land use, and we do not currently have a mechanism to resolve the priorities among those competing claims. We already have expectations on land to deliver carbon storage, extensive tree planting, renewed biodiversity, flood management, water storage and, of course, food, and we are about to add the pressures of all the environmental and habitat improvements set out in Clause 1.

In his excellent speech on food security on Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, reminded us that population growth and urban development are producing demands to build 2 million to 3 million more houses, with all the services and infrastructure needed to underpin those communities—new shops, schools, hospitals and so on. This will inevitably put the squeeze on land available for food production.

As we have debated several times, we are busy making policy and legislative decisions in silos and not taking account of the impact of one on the other. This is a major criticism in the latest report by the Natural Capital Committee. It quite rightly identifies the need for a “natural capital assets baseline” against which priorities can be assessed and progress measured.

A land use framework could comprehensively map out the opportunities and benefits of different forms of land use. It could provide clear guidance on cross-departmental priorities and mechanisms for resolving conflicts over land use. It could join up resources and money to rural areas, providing funding on a game-changing scale rather than separate pots of money and layers of bureaucracy. It could also ensure that overarching government priorities such as tackling climate change are delivered coherently, utilising national, local and private funding. I see great benefits in this approach.

I also have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. These are issues that we have debated in other groups, most notably in the debate on county farms and tenancies. I think we all agree that we need to find new ways to bring new blood and business skills into the sector. The question remains: where will that land come from? How can we make that aspiration a reality?

Finally, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would make it more explicit that local planning should be part of the land use strategy. This is understood as one of the competing forces that needs to be balanced by the mechanisms in my noble friend’s amendment, but it is nevertheless helpful to have it spelt out.

This debate has raised some important questions about competing pressures on a scarce, finite and precious resource. I hope the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance that the proposal laid out so ably by my noble friend is being taken seriously.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who has moved Amendment 227, which I will address along with Amendments 228 and 228A.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

She is excited. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

Yes, we are all excited.

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 296 and 297 in this group. I am also speaking in support of the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall. He has made a significant contribution to this and other debates, and we are grateful to him for raising the issue of protecting hedgerows this evening. It is an issue which many people care deeply about, and a number of noble Lords have reflected that this evening.

Our amendments propose a new schedule to modernise regulations relating to intensive farming and the management of livestock and soil. They fit in with the suite of amendments on the need to create a new regulatory framework regime, which has been expertly introduced by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. As she and other noble Lords have pointed out, the Bill in its current form fails to provide the regulatory baseline which will be lost when we leave the CAP cross-compliance requirements. For example, when we are no longer bound by the good agricultural and environmental condition standards in England, there will be gaps left in relation to good soil management, hedgerow management and the protection of small water bodies.