Farming on Dartmoor

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I, too, congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) on securing the debate, as it gives us an opportunity to discuss the crucial challenge of balancing our objectives with regard to food production, conservation and mitigating climate change. It is also an excellent opportunity to talk about a place as unique and exceptional as Dartmoor.

As we have heard, Dartmoor has a rich natural history, an iconic landscape and an impressive cultural heritage, often related to commoning. It also contains three of the largest moorland SSSIs in the south-west and is an extremely important area for conservation—not just in the region or even the whole country, but in the world. Of course, it should be and is treasured by the nation.

The tragedy is that none of the areas of scientific interest—not one of them—is in a favourable condition. The upland heathlands are now patchy and in poor ecological state and the peatland bogs degraded. The wildlife that once thrived is no longer as rich or resilient as it was just a generation ago. Their habitats are seriously threatened and in some cases have been destroyed. That has negative consequences not just for wildlife and nature but for the surrounding rural communities.

We cannot simply stand by and watch this irreplaceable moorland deteriorate even further. I am afraid that what has been tried in the past clearly has not worked, and Natural England, whatever its shortcomings, has a statutory duty to take steps to halt the degradation and restore the health of the moors. However, as we have heard from many excellent contributions—I was particularly taken by the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—it is important that we work together to urgently tackle the causes of the damage. From the evidence that has been presented to me, it is fair to say that we are looking at a combination of factors—it is complicated, exactly as has been said. There is a mixture of environmental change, pollution, some overgrazing perhaps, particularly by sheep, and possibly large-scale burning. However, I also think that the role that pollution and environmental change are playing in environmental deterioration is worthy of further investigation.

The impact of those factors can be complex and variable, as we have heard. Grazing is not inherently positive or negative. Livestock grazing can be good for biodiversity by keeping the grass sward down and sustaining insects such as dung beetles, which punch above their weight in terms of their positive contribution to the ecosystem. As has also been said, it is about getting the right animals in the right place at the right time.

I absolutely understand why there is huge concern among the farming community, which has been eloquently expressed today. I understand why farmers are concerned about the proposed measures. They are already working on tight margins and are understandably worried about their livelihoods. It is not just about the finances but about the culture and tradition. Many come from families who, as has been said, have been farming on Dartmoor for generations.

Farmers have plenty to cope with—eking out what is in many cases a very modest living from what they do. It is not an easy job, and the mental health pressures are well documented. I think that it has been made harder by the very rocky transition from basic payments to ELM schemes, particularly for the uplands, with all the attendant uncertainty, instability and delay. They are also having to work within a system that does not yet seem to provide the right balance of incentives. That needs to change. We need a system that properly rewards hard-working farmers for all their efforts to conserve nature and help in the battle against climate change.

There are alternative models that are worthy of serious consideration. Harriet Bell led the first Dartmoor test and trial project, and I would like to thank her for providing some invaluable information. One of her recommendations was for DEFRA to build on the work she conducted on developing a payment-by-results system. That is not without problems, but I think it has much to commend it.

Another approach is to develop a much more strategic, finely tuned and proportionate plan regarding land use—a strategy that takes much more account of the qualities of land and the nation’s overarching objectives regarding food production, climate change and conservation. Government should then incentivise activities that are most appropriate for the land in question and that can help achieve those broader goals. I very much echo the comments made by a number of earlier contributors that a one-size-fits-all approach is hardly likely to work, but that is what we have now. I am grateful to Dustin Benton and his colleagues at Green Alliance, who have developed a compelling argument along those lines, and I thank him for his advice. What could that mean for Dartmoor? Green Alliance has calculated that if farmers were paid a fair price for the carbon value of their land, average incomes could rise by at least 20%. In cases where a farm is on actively eroding peat, farm incomes could rise by a factor of two.

I appreciate that, while the theory may be compelling, the practical implementation presents real challenges. However, any such system would have to work on incentivisation, not compulsion. If a farmer wants to continue to farm land deemed to be less amenable to food production, he or she should absolutely be able to continue to do so. The stakes have become much higher, so the status quo will no longer suffice. We are asking our land to work even harder in delivering objectives that, in themselves, have become more urgent and important.

In conclusion, the time has come to grasp the nettle and develop that proper land use strategy. It is too precious a resource to leave to chance. Farmers, and particularly commoners on Dartmoor, have not only intimate knowledge of the land but considerable experience of agri-environment schemes and innovations. They are certainly not resistant to change, as the Dartmoor test and trial revealed. We have seen the positive outcomes for nature when farmers take on environmental stewardship. As long as the Government can provide the right framework of incentives and support, there is exciting potential for all stakeholders to work together to achieve our objectives on food production, climate change and conservation, rather than fall short on all of them, which I fear is the danger if the Government continue to get it wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Last night, Abi Kay of Farmers Weekly posted a piece detailing allegations of a major fraud in the meat processing sector. Her investigation revealed that

“up until at least the end of 2020, a food manufacturer was passing off huge quantities of foreign pork—sometimes tens of thousands of tonnes a week—as British”,

as well as passing potentially unfit food into the food chain. We had hoped that Ministers might make a statement this morning to reassure the public. In the absence of that, will the Minister tell the House what action he is taking, how often he has met representatives of the meat processing sector in the last month, and whether he is confident that adequate whistleblowing and trade union representation structures are in place to ensure that such malpractices cannot go undetected?

[Mark Spencer]

As the hon. Gentleman indicates, this is a very important issue. We have not made a statement today because there is an ongoing criminal investigation. I do not want to jeopardise that criminal investigation, because these are very serious allegations. The Food Standards Agency has responsibility in this area. I met the chair of the FSA last week. I continue to meet representatives of the meat industry—I met them this month and do so on a regular basis. We will keep a close eye on the investigation and leave it to the FSA to deliver criminal prosecution.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is right to mention Operation Soteria. There is, in fact, a link with the question from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), because Operation Soteria was founded in her area. It is making a significant difference, and the volume of adult rape suspects charged has more than doubled in the last year.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking to help ensure effective prosecution of perpetrators of fraud and economic crime.

[The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)]

We are determined to strengthen our response to all forms of economic crime, including fraud, and the Government will soon publish a new fraud strategy to address this threat. Both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office play an important role in bringing fraudsters to justice.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

As the Solicitor General will know, each September the Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime, organised by Professor Barry Rider, meets at Jesus College Cambridge, and the issue of establishing a dedicated anti-fraud or economic crime agency is frequently raised. What consideration has been given to that proposal, and what is the Solicitor General doing to promote education about fraud, and prevention and discouragement of it, through effective early compliance?

[The Solicitor General]

I am indeed aware of that symposium, because I have been invited to speak at it this year, and I very much hope to see the hon. Gentleman there so that we can discuss this subject even further. As he will know, the National Economic Crime Centre, which was launched in 2018, leads the UK’s operational response to economic crime. As for his wider question, he will be aware of the Government’s fraud strategy, which will be released soon.

Shellfish Aquaculture

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing the debate, on his introduction and on his account of the issues facing those working in aquaculture. I suspect I will cover much of the same ground, although possibly in a slightly different order and with a slightly different take on one or two points. I am, as ever, grateful to those working in the industry for their advice. In particular, I thank Mike Cohen of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and David Jarrad of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain.

I hope the Minister will address four key issues. The first, unsurprisingly perhaps, is water quality and the Government’s continuing failure to clean up our water. I very much enjoyed the observations from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). The issue, of course, goes way beyond aquaculture. I am sure the Minister will be disappointed to hear that I am not going to re-rehearse all the arguments now; they are, I am sure, very familiar to him and his colleagues. With the recent heavy rainfall, we are once again seeing huge quantities of human effluent being pumped into the seas, including into shellfish areas, which are supposed to have mandatory protection, whether that is under the water framework directive or the legislation that we carry forward. That is unacceptable and it directly impacts fishermen and their livelihoods.

The right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) made that point very persuasively, and I heard it directly myself when I went to West Mersea last year. The shellfishermen were clear that it was an all-too-regular occurrence that effluent discharged into the sea and meant they had to stop work. That has a direct cost for them, and it would be an avoidable one if water companies had invested in improvement rather than pouring out money to shareholders.

The point was picked up by Labour’s shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), when she visited the Fal Oyster Ltd fishery at Mylor in Cornwall last year. She told ITV News at the time:

“We just can’t afford to lose industries like this. It is about the heritage of Cornwall, it’s about what makes this place so special not just to people in Cornwall but to people all around the country. We need to hear and heed the warnings of fishermen here in Cornwall who are worried about water quality, who are worried about the impact that’s having on their ability to sell their produce here and abroad.”

She was absolutely right. I suspect that she is probably quite busy at the moment, but I ask the Minister to tell us what assessment the Government have made of the impact of poor water quality on the aquaculture sector.

If that is a relatively well-rehearsed discussion, the second issue is probably less familiar to those outside this room. It is the Government’s attitude to Pacific oysters. The industry view is pretty clear, and its call that we should “love them” makes a strong case that they are good for farmers, the consumer and the environment. Its case is that, with a low-carbon footprint and with no requirement for external inputs, the cultivation of the Pacific oyster represents a sustainable method of producing high-quality marine protein while providing employment and economic activity in coastal communities.

Of course, not everyone agrees—we have heard observations on this from other communities—because it is not a native species. Natural England and others are concerned about the impact on the marine environment. They say that feral populations of Pacific oysters have become established in Natura 2000 sites, sites of special scientific interest and marine conservation zones. They say that monitoring conducted between 2012 and 2017 in the south-west showed a large increase in Pacific oyster density. There are concerns that colonisation by the species will have a negative effect on the designated intertidal features of these protected areas. They say that that has already contributed to some sites declining into unfavourable condition, because of the alteration of the biotopes and therefore the loss of original biotopes that make up the protected habitat features within marine protected areas. They say that if populations are left unmanaged, the expansion of dense Pacific oyster populations will most likely reduce the extent of habitat features at the sites and could reduce species richness and change community composition, as well as the diversity of biotopes making up the habitat.

Therefore this is not a simple or straightforward issue. The industry argues—again, we have heard these points made—that with warming of the seas, attempts to cull the Pacific oyster are, frankly, unlikely to be successful, so it is better to manage and farm it. Although indigenous to western Pacific coasts, it is nowadays the world’s most globalised shellfish, with cultivation occurring in more than 50 countries. It provides high-value crops in all continents. In Europe, production in France, Ireland and Spain dwarfs that in the UK. As we have heard, production in France is in the region of 100 times that in Britain and attracts significant Government support.

The industry is therefore unhappy that the UK Government seem to stand alone in Europe in acting against the species. David Jarrad, chief executive of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, writes:

“Do we actually want a UK oyster industry? For too long, the government has been sitting on the fence, and the failure of successive governments to deliver a consistent national approach is leading to poor conservation outcomes, as well as hamstringing our oyster growers…It’s time to get priorities straight, with proper leadership on this issue.”

There is the challenge to the Minister—the call for proper leadership.

The third issue, which returns us to more familiar ground, is the classification of harvesting waters. I was interested in the comments from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), but I promise I am not going to go there. We do things in a different way here —gold-plating, as the industry argues, compared with the way EU members do things, even though we supposedly work under the same legislation.

The Shellfish Association of Great Britain tells me that there is no evidence that our more restrictive system does any better than other countries’ more permissive ones. Our system is based on taking one sample a month from waters that change on an hourly basis because of tidal flows. I am told that it has been shown that one sample is often entirely different from another sample taken from the same place at the same time. The test method has been shown to be more variable and less accurate than other approved test methods. The association argues that the system needs to be changed, to be more in line with other countries, so our industry is not disadvantaged.

I hear those points and have considerable sympathy with them. Again, we heard reference to the work of the Food Standards Agency. I would be grateful if the Minister gave his take on what the FSA has done so far, and what more can be done. Of course, safety always has to be highest priority, but it is fair to ask why our fishermen are being held to higher standards than their competitors. What is stopping him levelling the playing field?

[Mr Sheerman]

I always defer to my hon. Friend as the Member for Cambridge, expecting him always to know everything about everything scientific. Could he tell me whether there is evidence that we are overfishing oysters? Is there a decline in stock? Should we stop? I have given up red meat. Should I also give up oysters?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am terribly sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend: I do not know everything about everything. I would not pretend to do so, and must go away to seek advice on that question. I suspect that the Pacific oyster is plentiful, and there is plenty of opportunity to make more of it. I do not suggest that he needs to give up.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The long list of companies from my constituency of Na h-Eileanan an Iar that I read out would encourage the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) to eat oysters and mussels, as well as a variety of other shellfish. I would also like to mention an advertisement that I missed out, which is that they are operating in class A waters probably all year round.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the intervention. Finally, I return to a familiar theme, which we discussed at length in the Chamber with the previous Secretary of State: trade with the European Union. Since Brexit, we have lost our main market for live bivalves, as it is now much harder to sell them from class B sites. As I recall, it was such a difficulty initially that the Government offered short-term help, while, as we have heard today, blaming it on the European Union.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thought the hon. Gentleman might not be able to resist the temptation.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I am sorry, but I will be brief. It is worth being clear on this, because there is not a broad amount of disagreement in this debate. We have not lost that market. Current export figures are going in the right direction. It is a case of our saying that more work needs to be done. Exports are reaching that market; it is not “lost”, as the hon. Gentleman termed it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Well, it seems to me that there were some who lost their businesses at that time. I do not think we should shy away from that. I would like to hear from the Minister what has happened over the past couple of years, and what is being done to secure a negotiated solution, to reinstate that trade, which had been possible over many years.

In conclusion, the aquaculture sector is one with considerable potential. Labour will sell, make and buy more food here. That is good for food security, for jobs and, I would argue, for the local environment. More will be produced locally, and we will expect the public sector to source at least 50% of food locally.

It is hard to disagree that the fishing sector more widely felt let down after the many promises that were made to them about Brexit. The reality was much more bureaucracy, much more cost and, in some cases, the end of business. One of my first visits as a shadow Minister was to King’s Lynn, where I met a processor who told me just how much extra work had to be done, contrasting the single form they used to fill in with the pile of manuals detailing how they need to proceed today. I have to admit that he cheerily told me it would all be worth it. I admired his pluck and optimism, but whatever one’s view on the issue today, I hope the Minister can explain what he and his Department are doing to reduce that bureaucratic burden, so that our fishermen can do what they do best, which is feed people, rather than fill in forms.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to follow the Minister, who is, by my accounting, the fourth Minister at the Dispatch Box on this Bill. We had two in two days during the Committee stage, but I am still here, as is his colleague on the Treasury Bench, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). I thank her for the inclusive way in which she introduced the Bill at the beginning. It is a complicated Bill and she gave us access to officials, which was very helpful.

I take this opportunity, in case the Minister missed it, to remind him of the mantra that has guided the Opposition’s view on the Bill. Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation, but we also know that to secure both public and investor confidence, a strong and robust regulatory framework is required. Disappointingly, that is the part the Government have failed to provide.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman represents a city that is full of science, particularly in its universities, so does he agree that we can bring forward this legislation only because we have left the European Union and that new wheat varieties that are 50% lower in acrylamide, a chemical that can induce cancer, is good news for both farmers and consumers of wheat?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for that. We have had this discussion before and I have to disappoint him slightly, in the sense that of course the EU is moving as well on this. I suspect we will probably end up in a similar place at a similar time. However, he is absolutely right to point out the potential advantages.

The amendments before us are all Government amendments, because, despite the excellent learned and erudite arguments put by my colleagues in the other place—I pay tribute to Baroness Hayman, Baroness Jones and Lords Winston, Krebs, Trees and Cameron, among others—not much has changed, and that is genuinely disappointing. However, some improvements have been made. A number of the amendments move regulations to the affirmative procedure, as the Minister explained, and that allows some, if limited, further scrutiny, which is welcome. Amendment 1 to clause 1 is the Government’s further attempt to codify a particular knotty problem that we discussed at length in Committee. So the Minister will be pleased to know that we will not be opposing their amendments tonight. We will merely pointing be out how much more improved the Bill could have been had they had the confidence to embrace our positive suggestions.

I say that not least, Mr Deputy Speaker, because if you had the chance to peruse the Sunday newspapers, as I hope you had the time to do and enjoy, you would have seen comment on today’s gathering of international experts on human gene editing. Although the techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 may be similar, this is of course a different issue from those under consideration today. However, I would argue that many of the ethical issues around animals are not dissimilar. That is why the Government’s refusal to adopt our suggestion of an overseeing authority to look at these very complicated and challenging issues is so disappointing. We have a great chance to be genuinely world-leading in this area. We have brilliant people such as those at the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, yet the Government are, apparently, not interested. That is a wasted opportunity.

Let us look at these amendments in more detail. As I have said, on a number of issues the Government have bowed to informed argument in the other place and agreed that regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure: on the release or marketing of genetically edited organisms; on information that must be included in the register; on the animal welfare declaration that has to be made; and on the body to be designated as the animal welfare advisory body. That is all welcome. But one of the most powerful and consistent criticisms has been the vagueness of the Bill on many issues and the lack of detail, particularly relating to the proposals regarding animals and when regulations might take effect. I am afraid that these amendments do not seem to help us on this, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on it. The promise at the outset was that nothing would be done on animals until the science was further advanced; it has been described as a “step-by-step approach”. Will the Minister reconfirm that commitment today and tell us what timeframe is actually envisaged? As for companion animals or primates, can he give any reassurances on that today? Many people will be keen to hear what he has to say on it.

As I have already indicated, the most significant amendment is to clause 1, as the Government seek once again to explain what they consider to be a natural process. We had an interesting and extensive discussion in Committee on this point, both with those giving evidence and between members, and it was discussed at length in the other place. I fear that the Government have struggled with this, and I am not sure the new wording takes us much further forward. In general, the Government have sought to define a new category, “precision breeding” which many expert witnesses doubt has much meaning. The particular concern is whether the definitions accurately describe gene editing, without allowing gene modification in through the back door, with one of the key issues being whether exogenous material is included.

The amendment before us introduces yet another term—modern biotechnology. This is also ill-defined, and, as argued by Lord Krebs in the other place, may not stand the test of time, or, more importantly, as we heard in expert evidence, legal scrutiny and challenge. I appreciate that this is difficult territory and hard to define, and almost any sentence fails to capture the complexity, but we were promised at the outset that GM is excluded, and it would be helpful to have the Minister confirm that clearly again today.

l am conscious that you do not want lengthy speeches, Mr Deputy Speaker, so let me conclude. The learned and lengthy discussions in the other place showed just how complicated this subject is. Sadly, the Government have made only limited changes in the light of those discussions. Those changes are welcome, so we will not oppose them, but we think that this is a missed opportunity to set out the strong regulatory framework that would have reassured the public, and given investors the confidence that the sector needs.

There is significant opportunity for good here, but there are also risks—risks we may not fully understand. It is also worth bearing in mind that one mistake could tarnish the entire technology. As so often, the Government have gone for the short-term quick fix—the sticking plaster. How much better it would have been to have set up the robust long-term framework that could have established the UK as the setter of the standard that others will follow. That is unfinished business, and it is for another day.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to rise

again in support of this important Bill. I declare a strong professional interest as a veterinary surgeon. I am passionate about animal health and welfare, and strongly believe that the Bill will help in that area.

The Bill has been strengthened and improved in the other place. Its definitions are also tighter. I am pleased that the Opposition amendment to remove animals from the Bill was withdrawn and has not been carried forward. It is so important that both animals and plants are included in the Bill. I was also pleased that the amendments that would have phased in animal provisions were not successful. That has strong benefits for animal health and welfare, and it is important that animals are included.

I very much welcome the Government’s allaying of concerns expressed by the Opposition about exogenous DNA, therefore preventing any exogenous DNA that was outside the range of an organism’s existing gene pool from remaining in the organism. Amendments 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 have been very helpful in that regard. It is important to reaffirm to the public and the world at large that this Bill is to do with gene editing, which is very, very different from genetic modification. That is where genetic material from exogenous or unrelated species can be introduced. That will not happen in this gene editing Bill.

I very much welcome the Government amendments that have removed reference to natural transformation. Some clarity was needed in that regard. I also welcome the fact that the Bill introduces more parliamentary scrutiny to help protect animal health and welfare, which strengthens the safeguards. This increased scrutiny will also allay some of the fears that people had put forward.

The Bill has huge benefits to animals, plants, the environment and people in, for example, helping to develop resistance to diseases such as avian influenza. A lot of work is being done to make birds resistant to this horrific disease. A huge outbreak has gripped this country and others across the world and that is firmly in our minds. This sort of technology will help us in that battle. It will also help us to develop resistance to other diseases, such as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs. It will help reduce the need for medicines, help combat antimicrobial resistance and, indirectly and very directly, help public health. It will also help us as a country and as a world in our fight to preserve and strengthen food security by being able to develop more climate-resilient and disease-resistant crops, reducing the need for pesticides and reducing the need for fertiliser as well. That will also benefit the environment.

In summary, I strongly support the Bill. I welcome the Government amendments. I thank the other place for refining and improving the Bill and I wish it well as it completes its passage.

Poverty: Food Costs

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this debate. I am also grateful, as ever, for briefings from Sustain and the National Farmers’ Union, among others.

The rise in food poverty and the emergence of food banks is one of the most shameful and baleful consequences of 13 years of Conservative Government. In 2010-11, the Trussell Trust was operating 35 food banks; last year, it was 1,400. While we all applaud its work and we are extraordinarily grateful to our local food banks—I pay tribute to the volunteers and supporters in my city of Cambridge—our goal must be to put food banks out of business by ensuring that they are no longer needed. Let us be clear: although there are unwelcome shortages on supermarket shelves, the issue with food poverty is a money problem, not a food problem. There is enough food in our communities, but not everyone has enough money to access it. That is the problem that needs to be resolved. I would like to hear from the Minister just what discussions he has had with colleagues on how they intend to tackle this problem.

We have had some powerful contributions to the debate, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson. We should indeed be angry about how our country has got to this state. It increasingly feels like a country drowning in a worsening cost of living crisis, high inflation, rising food prices and stagnating growth. Up and down the country, too many of our constituents are suffering constant anxiety about how they will make ends meet. We heard this week that energy bills will continue to rise in the coming year, which combined with wages failing to keep up with inflation means that people will be poorer. That means less for essentials, including food.

The figures from the Food Foundation make grim reading. In April 2022, 7.3 million people, including 2.6 million children, were in food poverty across the UK. Data out today, again from the Food Foundation, shows that the number of households where children are experiencing food insecurity has nearly doubled in the past year. In January 2023, 21.6% of households with children reported that their children had directly experienced food insecurity in the past month—an estimated 3.7 million children—compared with 11.6% the previous January.

Another clear indicator that people are suffering food poverty is the rising number of people who are turning to food banks. In 2021-22, the Trussell Trust supplied 2.2 million three-day emergency food parcels to food bank users. It is expected that the next annual figures will show a marked increase. That is a view supported by November’s data from the Trussell Trust, which shows that 1.3 million emergency food parcels had been provided to people in the six months between April and September 2022, a third more than during the same period in 2021.

It just goes on: the latest ONS figures, released just two weeks ago, showed inflation of food and non-alcoholic drink prices—up 16.8% in the year to January 2023. The consequences are severe. In January and February, more than four in 10 adults said they had to spend more than usual in the previous two weeks to get what they normally buy when food shopping. In November and December, about one in seven adults said that in the previous two weeks they had been worried about running out of food before they had money to buy more. That rose to one in four adults with dependent children, and 29% for adults living in the most deprived area in England.

I am afraid that everything is going in the wrong direction and I ask the Minister to reflect on why that is the case. What has gone so wrong over the last 13 years to cause such a surge in food bank use? When does he think we will no longer need food banks—or are they a permanent feature for the Conservatives? There are some practical things the Government could do. Just why did they pull the funding for FareShare after its successful trial to tackle food waste? That scheme helped to cover the extra costs to small-scale farmers, growers and producers of redistributing their good-to-eat waste food rather than letting it go to waste. The trial resulted in 85% more fruit and vegetables reaching frontline charities and community groups. The Government funding ended in 2020 and, despite widespread calls, has not been continued. Why not, and why have the Government been so parsimonious when it comes to the suppliers of school meals, which face endlessly rising costs but have to try to provide nutritious meals with only a few extra pence?

Much more could be said, but I am conscious that this is a short debate. Disgracefully, we now live in a country where food poverty has become endemic. It is a record of which the Conservatives should be ashamed.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing the debate. Given the time restrictions, it will be difficult for me to respond to all the points that have been made, but I will start by recognising the impact that high food prices are having on household budgets.

High food prices are a result of many different factors, including agrifood import prices, domestic agricultural prices, domestic labour and manufacturing costs, the exchange rate for sterling—and not least, of course, Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine and the aftershocks of the pandemic, which are having a global impact, with food prices rising at home and abroad. Other countries are experiencing high food price inflation, with 16% being recorded in the euro area in December last year. Rising food prices are a big contributor to the high levels of inflation that people are currently experiencing. However, we have seen a slight fall in the official food price inflation figures for January. We will continue to watch and monitor the situation as food price inflation continues to move around.

Given the impact of high food prices, tackling inflation is the Government’s No. 1 priority. We plan to more than halve inflation this year, and we are monitoring all key agricultural commodities so that we can work with the food industry to address the challenges that it faces. Low-income households are most affected by high food and energy prices, which is why we have provided a package of support to help people with rising food costs. The Government have already committed £37 billion to support households with the current exceptionally high cost of living, £1 billion of which has gone towards help with the cost of household essentials.

Looking forward to April, the Government will uprate benefit rates and the state pension by 10.1%. The benefit cap levels will increase by the same amount in order to increase the number of households that can benefit from these uprating decisions. In addition, for 2023-24, households on eligible means-tested benefits will get up to £900 in cost of living payments, which will be split in three payments of about £300 across the 2023-24 financial year. A separate £300 payment will be made to pensioner households on top of their winter fuel payment, and individuals in receipt of eligible disability benefit will receive a £150 payment.

In order to better understand who is currently experiencing food poverty, we introduced a set of questions into the family resources survey to measure and track food bank use from April 2021. The first results of those questions are due to be published very soon, subject to the usual quality assurances.

The Government spend around £1 billion annually on free school meals, and protections are in place to ensure that eligible pupils keep their free school meal entitlement even if their household circumstances change. The end date for that has now been extended to March 2025. The latest figures from the Department for Education show that around 1.9 million pupils are claiming free schools meals, which equates to 22.5% of all pupils, up from 20.8% in 2021.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Will the Minister address the pressures on school meal providers, which have faced hugely increased costs and have had little extra help to provide nutritious food?

[Mark Spencer]

Of course, we recognise that there are cost pressures throughout the whole food supply chain. That is why the Government are offering huge amounts of support to households to try to cope with that. However, we acknowledge that there are challenges—not just in schools but in the Prison Service, the NHS and many Government Departments. That is why we need to address inflation, which is one of the Government’s highest priorities.

We continue to work with food retailers and producers to explore a range of measures that they can take to ensure the availability and affordability of food. It would be remiss of me not to mention the recent issues that we have experienced with the supply of certain fruit and vegetables to supermarkets in the UK. We are continuing to engage with industry throughout this period, and I hosted a roundtable with retailers this week to explore with them their contractual models, plans to return to normal supplies and contingencies for dealing with supply-chain challenges. I have also asked them to look again at how they work with our farmers and how they buy fruit and vegetables so that they can further prepare for these unexpected incidents. In the meantime, I reassure hon. Members that the UK has a highly resilient food supply chain, which was demonstrated during the covid-19 response. It is well equipped to deal with situations with a potential to cause disruption.

I want to address the comments made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). He tried to divide the House this evening on the statutory instrument that provides funding for ELMS. That is a real disappointment and a misunderstanding of the challenges that we face. In effect, he tried to keep English farmers tied to the EU’s bureaucratic and tiresome common agricultural policy by trying to shout down that legislation.

Draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2023 Draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I was uncharacteristically cheerful last week—I enjoyed the NFU conference—but I can assure the Minister that normal service will now be resumed. The statutory instrument on direct payments is short, and the Minister will be pleased to know that we will not oppose it, although we have reservations about how the agricultural transition is being managed. We are keen to see environmental land management schemes succeed, but we have questions.

Here we are again, for the third year running, going through the same process. Why have we had three separate annual phases, given that the plan was set out in a timetable at the beginning? There might be good reasons, but I am not sure they have ever been made explicit. It would be helpful to understand the Department’s thinking on why we are repetitively discussing the same ground.

I note that this is proposed to be the last year. Paragraph 7.6 of the explanatory memorandum suggests moving to a de-linked payment. Will the Minister clarify whether that process will require a further SI or whether this is effectively it?

I will also refer, as I have on both previous occasions, to paragraph 7.2, which the Minister referenced in his opening speech. It states:

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

That is possibly true, but it is conjecture. It is also true that basic payments can provide stability and keep many people afloat. I have said this before: the explanatory memorandums should be statements of fact, not conjecture.

I am normally at pains to praise civil servants for their work in dealing with the complexities of secondary legislation, but given that this was pointed out last year and the year before, there is only a certain number of conclusions I can come to. I suspect that this is a cut-and-paste job that has been carried forward from year to year and that no one listens to these proceedings—I can possibly understand why that might be, but I think it is wrong.

More worryingly, this may be what the Department actually thinks. Given that this point touches on the most basic issue of whether public support for our food system is needed, it is not inconsequential. With food shortages being highly topical, there could hardly be a more sensitive moment to reflect on whether the special circumstances the farming sector faces—in particular, unpredictable weather—merit special treatment. I ask the Minister to reflect on whether it is laziness, complacency or an ideological aversion to intervention that explains the offending account of how basic payments worked.

Given that we have had a couple of years of these reductions, it should be possible now for the Minister to stand up the assertions at paragraph 7.2, so perhaps he could tell us what impact the reduction in basic payment so far has had on land prices and on new entrants. He mentioned new entrants in his introduction, but as far as I am aware we have not yet had the details of the new entrant scheme. Could he tell us where that has got to?

I have referred to the point, at paragraph 7.6 of the explanatory memorandum, on de-linking. Given that it is not entirely clear whether we will have further discussion about that, I will ask a couple of questions. Many of us, I think, are still slightly puzzled as to why farmers will get paid for the next few years whether they farm or not. I would welcome a comment from the Minister on the reasoning behind that. Will he also clarify what happens to those who are restructuring businesses, ending arrangements or starting new arrangements in these key years—the so-called reference years? Is there not a danger that some will unintentionally miss out on support and, perhaps more seriously, that decisions will potentially be skewed, distorted or delayed to ensure that they qualify for the right reference year? I would be interested to know how many people the Minister thinks will be affected by that. Has any estimate or assessment been made? I fear that there are some unanswered questions.

If I was slightly irked by paragraph 7.2, that is as nothing compared with paragraph 12, headed “Impact”, on page 4 of the explanatory memorandum. The SI reduces payments to farmers by between 35% and 55%, yet paragraph 12.1 says there is

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

Can the Minister square those two points? Of course there is an impact. If half the support is taken away, there is bound to be an impact. We have been probing that at every opportunity, and in response to written questions the Minister pointed to the assessment published at the end of October, which tells us not a lot about the impact on individual farmers.

The real question for the Minister to answer—even roughly—is, how many are getting less income than before under this new process? I put that to him now, just as I did in a slightly different form at DEFRA questions on Thursday. I once again ask him where in the DEFRA accounts the reduction set out in this SI is offset by money being taken up, or not, in other schemes. Will he tell us? 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 EU schemes could be carried forward for up to three years. Will DEFRA mirror that arrangement?

There is a wider, completely unanswered question on impact: what assessment has been made of the environmental benefits, or not, from reducing area-based payments and redirecting, or not, that resource to environmental schemes? Can the Minister tell us? I have to say that I do not expect an answer, and 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 baseline assessment we called for at the beginning.

The second SI is more straightforward and has to do with checking the financial assistance schemes replacing area-based payments. Regulation 5(c) seems to say that, where data is not required to be provided annually, an annual declaration can be made instead. That sounds reasonable, but can the Minister confirm which schemes it applies to and how many cases are likely to fall into that category? On regulations 7 and 8, the publication of data is an important principle, but the publication of sensitive data can sometimes cause difficulties, so we understand why what is being done is being done.

These SIs are the next stage in the transition to a “public money for public goods” approach to agricultural support. We support that transition and we want it to work—we need to move to a more environmentally friendly and nature-positive food production system—but we remain concerned that the complexity of the schemes currently proposed will hamper take-up. In terms of both food supply and environmental gain, that is something we simply cannot afford.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The Minister sometimes characterises my line of questioning as a touch gloomy, so I will try to cheer him up this morning by saying how pleased I was to hear his announcement at the NFU conference that the £2.4 billion per annum of agricultural support would be ring-fenced and that, if there was underspend in one year, it would be carried forward into future years. I am sure we are delighted that the Treasury has become such a kind, benevolent, caring organisation, but will he just repeat that promise in the House this morning, and maybe get one of his officials to write to me to point to where in his Department’s accounts that money is, so we can all keep an eye on it?

[Mark Spencer]

I am glad that we are making progress. If the hon. Gentleman had only read the Conservative party manifesto at the last election, he would have known that and would not be as gloomy. I encourage him to continue monitoring the Conservative party manifesto.

I am happy to confirm, as I did for the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), that £2.4 billion is ringfenced for the support of farmers—[Interruption.] Where is it? It is being spent at the moment, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) will know. Some of it is being spent on the basic payment scheme, which comes down over seven years, and we are increasing payments through environmental land management schemes as the basic payment comes down. It is a very simple graph: as one comes down, one goes up. We are supporting farmers up and down this country.

Bee-killing Pesticides

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I am grateful, as ever, to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for securing yet another debate on this important topic, and for drawing attention to the attached petitions. As ever, his introduction was full and thorough, and I will echo many of his points.

I commend other Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) hit the nail on the head in highlighting the contradiction between this decision and the Government’s wider aspirations. I very much enjoyed the account from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on the work done by Flourish, as well as hearing about the urban bee corridors that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport mentioned. A lot is being done on that in many places, including in my city of Cambridge, where Cambridge City Council is doing important work on it.

I was very pleased to hear the first Westminster Hall contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon). I must tell her that this is not an entirely typical Westminster Hall debate, because we did not hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I am sure that he will not mind me saying that—but we normally do. My hon. Friend made important points about run-off, which must be taken seriously.

So here we are again, Minister—last week, he was a great advocate of following scientific advice, but this week, it is all different. As many here have pointed out, the Government’s decision to issue an emergency authorisation to allow for the use of Cruiser SB—which contains thiamethoxam, a type of neonicotinoid—on sugar beet goes against the advice from the Government’s expert committee on pesticides and the Health and Safety Executive.

While the UK Government turn against the science, it is ironic that that comes just days after the European Court of Justice ruled that authorising derogations for the use of banned neonicotinoids was prohibited, stopping further applications for emergency use. That means that we are now an outrider, with lower standards than our neighbours. That is not a place that we should be, and it is not a place that Labour would be, because, for us, pollinator health is not negotiable. I said that last year and the year before, and it was as true then as it is now.

People will look back and ask why on earth this Conservative Government were so slow to act on the damage that is being done. Never mind worthy targets, never mind environmental improvement plans—this decision has been taken here and now. The attack on nature continues for as long as the Conservatives remain in power.

This is a long-standing debate and, as colleagues have pointed out, the Government have ignored the advice of the panel for three years in a row—they have ignored the science and the advice of the expert committee for three years. We have heard the advice, but I will repeat it: the committee advised against authorising a derogation on Cruiser SB because

“potential adverse effects to honeybees and other pollinators outweigh the likely benefits.”

Last week, the Minister said that he believed in science and supported the work of experts, but now that advice is being ignored. I simply ask: why, Minister? I suspect that part of his answer may be the rules that go alongside the use of the Cruiser SB neonicotinoid-treated seeds. A period of time has been specified that must elapse before flowering crops can be planted in the same field. Herbicides must also be used to remove weeds in the field to reduce the exposure of pollinators to insecticides—I am afraid that that provision also adversely impacts pollinators through the reduction of available flowers, but we understand the goal to reduce overall potential risk.

It will probably be said that the threshold that will allow for its use has been increased this year, from 19% to 63%.We all hope that that threshold will not be reached—it was not the year before last. The truth is, however, that we genuinely do not know whether that will happen or not; it will depend on the weather.

But we do know for sure that neonicotinoids are extremely harmful to the environment. They affect the nervous system of bees and other insects, leading to their death. I cannot resist repeating what everyone else has said about the 1.25 billion honeybees that can potentially be killed by one teaspoon of the chemical. We all know how critical bees are for pollinating crops. As the brief provided by the all-party parliamentary group on the environment pointed out, wild bees are responsible for pollinating between 85% and 95% of the UK’s insect-pollinated crops. We also know that run-off into waterways and leaching into the soil and nearby wildflowers is a real threat, as the Bumblebee Conservation Trust highlighted in its brief on the impact not just on bumblebees, but on other animals and aquatic life.

We also understand the wider context, which is very difficult. Virus yellow is a cause of significant yield losses. The National Farmers Union reports that, for some, it is up to 50%. The most complex and serious is that spread by the peach potato aphid, and it is hard to control. In 2020, the sector lost 40% of the national sugar beet crop, bringing down the five-year average yield by 25%.

Frankly, the weather over the past few months has been really difficult. We all remember the searing heat from last summer—the drought—that hit particularly hard in key beet areas along the A14 and around Bury St Edmunds. And then, just before Christmas, there was a very harsh frost followed immediately by a big temperature rise, resulting in a rapid, rotting thaw. It has been really difficult, and that has been added to by a new pest, the beet moth, which seems to be attracted from Europe by the warmer temperatures here.

The overall result is that we are short of beet sugar this year, with beet having to be imported by the processor. That is tough on the growers, tough on the processor and adds more costs up the supply chain. With beet becoming a less attractive prospect to many growers, British Sugar already had to pay more to encourage people back into production. None of that is easy, and there are consequences and costs to any decision. I appreciate that, for farmers, it too often feels as though the tools that they need for the job are being systematically taken away. That is very difficult, because nature does not compromise.

We have to look at alternatives, as British Sugar and the NFU acknowledge in their helpful briefings. There are high hopes for varieties resistant to virus yellows and there is potential for the use of gene editing to secure that resistance. I hope that the Government follow our advice on the regulatory structures needed to make that happen. I am told that there is already a variety resistant to two virus yellow strains, but it is expensive and there is a yield penalty. I am also told that yield protection insurance is available, but again, that incurs more costs. Those are difficult decisions.

There are things that we can do, some of which have been outlined by other Members. We can develop non-chemical approaches, such as boosting beneficial insects, cover crops, better rotation and maintaining good farm hygiene. There is evidence that some farms have had success by adopting such measures. We should move much more quickly on adopting integrated pest-management systems. Ironically, as has been explained, that was part of the sustainable farming incentive package that the Government announced last week, and we welcome that. So I say to the Minister: be bold on that, listen to the scientists and get away from falling back on neonicotinoids, which we know do so much harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

The decision will not be made by Ministers; the decision will be set by a threshold. Rothamsted Research has set that threshold and that model, and it will take into account weather patterns and levels of aphids and virus within the environment. The decision will be made based on that model, so I will not be involved in that decision, nor will any other Minister.

Members will be aware of the strict conditions of use that have been set as requirements for emergency authorisation. If that threshold is met and if neonicotinoid- treated seeds are planted, conditions will be put in place to mitigate risk to the environment, including to pollinators. The conditions include the prohibition of any crop that flowers before harvest being planted in the same field within 32 months of a treated sugar beet crop and compliance with a stewardship scheme, which requires monitoring to be performed to determine the levels of neonicotinoids in the environment. Full details of the key conditions of use have been published on gov.uk.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Will the Minister tell us whether there has been any assessment of the success of the mitigation measures adopted in previous years?

[Mark Spencer]

We take into account all of that data when making these decisions. We take the best advice from the best scientists and make these decisions on their advice. My decision was informed by the advice of the Health and Safety Executive and by the views of the UK expert committee on pesticides and DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser on the scientific evidence. I also considered economic issues, informed by analysis from DEFRA economists.

Looking to the future, we do not wish to see the temporary use of neonicotinoids continue indefinitely. The development of alternative and sustainable approaches to protect sugar beet crops from these viruses is paramount. That includes the development of resistant plant varieties, measures to improve crop hygiene and husbandry, and alternative pesticides. British Sugar and the British Beet Research Organisation are undertaking a programme of work to develop these alternatives, which include yellows virus-specific integrated pest management techniques. The Government are closely monitoring the progress of that.

Crustacean Mortality in North-east England: Independent Expert Assessment

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) for their work on this issue on behalf of fishers and communities in their region—my word, they have needed it. Mass crustacean die-offs are now a regular occurrence on the shorelines of Teesside and North Yorkshire, and have been since October 2021, hitting businesses along the coastline. Fishers have reported a drop of up to 95% in their catches and continue to report high levels of dead shellfish in their catches. Let us not forget that our northern coastlines bask in beauty and history, so not only are they hubs for the fishing industry, but tourism plays an important role in their local economies.

We are 15 months into this issue, and all DEFRA Ministers can tell us is that they do not know what has caused it, that they do not know what has not caused it, and that an unidentified pathogen may or may not be causing it. Why, 15 months on, do they still not know? Is it because we have a Conservative Government and a Conservative Tees Valley Mayor who have been missing in action? Is it because they are not interested in uncovering the reasons behind it, and are more concerned with trying to brush the issue under the carpet? Is it because their priority is protecting a narrow political agenda rather than the interests of the people of Teesside and North Yorkshire? Or is it all the above? What message does that send out to fishers in the region? Dither and delay while hard-working people pay. Why have the Government been stalling on committing to or allowing further investigation? What is stopping them? What are they worried about?

Today, we need answers from the Minister. Does he plan to put in place a support plan for businesses affected by the mass die-offs and the delay in determining the cause? Will he ensure that existing samples are preserved and secured so that further investigation and testing can be carried out? Can he assure the House that his Department will allow independent sampling and testing to take place? Why have all dredging areas not been sampled and tested, as revealed by annex D.4?

The latest investigation poses far more questions than it answers. The Minister has the opportunity to commit at the Dispatch Box to getting to the bottom of this, drawing on independent and expert advice. Will he do so? The problem needs to be identified and rectified, because falling back on probable causes or a possible mystery pathogen is not good enough. All that does is cause further alarm and more uncertainty about the future of the region’s waters, and the jobs and livelihoods of local people.

[Mark Spencer]

I can honestly say that, sometimes, I find the response from the Opposition staggering. The hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated a complete and utter misunderstanding of how science works, and from the Member who represents Cambridge, that is absolutely outrageous—he is trying to play politics with this disaster. It is a disaster. There is a shared desire across the House to find out what caused the die-off. It has been catastrophic to the industry.

We have had the best scientists in the world looking at it. We are blessed with some of the best expertise in the world in aqua science. Unfortunately, because of how science works, it is sometimes difficult to identify exactly what is the cause. It is possible to rule out what it is not, and that is what the expert panel has done. The independent panel concluded that pyridine or another toxic pollutant was “very unlikely” as a cause, as was any link to dredging in the freeport. Labour Members may want to play politics with that, but that does not do fishermen in the north-east any good. Rather than trying to score cheap political points, they should support those scientists and the work that they are doing to establish the facts.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. It provides detail following announcements made not to this House, Mr Deputy Speaker, but to the Oxford farming conference some weeks ago. It will be scrutinised closely as farmers rightly try to work out what it will mean for them. With intense cost pressures on fertiliser, fuel and labour supply, many people are hurting and worrying. At the same time, the reduction in basic payments moves inexorably onwards. For people on the margins, especially in the uplands, the withdrawal of that essential support will make life harder and harder. Next year, half of it will be gone and the value of the other half will be eroded substantially by inflation.

So what is on offer today? Not nearly enough, I am afraid. There are more than 100 pages of complexity. There are lots of schemes, which are worthy in themselves, but in far too many cases, I fear they will be insufficiently attractive. There is a risk that take-up will be very low, as we have seen with the SFI so far, with just 224 paid out last year, compared with the over 80,000 receiving basic payments. I hope take-up improves—we want these schemes to work—but we have real doubts. Will the Minister tell us how much of the £1 billion already cut from farmers will go back to them this year through environmental land management schemes? How many people does he expect to take up the SFI in this calendar year? I welcome the reference to tenant farmers, but can he guarantee access to those schemes, because he will be aware of the issues highlighted in the Rock review?

There are also real questions about the environmental benefit. In the absence of a whole-farm approach, there is real risk, particularly on countryside stewardship, that the Government will pour money out to people to do pretty much what they already do and then intensify alongside that. Will the Minister tell us today what measures of environmental improvement are in place to ensure that public goods are really being secured in return for public money? Crucially, what impact does this all have on our food security? Will he tell us today whether we produce more or less food in this country this year as a consequence of these changes?

It is fully three years since we discussed the Agriculture Bill in Committee. I asked many of the same questions then and got vague answers. We will soon be halfway through the so-called transition. The Government have been good at cutting the funding to hard-pressed farmers, but frankly woeful at guaranteeing our food production here in the UK and enabling the switch to the more sustainable nature-friendly food production system we all want to see.

[Mark Spencer]

I honestly entered the Chamber with optimism. I thought today was the day we would get a positive Opposition able to join the people up and down the country who are being positive about this. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is disappointed we have had positive comments from non-governmental organisations and farming organisations, which seem to be welcoming the plans.

Let us get to the points the hon. Gentleman made. He said we made announcements at Oxford, but what we announced at Oxford was the lifted payments for countryside stewardship. Today we are announcing the SFI, which is the other scheme. That is on the website now. There are six extra schemes in there, some of which—the low-input grassland and improved grassland schemes, for instance—are designed to help and support exactly those upland farmers he mentioned. There is also support through countryside stewardship to assist with the maintenance of stone walls, so there are lots of things for farmers to embrace.

The hon. Gentleman asks: can we do both? Can we keep the nation fed and improve the environment? We have full confidence that we can. Looking at the data and at history, this country gets about 1% more efficient year on year in the way we produce food. That means that in 10 years’ time we can produce the same amount of food on 10% less land. I think we can do better than that. With investment in new technology, we can be more productive on the most productive land, and on the margins around those fields we can add true biodiversity and environmental output.

Let me give a practical example. If we convince farmers not to cut their hedgerows in August or September, as was traditional, but encourage them to cut them in February, that would provide a huge pantry of berries for small birds to feed on throughout the winter. Combining that with support for wildflower strips next to the hedgerows would encourage the development of lacewings and ladybirds, which eat aphids, which are the pests farmers use pesticides on to stop the damage to their crops. That would be a win-win by working with, not against, nature. That is what we want to encourage farmers to do, and that is how we will deliver food security, environmental benefits and better biodiversity.