Food and Farming: Supply Issues

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the supply chain issues in the food and farming sector identified by the National Farmers’ Union and the British Retail Consortium at the Food Security Summit on 14 December 2021; and what plans they have to prepare a long-term solution to these issues.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. The UK’s food industry sectors operate highly resilient supply chains, as demonstrated throughout the Covid-19 response. The Government have well-established ways of working with the industry on preparedness for, and in response to, issues with the potential to cause disruption to food supply chains. Our production-to-supply ratio remains high in comparison with historical levels: we produce 60% of all the food we need. These figures have changed little over the past 20 years.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We are facing a serious supply chain crisis, with an estimated 500,000 labour shortages and rising costs. There is a shortage of seasonal workers to pick our fruit and veg and of lorry drivers to deliver them. There is a lack of produce on supermarket shelves and a rise in imports as a result. We are seeing a mass cull of pigs because we have no butchers, while the import of pork products from the EU is rising. Does the Minister accept that short-term fixes and three-month temporary visas will not solve the labour shortage? We need a long-term plan for this. Does he also accept that we should have a target of at least 60% food self-sufficiency in the UK, and that this should be underpinned by specific support to put British farmers and businesses first?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness is of course right that we should not be concerned just with short-term fixes. However, if she will forgive me, I think that she is a little out of date. We have agreed, through to 2024, to allow 30,000 people to come from outside the UK into this country under the seasonal workers scheme. In addition, we have people under the EU settled status. We are also trying to encourage more domestic employment and innovation through automation. All these things will ease the pressures that existed last year—and still exist, to an extent—but the situation is better. We are not complacent and it will continue to improve.

Sugar Beet: Neonicotinoids

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are considering an emergency application for the use of neonicotinoids on sugar beet; and if so, what consideration they will give to the advice of (1) the Health and Safety Executive, and (2) the Expert Committee on Pesticides.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, in asking this Question, I declare an interest through my role in Rothamsted, as in the register.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. An application for the emergency authorisation of Cruiser SB, which contains a neonicotinoid, has been received and is currently being considered against the strict, legal requirements for emergency authorisation. The Health and Safety Executive’s assessment, the advice of the expert committee on pesticides and the relevant evidence included in the application itself are all carefully considered as part of the decision-making process.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply but let us be clear what we are talking about: this pesticide is lethal to bees and other insects, and it leaches into the soil, causing long-term damage to wildlife. During our deliberations on the Environment Bill, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, pledged to work “harder and faster” to address the “dramatic decline in pollinators”, and confirmed that the scientific advice on the damage caused by neonicotinoids was “correct”. Does the Minister accept that any emergency authorisation would make a mockery of previous ministerial assurances? Does he also accept that the use of these toxic pesticides has no place in our sustainable farming plans for the future?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness will be pleased with the progress made that will make these sorts of debates unnecessary in future years. The development of new, resistant strains and the work that has been done, not least at Rothamsted, will mean that we will not have to have this debate in future. We are absolutely committed to protecting wildlife, particularly pollinators—we understand their value—and these decisions are taken in a balanced and careful way.

Future Farming Programme: Small Farms

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure small family farms remain economically viable during the transition to the Future Farming Programme for England.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. We will reinvest money saved by reducing direct payments—initially applying smaller reductions for farmers with the smallest claim sizes—into improved environmental schemes and opportunities for all farmers to get their businesses ready for the transition. These opportunities include grants to invest in productivity measures, support for new entrants, farmer-led innovations and improving farm resilience and sustainability.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply, but he will know that farm incomes are already falling. By 2023, the smallest farms could be losing as much as 35% of the direct payments they received under the CAP. Of course, we all want the sustainable farming incentive to work, but the transition is relatively short and the Secretary of State’s latest letter still does not provide the detail that farmers need to plan ahead. I ask the Minister to confirm that the practical financial impacts of the new scheme are being regularly reviewed. Can he confirm whether contingency plans are in place to ensure continued farm viability, particularly for smaller family farms?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me the opportunity to say: yes, precisely. We monitor farm incomes carefully and have data going back many years. The current area payments under the basic payment scheme are no friend of the smaller farmer: the largest 10% of farms in the country receive 50% of the money. We are trying to create a fairer system, and not only so that smaller farmers receive a fair amount. Many farmers who do not receive any—for example, 40% of sheep farmers—will have access to these funds.

Eggs (England) Regulations 2021

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI, and for the helpful briefing that he organised with officials beforehand. However, he will know that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn this SI to our attention. Like other noble Lords, partly arising from that, I have a number of questions.

Obviously, our main concern is to maintain our high animal welfare and food quality standards. Clearly, we can maintain those standards more easily if the eggs are produced within the UK. I am absolutely with the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, on that issue. Can the Minister remind us what percentage of class A eggs are currently being imported from the EU into the UK? We have heard some statistics today, but it would be helpful to have clarification from the Minister on that. Is it the case, as my noble friend Lord Rooker is saying, that third-country eggs are also coming to us via the EU? Is that standard practice? I think we should know more about this. Given that many of these procedures in the SI are about potential third-country egg producers coming direct to us in future, it would be helpful if the Minister could say whether he is aware that there are, in the sidelines, third-country producers awaiting some sort of green light to be able to sell into the UK market, and what the consequences might be.

That is just a general point. I now want to ask some specific questions—and the first question is about arrangements on the Northern Ireland border. In response to the question from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on this issue, Defra said that all eggs from Northern Ireland to GB would continue to have “unfettered access” to the UK market. Does that mean that there are no checks carried out on these eggs at all either at the border or at the so-called points of destination, or anywhere else?

Meanwhile, as I understand it, class A eggs going the other way—from GB to Northern Ireland—will continue to be checked at the border, as GB will have the status of a third country with regard to Northern Ireland. Those are the issues that my noble friend Lady Ritchie raised, and I agree with her: we need to know more detail on the practical application of how the rules will apply going in both directions. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify those arrangements under the terms of the protocol. Also, can he clarify how the outcome of the current negotiations on the Northern Ireland protocol between the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and the EU might impact on the regulation of imports to and from Northern Ireland in future? Will eggs be caught up with this, and is this an issue on its agenda for change?

Secondly, like other noble Lords, we share the concern expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the majority of respondents to the original Defra consultation were against the proposals in this SI. The Defra letter explains that a subsequent round table was held on 24 September. Stakeholders expressed concerns about whether imported eggs would be subject to the same standard of checks as domestic eggs and produced to the same high health, welfare and food standards. Rightly, my noble friend Lord Rooker raised issues about egg fraud, and he gave some shocking examples of it this afternoon. Clearly, we need to ensure that our consumers are not being mis-sold—and that is a concern that the stakeholders expressed at the meeting on 24 September.

What do the current checks on UK eggs entail? I do not quite see how we can differentiate between the sanitary provisions that the Minister was talking about and how they are marketed. I would have thought that the marketing is about the sanitary provisions, so the two should go hand in hand. Does the Animal and Plant Health Agency regularly and randomly visit UK poultry farms to check on animal welfare issues and on whether the birds are, for example, being reared organically? Does the same provision for checks on animal welfare et cetera also apply to imported eggs? Otherwise, how can we be sure that food standard equivalence is being applied?

The Defra response to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred to the APHA carrying out random checks on domestic and imported eggs at warehouses, distribution centres and packing centres, but this does not seem to include visits to where the birds are being reared, so how can we be assured that the high animal welfare standards included in the marketing of imported eggs can be trusted? This was an issue raised by a number of noble Lords. Obviously, this matters because descriptions such as “free range” or “organic” carry a premium price, so the temptation for some degree of fraud is obvious for all to see.

Once we have finished the 21-month transition period with the EU, what arrangements will be in place to check welfare standards on site for both EU and third-country egg producers? Will we go to see where the chickens are being reared and the eggs are being produced?

Thirdly, are all UK eggs currently produced distributed via warehouses and packing centres or do some go straight to market? This was the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I can imagine that there is a healthy trade in local eggs at farm shops and farmers’ markets or potentially in the restaurant sector, so how is the APHA monitoring the quality of eggs that do not go via those distribution centres? What would stop egg importers avoiding packing and distribution centres and therefore avoiding the checks? Could they also go straight to market or to some locality without going through the distribution centres?

Then there is the question of what happens at the ports. This issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Presumably the APHA is already doing other checks at ports and custom points on foodstuffs being imported; it is already there with the resources, so it would not be too much of a stretch to check egg imports as well, particularly as we have heard that the phytosanitary checks will still carry on at the ports. Therefore you could argue that it would be more efficient to inspect all those consignments together, so I wonder why we are not still planning on doing that.

Finally, I am trying to get to the root of this issue. Is it an issue about overall APHA staffing levels? Is this ultimately the issue? Is it about staff shortages? What level of vacancies is being carried by the APHA? What proportion of APHA staff were previously EU staff who have left and cannot be replaced? Is this an issue at the heart of the matter?

The most important aspect of this debate is the need to maintain our high animal welfare and food safety standards. I absolutely share the concern of stakeholders and noble Lords this afternoon that these proposals do not provide sufficient reassurance that we will be maintaining those same high standards. I hope the Minister will be able to provide further reassurance on this issue, and I look forward to his response.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I will endeavour to answer all the questions that have been asked.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh referred to the sentence in the Explanatory Memorandum that relates to whether we used the European Union (Withdrawal) Act powers for this statutory instrument. I can confirm that we did not. I think she and others also asked why, given that the egg sector opposes the proposal—or so it was deemed from five out of the six responses—the Government are moving ahead with it.

In response to the consultation, Defra and the Welsh and Scottish Governments held a round table, as has been said, on 24 September to address the concerns raised by the industry. Invited to the meeting were the checking authorities responsible for egg marketing standards checks across Great Britain—the APHA egg marketing inspectors, who operate in England and Wales, and the Scottish Government poultry officers. In response to concerns expressed by the industry that imported eggs should be subject to the same standard of checks as domestic eggs and produced to the same high health, welfare and food standards, Defra explained that the checks will continue to be made on a risk basis, as well as randomly, in line with Article 24.2 of Regulation 589/2008, and that food quality will not be impacted by this SI.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked about the nature of the survey, noting that it was online. All relevant industry representatives responded and were at the round table, so it is fair to say that a pretty full consultation has happened. She asked about UK exports to the EU. I can confirm that UK exports are checked at the border for both hygiene and marketing quality.

A number of noble Lords asked about resources at the APHA. This statutory instrument changes the current legislation, requiring marketing standards checks to take place at the border to allow the continuation of a current practice. We have the resources to do this now. I am quite open that, if we were not to pass this and require those checks to take place at the border, it would put considerable resource demands on the APHA. It would require a border control post to have a very large chilled space, so that every lorry that came in with its 28 pallets of eggs could be safely unpacked and those eggs moved into a chiller space. If they were not, they would risk deteriorating in quality, so that would have to take place. They would then have to be reloaded and taken to a distribution point where we had the resources to check them. I hope noble Lords remember this important point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, raised a very well-made point about the implications of this SI for Northern Ireland eggs entering the UK and whether they will be treated differently, with Northern Ireland continuing to follow EU rules. Eggs produced in Northern Ireland are not considered to be entering GB from a third country. The statutory instrument does not change the way eggs moved from GB to Northern Ireland will be checked. Northern Ireland eggs will continue to have unfettered access to the GB market, as at present, and will continue to be checked in the same way as domestic eggs from England, Scotland and Wales. In any case, the checks on third-country eggs are identical to those performed on domestic eggs. They will continue to be checked by egg marketing inspectors on a risk-assessed and random basis at the point of destination, at packing centres, at distribution centres and at wholesale premises.

I think she asked whether eggs from GB can be put on the market in Northern Ireland. Class A eggs imported into Northern Ireland from third countries will continue to be checked at the time of customs clearance and prior to their release for free circulation, in accordance with Article 24.3 of Regulation 589/2008, as it has effect in the EU. I think I have said whether eggs have to be checked before they can be put on the market in GB.

Trees: Ips typographus

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We constantly ask ourselves whether we are getting this right. As things stand, the pheromone traps are very effective in identifying the range and quantity of beetles as they move around the country, but we have this matter constantly under review.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister say what impact the restrictions put on the movement of spruce trees around the south-east of England as a result of the discovery of this pest are likely to have on the availability of spruce Christmas trees this year? Does this mean that another traditional feature of Christmas is likely to be hit by shortages?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

In a word: no. The beetle does not affect trees under three metres. Some Christmas trees are higher than three metres, so I qualify what I say, but it is not expected to have any effect on Christmas or Christmas trees.

Organics (Equivalence and Control Bodies Listing) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to this SI. I thank him and his officials for the useful briefing that they took the time to provide to me and to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. As has been said, the SI allows third countries equivalence on organic produce without the need for the time-consuming process of passing secondary legislation on each occasion. The power now rests with the Secretary of State to decide.

Paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that changes to the lists of countries and produce

“will be communicated to relevant stakeholders in a timely manner”.

Can the Minister say exactly what “a timely manner” is? Will the list always be updated immediately after equivalence is granted, or will there be occasions when this may take longer?

I note that no impact assessment was prepared for this SI, as the changes are said to be merely administrative. I am sympathetic towards streamlining procedures relating to legislation but do not believe that Parliament should be bypassed in all cases, especially when trade agreements are being considered.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has already raised my next point. The chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am also a member, wrote to Minister Prentis challenging the assumption that the new administration process was merely technical and would have low impact. The committee took the view that making an equivalence decision on a third country would almost certainly be more important than suggested and felt that removing the oversight of Parliament by switching from a legislative to a purely administrative process was a concern. In her response, Minister Prentis indicated that

“when a third country applies for equivalence recognition for the purpose of organics trade, it must provide all necessary information, including details of its control system and production standards, on the basis of which a decision can be made … recognition is limited to … three years. The Secretary of State may recognise a third country as having equivalent organic standards only once they are satisfied that these criteria for recognition have been met … Additionally, a third country recognition is generally part of a wider trade agreement, which would require Parliamentary ratification”.

If Parliament is to be involved in a trade agreement with a third country, why cannot it be involved in that country being added to the list for organic equivalence, especially if that is going to be part of its trade agreement? Can the Minister indicate how many countries are likely to apply for organic equivalence which are not in negotiation for a wider trade agreement? This might help us to see just what the scale of the workload would be if each was to go through the statutory instrument process instead of the informal administrative process proposed today.

As the Minister said, there is a cut-off date for reassessment of 23 December 2023. What will happen after that date? Will this be a cliff edge, or will there be renegotiations prior to that date?

A number of countries are in negotiations for trade agreements with the UK. How can the public be assured that the very high standards that they currently enjoy on organics will not be lowered during negotiations? I remain concerned that this speeding up of the administrative process has no legislative grounding and look forward to the Minister’s response and possible reassurance.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI and for the helpful briefing that he organised beforehand. On the face of it, this seems to be an innocuous change, but, like other noble Lords, I do not feel that it is quite as straightforward as it first appears. I therefore have a number of questions that I want to raise.

First, we have a strong and blossoming organic sector in the UK and it is important that we protect the very high standards that consumers expect of organic products. In particular, it is vital that the UK organics market cannot be undercut by inferior products from third countries claiming to be of the same organic standards. When this was debated in the Commons, the Minister, Victoria Prentis, made it clear that organic trade between the UK and any third country in the future will be the subject of the provision of free trade agreements or treaties.

This immediately rang alarm bells because, as we have seen with other trade deals, most notably the one with Australia, the Government have been prepared to sell out our high food standards when it suits them to have a wider trade deal. Can the Minister clarify the status of our current organic standards? If, as he says, they are set out in retained EU legislation, could they be disregarded in a future trade deal?

Victoria Prentis also said that Parliament would have oversight of those trade deals that might impact organics. Can the Minister clarify whether this is the same oversight that exists for all other trade deals, on which Parliament has in truth had no real say and, as we all know, the views of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which was set up to act as a mediator, if you like, are widely disregarded? Would organics be caught up in that same process?

Secondly, one of the main arguments put forward in the Explanatory Memorandum for the change is that ports, local authorities and businesses will be able to find an up-to-date list of the organic products that can be imported, as they will be listed on the government website rather than in legislation. I do not find this a compelling argument. I do not really see why this cannot be done in parallel with the original scrutiny process of making changes via SIs. For example, the Minister, Victoria Prentis, said that there were 13 countries, plus the EU, and about 55 control bodies currently listed. Despite what the EM says, I cannot imagine that there will be a swamp of new applications which will become unmanageable. If the concern is that those organisations change their addresses frequently, surely the solution would be to deal with this aspect of approval administratively rather than through the whole recognition of a new country or control body. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify why it is not possible to have those two systems working in parallel with the original parliamentary scrutiny that we have previously enjoyed.

Thirdly, as noble Lords have said, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn these regulations to the special attention of the House on the grounds that they are politically or legally important. We agree with its analysis

“that secondary legislation is indeed an appropriate vehicle for the type of changes that are the subject of this instrument, and that the Secretary of State’s general accountability to Parliament is not a suitable replacement for parliamentary oversight of individual decisions in this area.”

As my colleague Daniel Zeichner said in the Commons in agreeing with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee,

“We have all heard that argument and we know how well that works in practice. Frankly, we need something better than that.”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 21/9/21; col. 5.]


To press the Minister on this, if the SI goes through, how would we in practice hold the Secretary of State to account for listing an organic producer that we thought was in danger of undercutting our current organic standards? If a trade deal were signed that opened up the market for a third country for organics with lower standards, which of the many Secretaries of State would we be trying to hold to account anyway? Would it be the Secretary of State from Defra or from the Department for International Trade? Whom will we chase on these issues if such an event occurs?

Finally, I ask the Minister about the devolution implications of this SI. In an exchange in the Commons with David Doogan of the SNP, the Minister revealed that there is a long-standing disagreement about whether this issue is a devolved matter. Rather than getting legislative approval from the devolved Governments, as would be the normal process, the Government on this occasion sought the approval of the organics four nations working group. Does the Minister feel that this is a satisfactory way to proceed? What is being done to get the devolution disagreements back on track so that we can have the proper process of agreement in place?

While I am on that, there is some question over whether the UK organic certifiers have agreed to the proposals, as suggested in the Explanatory Memorandum. As my colleague Daniel Zeichner reported, they reported to him that their preferred form of scrutiny of future applications is an independent expert group, rather than their having to rely purely on the Secretary of State to make those decisions.

We feel that this SI is unsatisfactory in a number of regards and hope that the Minister will be prepared to reflect further, not only on our concerns but on those of the SLSC, which we feel were well made. I look forward to his response.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ interest in this issue and for the questions that have been asked. To start with, I say to my noble friend that this is of course a massive increase in scrutiny. When we were a member of the EU, this did not ever come before Parliament; it did not even come before the European Parliament but was dealt with by a committee in the Commission. Everything we are doing is open to all Members of both Houses to scrutinise in the ways in which they ingeniously will, holding Ministers and the Executive to account. There are mechanisms in it, which I will come to in a moment.

I will answer as many of the questions as I can. If I cannot, I will write to noble Lords. My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the frequency of meetings of the four nations working group. My understanding is that it meets every month, so this is a very regular affair. I will come on to the points my noble friend made about the slight tension between the devolved Governments.

I think my noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked whether SIs are appropriate, whether they are a frequently used vehicle for minor changes in other policy areas, and why they should not be used here if they are used for many minor matters. The changes to lists that would be covered under this updated process would be administrative changes based on technical evaluations; they do not represent a policy change. These include very minor changes to information required about control bodies, such as their name, legal address and other contact details. Although minor, these details are necessary for port health authorities, local authorities and other relevant parties to ensure that the goods in question have been certified in a recognised third country or by a recognised third-country body.

We are aware of a number of cases in which minor changes to a control body’s information have resulted in goods being delayed at a port due to discrepancies between the details on certification documents and in legislation. As such, delays in updating this information in the list could result in a disruption to trade. Without the move to online lists effected by this statutory instrument, any amendment, however small, would be delayed by the time taken for a further SI to go through the legislative process. The faster mechanism introduced by this SI will enable the UK businesses that depend on this to take advantage of new opportunities to trade more quickly. This may provide a competitive advantage over other nations, such as those in the European Union burdened by cumbersome and lengthy processes.

My noble friend and others mentioned that we have legal agreements with 13 countries and 55 control bodies and asked whether updating their lists would be necessary. Yes, we have equivalence agreements with 13 countries, the EU and the EEA states, and 55 control bodies. However, the situation is much more complex in practice because third-country control bodies can certify businesses operating in a number of different countries, with different rules for their operations in each.

Equally, where a third country is recognised as equivalent, the control bodies in that country must also be listed individually. A full list of recognised countries and third-country control bodies runs to over 100 pages, with each page containing significant detail. As we continue to recognise new third countries and third-country control bodies as an independent trading nation, this is likely to expand over time.

Culling of Pigs

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent the culling of pigs resulting from the shortage of workers in meat processing plants.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, we are working closely with the pig sector in response to the backlog of pigs, to both minimise on-farm culling and tackle the shortage of butchers in the processing sector. We are working with processors to increase processing throughput and the recruitment of domestic workers. We continue to engage in discussions with retailers and the food service sector and are working with the AHDB to reactivate the Chinese market and to identify other export markets.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the Minister, but I wonder whether he has read the editorial in Pig World that landed on my desk this morning. It says:

“The pig industry is deep in crisis and the government doesn’t care. So we are on our own, although given the arrogance and incompetence of this administration, led by a complete fool who has no right to be anywhere near that office, or indeed any office for that matter, that is probably not a bad thing.”


The fact is that 150,000 pigs are unable to be slaughtered for consumption, and already farmers have had to cull and destroy more than 6,000 healthy pigs. So, talking is great, but when will the Government provide those temporary visas and the lower language requirements for skilled butchers which lie at the root of this crisis?

Fisheries Act 2020 (Scheme for Financial Assistance) (England) Regulations 2021

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI today and for the helpful briefing beforehand. The new scheme is welcome as far as it goes, as it will put extra funds into a sector that has been badly impacted by the loss of the EU markets. While I appreciate that this is not primarily what the funds are for, any extra cash is welcome, clearly. However, I have some specific questions about how this scheme will be administered and the rules applied, which I would be grateful if the Minister could address.

First, the SI and the guidance note on the fisheries and seafood scheme use the phrase “sustainability” on a number of occasions. For example, the Explanatory Memorandum states in paragraph 7.2 that

“the scheme will drive meaningful change to increase sustainability”.

However, as we discovered during consideration of the Fisheries Bill, the word sustainability is often used to mean economic sustainability of the industry rather than sustainability of the fish stocks. This seems to be the use here, and the truth is that this can run counter to the objective of increasing the environmental sustainability of the fish stocks in our waters. This is why we tried to argue, unsuccessfully, during the debates on the Fisheries Bill that environmental sustainability should take precedence over other objectives.

As noble Lords have said, and as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported, ClientEarth wrote in to challenge why the SI does not make financial support conditional on more sustainable management of fisheries—in other words, more environmental sustainability. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that Defra’s reply as reported to the committee really did not address that question or give a detailed answer. So I ask the Minister again why greater environmental sustainability is not made a precondition of grants under the scheme? I understand that the scheme will be finessed and improved over time, as the Minister said, so will he agree to take this proposal away and consider introducing it for future years?

I agree with other noble Lords that using some of the money for remote electronic monitoring would be a good step forward, and I echo the bid from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson: it would be helpful if the Minister agreed to support the amendment to the Environment Bill that would deliver support for REM. Perhaps he could reflect on that. Furthermore, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that we need to have climate-smart fishing, which needs to be financially supported.

Secondly, paragraph 5(c) of the SI specifically excludes applications for activities which the applicant has a statutory duty to undertake. Can I ask the Minister to clarify what is meant by this exclusion? For example, fishers have a statutory duty to uphold health and safety standards, and indeed to comply with the powers on conservation of stocks under the Fisheries Act. So why are grants to provide better health and safety equipment, or more selective fishing gear, specifically excluded? Perhaps the Minister could clarify that wording in the SI.

Thirdly, the total sum allocated to this scheme in this financial year is £6.1 million. This seems a very small sum for the rather grand ambitions set out in paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“it is hoped the scheme will contribute towards the Government’s levelling up objectives in order to increase the economic prosperity of coastal and rural communities”.

That sum of money is not going to go very far in bringing the vital regeneration money which coastal communities urgently require, and this claim seems to be a mockery of the seriousness of this challenge. I hope the Minister can reassure us that significantly larger sums of money are in the pipeline that will genuinely raise coastal communities out of the poverty and unemployment they currently endure.

Like other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, we are interested in the sums available in the longer term, and I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance on that matter. As my colleague Luke Pollard said in the Commons debate on the SI, according to paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum, no impact assessment has been carried out as there is

“no, or no significant, impact on business”.

In that case, what is the point of an initiative of this nature?

Furthermore, I ask the Minister for more details on the separate £100 million which was announced earlier this year by the Secretary of State. As I understand it, since that announcement no more has been said about when it will be available, how it will be deployed or what impact it is expected to have on the fishing sector. The fishers are anxious to have more information about this, so perhaps he can use this opportunity to clarify when that money will be available.

Finally, I want to ask about oversight of the MMO’s activities, an issue about which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, also asked. These proposals give the MMO complete authority to allocate these funds. Will the Secretary of State take responsibility for monitoring the performance of the MMO in administering these grants? How transparent will the allocation process be? Will there be an appeals mechanism—another point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner—and can we be assured that it will be independent of the MMO? Will small-scale fishers in particular be encouraged to apply, and will there be a presumption in favour of their applications, since they are the ones who have suffered most since we have left the EU? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment Committee Report

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, to his new role and thank him very much for his contribution.

I too want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and to all noble Lords who worked on this report. As others have said, it stands out as a hugely authoritative piece of work to which we can return again and again for its in-depth analysis and for the quality of its recommendations.

I share the frustration of others that it has taken a year to have this debate—a year in which the Covid crisis has caused terrible death and devastation. But it is a testament to the report that its recommendations are as fresh and relevant as ever, which is why the Government’s response—which seemed complacent at the time—seems even more inadequate now. I hope that, having had time to reflect, the Minister will be able to provide a more optimistic account of the actions that the Government are now prepared to take. I also thank the Food Foundation for its important and continuing work on these issues.

Of course I am aware that the Government’s default position is that these issues are being dealt with in the national food strategy report, due to be published shortly. But this does not mean that all policy needs should be put on hold. Many of the proposals, both in this report and in part 1 of the Dimbleby report, published last year, are urgent. They relate to the aftermath of the Covid crisis and the need to address the health and poverty issues thrown up by the pandemic.

The Hungry for Change report says:

“The crisis has exposed the fragility of many people’s economic situation and exacerbated many of the problems relating to poverty, food insecurity and health inequalities.”


And, as Henry Dimbleby said in the introduction to part 1 of his report:

“These recommendations are urgent, specific and carefully targeted. In this period of acute crisis, they could save many thousands from hunger, illness and even death.”


So can the Minister say what has happened to the more immediate, pressing recommendations in these reports? Is it the case—as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh suggested—that a response to the first part of Dimbleby has already been sent? If so, I think we should all like to see it. I hope it is not the intention to leave all the issues to be addressed in the White Paper that is promised six months after the second report. Action is needed now.

In particular, I would highlight three issues which will not wait another year. First, as the report points out, food insecurity is

“a consequence of poverty and the economic and social failures that sit behind it”.

Eleven years of government failure have left our country ill-prepared for a job and welfare crisis. A recent report from the Trussell Trust shows that 700,000 households used a food bank last year, with a 49% increase in the number of children supported via that route and 95% of people referred to food banks categorised as very deprived or destitute. Even before the pandemic, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that 2.4 million people were living in destitution, unable to afford the essentials to eat and keep warm. These underlying inequalities have now been thrown into sharp relief by Covid, with debt and destitution rising and the number of children living in poverty increasing by a third. As the report points out, we cannot address poverty and food insecurity separately; they are intrinsically linked.

Clearly, the welfare system is broken. I absolutely agree with the report’s submission that:

“The Government should not be reliant on charitable food aid to plug the holes in the welfare system”—


a point made powerfully also by my noble friend Lady Lister. That is why the recommendations in the report which address the failings of universal credit, particularly the five-week wait—which puts people into debt from which they cannot recover—are so important. It is why it is important to extend the £20 uplift in universal credit, a policy which the Government failed to support in a recent vote. It is also why we need a plan to address that fact that eating well, and embracing the Eatwell Guide, is unrealistic for many low-income groups and financially out of reach for many.

I was therefore very disappointed to see the Government’s response to these proposals, which is best described as “Thank you but, no, we have no plans to address these issues.” It symbolises a hardness and cruelty at the heart of this Government’s thinking which belie all the talk of levelling up, a point made powerfully by my noble friend Lord Rooker. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the links between poverty and poor diet are now better understood, that detailed monitoring of and collection of data on food insecurity will continue, and that the link between universal credit and food bank use will be properly addressed.

Secondly, the Covid experience illustrated starkly the role that school food plays in supporting childhood healthy eating. The image of children going hungry when the schools were closed, and the heroic efforts of Marcus Rashford to get the Government to continue funding lunchtime food, is a stand-out feature of our experience in the past 12 months. All the evidence shows that good food is essential for learning, and all the talk of levelling up will not work if children are hungry. The free school meals system increasingly excludes children who would previously be eligible. The Dimbleby report recommends expanding eligibility to every child from a household in receipt of universal credit. The existence of holiday hunger continues to blight us. Even now, the Government are proposing to feed children on free school meals for only 16 of the 30 weekdays during the upcoming summer holidays. We need an urgent rethink of the system to ensure that every child has a hot meal once a day, and that breakfast clubs and holiday activities have the funding to fill the void in demand.

Again, the Government’s response on these issues was complacent, at a time when poor children are being left behind in the education system. The resignation of Kevan Collins, the education recovery commissioner, is a damning indictment of their meagre education catch-up plan. I hope that the Minister can reassure the House that steps will be taken to ensure that access to good, nutritious school food for all will be part of a more ambitious and urgent catch-up plan.

Thirdly, as the report points out, Public Health England has made a clear link between obesity and Covid, with a disproportionate number of patients in intensive care categorised as morbidly obese. There is an urgent need to address diet-related ill health and the consequences for the individuals and society. It is vital that we increase public understanding of what constitutes a healthy and sustainable diet. We need to address the difficult but essential challenge of encouraging the nation to eat less meat and more plant-based products.

The report makes some really important recommendations on the labelling, advertising and promotion of food, mandating maximum calories per portion, action to reduce sugar and salt, and the voluntary and regulatory measures needed to underpin these changes. We need to be clear with industry that, if it does not respond swiftly and comprehensively, regulatory action will follow—including fiscal levers and levies where necessary—although, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, addressing this with multinational manufacturers and retailers is a much more difficult challenge.

I am pleased that the Government acknowledge action needs to be taken in their response, but as ever, their reliance on long consultations and even longer implementation dates does not reflect the urgency of the public health issues we now face. The Government’s obesity strategy published last year is welcome as far as it goes, but that needs to be underpinned by a degree of urgency and with targets and measurements of success to deliver a real shift towards healthy and sustainable diets.

Finally, I am conscious that I have been able to cover only a small part of the more comprehensive report. We look forward to the publication of part 2 of the National Food Strategy and the debate that will follow. I hope the Government will give it the weight and seriousness I am sure it will deserve. I hope as part of their response they will feel able to follow up part of this report’s recommendation to establish

“an independent body, analogous to the Committee on Climate Change”

to deliver the strategic oversight of the implementation of the national food strategy, ensuring the comprehensive change in eating habits and food policy that the nation deserves.

Agri-environment Schemes: Permissive Access

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I will look into the latter point that my noble friend makes, but I can confirm that, at present, 2026 is the cut-off date for recording historical footpaths. There is provision under the legislation to extend that by five years, but I think most people want to get on with this and get it recorded. That will provide clarity for the farmer and land manager, and an opportunity for walking groups as well.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. In a recent Written Answer, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, was able to give details of only six tests and trials for the new payment scheme which were focused on public access, and some of them were only incidental to other projects. Is the Minister confident that these trials will give enough data to shape access policy for the future? How can we be assured that the resulting funding regime will indeed deliver the much-needed increase in public access that everybody wants?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

In addition to the six schemes which I suspect are the ones the noble Baroness heard about from my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Gardiner, we are also looking at around 1,000 farms, we hope, that will be coming into the sustainable farming initiative pilot that will start in October. There will be an access element to that as well. But I would draw attention to some of those six, which are very extensive indeed. They will offer groupings across landscapes, as I said, and will really inform how successful we can be in getting more people into the countryside.