Farming
Caroline Johnson Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I declare an interest as the wife of a farmer and agricultural contractor. Farming is a difficult job—unbelievably long hours and physically hard work in all weathers every day of the year—but it is a true vocation and labour of love that farmers do to provide us with food eat and food security.
Lincolnshire farmers are particularly important for food security, providing 12% of the UK’s food, 30% of its veg, 18% of its poultry and 11% of its wheat. Jobs in the food chain make up 24% of jobs in the Greater Lincolnshire area, and farmers locally care for 13,500 acres of farmed woodland and 2,500 miles of public rights of way, but all that is under threat. Food production is less profitable and, in some cases, it is not profitable at all thanks to this Labour Government.
John Lamont
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Throughout the debate, I have struggled to understand the point put forward by Labour Members that while they rightly acknowledge that farming is not profitable, they support a policy that will take even more cash away from farming businesses. Does she, like me, find those two policies hard to reconcile?
Dr Johnson
I find them extremely difficult to reconcile. In early October, I went to the “Farmers Weekly” awards in London where the Minister, in his red bowtie, gave a speech in which he said that the Government would have the farmers’ backs. I am sure he believed it was true when he said it, but within a month, he was unfortunately proven wrong with this Government’s Budget.
Many Members have talked about the profitability of farming. How will the family farm tax make farms more profitable? How will the family business tax, the drastic drops in delinked payments, the rise in the minimum wage, rising national insurance contributions, or the tax on double cab pick-ups make farms more profitable? They will not. How will closing the SPI payment scheme early and without notice, despite having promised to give notice, make farms more profitable and businesses more secure? It will not. The Government now talk about taking land without proper due consideration. That has led many farmers in my constituency to ask, “Why does this Labour Government hate farmers so much?” Why do they want to hurt our farmers so much?
Dr Johnson
I do not support the hon. Gentleman’s figures or think the Government will make farming more profitable. It is the classic socialist trick of saying, “We’ll give you some money here, and we’ll take some money there.” We have seen it with hospices and the NHS, and we see it with farming as well. They are taking money away in taxes left, right and centre, then giving a few pence over there and saying, “Be grateful, why don’t you?” I am afraid that it does not wash with farmers. Farmers are clever people, and they can see straight through it.
The effects of the Government’s policy will be reduced food security, the collapse of small businesses and the purchase of that land by larger corporations, and an increase in food prices for consumers rich and poor across the country. This is a debate on the future of farming. Many farmers in my constituency feel that, thanks to this Labour Government, they have no future in farming.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
We believe in a future in which farming thrives—one based on stability, growth and sustainability. Sadly, Labour’s policies jeopardise all three. Whether it is the disastrous last-minute overnight closure of the sustainable farming incentive, the relentless family death tax assault on family farms, or the negligence towards rural businesses, Labour’s agenda harms the heart of rural Britain, including my Kingswinford and South Staffordshire constituency.
Labour’s short-sightedness in deciding to stop accepting new applications for the sustainable farming incentive—with just half an hour’s notice given to the NFU despite the promise of six weeks’ notice—is a clear sign of its failure to understand the long-term needs of our farmers. While thousands of farmers were looking to the SFI for support, Labour has chosen short-term political convenience over long-term sustainability. Our farmers deserve consistency and trust in the future, not abrupt cuts to vital programmes. We will continue to back farmers.
Labour’s inheritance tax policies are a direct attack on the heart of family farms. The planned cuts to agricultural property relief and business property relief will make it impossible for farmers to pass on their livelihoods and their businesses—the farms that they have been farming for generations—to their children without facing huge tax burdens. According to the NFU, someone who inherits an average cereal farm from their parents faces 10 inheritance tax payments, with each one representing 1.5 times what they can expect to make in annual profits. They are running at a loss to fund the Government. That is serfdom, not farming.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a great and impassioned speech. The Government are saying that one can avoid the tax, but one does not know who is going to die and when. In fact, the generations do not necessarily always occur 10 years apart, which could compound the tax even further, could it not?
Mike Wood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clearly, the people who are best placed to avoid paying the tax are the very people who ought to be paying and contributing: the mega landowners. For the average cereal farmer, however, who could face inheritance tax bills of 1.5 times the value of their annual profits, the only recourse will be to sell land or machinery. That is so blatantly obvious that the fact that the Government do not see it makes it difficult to assume that the policy is down to incompetence rather than a deliberate strategy to dismantle family farms, particularly when combined with the compulsory purchase plans set out by the Deputy Prime Minister this week.
Labour’s policies threaten the future of farming, rural businesses and the communities that rely on them. The sustainable farming incentive, inheritance tax reliefs, biosecurity, and the damage caused to our high streets by Labour’s Budget—in each of those areas, Labour’s mismanagement is letting down farmers, their families and our rural communities. Rural Britain can thrive when farmers are supported, businesses are protected and communities grow stronger. We will continue to fight for that future, and I call on the Government to change course before it is too late for our rural way of life. We will continue to fight for our farming communities, including mine in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and congratulate him on securing this very important debate on the future of farming. I will not say that I agreed with all his conclusions in his opening comments, although I listened to them closely, but I thank him and his fellow members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for their continuing work. I look forward to meeting his Committee in time.
I am very grateful to have the opportunity to talk about the very important role that farming plays in this country, because food security is national security, and our commitment to farmers is absolutely steadfast. It is the hard work of the UK’s farmers that puts food on our tables and stewards our beautiful countryside.
As we all know, though, the sector is facing high costs and tight margins. Farmers have struggled to get enough workers to pick fruit and veg, and frankly, they have been sold out in past trade deals. Farmland is increasingly at risk from severe flooding and drought, and this all comes as we face the biggest transition for farming in generations, moving away from the basic payment scheme towards more sustainable methods of farming. The underlying problem in the sector is that farmers do not make enough money for the hard work and commitment that they put in. We are absolutely committed to making farming more profitable, and that approach will underpin our 25-year farming road map and our food strategy, through which we will work in partnership with farmers to make farming and food production sustainable and profitable.
That road map stands on three principles, the first of which is a sector that has food production at its core. The role of farming will always be to produce the food that feeds our nation. The instability that we have seen, both relating to Ukraine and during covid, shows that food security truly is national security. The second principle is a sector in which farm businesses are more resilient and able to withstand the shocks that disrupt farming from time to time, whether it be severe flooding, drought or disease. We will help farmers who want to diversify their income to put more money into their business, so that they can survive those more difficult times when they come.
Daniel Zeichner
I am going to make some progress, because I know that time is short. The third principle is a sector that recognises that restoring nature is not in competition with sustainable food production, but is essential to it.
On our first strand—food production—our new deal for farmers is supporting them to produce food sustainably and profitably, and we are making progress. Statistics released earlier this week show that average farm business incomes across the country are forecast to rise in the first year of this Government. That is welcome news, but we recognise that there is more to do. That certainly will not happen overnight, but over recent weeks, we have announced a series of new policies. We are extending the seasonal worker visas for five years, and we are making the supply chain fairer, an issue raised by my hon. Friends the Members for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) and for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter). In the next few weeks, we will see new regulations for the pig sector, making sure that contracts clearly set out expectations and only allow changes if they are agreed by all parties. Of course, we are also introducing a new regulator alongside the Groceries Code Adjudicator, building on the work of the existing regulator—the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, which is already in place.
We are using the Government’s own purchasing power to back British produce, working with the Cabinet Office to create new requirements for Government catering contracts to favour high-quality, high-welfare products that British producers are well placed to provide, as was outlined very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley). That will mean that British farmers and producers can compete for a fairer share of the £5 billion a year that the public sector spends on food, with that money going straight into farmers’ bank accounts to boost turnover and profits. We will never lower our food standards in trade agreements, but will promote robust standards nationally and internationally, and will always consider whether overseas produce has an unfair advantage. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and by others.
We are investing in the UK agri-technology sector, and I listened closely to the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman)—there is always much that we agree on. As we announced last month, we are looking to put in a further £110 million in farming grants, and we are also strengthening the wider British tech sector, a point that was made well by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). These reforms will support farmers to make more money from the food they produce.
On the second strand, diversification, farmers must be resilient against future challenges if they are to remain financially viable and strengthen food security. We know the threat from flooding, drought and animal disease, as well as the geopolitical tensions that increase demands on our land for energy generation. We are investing to help farm businesses build resilience against animal diseases that can devastate livelihoods and threaten our entire economy—we are all mindful of the issues with bluetongue and avian flu. On the recent case of foot and mouth that we saw in Germany and the one in Hungary, I spoke to the Hungarian Minister earlier this week, and we have put in place all the appropriate precautions. As ever, though, if the shadow Secretary of State wants a briefing with the chief vet, that is always available in these cases.
We are investing over £200 million to set up a new national biosecurity centre, modernising the Animal and Plant Health Agency facilities in Weybridge, which will be vital for protecting farmers, food producers and exporters from disease outbreaks that we know can be devastating to businesses. We are helping keepers of cattle, sheep and pigs in England to improve the health, welfare and productivity of their animals by expanding the fully funded farm visits offer. We have also announced new ways to help farmers to remain profitable and viable, even in a challenging harvest.
We will consult on national planning reforms this spring to make it quicker for farmers to build new buildings, barns and other infrastructure to boost food production, and we will ensure that permitted development rights work for farms to convert larger barns into whatever is required or suits their business planning, whether that is a farm shop, a holiday let or a sports facility. We are working with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero so that more farm businesses can connect their own electricity generation to the grid more quickly, so that farmers can sell surplus energy and diversify income.
The third element is nature. Restoring nature is vital to food production; it is not in competition with it. Healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water are the foundations that farm businesses rely on to produce high crop yields and turn a profit. Without nature thriving, there can be no long-term food security. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy). We now have more than half of all farmers in environmental schemes. That includes 37,000 live SFI agreements, meaning that 800,000 hectares of arable land is being farmed without insecticides, 300,000 hectares of low-impact grassland is managed sustainably and 75,000 km of hedgerows are being protected and restored. That is important for nature.
We have already had a discussion about the SFI cap. It is set at £1.05 billion for 2024-25 and 2025-26. As we discussed yesterday, that cap was reached this week with a record number of farmers in the scheme and 37,000 live agreements. Every penny is now paid to farmers or committed for payment through existing agreements or submitted applications. We will continue to support farmers to transition to more sustainable farming models, and we will announce details of the revised scheme after the spending review.
Environmental Protection
Caroline Johnson Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton). It was an excellent maiden speech—very interesting—and his constituency sounds lovely. Indeed, it sounds almost as lovely as Sleaford and North Hykeham, but not quite. I welcome him to his place, and hope he enjoys his time in the House.
I also welcome the regulations. Some people say that ten-minute rule Bills never become legislation, but today, mine will. On 8 February 2023, I introduced the Disposable Electronic Cigarettes (Prohibition of Sale) Bill. I put on record my thanks for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), as well as many former Members who supported that Bill. There was then a consultation that showed that the measures in the Bill had broad support in the country. It showed that at that point, 70% of the public supported those measures—a high figure. The Conservative Government then introduced the Environmental Protection (Single-use Vapes) (England) Regulations 2024, which sadly did not pass through wash-up before the general election and therefore did not become law. I am delighted that the current Government are bringing these measures forward, but disappointed that they will not come into effect until June, although I understand the reasons that the Minister has given.
There are essentially two reasons why this legislation is very important: the protection of children, and the protection of our natural environment. When it comes to protecting children, I declare an interest—well, three interests as the mother of three children, but also an interest as a children’s doctor in the NHS. As has been said, when vapes were introduced, it was claimed that they were a “stop smoking” device. I would argue that they were introduced as an alternative addiction, but they certainly are not suitable for children. The chief medical officer has clearly stated on a number of occasions that vapes may be better than smoking, but those who are not smokers should avoid using them at all.
Unfortunately, children have been attracted to these devices. It is my view that in some cases, the vaping industry has made them deliberately more attractive to children. I do not see why a middle-aged smoker wishing to quit would need a unicorn-flavoured vape, or one shaped like SpongeBob SquarePants or a teddy bear. They are cheap, disposable, and in my view clearly designed to attract children, which they certainly have done. This risks creating a whole generation of nicotine addicts, and the long-term effects of these devices are unknown. They are causing disruption in schools—eight children at a Sleaford school in my constituency have collapsed following the inhalation of certain vapes.
The protection of the natural environment is important. When I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill, I mentioned in my speech that 1.3 million of these devices were being discarded a week. The latest figure is 5 million, and even that figure is becoming slightly out of date. They are very difficult to recycle, and if they are discarded as litter, they create toxic waste that pollutes our soil, rivers and streams. If they are crushed in a bin lorry, they can cause fires, and have indeed done so.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a particular issue with the discarding of single-use vapes in our town centres? Most of our councils do not have enough money to keep town centres clean; in Cheltenham, I believe the bill is in excess of £1 million per year. There is a real issue there, not just about the environment, but about public sector finances at the local level.
Dr Johnson
I understand the hon. Member’s point, but the party responsible for putting an item in the bin is not the council, but the person who has it in their hand. People who drop litter should take responsibility. They should not be doing so in the first place. When I worked with the River Slea clean-up project a year ago, we picked up a lot of these devices from the riverside and the river itself. They are clearly a danger to the environment and should not be discarded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) talked about his dog Poppy. He has recounted that story to me before, and it horrified me, as a dog owner, that any animal could hurt themselves so badly with a vape. We also heard the Minister talk about tyres exploding; goodness knows what would happen if a poor dog or another animal crushed one of these things in their mouth, so I am pleased that they are being banned.
One of the challenges with this legislation was defining disposable vapes. The Government have defined them as ones that are not refillable and rechargeable. In an ideal world, the industry would accept that, produce the refillable vapes it currently produces and move on. However, there is a great financial interest in these products, and I am concerned that the industry will try to find workarounds and get-arounds to create a nominally reusable, but practically not terribly reusable, product at a price point that means it will be discarded. That would continue the problem, so I ask the Minister to keep these products under review, look carefully for signs of these issues in the way that vapes are manufactured, and legislate if necessary.
The Minister talked about those involved in enforcement being given the resources they need, so will she tell us how much has been budgeted and allocated for enforcement of the new rules?
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
Enforcement often falls to local councils’ public protection departments. As a councillor in West Berkshire, I led on public protection, and our cupboards were full of illegal vapes that we had seized. I absolutely support the call for resources, but we must make sure that they are delivered to local councils, so that they can employ more enforcement officers. Those officers can get into shops, and into the back of those shops, which is where the illegal vapes are often stored, while the legal vapes are in the shop window. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important to get that funding to local enforcement teams?
Dr Johnson
I certainly do. One benefit of the ban on disposable vapes is that regardless of whether or not a disposable vape is currently illegal on the basis of its constitution and content, it will now be illegal. It will be much easier to identify illegal vapes, because all disposable versions will be illegal. I also agree that we must get the money to councils to do these things, but employing a new enforcement officer will of course now cost more money. The Government’s raising of national insurance contributions and lowering of the threshold at which they are paid will affect councils up and down the country. I do not think the Government have really considered the direct cost to public sector employers, or the knock-on effects where services are contracted out and provided by a third party—a private company or a charity. That third party will, no doubt, pass the costs on to the councils. That is a huge concern.
This legislation is the start of creating an overall package to control vaping and protect our children and our natural environment. I welcome it, and I will support it today.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who has brought a lot of knowledge to the debate.
I want to begin by referring to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton). The last time I was this close to him was early in July, before polling day, when I was standing in a pub garden overlooking Chesil beach with my good friend Richard Drax. I very much enjoyed listening to his tribute to Richard Drax, who was not only a good friend of mine, but a great servant of democracy. He contributed enormously to the successful campaign to leave the European Union, after which he was a diligent member of the European Scrutiny Committee. He was also extremely active on what was his great love: trying to ensure that we maintain strong defences in our country, and he used his military background to great effect in debates.
However, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is lucky to be here. I have every confidence that, had it not been for the previous Government’s intransigence over the Bibby Stockholm, Richard Drax would still have been in this House, so it was with mixed feelings that I listened to what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I extend a warm welcome to him. I am sure that he and I will do our best to ensure that Dorset continues to improve its provision of good-quality services to all its citizens.
Turning to the subject of the debate, it came as a bit of a disappointment that neither the Minister nor my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) referred much to the unintended health consequences of outlawing disposable vapes. There is already a real problem with illegal disposable vapes—it is estimated that probably one third of vapes are illegal. Those are already bad for the environment, but what will the measures do to address that problem? Not very much, I fear. As I said, it is estimated that some 360 million disposable vapes got on to the market in the United Kingdom in 2023. I had a briefing from British American Tobacco, which highlights that 4.5 million illegal vapes were seized at the border by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in 2023. The gap between the 4.5 million illegal vapes seized, and the 360 million estimated to be in circulation, highlights the gravity and extent of the problem, particularly when we extrapolate into the future; the number of illegal vapes could be as high as 1 billion by 2030. That is an enormous amount of income for people engaged in black market trade, people smuggling, and other illicit activities.
Dr Caroline Johnson
Does my hon. Friend accept that it is quite difficult for the consumer to establish which vapes are illegal and which are not? One may have thought that going into a reputable supermarket to buy such a product was a surefire way of ensuring that it was safe, but we have heard examples of major supermarkets selling a well known brand of vapes that had more in them than was legally allowed. If we ban disposable vapes, it will become very clear: all disposable ones will be illegal.
Sir Christopher Chope
The information I have about the extent of illegal vapes in the marketplace comes from the Government. In their impact assessment for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which will be debated in the next fortnight, the Government accept that about 30% of the market is illegal, and that is where I got my figures. My hon. Friend refers to supermarkets. I am not suggesting that there is any illegal activity in supermarkets or among responsible retailers.
Dr Johnson
My point was that there have been examples of supermarkets unknowingly selling vapes that did not meet requirements, and it is difficult for a consumer who puts a disposable vape in each hand to identify which is allowed and which is not. As a result of the new regulations, they will be able to tell, because both will not be allowed.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am not sure that will help much. My hon. Friend refers to the packaging of vapes, but the number of vapes described as refillable or reusable is projected to increase exponentially over the next several years. The question I asked—I did not really get an answer from the Minister—is what the impact will be of all those refillable or reusable vapes on the environment. The same issues to do with what goes into the manufacture of vapes apply to both disposable and reusable vapes. Why would we need to have 2 billion reusable vapes being sold by 2034 if they are not being disposed of? Just because they are described as reusable does not mean that they cannot be disposed of after one use. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made the point that we need to be wary of how the Chinese, who are the leading manufacturers and exporters in this field, may well adapt their products to try to circumvent these regulations. In any event, what they and other manufacturers are producing is a cost on the environment, in the sense that they are using scarce resources.
Let us not be naive: the fact that something is reusable does not mean it is a permanent fixture. For example, in my parents’ day, they used to smoke cigarettes through a filter that they held. Even those filters were not permanent. I remember many occasions on which my parents said that they had to get rid of the filter and replace it with another. Do not let us be naive and think that this enormously large number of reusable vape devices that are projected to be sold in 2034 will not end up in landfill.
Dr Johnson
I am interested to know: is my hon. Friend trying to argue that the Government should have gone further and banned all vapes, including those that can be refilled?
Sir Christopher Chope
I am not suggesting that; I am referring to the impact assessment. The Minister, in responding to my intervention earlier, referred to the statement made yesterday to the effect that a new magic pill will be available on the NHS to enable people to be weaned off smoking and, in particular, the nicotine effects of smoking. When bringing that forward, the Government said that the new pill would be as effective as vaping. They did not suggest it would be more effective, but as effective, thereby recognising the important role that vaping has in promoting public health.
These regulations are being brought forward on the basis of the environmental benefits that will flow from them, but let us be clear that there is little provision for enforcement. Reference has been made to the additional burden on local authorities. Paragraph 183 of the regulatory impact assessment states:
“There will be costs associated with inspection and law enforcement services to support the ban. Trading Standards Authorities (TSAs) would be best placed to enforce the ban, and work will be undertaken with LAs to establish the most effective and efficient way of enforcement.”
The impact assessment goes on to calculate that the enforcement costs will be low, because the assumption is
“as per Better Regulation guidance to assume 100% compliance by businesses.”
If we make that assumption—in my submission, it is a false one—it can lead to the acceptance of figures from the Government that no additional costs will arise from enforcing these new regulations. I think that is a load of nonsense.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for listening to the points that I have been making. They can be summed up as: smoking costs lives; vaping saves lives. Therefore, if we can encourage more people to vape rather than smoke, that is to the benefit of public health and the individuals affected, as well as assisting those who suffer as a result of secondary smoking or passive smoking. The consequence, which is accepted by the Government in their impact assessment, is that by taking these measures against single-use vapes, quite a lot of people who currently use them will go back to smoking.
Vapes have a 65% success rate in enabling people to quit smoking. The chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health said that “scare stories” about young people vaping could be causing the misconception among adult smokers that vaping is at least as risky as smoking. We know that it is not. Compliant vapes do not contain tobacco and do not produce smoke, and vape aerosols do not contain the harmful chemicals found in tobacco smoke. Why are the Government therefore proposing to introduce regulations, which, on their own figures, will result in about 26% of people going from vaping back to tobacco products?
Dr Caroline Johnson
My hon. Friend is referring to an important issue. I know that he is concerned about personal responsibility and people’s ability to make their own choices. The Government face something of a choice between the protection of an adult—a former smoker who is now vaping, who will be presented with a choice of going back to smoking, stopping vaping or using a reusable vape—and the protection of children. Surely the protection of children is more important, as adults are free to make their own choices about what they wish to do, as long as it is an informed choice.
Sir Christopher Chope
There is already vaping among children. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) said, children cannot buy vapes and should not be using them, but if children are going to choose between vaping and smoking, it is better that they should go for vaping rather than smoking. One of the unintended consequences that may flow from the regulations is that, instead of using vaping products, an increasing number of children will go back to smoking behind the bike sheds, or whatever the modern equivalent is.
Mary Creagh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. A lot of public services have been run down over the past 14 years. In the Budget, there was an investment of £75 million in border security command to crack down on organised crime. Gangs often operate in multiple sectors of the economy. We need time for this new approach to intelligence gathering and sharing to bed in.
Mary Creagh
Can I make some progress? I am just conscious of time. I am very happy to take interventions towards the end, because I might have answered any questions in advance.
Single-use vapes are one form of illicit vapes. The Government are planning to introduce other pieces of vape legislation under the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, as well as the vaping product duty, as part of a cross-Government approach, so we will look at these things in future and focus on intelligence sharing between Border Force, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and trading standards.
Enforcement is critical to effectiveness. We will work closely with the DHSC and the relevant enforcement bodies, but I do take on board what the hon. Member for Christchurch said about size and number of vapes. I picked up an illegal vape on the street outside my home. It was rechargeable but not refillable, and had too many puffs in it to be legal. For those of us who are not vapers, it is a whole world of complexity. I am certainly on a steep learning curve.
The legislation has been drafted to address fears that manufacturers could circumvent the ban, for example by adding a USB port to the end of a single-use device and calling it reusable, but a manufacturer who adheres to these regulations will have produced a reusable vape. That requires batteries that can be recharged, a tank that can be refilled or pods that can be replaced, and a coil—the part of the vape that burns out with use—that can also be replaced. In that respect, we are going further than other countries such as France and Belgium.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) expressed concern about the health impacts. We know that tobacco is a harmful product and is responsible for one in four of all cancer deaths, killing up to two thirds of its long-term users. The Government are creating the first smokefree generation, so that children turning 15 this year, or younger, can never be legally sold tobacco, while not preventing anyone who currently smokes legally from being able to do so. The ban applies not to all vapes, but just to those that harm the environment. There will still be easy-to-use products on the market to help adults stop smoking. The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned 29% of users reverting to smoking following the ban, but it is incorrect to suggest that it will cause a surge in smoking rates. As stated in the assessment, we expect most single-use vape users to stop smoking or to switch to reusable vapes or non-vape products, including nicotine replacement therapies such as nicotine patches and gum.
The Tobacco and Vapes Bill, recently introduced by the Government, takes strong action to strengthen enforcement on illegal vapes, including new fixed-penalty notices and new licensing and registration powers, which will act as a deterrent and empower trading standards to act more quickly against illegitimate producers and retailers. In the first instance, a £200 fixed penalty notice will be issued, and alongside that a stop notice may be issued ordering the business or individual to cease the illegal activity. If it is not complied with, an individual will be guilty of an offence and liable for an unlimited fine, or imprisonment of up to six months. The Budget provides for a £70 million investment in local authority-led stop smoking services, so I hope that the Swap to Stop scheme will continue to help adult smokers to ditch their cigarettes for a free vape starter kit.
Dr Johnson
The impact assessment has been referred to repeatedly during the debate. I understand that it refers to this piece of legislation only, and not to the wider impact of other measures that the Government have proposed, or that have not completed their parliamentary process. Is that correct? Will an assessment of the effects not need to be done in the round, rather than applying to a specific piece of legislation that is only part of a wider plan to tackle youth vaping?
Mary Creagh
My understanding is that the assessment relates to this piece of legislation—I see my officials nodding vigorously in the Box—but if there are any further questions that the hon. Lady would like to ask me following the debate, I shall be only too happy to respond to her in person.
I hope that I have covered most of the comments and questions from colleagues. We are banning a product that is designed almost as a toy, a pocket-money product at pocket-money prices that is intended to appeal to those under 18. This legislation is needed to stop the continued misuse of critical resources and harm to our environment, as well as to support wider measures across government to tackle the increase in youth vaping, and is widely backed by the vast majority of the public and our stakeholders.
I trust that Members understand and accept the need for the regulations, and I commend them to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Environmental Protection (Single-use Vapes) (England) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 23 October, be approved.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16(1) (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary Jonathan Reynolds relating to Export and Investment Guarantees shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; the Speaker shall then put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on those Motions; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Lucy Powell.)
Budget: Implications for Farming Communities
Caroline Johnson Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Not only do those people seem to relish finding ways of creatively running their accounts, but some of them even take money to write columns about it.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I declare that my husband is in agriculture and farming, and therefore I have an indirect financial interest in the topic. This Government promised that they would not raise national insurance contributions, but they have. They promised that they would not reduce agricultural property relief, but they have. They have also added a fertiliser tax and a tax on pick-up trucks as a way of compounding the misery. Has the Minister done an impact assessment on food security and food prices following the Budget, and will he publish it?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Lady will know that many things impact food prices. I gently suggest to the Conservatives that they might want to look more closely at food price rises over the past few years before giving us any lectures on how to manage things. I am confident about this, because I have looked at the figures issued by the Treasury on the number of claims made in the past few years, and our figures stack up.
Farming and Food Security
Caroline Johnson Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay
The Secretary of State should be doing that, but there is a marked difference between us. I persuaded the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to strengthen the guidance against solar farms, but the Secretary of State is being pushed around by his Cabinet colleagues. The Energy Secretary has already walked all over him, granting permission for a whole load of solar farms, and allowing the clustering that is causing such an issue.
I will give the House an example of how the Secretary of State is not championing farming. Baroness Rock was a true voice in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for tenant farmers, and she wrote the review of tenant farming that I commissioned in a previous role in No. 10, but it seems that she has been sacked or asked to leave the DEFRA board. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State said why such a respected and talented figure had to leave her role.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Dr Johnson
My right hon. Friend is talking about the clustering of solar farms, but that is not the only problem. They are being built on high-quality agricultural land, which is nonsensical.
Steve Barclay
It is, and a further concern in my constituency is that the consultants who do soil sampling for the developers are often felt to be interpreting and grading the quality of soil in a way that is not consistent with local knowledge.
Back in May, the previous Government allocated £50 million of additional support to farmers hit by the wet weather. They extended the farming recovery fund to 1,000 more farmers, so that it covered all those affected in England. On top of that, in March, we announced the allocation of an additional £75 million to internal drainage boards, which are essential to protecting agricultural land from floods and storms.
We now have a Labour Government who neither understand nor care for rural communities. [Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”] They were not so vocal when they launched their manifesto, which devoted just 87 words to farming. There was not a single mention of farming in the King’s Speech, because the Government have made the active choice to de-prioritise British farming and food production.
On the immediate challenge, the answer to a recent parliamentary question backs up what the sector is telling me. The £50 million of additional farming recovery fund support is yet to be paid out. We have just established that we have had the wettest weather for 150 years and that 10 counties have had particularly challenging weather, yet despite having a known scheme, with an extra £50 million, they have not allocated that much-needed, time-critical support. The Secretary of State needs to explain why. The NFU says its members simply cannot wait any longer for the support, yet Labour seems to want to keep them waiting. Reports suggest that the £75 million for the internal drainage boards is also on a go-slow, and we need to know why.
For the longer term, Labour Ministers have overruled officials to cover some of the country’s best farmland in solar panels. They have rejected the plans for binding food security targets. It has even been suggested in media reports that they plan to cut the farming budget by £100 million. Indeed, it was reported that the NFU president has said that his members are being “kept up at night” by the “cliff edge” that Labour’s lack of commitment on the agriculture budget is causing.
The Government need to change course. They need to give immediate confidence to the sector and show that they care about food security. To do so, they need to commit to five things: first, that the full £50 million of additional wet weather support we announced in May will be paid out in full.
Steve Reed
As always, my hon. Friend makes an important point very eloquently. During the election campaign, I spoke to farmers up and down the country—as I did before that and have done since—who were absolutely furious that, having been promised continued access to the European markets where they were selling their great, high-quality British produce, they were instead taking a financial hit as trade barriers were thrown up and they could no longer sell into those markets. We want to correct that by seeking a new veterinary deal with the European Union to get exports moving across the borders again.
We will not allow food producers to continue to bear the brunt of unfair supply chains. Farmers deserve a fair price for the food they produce, and we will bring forward proposals to make sure that happens. One of the biggest cost rises affecting British farmers has been energy bills. We will prevent future price shocks by switching on GB Energy, so we can harness the power of wind, wave, solar and nuclear energy to keep bills down and take back control of our own energy supplies from foreign fossil-fuel dictators like Vladimir Putin.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The Secretary of State talks about the importance of cheap energy, solar and food security. Clearly, land needs a balance. What representations has he made to the Energy Secretary to be clear that the best farmland should not be used for ground-mounted solar?
Steve Reed
The hon. Lady has made that point to me before, and I reassure her that, even at their most ambitious extent, solar farms would not cover more than 1% of agricultural land. For farmers, climate change is also a significant concern. The reason we are seeing such heavy rainfall is climate change: that is what is leading to the flooding and droughts that are damaging farmers. If we do not take action to transition to a clean energy economy, farmers will continue to suffer from things that none of us wish them to have to deal with.