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.

Plant Health and Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Cummins. You will be glad to hear that my comments today will be brief, and we will not be opposing this statutory instrument. That is not only because it is a clean-up measure, essentially—I love the Minister’s language and will remember “It’s a deficiency!” the next time I make a mistake—but because on Monday evening we had a bit of a marathon with some SIs. This one is much simpler.

Today, we debate the amendments made by the Plant Health and Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) Regulations 2022. I read at the top of the page with interest that this statutory instrument has been made in consequence of defects—the “deficiencies” —in a series of SIs. I looked a bit more closely at that first one—2020 1482—which was discussed with the Minister’s predecessor, I think, back in 2020. I looked back to my opening comments then, and my notes said, “Very lengthy. Hundreds of pages—much room for error.” It seems that I was a touch prescient.

However, I make no criticism of those tasked with this complicated work. I would just gently point out to the Government the scale of the challenge if they seek to rush to amend many hundreds of these complicated regulations; there will inevitably be mistakes.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman want to pay tribute to the work of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, because it actually spotted this?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Absolutely, and I must say that as I delve through the various papers, I admire the in-depth work of the various Committees, which is so useful, particularly for an Opposition spokesperson, as we come to these discussions. I generally quote them at length, and I commend them for the work that they do.

I turn to the substance. It is welcome that the problems facing devolved authorities when seeking to collaborate in the face of a Great Britain-wide pest outbreak are being addressed. I am grateful to the Horticultural Trades Association, whose advice I sought on this, for confirming that it is necessary and important because the change will allow the demarcated areas to cross boundaries between Administrations, with the competent authorities working as one. That, apparently, was not possible before, preventing authorities from introducing a demarcated area within their own territory if a pest is identified in another, which limited the authority of that unaffected territory implementing necessary prevention measures.

The explanatory notes say that the amendment has been introduced following a

“recent outbreak of a certain pest near the Wales/England border”.

Can the Minister give us any details of that outbreak? Was it the only incident? How significant was it? What happened prior to this amendment if an authority from England, Scotland or Wales needed to extend a demarcated area beyond its territory?

Moving on to a further defect in another regulation, article 4 of the retained commission implementing decision relates to the import of potatoes from two regions of Lebanon. The eagle-eyed Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments referred to the two issues in its “Eighteenth Report of Session 2022–23”. The first relates to changes in labelling requirements so that they are in English, rather than one of the languages of the European Union, which is understandable. The second relates to an omission in the previous SI, which revoked the requirements for inspections to be carried out at one of the intermediate stages. It is clearly sensible to rectify that, but has an assessment been made of the consequences of that defect in the initial SI?

Finally, on the issues relating to the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment and Legislative Functions) Regulations 2022, there is an amendment to correct an omission that will ensure that the appropriate authority has the power

“to change the rules on imports of equine animals from a particular country and the power to establish specific rules if there is a change in the disease situation of the approved country.”

I note that the language in regulation 8(2)(d) changes from “shall be established” to “may be established” in relation to the functions undertaken by the appropriate British authority. Was that a deliberate alteration to limit the obligation of GB authorities to change and implement animal and public health requirements for imports from the EU? [Interruption.] The Minister is shaking his head, but I am sure he will explain.

As we are all aware, health certificate requirements are currently being implemented for exports, but not for imports. That certainly could be interpreted as meaning that any additional checks and requirements on imports might not be carried out, possibly due to a lack of vets and capacity at the borders. If that is the case, we should all be concerned, because animal and plant health matters, and we should insist on the very best biosecurity procedures.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (BIODIVERSITY) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (WOODLAND AND TREES OUTSIDE WOODLAND) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (WATER) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (MARINE PROTECTED AREAS) REGULATIONS 2022 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (FINE PARTICULATE MATTER) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (RESIDUAL WASTE) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2023 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. Good luck tonight—I think it is going to be a more complicated discussion than we usually have on these occasions. I suspect it will be quite lengthy, so I will give the short version of our response first: weak, late and unambitious. Just like the Prime Minister did a few week ago, the Government set a modest goal, make it a bit easier, set that as a target, hope the public do not notice and then claim they have achieved it. Target setting can be done in a number of ways. Well, what is going on here has been noticed. As we go through the detail—there is plenty of it, as we see on the table in front of us—it will become apparent just how weak these measures are. Let us remember that these are not even actual measures; they are just targets for measures that may or may never happen—weakness on steroids.

Let us start with late. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s excellent report says:

“The instruments were laid before Parliament more than a month after the deadline required under the Environment Act 2021, putting the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs…in breach of its statutory obligation.”

So law breakers as well—keep your seatbelts on.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also stated:

“Public consultation generated significant interest, with a clear majority of respondents (in most cases over 90%) calling for more ambitious targets. We note, however, that despite this feedback, the Department has decided against greater ambition and, with regard to the target for trees and woodland cover, has opted for a target that is less ambitious than that originally proposed during consultation, on the ground that the more ambitious target would be unrealistic.”

That is a pretty damning assessment, particularly on issues of such importance.

I am afraid the Government are continuing to fail our environment in England. The targets set by this SI do much less than is needed to reverse the damage done. As the Government’s own environmental watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, said in its review of progress last week:

“Of 23 environmental targets assessed, none were found where Government’s progress was demonstrably on track.”

The Office for Environmental Protection chair, Dame Glenys Stacey, said:

“Progress on delivery of the 25 Year Environment Plan has fallen far short of what is needed…There have been recent improvements in air quality and people’s engagement with nature, as Covid lockdowns changed the way we live our lives. But many extremely worrying environmental trends remain unchecked, including a chronic decline in species abundance.

Our assessment shows that the current pace and scale of action will not deliver the changes necessary to significantly improve the environment in England.”

That is pretty damning from her too.

Recent figures show that more than 60% of people in England now breathe illegally poor air. Our wildlife numbers are in freefall, and more communities are exposed to catastrophic flooding. That is not to mention the toxic waste infecting our rivers, canals and waterways.

Let me turn to the detail of this biodiversity SI. There is much to be done, because the UK has the lowest remaining levels of biodiversity among the world’s richer nations. Last year, the Environmental Audit Committee lambasted the Government’s approach to nature—specifically, the failure to stem huge losses of plant and animal species. Globally, we have seen a massive decline in the number of plant and animal species—up to 1 million species are currently under threat of extinction. Closer to home, we are at risk of losing many beloved species. Puffins are projected to decline across Britain and Ireland by nine in 10 within 30 years, 14 seabird species are regarded as being at risk of negative climate change impact, and there has been a two thirds decline in flying insect numbers in England in just 16 years.

[Mr Sheerman]

Many of my constituents are very fond of water voles, which figure in much children’s literature—misdescribed as “Ratty”—and hedgehogs. If we are slow in doing this—it seems that these regulations will initiate a very slow procedure—it will be too late to save those species, so we need urgent action.

[Daniel Zeichner]

As ever, I find myself in complete agreement with my hon. Friend. We do not believe that the ambitions to halt the decline of species abundance in the UK are good enough. The measures in this SI are too weak. We must be nature positive. We should be aiming for a dramatic incline in species abundance.

The agreement signed by the UK Government at the biodiversity COP15 to protect 30% for nature and restore 30% of the planet’s degraded ecosystems was welcome news, but we judge the Government’s commitment to their new international obligations against their actions. It is the environmental targets in these SIs that will drive nature’s recovery on the ground. We agree that the aim to halt the decline of wildlife by the end of 2030 is in keeping with the promises made at the biodiversity COP15 in Montreal last month, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm if the refreshed environmental improvement plan due next week will set out the practical steps needed, including in particular—as has been mentioned—how the new environmental land management schemes will contribute to meeting the targets in the statutory instrument.

I am afraid that the statutory instrument contains a serious omission. I am grateful to Green Alliance for pointing that out and providing detailed briefings on this SI and the others. The SI fails to include a target for the condition of sites of special scientific interests, or SSSIs, which are supposed to protect ancient woodland, hay meadows, peat bogs, grasslands, moorland, marshes, flood plains, chalk streams, estuaries and stretches of coast. In England, fewer than 40% of SSSIs are in a healthy condition. Others are plagued by pollution, mismanagement and neglect, apart from being under increased threat from extreme weather, wildfires and rising sea levels. These sites are the key to driving nature’s recovery, and improving their condition is essential in meeting the environmental targets that we are discussing.

At Geltsdale in Cumbria, for example, improvement in SSSI condition has increased the abundance of a diverse range of bird species, including the black grouse, whinchat and grasshopper warbler, while sphagnum mosses and plants have also responded well. There is little point in designating more land for protection on paper when, after 13 years, so many existing sites that should receive the highest levels of protection instead languish in a poor state.

The statutory instrument is so important for the future of our cherished wildlife and biodiversity. It is clear, though, that the lack of ambition in the targets means that they will ultimately fail to measure up to the commitments made by the Secretary of State in Montreal in December. We will accordingly vote against the instrument.

[Mr Sheerman]

I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate: I want to speak about the timescale. I am appealing because I sometimes think, as a parliamentarian, it would be so nice if the only people who could vote when we are in the Chamber or in Committee were the people who actually listened to the Minister and the shadow Minister, rather than just playing with their screens. That is how Parliament has been changed by people’s use of individual communications.

This is an important debate, and I am sure that we all recognise how fundamental it is. Tonight, I will have the pleasure and honour of having dinner—if we ever get to it—with the professor from University College London who wrote “Here Comes the Sun”. The lesson from Professor Steve Jones is that there is not a lot of time. Slight things will happen in biodiversity or to nature, but he believes that we are rapidly making this planet unable to support human life. That is the really serious nature of where we are today.

Because of that, I totally support the Opposition spokesman. He is an old and respected campaigner—

[Daniel Zeichner]

Not so much of the “old”.

[Mr Sheerman]

He is not as old as me, of course, but he is very respected in this area. He shares my view that all this is too little, too late, and it is too weak. Tomorrow, I have a debate in Westminster Hall on how we can cut the poisonous fumes that are emitted from vehicles, which are causing that dreadful plague whereby people in our constituencies are not able to breathe clean air. We all know the level of the challenge, but we do not have a Government or Department that see how important and rapid progress must be if we are to stop this dreadful move towards a climate change disaster.

Thank you for accepting my request to speak, Mr Stringer. You are always a kind and generous person when those of us from Yorkshire seek to get your attention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Biodiversity is inextricably linked to trees, so we move on very nicely. Tree planting is an important natural solution to the nature and climate emergency, helping to decrease CO₂ emissions by storing carbon in the soil and to mitigate the effects of the climate emergency that we are already seeing by preventing flooding. It is disappointing, therefore, that DEFRA is proposing a tree canopy cover expansion target one third lower than the one it consulted on. The draft 17.5% target was proposed by DEFRA and agreed by the Department’s own expert group. Will the Minister explain why the Department lost confidence in its own consultation proposals and its expert panel’s recommendations for a higher target, as well as overlooking the responses to its consultation?

The target in the SI also fails to prioritise native trees. I find myself in agreement with the Woodland Trust, which has described that as “hugely disappointing”. That is against a background of failure, because in recent years the Government have failed dismally to deliver the existing tree planting target. There are concerns about the current rate of planting, which means that even their weak target will not be met until 2091—over 40 years too late. Will the Minister give us an up-to-date assessment of how many hectares of trees were planted in England last year? How many will be planted this year and next? That matters in the context of this SI and its watered down target.

As well as creating and maintaining new woodland, the management of existing woodland needs to be improved. The fact that that is not included in the SI suggests the Government will fail to do that, and that will cause further environmental damage and offset the benefits of the new woodland being created. Sustainable management of our woodland is essential not just for precarious and dangerously fragile habitats such as our own temperate rainforests, but for the effective protection of woodland and urban trees.

I will conclude on that note. I think I had my pages in the wrong order, which was bound to happen at some point, but I do not think that will trouble the Minister—the essential points have been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

The target to have 16.5% tree cover across England requires us to plant around 7,500 hectares of trees annually. The hon. Member for Huddersfield asked me a very direct question about how many have been planted recently. I believe that last year some 2,700 hectares of trees were planted, so we need to make a significant improvement in the rate and, significantly, the speed at which we plant trees. As the lead Minister for Natural England, I am working with that organisation to ensure that we speed up tree planting.

There were questions about coniferous trees and broadleaf trees. I want colleagues to know that we considered the inclusion of statutory sub-targets but decided not to move forward with those proposals. We intend to give a transparent picture of the contribution from each planting type towards the target through the Forestry Commission’s statistics. We will use policy and incentives to encourage the planting of woodland types that we want to see. The actions that we are taking through the England trees action plan, the suite of targets being released, our biodiversity targets in particular, and the UK forestry standard will act as a real driver for native woodland planting, and ensure that the woodlands we create are mixed.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Trudy Harrison]

Very briefly.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am listening carefully to the Minister’s explanation of the ratio between broadleaf and conifer, and I could not understand it at all. Will she explain why it was decided not to set a proper target, particularly given that the head of Natural England, my constituent Tony Juniper, has expressed his disappointment about that?

[Trudy Harrison]

It would be unfortunate to get into a form of tree snobbery. Different species require different trees. I look out on the beech tree in my garden, which is the preference of the tawny owl, but I also see the mistle thrush taking its position at the top of the Sitka spruce. We still expect to see significantly more broadleaf woodland planted than conifer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

From watered-down tree targets to water targets. It will not be news to anyone here that rivers in England are in big trouble. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield pointed out, not one river is in a healthy condition—not one meets good chemical standards, and only 14% meet good ecological standards. It is fair to say that our waterways are suffering from a toxic cocktail of agricultural and sewage pollution.

Just last month at COP15, global leaders promised to clean up our rivers and committed to protecting 30% of nature by 2030. That was good, but unfortunately it was short lived, because during the summit, the Government confirmed that there would be no target indicator on river health—the only measure for water companies and the public to know whether their water is clean. Will the Minister confirm whether the existing 2027 target under the water framework directive will be carried forward—or will it fall victim to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill?

The Government’s decision on that target means that the statutory instrument we are scrutinising completely undermines the UK’s 30 by 30 commitment. The existing target, set under water framework directive regulations, requires water bodies to achieve good ecological status by 22 December 2027 at the latest. However, when that target expires, we will be left with no long-term target for the overall ecological improvement of rivers and streams in England. The absence of an overarching water quality target leaves uncertainty for businesses and uncertainty about environmental outcomes. Put simply, a target that expires in four years is not sufficient to drive a meaningful improvement in water quality.

[Mr Sheerman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are going to have water quality targets but we do not have a Government that can be strong enough with the water companies that are pouring sewage into our rivers, streams and oceans, there is no hope? Looking across the room, I see that there is a Member present with a name that resonates with sea creatures—I am talking about crabs. Around our country, crabs are disappearing because of the sewage that has been pumped into our seas. I want the crabs to be able to live and thrive in our country.

[Daniel Zeichner]

As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend—and, as ever, he pre-empted what I was about to say. Labour absolutely understands that. That is why we will introduce a legally binding target to end 90% of sewage discharges.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I think I was referred to by the hon. Member for Huddersfield a few moments ago, but I remind the Opposition spokesman that in Wales—under the Welsh Labour Government—we have major problems with sewage going into our watercourses. He talks about Labour’s commitment; where is the practical evidence of that when it comes to how it governs in Wales?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Obviously, we want crabs to flourish wherever they may be found, but I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the legislation in England.

Let me return to the Minister and ask her a simple question. Will she tell us how she plans to safeguard the health of our rivers without committing to an overall target for water quality?

[Nick Smith]

I asked the Minister for an idea of the number of face-to-face staff who would be able to help our farmers across the country produce good-quality water, but she was not able to answer. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good to have an assessment from the Department of the number of people who would be needed to support our farmers across the country to prevent poor-quality run-off and ensure that we have better water for the future?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation. The issuing of advice to farmers is very important. It is one of the welcome things that has come through the environmental land management schemes. My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head: we need to know exactly how much advice will be available, to whom it will go, and whether it is likely to achieve a change in behaviour.

Last year, 2022, was a very dry year of high temperatures. Water shortages were a reality, with hosepipe bans across the country. The former Environment Agency chief says that lack of water presents an “existential” threat. Treating wastewater and delivering clean water to households is also a big emitter of carbon dioxide. A target to reduce water demand is therefore vital, but the one in the SI is framed as a relative target based on population. With a rising population, that means that overall water abstraction—the process of taking water from a natural source, often for industrial use—can continue to increase unchecked.

We cannot reduce shortages without addressing one of the key causes: over-stressed infrastructure in need of repair. The system is creaking at the seams, and plugging those leaks will require an investment of perhaps £20 billion. Does the Minister not agree that private sector investment is likely to fall without a legal target for scrutiny and accountability?

Finally, let me touch on enforcement and regulation. In the consultation, the Government promised to allow for objective scrutiny and accountability of their progress, but the statutory instrument fails to achieve that goal. The Environment Agency is unable to properly inspect the practices of water companies. Let me therefore use this opportunity to reaffirm Labour’s commitment to giving the Environment Agency the power to properly enforce the rules. We will deliver mandatory monitoring of all sewage outlets. We will introduce automatic fines for discharges, and a standing charge penalty for discharge points without monitoring in place. Water bosses who routinely and systematically break the rules will be held professionally and personally accountable, and illegal activity will be punished.

We see nothing of that strength in this SI. That is why we will be opposing it—because it falls short. It does not guarantee an improvement in the freshwater environment in England and it does nothing to hold water bosses accountable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

We go from water to marine, Mr Stringer. The seas and oceans around us support diverse marine ecosystems; they provide rich biodiversity and act as carbon stores. But our marine environment and the creatures that call it home face innumerable threats from human activity, including the damage from waste and toxins and from dredging and dragging the seabed, and the destruction of corals, maerls and sandbanks. Marine protected areas are an important tool in safeguarding our ocean’s future, so I am pleased that there is a commitment to extend the network. However, I share the concerns held by many stakeholders that the plans are not ambitious enough, and fail to align with the 30x30 targets. In particular, the representation of marine species in the 2030 species abundance target remains poor. Therefore I ask the Minister this. Will she agree to consider—

[Mr Sheerman]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Yes, at the end of the sentence. Will the Minister agree to consider the addition of species to the indicator over time, to make it more representative of England’s marine biodiversity?

[Mr Sheerman]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for letting me intervene yet again. Is he not worried? He, like me, is a devotee of fish— together we have consumed a lot of fish. I go round the usual places where people buy fresh fish on the coast, and they are not selling any. They are not selling; people cannot buy fish in most of our ports and harbours as they used to, and the excuse given is that the sea is heating up or that there is pollution. What are we going to do to find out what is going wrong around our coast, with crabs dying and crustaceans having to be imported? When are we going to get some action?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend; he makes an important point. Certainly there are parts of the country around the coast where fishers complain that their basic problem is a lack of fish, but I do not agree with my hon. Friend that it is not possible to buy fish anywhere around our coast. There are places where the fish continue to be fished and fishers continue to thrive. What we want, of course, is to ensure that that continues to be the case.

Healthy seabeds are home to many species and drive richer marine ecosystems, but sadly, marine protected areas currently fail to protect them adequately. We need to see a broader programme of ocean renewal. Globally, saltmarsh and seagrass beds alone can store up to 450 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. That is almost half the emissions of the entire global transport industry. Restoring these key marine ecosystems could lock up billions of tonnes of carbon each year; that is 5% of the savings needed globally. A sustained programme of ocean renewal must be part of any plan to tackle the climate emergency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

We are getting there, aren’t we, Mr Stringer? It is probably time to come up for air, and this measure is about air.

A key element of preserving our environment is clean air. It is vital that we remember that our ecosystems are damaged by toxic air and air pollution, as are our waterways and the natural habitats of our wildlife. Of course there is an impact on human life—indeed, toxic air contributes to the deaths of many people who we represent in this House—so it is a matter of deep regret that the Minister has missed this golden opportunity to show leadership to clean our air and get things done.

Air pollution has been recognised by the UK Government to be the single largest environmental risk to public health, and we agree. An increasing body of evidence has linked air pollution to the causation and worsening of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, as well as a likely link to cognitive decline and dementia risk. This is a major public health crisis.

Despite limited action to reduce pollution levels, there is still so much more that must be done at a national level to reduce the impact on our health and on our economy. The proposed targets for 2040 that we are considering can hardly be considered world-leading or ambitious. The proposed target for the annual mean concentration of air pollution—10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040—is based on the World Health Organisation’s air quality guidelines, which were published as long ago as 2005 and surpassed in 2021 by a new guideline level of 5 micrograms per cubic metre.

I am afraid that we are falling behind internationally. The USA’s legal target for PM_2.5 has been stronger than the UK’s since 2012, having been set at 12 micrograms per cubic metre, and the US Environmental Protection Agency is considering lowering that further to between 8 and 10 micrograms per cubic metre. In Europe, the EU Commission proposed last October a target reduction of PM_2.5 to 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030.

A study by Imperial College London shows that an annual mean concentration of 10 micrograms per cubic metre can be achieved across 99% of the country by 2030 using policies already proposed by the Government, coupled with those set out in the Climate Change Committee’s sixth carbon budget, and a similar conclusion was reached in DEFRA’s clean air strategy in 2019. It is therefore a matter of regret that the Government, thorough this SI, have essentially ignored the wishes of the people and the businesses that responded to the consultation. Will the Minister explain why the target is less ambitious than that sought by 90% of the responses to the Government’s consultation?

The Government’s proposals to improve monitoring capacity are not comprehensive enough to deliver a full picture of air pollution across the country or ensure that we meet these unambitious targets. For example, by 2028 the whole of London will be legally required to have only 15 monitors to assess compliance with the targets. That really is not enough.

We are deeply concerned that the SI will fail to deliver any meaningful reductions in pollution for those who live near the sources of pollution, such as main roads in our cities across England, because the Government will assess compliance with the population exposure reduction target by using only urban or suburban background sites where PM_2.5

“is not significantly influenced by a source or sources of pollution in close proximity to the site”.

Communities living near sources of pollution tend to be more deprived, from minority ethnic backgrounds, and less able to mitigate the health impacts of air pollution. This SI will therefore fail to protect the most vulnerable. We will oppose it because it does not grasp the seriousness of the situation facing us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

So we get to waste, and the Opposition have three main areas of concern on this SI. First, the waste reduction target omits the majority of waste in England. The 50% reduction target excludes major mineral waste created from construction, demolition and excavation activities. That is a significant oversight, as that type of waste, while easier to handle than other waste streams, accounts for the majority of waste produced in England and carries environmental costs. The construction industry uses more resources than any other sector in the UK, the extraction of which results in high carbon and environmental impacts—and yet we have heard little about that from the Minister today.

Secondly, the lack of ambition is an area of concern. Government modelling shows a rapid reduction in residual waste of 25% expected between 2024 and 2028. That means that half of the targeted fall in residual waste is estimated to have been achieved by 2028, with the next 14 years seeing the remaining 25% fall from 2019 levels. That moderate fall over more than a decade can be achieved with minimal measures, a licence for low- ambition waste reduction policies throughout the 2030s. This should be set against the Office for Environmental Protection’s recent assessment of the Government’s progress in implementing the environmental improvement plan, which reports that waste headline indicators have actually deteriorated since 2018.

The need for a high-ambition approach to drive meaningful progress towards waste reduction has never been greater. With Government modelling suggesting that 91.9% of waste is either readily or potentially recyclable—or potentially substitutable to a material that can be recycled—the 50% target falls short of both what is necessary and achievable.

Finally, we agree with many stakeholders, such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link, who want to see a target to reduce resource consumption. A target for residual waste alone does not account for the extractive effects of economic activity on the natural environment, and will not prevent them increasing. The Government had been expected to introduce a resource productivity target as part of the Environment Act target-setting process. They have stated that more time is needed to develop the evidence base and assess policies.

The Office for Environmental Protection and environmental NGOs have recommended the Government develop a target in that area that addresses resource use and the associated environmental impacts of consumption, including embodied carbon. Not setting a target for resource use, or for reducing the UK’s carbon footprint, means we will just carry on exploiting natural resources and exporting waste abroad, such as plastic for recycling, which can be an environmentally damaging substitute for meaningful progress towards a circular economy. Will the Minister tell us why no target has been introduced and what she is going to do about it?

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), the shadow Minister for waste, attended the Foodservice Packaging Association environment seminar last Thursday. It was clear from the response to her remarks that the industry is crying out for change and action in equal measure. This statutory instrument, like all the others—we go right back to where we started—I am afraid suffers from the crucial lack of ambition that makes the targets too easily achievable, frankly. That is a fault not just of the SIs we are debating, but of the Government’s targets in general.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

To return to the beginning, the Minister extols the Government’s progress, but how does she square that with the Office for Environmental Protection’s statement:

“We assessed 23 environmental targets and found none where Government’s progress was demonstrably on track”?

[Trudy Harrison]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that targets are easy to set, which is why the Environment Act 2021 requires the Secretary of State to make meaningful and achievable targets. Further details of how we will achieve those targets are not far away. They will be set out in our environmental improvement plan. I look forward to sharing it with colleagues when it is published on 31 January. These targets are stretching. They are challenging. They require Government to work with the whole of society to achieve, but the results are worth fighting for: an improved environment, left in a better state than we found it. That is the intention of this Government. These targets support exactly that.

Question put.

Antimicrobial Resistance: Farm Animals

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing the debate and on his comprehensive introduction. No one wants antibiotics to be used when they are not necessary, whether in animals or humans, and he made his case powerfully.

As I represent Cambridge, it is not surprising that I have been briefed on a number of occasions by clinicians and scientists about the risks of antimicrobial resistance. The issue was brought to my attention soon after I was elected in 2015, long before I took on responsibilities relating to farmed animal health, so I have taken a close interest. I am grateful for excellent briefings from a wide range of organisations, including the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics, the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers Union, the National Office of Animal Health, MSD Animal Health, World Animal Protection and Compassion in World Farming, among others. There is considerable interest and expertise.

There is no doubt about it: antimicrobial resistance is a challenge that affects the whole world, with—as we have heard—an estimated 4.95 million people losing their lives because of an antibiotic-resistant infection in 2019. According to research published in The Lancet last November, 1.27 million of those deaths were attributed to the antibiotic resistance of the infection. I suspect that many of us are familiar with the 2014 review, chaired by Jim O’Neill, which warned that annual deaths due to antimicrobial resistance could rise to 10 million by 2050.

Consequently, it comes as no surprise that the World Health Organisation deems antibiotic resistance to be one of the biggest threats to global health, food security and development. I do not think anyone is under any illusion about the scale of the problem that we face, its risk to human health and how important it is that we reduce our use of antibiotics. In recent years, we have rightly seen considerable efforts made to reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics in both humans and animals.

Since 2014, annual sales of veterinary antibiotics in the UK have reduced by 55%, with the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance—RUMA—playing an important role. That achievement was commended by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in a report published last year, which said:

“The United Kingdom’s example demonstrates that building trusted relationships across all stakeholders, including between farmers, vets, and government, can lead to sustained behaviour change, and embed practices of responsible use across farming sectors. Industry leadership on the issue has empowered producers to take action. Farmers now have open conversations with their peers on the importance of addressing AMR, and the steps which can be taken in their respective areas.”

That reference to industry leadership and building relationships across all stakeholders is critical, as it is for so many areas in the food and farming sectors. There are many tensions within our food system today, some of which are understandably a result of the need to maximise output to feed a growing global population.

As we have rightly better understood the consequences, we are now trying to find a balance between that output and the environmental, health and animal welfare issues that are so important. Although progress has been made, we still face major challenges. For example, the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics advises that 75% of antibiotics used in UK farms are for group treatments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall pointed out. That stands in contrast to other countries that manage to use antibiotics only to treat individual sick animals. Sweden and Finland are cited as examples. Although exact comparisons are difficult, we should always aspire to the highest standards here. We also heard in the introduction that some farms still use antibiotics in a routine way when others do not. The fear is that in some cases that is compensating for poor husbandry. Again, we should aim higher.

Let me ask the Minister about the Government’s antimicrobial resistance national action plan in which it was stated, as we have already heard, that the UK would implement legislation along lines similar to those being adopted by the European Union. Is that still the plan? If so, when? Why are we yet again falling behind the EU? This is the second time in this Chamber today that the Minister will have to explain why the Government have relegated the UK to the slow lane. What assessment has been made of the consequences for British farmers who export to the EU? What can the Minister tell us about ensuring in trade deals that we do not risk importing food produced to lower standards on antibiotic usage?

A key to reducing the use of antibiotics is, of course, vaccination. I am grateful to the National Office of Animal Health, which issued livestock vaccination guidelines last May to help vets and farmers to improve resilience, for its advice. Will the Minister tell us what support the Department is giving to vaccine development?

In conclusion, this is a short debate on a subject that merits much more detailed discussion. Overuse of antibiotics in general, and certainly in farming in the past, has clearly put us at risk from rising antimicrobial resistance. The falling use of antibiotics indicates that we are moving in the right direction, but there is more to do. As we transform and improve our farming systems to address wider environmental and health challenges, I am in no doubt that moving away from antibiotic use will play a key role in improving and safeguarding our health as well as the health of animals stewarded by farmers and vets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

Of course, we could always reduce it further. But at the same time, we have to balance that with animal welfare and ensuring that no animal is affected detrimentally. No farmer in this country can administer antibiotics to an animal without a veterinary prescription. It requires a professional vet to prescribe that medicine for an animal. I have huge confidence in our veterinary service, and their professionalism and ability to make those decisions.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I think the Minister will agree that I have been uncharacteristically generous to him this afternoon. Let me press him on the point of group usage. Is that something that he thinks we should continue, or are there plans to change that?

[Mark Spencer]

I do not like blanket, overarching rules. There may well be a circumstance where a flock of birds or a group of animals are suffering from an infection and need to be treated. To rule out the use of group therapy when there is a group of animals that need veterinary intervention would be very silly. Of course, we want to ensure we target medicines at poorly animals, and that we use antibiotics to treat those animals. But to have a block rule where we rule out the use of a medicine to a group of animals that are suffering from an infection would be silly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

We want ELMs to work, but as it stands, the scheme risks going the way of those magnificent elm trees that have so suffered across the English countryside over the past 40 years. The Minister has admitted that the uptake of sustainable farming incentives is low—indeed, the National Farmers Union rightly described last week’s announcement as “too little, too late”. Will the Minister come clean and tell the House how many farm businesses he will allow to go to the wall because of this failing agricultural transition process? Will he sit down with us and work out a simpler way forward that keep farmers farming and secures the environmental goals we all share?

[Mark Spencer]

I am genuinely disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s response, and his negativity is in danger of spreading across the Front Bench. We ran a pilot—that is why the uptake was low; it was because the pilot was small—and we listened to individuals who took part in that pilot. We tweaked those schemes in response to the pilot that we ran. That is good government. The way to organise and run such schemes is to listen to those who are taking part. We have listened, we have improved the payments, and there is now a great opportunity for our farmers across the country to engage in those schemes, improve our environment, improve biodiversity, produce great food, and make a profit.

Annual Fisheries Negotiations with EU and North Atlantic States

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the urgent question. I share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration that it took an urgent question to hear about the negotiations. I hear what the Minister said about the timeframes, but there was a convention under which each year the House had a proper discussion about the outcome of the negotiations. I hope the Minister will promise today to return to that convention so that we can have proper and full discussions.

I pay tribute to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other charities, as well as the fishers, who last week intervened so effectively to save human life in the channel. I remind the Minister of the continuing anguish that is being caused to many in the inland fleet at the hands of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency; the Minister really needs to work with colleagues to get a grip on that.

On the recent negotiations, it is clear that many industry players have welcomed the outcomes of the various sets of talks, and that is positive, but may I ask the Minister about the status of the Faroe talks? What efforts were made to ensure that the deals made with the EU and other coastal states included a commitment to keep Russia’s fleet out of their waters? Although we welcome the promise to stop the fishing of sand eels in our waters, will the Minister tell us when that will take effect and whether we have secured commitments from others during the negotiations?

In general, we will, of course, want to see the detail of the outcome and understand the potential environmental impact, but not everyone in the industry is quite as happy as the Minister says. Therein lies a fundamental problem that we have identified in the new architecture, including in the latest version of the joint fisheries statement, something also recently published and not discussed in this House. Although the Minister speaks for the UK Government, the devolved Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also play an important role in fisheries management, so we ask again: who speaks for England?

Labour has consistently pointed out that no one fights the corner for English fishing in these negotiations. The statement has been welcomed by the Scottish Government and fishing sector, but can the Minister explain how much of the increase in catch will be available to the hard-hit English fishing sector? What will be the overall impact on jobs and economic opportunities in our English North sea fishing ports and surrounding communities?

The Minister mentioned the distant fleet. Jane Sandell, the chief executive officer of UK Fisheries Ltd, which is based in Humberside and operates in distant Arctic waters, did not react with any positivity about this outcome. She called it

“yet another body blow for fishers in the North East of England. While the government is gloating over its ‘success’ in the Norway talks, we are having to make skilled people redundant in the Humber region. It’s an absolute travesty of fairness and common sense.”

She also said:

“The few extra tonnes of whitefish in the Norwegian zone won't come close to offsetting the loss in Svalbard due to the reduced TAC. Defra knows this, and yet it simply doesn’t seem to care about the English fleet.”

That was borne out at the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs a couple of weeks ago, when the Secretary of State appeared to be unaware of the problems facing the English distant fleet. So perhaps the Minister can explain today why the English distant fleet has fared so badly, and what he plans to do about it.

[Mark Spencer]

We have of course tabled a written statement; we did that as soon as we were able, give that we signed the deal this morning. Once again, it is a little disingenuous to say that we were not prepared to make a statement, as the deal was not signed until after the statement deadline.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Faroe Islands has just concluded its general election and is in the process of forming a Government, so it is difficult to negotiate with its Fisheries Minister when that Minister has not been appointed. As soon as that Minister is appointed, we will be back around the table talking to them to try to sort out the challenges we face, particularly on the Russian fleet, which the Faroes has allowed access to its waters.

I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the details on sand eels. He talked about the devolved Administrations, the north-east fleet and who represents England. We tried very hard on this. We work with our devolved Administration colleagues constantly and we worked very hard to get a fair deal for all parts of the UK. We get the best deal for the UK and we try to divvy that deal up as best as we can among the devolved Administrations and around the coastline. I think we have struck the right balance. It is entirely possible to increase quota for any part of the UK that we want to, but we have to take that off somebody else. If he wants to write to me to tell me from whom he wants to remove quota, we will give due consideration to that representation and consider his thoughts.