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.

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.