Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), and the new Secretary of State—I believe he is the fifth during my time in the shadow Environment team. The fish our fishers catch is vital to our food security, but the recent antics of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which is, in the name of safety, implementing new medical rules, are leaving many inshore fishers at their wits’ end. Can it really be right that a fisherman in the prime of his working life risks losing his livelihood because he was brave enough a few months ago to admit to a doctor that he felt anxious? I do not think it is, so will the Secretary of State corner his colleague the Transport Secretary in order to get him to do better than a temporary pause on this and to look urgently at exemptions for smaller boats, as other countries have sensibly done?

[Steve Barclay]

It is great to have Cambridgeshire so well represented on these important issues of fishing and farming. The shadow Minister raises an important point, because there have been concerns in the fishing sector. The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries and I have been in touch with Department for Transport colleagues on this issue. There have been amendments to the regulations as a result of those discussions, which are ongoing. However, we should not alarm people either, and the way that the shadow Minister characterised this—suggesting that someone went to their GP and raised an issue, and that prevented them from following their livelihood—is not what the regulations do. I recognise that there have been concerns in the sector. We are looking at them closely and following them up, but the situation is not as he characterised it. That would cause undue harm to those in the fishing sector.

Draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments and Consequential Provisions) (England) Regulations 2023

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Robert. This is a weighty instrument. In fact, it is probably three instruments. It is a shame that the three issues cannot be considered separately, because, while we support the intention of moving away from basic payments and support an environmentally friendly sustainable food system, frankly, we are deeply unimpressed by the way that the Government are doing it, and we have significant concerns about the potential environmental risk caused by the removal of cross-compliance. However, we must decide on the instrument as a whole, so we will not be opposing it today, but that should not be read as approval for the Government’s failures.

These draft regulations are familiar grounds. I have discussed many very similar statutory instruments over the past three years or so, and debated the Agriculture Act 2020 and indeed the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020 with the Minister’s predecessors. I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to know that I have at hand both his and his predecessors’ speeches, from which I can quote. This instrument marks another step in the Government’s long-drawn-out post-Brexit reforms to the farm-support system over the past five years and counting. One is tempted to ask, “Are we nearly there yet?”

It is worth repeating that we on the Opposition Benches agree that farm support should be changed to a system that uses taxpayers’ money to incentivise public goods in the form of environmental benefits. We have also repeatedly and consistently argued throughout that those public goods should include support for sustainable food production, and that a baseline of farming regulation is critical to ensuring that the environmental gains are genuine. Furthermore, the system should not end up with farmers who do not wish to take part enjoying an unfair advantage at the expense of our wildlife and landscapes. Those remain our key tests for the Government’s plans, and I am not particularly convinced that this set of regulations does enough to meet them.

Large sums of public money are at stake. Even with the reductions that have already taken effect, the National Farmers Union has estimated the amount to be paid out in 2024 alone will still amount to around £700 million. The taxpayer is entitled to ask what public value will be got from all that cash. Equally, what has happened to the money that has already been deducted from farm payments during the transition period? According to the figures in annex D of the Government’s original 2020 transition plan, in total, from 2020 to 2023, around £1.3 billion to £1.4 billion should have already been saved by the end of this year, with another £1 billion to come next year. Can the Minister confirm how much of that has actually been paid out to farmers to date under the new environmental land management scheme?

The Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) told us in 2021:

“All funding released from the reductions will be reinvested in new schemes in this Parliament.”—[Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 18 March 2021; c. 3.]

And, in March 2022, she said:

“All moneys that are saved by those reductions will be invested in farming and farming businesses.”—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 15 March 2022; c. 11.]

The Minister himself told me, only in February this year, that he was, “more than happy to” reassure me

“that we will deliver that cash”,

and that as

“we move into these new schemes, we will transfer all that cash from one pot into the other.”—[Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 28 February 2023; c. 10.]

So, if not all of the £1 billion already saved has yet been paid out, where does that cash now sit, and what are his plans to get it out of door in the remaining few months before the election? What is the Department doing to record what has been saved, what has been paid out, and what has been delivered for that money? As I have asked before, will he explain how any underspend will be dealt with and for how many years it will be rolled forward? I am advised that underspends in the European Union schemes could be carried forward for up to three years. Has the Department agreed with the Treasury that that arrangement will be mirrored?

The Government are fond of claiming that payments under the common agricultural policy went mainly to better-off farmers. We are used to seeing the Institute for Fiscal Studies produce a detailed distributional analysis setting out the impact of Budget measures on people at various points in the income distribution. Will the Minister consider commissioning the IFS to produce a similar analysis of the success—or otherwise—of his new method of allocating funding, according to how well it supports farmers most in need of the cash, or whether, as one might suspect, the lion’s share has gone to those who are already very well-heeled?

The Government have also claimed that reducing basic payments would have an impact on tenants and land values. When we debated this in February, the Minister told me that

“we have not seen that impact on land values, but what is more interesting is the impact that that might have on rental values going forward, and we will have to monitor that to see what impact some of these changes will have on the rented sector especially.”—[Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 28 February 2023; c. 9.]

So, nine months on, what has that monitoring shown?

Frankly, after our experience of the Government’s cavalier approach to public money during covid, with some £4.3 billion written off, taxpayers might find it a little odd that the plan set out in this instrument is that farmers will get paid for the next few years whether they farm or not. That picks up on the interesting observation made by the hon. Member for Amber Valley. I must say that do not think that the Minister’s explanation is mirrored in the explanatory memorandum, because that itself makes this rather extraordinary admission, in paragraph 7.4:

“There will be no requirement for the recipient to continue to have land.”

I wonder whether the Minister can marry that up with the answer that he gave to the hon. Member earlier.

How does the Minister plan to explain to the people of this country, who have seen their tax burdens rise by £4,300 per household under the Conservatives, that he will be paying out £700 million next year with no requirement that the recipients do anything at all— not even complete an application form, according to paragraph 7.15 of the explanatory memorandum? That is a very efficient system for handing out money to people for apparently doing nothing. I would not have thought that that was necessarily the traditional Conservative approach to public money, but maybe times have changed.

Again, in our debate in February, the Minister referred to people who might “take the mickey”. Given how much the enforcement capability of his Department has already been cut, and that further cuts must now be delivered after the autumn statement, how exactly does he plan to find and deal with any delinked-payment “mickey-takers”?

I am pleased to note that the Department does seem finally to have taken on board my complaints about its habit of making baseless claims in previous explanatory memorandums and have taken out the statement that

“Direct Payments are untargeted, can inflate land rent prices and can stand in the way of new entrants to the farming industry.”

Therefore, we do have some progress after three or four years. However, we are asked to believe, yet again, the Department’s claims, in section 12 of the explanatory memorandum, that

“There is no, or no significant, impact on business,”

and that no impact assessment has been prepared because it relates to grants and is “not a regulatory provision”. So, £700 million is being paid next year, with no claim needed and no requirement to do anything, and there is no impact? That seems odd.

I explained earlier that we have consistently argued for a regulatory baseline of standards that all farmers should meet, but the instrument will remove all of the so-called cross-compliance conditions that still apply to farm payments and require recipients to meet environmental, animal-welfare and public, animal and plant-health standards. As Wildlife and Countryside Link and the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee have pointed out, while some of those requirements will continue in other legislation, with others, I am afraid, there are gaps.

In particular, from 1 January, there will no longer be legal protection in place covering hedgerows, soil cover and watercourse buffer strips that are not covered by the farming rules for water. It also risks enforcement gaps on compliance with regulations, such as domestic public rights of way, that benefit from conditionality for payments, which falls away from 1 January. The Scrutiny Committee’s report concludes:

“We note that some elements of the new compliance regime are still work in progress, while other cross-compliance requirements will be set out in guidance, codes of practice or incentive schemes. This raises questions as to whether they can be enforced as effectively as the current statutory requirements.”

Wildlife and Countryside Link has called for the Government to commit to a new system of farm regulation and conditionality to ensure genuine environmental benefits are being delivered by the new environmental land management schemes. Wildlife and Countryside Link has commented that the explanatory memorandum refers to

“generalised and outcome-focussed rules in existing regulation”,

but it points out:

“Many of these domestic standards are guidance and voluntary incentivisation frameworks that do not apply to all farmers…they are not appropriate replacements for enforceable rules under regulatory conditionality. This also creates an unlevel playing field between farmers, risking a ‘race to the bottom’ as those who comply with voluntary standards are disadvantaged commercially.”

I ask the Minister: what assessment has been made of the environmental benefits of removing cross-compliance? I will take his likely silence as confirmation that no such assessment has been made. That is hardly surprising, given that it is actually quite a hard thing to do without the proper bassline assessment that we called for at the beginning.

In conclusion, we support an agricultural transition, but the Government have never set out the destination clearly, so it is unsurprising that they are failing. We will have to pick up the pieces. We want it to work effectively in order to move to a more environmentally friendly and nature-positive food production system, but as we see in this instrument today, we remain concerned that the Government’s piecemeal and long, drawn-out approach is failing to deliver for farmers, taxpayers, or the environment.

[Mark Spencer]

May I start by clarifying the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. Delinked payments will only be made to farmers who claimed in the previous schemes in 2023. In the basic repayment scheme, there is not the necessity to hold that land in future, but in practice, if people take on lots of land from neighbours, those rights could be transferred if businesses are amalgamated and changed. Technically, it is possible for someone to receive payments without farming that land, but these payments are very much on a diminishing scale and will evaporate very soon, which is the whole purpose of this transition. This transition is to move away from that basic payment scheme to improve our environmental footprint, and to help farmers on that journey of improving our biodiversity and our environment as we move forward.

The hon. Member for Cambridge again asked me about the budgets, and as I have told him in the past, the budget is clear—it is ringfenced. It is £2.4 billion-worth of cash, and it is there to be invested in UK farming to get the outcomes that we want to achieve. If there is an underspend, such as if we spend £2.3 billion this year, we could spend £2.5 billion next year. That is agreed with the Treasury and we can roll that money forward and it will be invested. That is why we have been able to do some of the great schemes that we have been able to roll out to allow farmers to invest in slurry.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Secretary of State confirmed only the other day at the Country Land and Business Association conference that only 800 sustainable farming incentive schemes are currently being paid out—that is compared to 80,000 basic payment agreements. There is a gap, and I wonder if the Minister would agree to write to me to explain where in the accounts that money is located.

[Mark Spencer]

Of course, I am more than happy to write the hon. Gentleman, but he fails to mention the doubling in the number of people that are receiving countryside stewardship agreements—a 93% increase. We now have slurry infrastructure grants, calf housing grants, beef housing grants, and investment in robotics and new technology. All of those were not available under the basic payment scheme, but farmers are now eligible to apply for those capital sums to invest in their own productivity going forward. Of course, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and try to reassure him again, but I fear that he may not want to be reassured, but instead wants to try to frustrate.

That leads me to the hon. Gentleman’s distrust of UK farmers and his worry that UK farmers are going to wreck our beautiful landscape following the loss of cross-compliance. I have to say that that is the environment and the landscapes that they created over generations. Let us just look at the landowners up and down the country who do not receive basic payments and who are not under obligations to meet these rules. Why is he not worried about local authorities that may cut hedgerows in May or June? Why is he not worried about the Coal Authority, which owns vast amounts of property and may go and commit those crimes, as he has indicated? Why is he not worried about golf courses, which may well go and cut their hedgerows in May and June? Why is he only worried about farmers—the people who have protected those landscapes and created them over generations? I trust those farmers. I believe in those landowners and farmers to do the right thing. They have done it for generations, and they will continue to. We are going to help and support them on that journey by investing in them and ensuring that they can do the right thing to improve biodiversity and their environmental footprint.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Wine (Revocation and Consequential Provision) Regulations 2023

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer, and to hear the Minister’s introduction. I start by reassuring him and the Whips that we recognise the constructive approach the Department has taken with the industry on this instrument and that, given the support the industry has expressed, we will not oppose it. That said, there are of course some issues, which were aired in last week’s debate in the other place and on which more clarity would be helpful.

As we have heard, the wine sector makes an important contribution to this country’s economy, and I thank the Wine and Spirit Trade Association for its help in preparing for this debate. I noticed that it is quoted in the impact assessment as saying that the UK wine market was worth over £10 billion in 2022—I think the Minister said £11 billion, but what is 1 billion between friends. However, it is certainly a very large amount of money in off-trade and on-trade sales, with large volumes of wine imported, bottled and re-exported across the world. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Easington, we are the world’s 12th largest exporter by value. Wine is a very important part of our highly successful food and drink sector.

As has been said, the vast majority of wine consumed here—99%—is imported. We recognise and accept the need for the rules inherited from the European Union to be updated and streamlined to help the sector operate even more efficiently. I also appreciate that efforts are being made in this legislation to provide consumers with clearer information and to reduce unnecessary packaging—for instance, by removing the foil and mushroom cork requirements for sparkling wines—and we have heard that the Minister intends to bring in another two instruments to make further changes and to consolidate legislation.

I understand that today’s instrument needs to be in place before 1 January—just a few weeks away—which rather answers the question raised in the other place: why not do all three together? To put it kindly, DEFRA is clearly a just-in-time Department; putting it less kindly, this is all rather last-minute. Perhaps the Minister can explain why this could not all have been done a bit earlier, and therefore in a more rational way.

I also understand that the Department has yet to reach an agreed way forward to ensure alignment across the GB internal market. Of course, this is not the only such issue, as it has also failed to agree a UK deposit return scheme, which could accept wine and other glass bottles. Will the Minister therefore provide more clarity around what exactly the other two instruments will do? How will they impact on the labelling requirements? What further changes is the Department planning for 2024-25? What is getting in the way of it reaching the agreements needed with the devolved Governments on this and other important matters? Perhaps the Opposition could help. How exactly does the Minister plan to reach a consistent regulatory approach across the GB internal market?

We are grateful to the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its useful report on this instrument, which makes for sobering reading and is worded quite strongly. In addition to the questions I have asked, it expresses concerns about the potential negative impact on consumer confidence if labelling ends up providing less information for consumers or is just less clear. It states:

“it will be important that all products are labelled clearly so that consumers can make an informed choice of what they are buying.”

The issue was raised in the other place, but the response of the Minister’s colleague there was a little vague.

I am sure that many of those present today study wine labels closely, and many of our constituents who buy wine will be used to seeing specific information showing the origin; the grape varieties used; by whom, how and where the wine is produced; and other important details, such as the percentage alcohol content and units, whether the wine is fair trade or organic, and whether it contains sulphites or egg white. They may feel wary of that sort of information being presented in a different and perhaps more generic or less informative way. Will the Minister clarify exactly what the changes in the regulations will mean in practice for the information on wine bottle labels? How does the Department plan to inform consumers, so that their confidence can be maintained?

In conclusion, much in the regulations is to be welcomed, but if we dig into the detail, support for some of the measures was not as strong as the explanatory memorandum suggests. It would be sensible to pick up some of the points when the other instruments are brought forward, so that the new regime can be considered as a coherent whole.

[Mark Spencer]

I am grateful for the support of the shadow team, and I will address some of the points made by the hon. Member for Cambridge.

Of course, it would be much better to do these things across the whole UK. It is a question of ensuring that we take our friends in Scotland and Wales with us. The hon. Gentleman slightly pressed me on why we are bringing the regulations forward so close to the deadline. We have been engaged in many conversations with our friends in Wales and Scotland, cajoling them along the same route. To be clear, they have not said that they will not do this; they are still considering what they would like to do. We are helping and supporting them in that decision-making process and to come on board and do some of these things in Scotland and Wales. Those conversations are ongoing, and we will continue them.

We are doing this SI first, and we will do the other two when we get to them, but more detailed work is needed with the industry to ensure that we get the legislation right.

[Daniel Zeichner]

May I press the Minister slightly? In a few weeks’ time, will we not end up with produce being regulated differently in different parts of Great Britain?

[Mark Spencer]

To be clear, absolutely not. We will not have products that are regulated differently, but we will have an industry that is regulated differently in terms of blending. It will be possible for a winemaker in Cambridge to blend a wine in Cambridge and to sell it throughout the United Kingdom—it will still be possible to sell Cambridgeshire wine in Cardiff and Edinburgh—but it will not be possible for someone to blend a wine in Cardiff and to sell it in Cambridge. However, we hope our friends in Wales and Scotland will catch up.

The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions about labelling, and it is important to get across that it is fundamental to these changes that the consumer is not misled, and nothing in them will mislead consumers. People will have to be absolutely clear. It will not be possible for me to buy in some Australian wine, blend it with three grapes from Sussex, bottle it in Nottinghamshire and call it Nottinghamshire wine. Clearly, that would be misleading, which is not permitted under these regulations. We must be clear about the percentages, the blends of grapes being used and the origin of the wines.

That is all clear for those who are doing it, but the regulations do give importers flexibility to blend different varieties and types of wine to maintain a standard product throughout different seasons, because wines can change, and they can also change in transport.

Draft Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2023 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Gary, and I thank the Minister for his introduction.

We are all aware that farmers and growers have been grappling with some formidable challenges over the last few years given the sky-rocketing costs of fertiliser, animal feed and energy; tight profit margins; a rocky transition from the common agricultural policy to environmental land management schemes; and a trade and regulatory regime that has thrown up yet more barriers and red tape. Many farmers have had to endure the distress of witnessing damage to crops or livestock due to the devastating recent floods, and too many have suffered from persistent workforce shortages. So I absolutely understand concerns about any prospects of further crop loss due to disease and insect infestation and anxiety about the availability of effective tools to prevent such problems and their financial consequences.

We recognise that the farming and amenity sectors need to plan ahead and adjust to any changes in the pesticides, and seeds treated with pesticides, that they are permitted to use. Indeed, they would probably also welcome news from the Minister today about the long awaited pesticide national action plan. Can the Minister enlighten us about when that is expected?

On the instrument before us today, we appreciate that farmers and growers need access to these products in time for the 2024 growing season and that without these temporary extended permissions, there could be adverse impact on both crop yield and output. As we have heard, maize, which is used extensively for cattle feed and energy generation, would be particularly affected as 99% of all maize seeds are treated with at least one of three plant protection products that do not currently have GB authorisation for use as seed treatments. We read in paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum that

“Since EU Exit no new seed treatments for maize have been authorised in GB.”

The curious reader might wonder why. The issue begs a bigger post-Brexit question, of course. The fact that there are no UK authorisations points to the highly integrated nature of crop systems across Europe. Maize seed is not produced in the UK, and we therefore have to rely on at least one of our European neighbours—hopefully, given today, not Greece.

Although we support the extension, it is not clear to me or others I have consulted how the period of three and a half years was arrived at for the provisions that allow the import, sale and use of seeds treated with a plant protection product authorised in at least one European Union or European economic area member state prior to the implementation period completion date. I am advised that the standard registration period is 18 months; I think the Minister said in his opening statement that the period had been carefully considered. Will he say a little more about how that three and a half years has been arrived at?

Similarly, we do not object to the reinstatement of trade permits for importing plant protection products that are authorised in the UK for up to two years, so we will not be opposing the instrument. However, an explanation would be helpful—not least because I am told by those in the industry that most parallel importers have moved to product authorisation in the transition period. Again, will the Minister say more?

Regardless, in our view these extensions should be temporary. We strongly urge growers to use this time efficiently and productively to seek alternative solutions to crop protection and we urge manufacturers to develop and submit applications for new alternative products that minimise environmental harm. We are committed to working with farmers and scientists to find alternatives and will follow the scientific advice on the licensing, regulation and impact of pesticides. I ask the Minister for an assurance that the permissions are indeed temporary and to outline the measures that the Government are taking to facilitate and accelerate the development of alternative systems for crop protection.

Let me finish by reminding the Minister that there are concerns about some pesticides, still in use in the UK, that some believe threaten insect and animal life as well as human health, including through carcinogens and/or neurotoxins. With new research, and growing concern about these issues, a number of pesticides have been added to the EU’s list of “substances of very high concern”. That is because they have been found to be carcinogenic or to affect the reproductive system, as well as being persistent in the environment and bioaccumulative.

Bans on chemicals are generally preceded by a listing on the “substances of very high concern” list. The last additions to the UK’s list were made more than three years ago, in June 2020. Since then, the European Chemicals Agency has added 26 substances to its equivalent list. It seems that the UK is falling behind. That is disappointing because the UK played a key role in setting up the EU’s gold standard chemicals regime, yet now we are lagging behind the EU in tracking and regulating harmful substances. Why has the UK failed to add any chemicals to the list of substances of concern, when our EU neighbours have added 26?

The regulations are a temporary fix—they could be deemed a sticking plaster. We need to develop new ways of protecting crops without harming the environment. We will work closely with the farming sector, the crop protection sector, and the wider food production sector to find alternatives that provide sustainable, secure supplies of food but also work for nature. That is a prize worth seeking.

[Mark Spencer]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his contribution and to hon. Members for their attendance today. I hope that colleagues will recognise that the regulations are crucial to ensure that farmers continue to have the tools that they need to protect their crops. I shall address some of the shadow Minister’s questions.

The national action plan on pesticides is coming soon; we have been liaising with colleagues from the devolved Administrations about it for some time. Those discussions have reached a fruitful conclusion and I hope that we will be able to launch the plan very soon.

Why have there been no new applcations? Obviously, these chemicals and new technologies take a lot of developing. It takes a long time for chemical companies to come forward with products to the marketplace. There is actually a biopesticide that is very close to being rolled out, but the authorisations have not been gone through so far. We need to make sure that we have all the data available to make a credible assessment of whether it is safe for the environment and the operator. We will not shirk away from going through that rigorously. The Health and Safety Executive does an excellent job in giving us that data and knowledge.

I think we pitched the period of two and a half years about right. We think that is a window of opportunity to engage with the sector and make sure that those coming forward with products that they want to register will have ample opportunity to do it within that window. Eighteen months would have been quite tight; it might have been achievable but we want to give a credible time for those applications to come forward and be properly considered.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I understand the point that the Minister is making, but what does he expect to happen at the end of those three and a half years?

[Mark Spencer]

I hope that by that time the sector will have had the opportunity to come forward with its own applications to the Health and Safety Executive and for us to have looked at that data and granted UK authorisations. We are committed to working with the sector and we have a good working relationship with it.

The shadow Minister commented about how our friends in the EU had withdrawn some products. We are keen to help our food sector to have the tools available to continue to produce great food. We need to balance that, of course, with the impact on the environment and the safety of operators who use the chemicals. By their very nature, these chemicals are designed to be harmful to some organisms—that is the purpose of their existence. We will make sure that all those health and safety criteria are put in place and that those operating with the chemicals are legally obliged to use the correct equipment.

I hope that colleagues will support the regulations and extend and reinstate the current arrangements. We can do that safely for the benefit of our food producers and the environment. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

To maintain that healthy, sustainable food system, farmers need a level playing field, so when the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) made his recent comments about the benefits of importing hormone-injected beef, it sent a shudder through the industry. This time last year, he was at the very top of Government, alongside the Secretary of State. Given the Minister’s long experience in Government, can he tell us how many others at the top of his Government privately harbour that view?

Draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. Also as ever, I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction. When we have two sets of acronyms that are both EPR—environmental permitting regulations and extended producer responsibility—there is always a danger of getting slightly confused, so I am grateful for her introduction.

I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), who stood down yesterday as shadow Secretary of State, and welcome the new shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). I know that the Minister and other Government Members will join me in sending good wishes to both of them.

I also bring to the Committee the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), who is away on parliamentary business today, so cannot attend this sitting as she normally would. I will not detain Members for too long. Normally, I would start by reassuring the Whips as to whether we will support the SI—I can immediately reassure them that we will not be pressing this to a Division—but should say that the decision has been more difficult than usual. I will explain why.

We support the basic principles of what the Government are trying to do with the regulations. It is clearly important that we as a nation go as far as we can to avoid unnecessary waste and all the negative impact it creates for the environment and through costs to the consumer. We agree with the regulations: more data and information about the waste that we as a society generate will help us with our ultimate aim to protect the environment and minimise waste in all areas of our lives.

I have some concerns, however, about the details, which I will come to, and more widely. I think it is fair to say that it has perhaps not been a tremendously good summer for the Minister and her Secretary of State, whether because of poor water quality in our rivers, continuing poor air quality, the debacle about deposit return schemes, the chaos around nutrient neutrality or—specifically relating to the regulations—yet more delays on extended producer responsibility. Frankly, the Government’s environment policies are in tatters, which makes it hard to support extra regulation for businesses in a scheme that I am not convinced the Government will ever be able to enact. I remain, however, an eternal optimist. Despite the shambles, let us hope a way forward can be found.

There are some issues of detail about the planning, implementation and costs associated with these proposals. I am not fully persuaded that they have been properly thought through. There is a lack of clarity about how the scheme will work; indeed, I have talked to stakeholders, and they seem perplexed at the lack of detail. Businesses need to be able to plan for the future, not left in the dark, worrying about how many additional staff they might need to recruit or how much they need to set aside to invest in new equipment. Certainly, the sense I get is that there has been insufficient consultation and engagement.

One of the key questions is understandably about cost. The Government claim that minimal costs will be incurred for the recycling facilities and other stakeholders by the additional regulatory burdens, including the requirement to conduct more sampling and report considerably more data. There has not been a full impact assessment, which would have provided a much clearer picture of precisely how the changes will affect recycling centres, food and drink producers, local authorities and, ultimately, consumers and taxpayers.

I find it extremely hard to believe that, in the first instance, materials facilities that recycle waste and have to comply with the additional regulation will not incur significant additional costs. I am told that one waste company claims that it will have to recruit an additional 80 staff to fulfil the testing requirements at new sites. Employing those 80 new staff alone will run to more than £1 million a year for just one company, and that is before the new equipment and reconfigurations are taken into account.

The Environmental Services Association has undertaken a detailed analysis of the logistical and financial impact of the additional obligations presented by this statutory instrument and has concluded that the costs would significantly exceed the £2.65 million threshold for an impact assessment. The association noted that, in a quarter of cases, the SI could require investment of £50 million for each facility and that some facilities would need to close for up to 12 months to be able to reconfigure their operations and comply with new testing requirements.

An extensive survey of stakeholders that the association carried out found that just over half of all recycling facilities lack the space for the enhanced sampling requirements. Many, including waste transfer stations, will require reconfiguration and reduced throughput to accommodate the requirements. Those sites will also incur significant additional logistical challenges, such as additional staff traffic and a move to off-site sample analysis.

If that is the case, it seems that the implications have not been properly thought through. The Government have too readily dismissed the analysis of the Environmental Services Association. Can the Minister explain how she is so sure that the association is wrong, and the costs will not exceed the £2.65 million threshold required for a proper impact assessment? If she is wrong, will she carry out that assessment and think again? Why is she so reluctant to submit the policy to proper scrutiny?

The question is: who is going to end up paying for all this, either directly or indirectly? Will it be the facilities, manufacturers or local authorities, or will it ultimately be the consumers and council tax payers? I draw Members’ attention to the Government’s response to the question posed by the Green Alliance, which, for those with a sharp eye, can be found in the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The Government responded that they expect the costs will be covered by the extended producer responsibility disposal cost fees borne by the packaging producers and payable to local authorities. However, that was their answer when they were arguing that the costs were minimal. As I have argued, like many of the stakeholders in this sector and beyond, I am not convinced that they will be minimal. Therefore, I am concerned about the wider consequences. Can the Minister tell us who she thinks will bear those costs, and over what timescale? Can she also tell us what meetings have taken place between her Department and the sector? How often and when? I understand that she might not know today, but perhaps she could write to me.

In recent years, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West has pressed the point about enforcement on a range of issues. There is a lack of clarity about how the new regime will be enforced, not least based on what happened when the original legislation was introduced. Will the Minister outline how much money her Department has allocated to enforcement? As we all know, there is no point introducing new rules unless they are going to be enforced. We can also see from the legislation that the proposals will have a limited impact on the resources sector as that is more aimed at the producers. I suspect that any impact will depend on the type of business and where it is in the value chain. Can the Minister outline what engagement she has had with producers and the producers sector?

Overshadowing all this is the wider extended producer responsibility regime. Will the Minister confirm that the Government remain committed to it? It is important, because the “polluter pays” principle was once a driving principle of this Government. We agree, because for too long producers, brands and retailers have not had to take full accountability for the products they place on the market. I am sure the Minister agrees that EPR can be a crucial step towards a more sustainable resource management system.

We have a real opportunity to be world leaders abroad and innovators at home, but that requires boldness, ambition and commitment. I do not doubt the Minister’s personal commitment, but it seems to many of us that the wider Government are on the run when it comes to environmental policy. We will not force the issue to a vote today, but the wider world knows the truth. The Government have lost the plot when it comes to the big environmental challenges that we face.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the shadow Minister. Although he is a stand-in, it is always good to see him. I also welcome the new shadow DEFRA Minister; I know we will be meeting very soon.

The shadow Minister suggested that it had been a bad summer for me, but in fact it has been a good summer. I went on my water walkabout around the country. Contrary to what one might read in the press, I saw an awful lot of excellent work going on in the water space, across a whole range of facilities, including a great many sewage treatment works, where I looked at the monitoring kit. I analysed in great detail how the whole system works, as well as the new schemes we are bringing forward to get duration monitoring, and extra monitoring upstream and downstream.

Similarly, I saw some of the excellent work going on with chalk stream restoration, particularly in the consistency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and other counties. It gave me great heart that what we are doing on chalk stream restoration in particular is game changing. We absolutely will be committed to that.

While we are talking about our record, let me say that, far from people overseas looking at us and thinking that we are downgrading what we are doing and that what we are doing is not good enough, we are actually revered across the world. I did go to see another piece of DEFRA work, which was overseas, that was working on waste recycling and ocean protection regarding plastics. I can tell hon. Members that the schemes that we are bringing in—the way they all knit together—and our collection system, from household to recycling facility and onwards, are really revered by other countries.

Yes, we still have a long way to go to knit this all together in a completely circular economy, but I will not allow the shadow Minister to berate us for what we are doing, because I know that it is the right thing to do. We will continue with it—we are absolutely committed to it, as he knows—and it will make the difference that we need; we are already well on track. That was slightly out of the box, but while we are at it, I will point out that 93% of bathing waters are good or excellent—I have seen a lot of that, too.

To answer the shadow Minister’s questions, yes, there has been a great deal of local authority consultation. It has been ongoing with officials and ongoing with me. As I explained earlier, it is very important, and it will continue. On the impact assessment, as I said earlier, as part of the Government response to the consultation on the EPR scheme, we produced an EPR impact assessment, which included the expected costs to materials facilities in meeting the proposed regulatory requirements. Assumptions about the estimated number of materials facilities in scope were then revised with regulators, following clarification on the definition and the types of facilities in scope of these amending regulations, further reducing the burden on facilities where possible. Originally, 739 facilities were estimated to be in scope in England. That was revised down to 159, following our receiving the updated data and the assumptions of the Environment Agency. As a result, the threshold required for producing a full impact assessment for this SI was not reached. The shadow Minister asked about that, so I hope that what I have said answers his question. A lot of the facilities that were in there were moved out, because they will be assessed in a different way—they are mostly the household recycling centres, where material goes to. That material will be captured, but in relation to what we are dealing with today, the facility numbers have been revised right down.

This will be a new recording requirement for local authorities, but they have known that it has been coming down the track, because we consulted a while ago, and it does not actually come in for 12 months, so they have more time to gear themselves up to it. They will also get their first invoices when all this data and other data has been used to calculate the expected fees—they will get their first invoices for EPR in October 2025.

[Daniel Zeichner]

On the costs, will the Minister clarify something? Many of these organisations seem to think that there will be a significant extra cost. Does she think they are wrong?

[Rebecca Pow]

Well, we carried out the impact assessment. One of the purposes of the entire scheme, when it is correctly functioning, is that the amount of waste going into the system will overall be reduced. Of course, that is why we are asking the organisations to collect data, for example on what later will be in the deposit return scheme. Most of that will not be in this waste once this gets working properly. A lot of it will not even be there. It will, just to start with, and that is why gathering the data is so important, because the whole system will be functioning as one, so that the costs will not be prohibitive, according to our calculations and working with them, when they have to start doing this extra sampling.

The shadow Minister also asked about enforcement. The EA is already starting work with the permitted facilities to talk to them about what is expected of them, what they will have to do, and how they will bring that in. I hope that answers his question; we can write to him with more detail on the funding if he would like. We are also constantly working with the producers. They are the ones who put the packaging on the market and they will be the ones who have to pay the fees. That is why, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we moved the date for the start of the EPR, which, along with current impacts around the cost of living and inflation, was largely to give industry members more time. Work with them is ongoing to make sure we get this right. It is new and complicated, but I am engaged with the Food and Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium and so on, as are my officials. That is important.

That covers the questions. The shadow Minister asked about the overall schemes for the circular economy and the “polluter pays” principle. All the schemes are linked to the whole “polluter pays” principle, and that is what underpins them. Although there have been some delays, we are still doing all the work to make sure they are introduced within the timescales we have set. We are looking all the time at feedback from industry, hence the delay on the EPR scheme by 12 months, and I also remind the shadow Minister that it was a joint decision with the devolved Administrations. The additional year gives everyone more time to prepare for the systems when they come in. The materials facilities will need to meet the requirements introduced by this statutory instrument in advance of the EPR in 2025. We want all those requirements implemented before then to ensure that the data can be used by the scheme administrator, as I said earlier, to continue developing their fees and payment mechanisms.

Consistent collections in England for households will introduce a simpler system for recycling waste material. That will not be introduced until after the implementation of the EPR for packaging scheme in 2025. Councils are still waiting for the absolute detail on that, and that is why we are working with them to make sure that everything is streamlined and they know what will be required. I hope I have covered most, if not all, of the shadow Minister’s questions. I will write to him about the detail of the sums.

In summary, this statutory instrument will make crucial changes to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. Those amendments will introduce a new sampling requirement on materials facilities and bring more facilities in scope. That in turn will enhance the quality and quantity of waste data, strengthening the original objective of the regulations in response to the post-implementation review, and support fair and accurate payment calculations in the EPR scheme. I trust that I have made it clear about what the SI brings in; once again, I thank all hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2023

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Robert. I can confirm that we will not oppose this measure. I thank the Minister for his introduction, because we share the view that the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board plays an important role in British agriculture, but we think it is right that any changes are given close consideration.

As we have heard, working across a host of agricultural sectors, the AHDB undertakes important research, development and farm-level knowledge transfer, along with working to improve supply chain transparency and stimulating demand to help develop export markets. While some of the larger agricultural organisations have the resources and capacity to engage in those activities themselves, the vast majority of farms do not. Therefore, pooling financial resources from farm businesses large and small to invest in improving the sector for everyone is important. In fact, I would argue that the AHDB is more significant than ever, given the range of challenges facing the food sector.

I pay tribute to Nicholas Saphir, Tim Rycroft and their colleagues as they try to align the organisation more closely with the concerns of those who pay for it, which is not always easy. I understand that Tim Rycroft is stepping down at the end of the year; I am sure that we would all thank him for the significant contribution to the evolution of the AHDB and wish him well for the future. I am also grateful to a range of organisations for their help in preparing for this instrument, including the NFU, the National Pig Association and the National Sheep Association. On the whole, I agree with the proposed changes, but I want to raise some questions and flag some concerns. We should use this opportunity to ensure that the AHDB maximises its potential to champion and support British agriculture and horticulture.

While we do not object to the expansion of AHDB work to non-levy-paying sectors, it would be sensible to create some governing principles and safeguards to ensure that the core sectors are not adversely affected in any way. Externally funded projects should be transparent and value-led in the interests of the agricultural industry, and any commercial work should be undertaken for a fee and not cross-subsidised, directly or indirectly, by the levy.

That work must not be allowed to have a detrimental impact on time availability or investment in the core sectors, and I would be grateful if the Minister could give his view on how that could be guaranteed. Indeed, it is important that the AHDB is not distracted from core business. Several representatives of the levy-paying sectors have said that they would like the AHDB to be able to devote more time to activities such as export promotion. Several have also emphasised the need for the AHDB to be as agile as possible in today’s fast-paced environment so that it can turn its attention swiftly to matters that need immediate attention.

It is helpful that producers in the potato and horticultural sectors can continue to access the AHDB’s services by purchasing them on an ad hoc basis now that they have voted to opt out of the levy payment. Clearly, that was a decision for those levy payers, but I was struck, on a recent visit to a major potato grower, on being told that data formerly available through the AHDB was no longer available, and they considered that to be a loss.

However, I also worry that there is a danger that this new arrangement could unfairly disadvantage smaller producers. The removal of the pooling effect of the levy, and the ability to buy services directly from the board, could mean that larger producers will continue to benefit from the work of the AHDB without sharing those benefits with smaller producers who will be less able to afford direct services. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what assessment his Department has made of the impact on smaller producers. If a disparity is found, what steps will be taken to address it?

Moreover, as I understand it, the AHDB believes that the “No” vote from the horticulture and potato sectors resulted, in part, from severe financial pressures caused by supply chain pressure and low profit margins. I am concerned that, because we still see many of the sectors struggling with the various crises affecting the industry as a whole, too many producers have been left in a difficult position. For them, opting out of the levy was one of the very last resorts as they sought to keep their businesses afloat. While that may be a good option for individual businesses in the short term, in the longer term, it could cause problems to the wider industry. Would the Minister tell us what action his Government are planning to take to deal with the broader challenges that farmers are facing, which have put so much pressure on some of them that they have felt the need to leave?

I also have concerns about the gap in horticultural research that may result from the withdrawal of the levy from the sector. I recall that in our debate on last year’s draft order, the Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), alluded to alternative centres for research in this area, including the outstanding UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, which I visited recently. It and other research institutes are conducting groundbreaking research on a range of crucial issues that impact the horticultural sector, but I remain to be fully convinced that we will be able to replace the lost research capacity quite as easily as some have implied. Can the Minister provide more reassurance on that point? In passing, perhaps he could remind us why the horticultural strategy has been dropped.

I have no objections to granting the AHDB powers to set a zero-rated levy, which it is currently unable to do. That seems to us to be a useful lever to help sectors that face severe challenges and are in emergencies, as long as the decision-making process is transparent, fair and consistent, and the financial assistance is relatively short-term. I also think that it makes more sense and would be much more efficient for the AHDB to seek approval for the appropriate authority to amend levy rates only when it proposes to change those rates, rather than maintaining the current state of affairs whereby the board has to seek approval for the rates on an annual basis, regardless of whether they are changed. Any change in the levy rate, particularly an increase, must be very carefully thought through and clearly justified to all stakeholders and the accountable body.

With regard to levy deductions, I agree that the levy collection provisions need to be modernised to reflect automated systems and consolidation in the supply chain. I also agree with the proposal that there should be greater consistency across industries about who is entitled to a deduction and about the quantity of that deduction. However, I call for transparency in the costs of levy collection being covered when a negotiation is being conducted.

In conclusion, we welcome the substance of the changes proposed for the AHDB, but with caveats and words of caution, particularly regarding the unintended consequences that I have outlined. I know that the chair and the executive team have been making concerted efforts to improve levy payer engagement and enhance the service that they provide. I sincerely hope that the changes we have discussed today will bolster the ability of the AHDB to help its industry to navigate some extremely difficult challenges, as its role is more important than ever.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Last week, past failures caught up with the DEFRA ministerial team. First, the Climate Change Committee castigated them for lack of progress on agriculture and land use, and then the report they had commissioned from John Shropshire and his team detailed the crop losses and lost productivity and production caused by their failure to address labour supply issues. This week, could the Minister tell the House if he knows whether the UK is more or less food-secure than this time last year, and will he explain how he has reached that conclusion?

[Mark Spencer]

We have extensive conversations with the food supply market. We are blessed in the UK with very robust food supply chains, which are some of the most secure anywhere in the world. Of course, I acknowledge that the Shropshire review has indicated some areas in which we can improve and assist, but we have delivered the 45,000 visas that are available through the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. Not all of those visas have been taken up, and an extra 10,000 are available if required, but nobody has asked for that to be triggered.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Food inflation is running at almost 2%, lower-standard imported eggs are on supermarket shelves because our producers are being undercut, and today record immigration numbers are announced, but the wrong people—we do not have the people to produce food in our fields. What are the Minister and the Secretary of State, who are responsible for our food system, doing about all that? Are they just innocent bystanders?

[Mark Spencer]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman is a little disingenuous. The immigration figures were partly driven by people coming from Ukraine and Hong Kong. I recognise that we need help and support in the labour market. That is why the Government have issued 45,000 visas, with an extra 10,000 top-up not only for this year —we have already have stated we will do that again next year—to give growers and producers the opportunity to source the labour they need to harvest vegetables and fruit.

Agricultural Tenancies

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I also thank Baroness Rock and all those involved in the tenancy working group, because theirs is an excellent report. The Government have clearly spent a long time—eight months—considering it. Although we are pleased to see the response at last, we are slightly disappointed that it takes a rather piecemeal approach. Perhaps the Minister could start by telling us how many of the 74 recommendations the Government have chosen to adopt.

This is a complex subject, and we probably need more time to debate it properly. However, let me start by restating why it matters: with half of England’s farmland tenanted, we are not going to achieve the transition to a more sustainable form of food production and restore nature without getting this right. There is a problem—long acknowledged—that farm business tenancies now average just 3.2 years. Although constant renewals and negotiations might be good for land agents, that is too short-term, and it is often too difficult for tenants to get involved in the schemes the Government are bringing forward.

Although we welcome the fact that entry to the sustainable farming incentive has been made possible through three-year agreements, I note that the Minister said in his statement that we must “remove any remaining barriers to accessing our farming schemes.” Of course, those schemes are much more than just the SFI. Will he therefore tell us why he has not accepted the proposals from the Rock review to make it easier for tenants to enter the tier 2 and tier 3 versions, since that is where the majority of these schemes, such as those for countryside stewardship and landscape recovery, are likely to lie? That really matters. With so much now being pushed out through the countryside stewardship scheme—a debate for another day, perhaps—it could be a problem.

The Minister may be able in passing to update us on the current uptake of the SFI, which I fear—I suspect he shares this view—is still disappointingly low. What assessment has he made of the number of tenants who are likely to enrol, particularly in the countryside stewardship scheme and in landscape recovery level 2? I am told that 70% of tenants routinely do not get consent from their landlords, and I wonder what his estimate is. The danger is that, for all the fine words, too many tenants will still not be able to access environmental land management schemes.

I welcome the comments from the Minister and in the Rock review about the potential benefits for new entrants. We are, of course, still waiting for more details on the new entrants scheme—interestingly, the Government produced the exit scheme a while ago. Will the Minister tell us where he has got to on the new entrants scheme?

The Minister may recall that, during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020, a previous Secretary of State assured us that moving away from basic payments under the common agricultural policy would see rents fall. Will the Minister tell us what has happened so far, as we approach the halfway point in the agricultural transition?

In general, does the Minister agree that we need a structural change to move to long-term agreements? That was one of the key conclusions from the Rock review. I heard nothing in his statement to that effect, even though this was a fundamental point.

The review found that the constant renegotiation of tenancies is problematic in itself. As Baroness Rock told the Oxford farming conference—the Minister and I were both there:

“Too often we found an overly short term, commercial and acerbic approach to the management of tenanted estates.”

I wonder whether the Minister agrees with that comment. I also wonder whether anything in his statement this morning will remedy the increasingly common situation where tenanted land is lost as landlords seek to put land into woodland or other uses, thus reducing the scope for food production.

We welcome the establishment of the farm tenancy forum, but will the Minister clarify what its role will be? The danger is it will just be a rolled-over version of the long-running tenancy reform industry group. What will its task be? Who will serve on it? What will its terms of reference be?

We welcome further consideration of a tenant farming commissioner, but does the Minister not understand that the problems facing tenants are real and present now? What further information does he expect from yet another consultation? Is that in fact just an attempt to long-grass this recommendation? Is the Minister taking forward the recommendation that the Law Commission investigate this complicated area?

There are many detailed questions that should and will be asked—more than can be accommodated today—but let me conclude on a positive note by welcoming the involvement of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in developing a code of practice. This is a complicated and important area, and it is vital to everyone’s interests that collaborative ways forward are established.

[Mark Spencer]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that one little nugget of positivity. We have already adopted most of the recommendations in the Rock review. He characterised that action as piecemeal, perhaps because throughout this process we have been liaising with Baroness Rock and the tenancy working group, listening to their recommendations and ensuring that we take them into consideration as we design the new ELM schemes. We will naturally consider further items as we proceed, and the farm tenancy forum is being established so that we can continue to receive that good advice.

Of course we want tenants to be involved in the SFI. The hon. Gentleman knows that we ran pilot schemes which have been quite successful. He knows that we have listened to farmers who have engaged with those pilot schemes, and, in response, have adapted, changed and tweaked them. We will launch six more standards under the SFI this summer, and we will be saying to farmers, “Now is your moment to get involved, to take a look at these new schemes”. We want them to think about how they embark on the journey of our transition away from bureaucratic EU systems such as the single farm payment and towards a new system that will enable us to support farmers’ food production and to benefit the environment and increase biodiversity at the same time.

There are, of course, good landlords and good tenants, and some poor landlords and some poor tenants. We want to allow flexibility for good landlords and good tenants, and to hold to account those who are not adopting the right course of action. I noted that the hon. Gentleman’s question contained no recommendations or policy from Labour. There is a gaping void in Labour’s rural policy: it is an urban-based party that does not understand rural communities and does not understand the farming sector. The Conservative party is the party of rural communities, and we will always stand up for those communities and for farmers.