Agriculture Bill

Earl of Dundee Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th July 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Earl of Dundee]

1: Clause 1, page 2, line 6, leave out “may” and insert “must”
Member’s explanatory statement
A probing amendment to clarify whether the Secretary of State will provide financial assistance for the purposes listed under Clause 1(1).

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 1 is connected to Amendment 74, also in my name. Both amendments address the Secretary of State’s new financial assistance powers outlined in the first clause of the Bill. Clause 1(1) indicates ambiguity of delivery:

“The Secretary of State may give financial assistance”.


Picking up this aspect of uncertainty, Amendment 1 therefore implies that giving financial assistance, as envisaged, might not necessarily work out as intended, not least taking into account how current forms of international competition threaten to curb the viability of United Kingdom food production. Yet, if, within the Bill, incentives should fail to produce intended results, to some extent Amendment 74’s proposal can provide a remedy.

In itself, Clause 1 is evidence of an impressive vision. The Government are committed to preserving the national environment; thus, competent environmental land management can become a clear aim for farmers, who are properly rewarded if they achieve this. Nevertheless, so far, in other respects the Bill is less clear. What are the Government’s plans for sustainable food production? Post Brexit, will they develop new and even higher standards than those of the European Union? Or will they set land aside for afforestation, public access and wildlife conservation while leaving agriculture to market forces, as do the United States and Brazil? Among those options, although unstated, no doubt the Government would prefer that which combines high standards for environmental land management along with those for sustainable food production. Yet, if so, how can these two objectives best be realised and British farmers perform and compete against cheap imports from the United States and those from EU states paid a high level of agricultural subsidies?

Perhaps some of the answer, beginning at home, would be that, in order to further these twin objectives, the Government might better prioritise and adjust existing incentives within the Bill. For if that adjustment is made now, in the first place, then there will be a greater chance that, through time and against external market forces, much of those current joint aims for the United Kingdom of good environmental land management and sustainable food production can be attained.

Clause 1 details 10 purposes eligible for financial assistance. It is certainly right that funding should be provided for each of them carried out by a farm. Yet, where multiple purposes are addressed, the Bill could now be amended so that a financial bonus would apply. For example, if a farm accomplished [Connection lost.]

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I shall have to move the amendment on the noble Earl’s behalf. I beg to move Amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

I call the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. We lost the connection earlier, but I understand that we can now hear him.

[The Earl of Dundee [V]]

Thank you. I will resume at the point where I was cut off.

In itself, Clause 1 is evidence of an impressive vision. The Government are committed to preserving the natural environment, thus competent environmental land management can become a clear aim for farmers, who are properly rewarded if they achieve this.

Nevertheless, so far, in other respects the Bill is less clear. What are the Government’s plans for sustainable food production? Post Brexit will they develop new and even higher standards than those of the EU, or instead set aside land for afforestation, public access and wildlife conservation, while leaving agriculture to market forces, as do the United States and Brazil?

Among those options, and although unstated, no doubt the Government would prefer that which combines high standards for environmental land management with those for sustainable food production. Yet, if so, how can these two objectives best be realised? British farmers also perform and compete against cheap imports from the United States, and those from EU states pay a high level of agricultural subsidies.

Perhaps some of the answer, beginning at home, lies in how, in order to further these twin objectives, the Government might better prioritise and adjust existing incentives within the Bill. For if that adjustment is made now in the first place, there will be a greater chance through time and against external market forces. Much of those current joint aims for the United Kingdom of good environmental land management and sustainable food production can be attained.

Section 1 details 10 purposes eligible for financial assistance, and it is certainly right that funding should be provided for each of them if carried out by a farm. Yet where multiple purposes are addressed, the Bill could now be amended so that a financial bonus would apply. For example, if a farm accomplishes fewer than four of the purposes, it simply receives funding for each of them. However, if instead the farm were to carry out more than four purposes, such as five or six of them, it could receive a bonus grant for achieving that level of multiple purposes. There could be a further multiple purpose supplementary payment if seven or eight of them had been carried out, then a further and final one for achieving 10 purposes. For what we want to achieve is that farms should receive supplementary funding for carrying out many or even all the purposes. That is because doing so puts them at a commercial disadvantage to other farms, which might adopt only a few of the purposes—hence the connection between Amendments 1 and 74.

Amendment 1, as a probing expedient, seeks to illustrate that, while the Government’s vision to encourage both good environmental management and sustained food production together is much to be welcomed, nevertheless, the effect of their plans for delivering financial incentives is uncertain in two respects. The first is as a result of the challenge to UK food production from a combination of cheap imports from the United States and from the highly subsidised agricultural products from the European Union states. Secondly, and as already outlined, it is owing to the risk in the first place of an inadequate response to incentives arising from an inconsistent and anomalous delivery to recipient United Kingdom farms, whereby those best at multiple purposes are still insufficiently recompensed within the Bill as it is.

Amendment 74 offers a partial solution through a detailed bonus scheme, as already outlined, whereby farms carrying out multiple purposes would come to be rewarded better and in a fairer way than they are at present within the Bill. Through time, and in spite of international market competition, that would in turn also increase the likelihood that within the United Kingdom the Government could achieve more of the joint aims themselves of good environmental management and sustained food production.

Amendment 45, the third in my name in this grouping, seeks to encourage the purchase of domestically produced animal feed with the intention of reducing carbon emissions from imported feed. Considering the United Kingdom’s agricultural capacity relative to its population, it would be unrealistic to restrict imported animal feed too much. However, these imports have three major disadvantages. First, they undermine the United Kingdom’s food security; secondly, there is the carbon footprint arising from their production and transport; and, thirdly, there is the environmental damage which in the first place their cultivation causes in certain countries, notably soybeans in Brazil and Argentina. Efforts should thus be made to augment the supply of home-grown animal feed. At the same time, United Kingdom importers ought to be encouraged to buy feed from countries demonstrating similar environmental standards to those of the United Kingdom, with the process perhaps guided by international certification bodies. Hence, bearing in mind the Bill’s focus on environmental land management, this amendment on animal feeds simply calls for improved consistency of standards between what the United Kingdom imports and what it produces domestically.

[Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in congratulating the Minister and so many other noble Lords on marshalling such a remarkable number of amendments. In fact, there are so many amendments that it somewhat gives the game away that the Bill means so much to so many people. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, it is something of a dog’s dinner. I would not be so disparaging, but I would also say that it is more than a single dinner—it seems to be everything the dog has eaten for an awfully long time.

The first four of my amendments in this group relate to the deletion of the word “water” in the provisions of Clause 1. That is because I believe this is the Agriculture Bill, not the aquaculture Bill, the Fisheries Bill, the Environment Bill or the water resources Bill. As drafted—as I understand it, there is no limitation to the definition of water—it could spread the impact of the Bill very far and wide. In proposing a number of amendments, I seek to focus the Bill on agriculture and to not let its very positive environmental aims spread too far beyond those reasonable limits. If the Minister were able to provide some clarity in concluding, it would help us to know what water this applies to.

Noble Lords should know that, as well as a farmer, I am also a holder of intertidal habitat and foreshore rights, and it is interesting to me whether the provisions of the Bill and of ELMS will be able to extend to intertidal habitat. As I understand it, intertidal habitat has enormous potential for carbon sequestration and other very positive aspects, but it is not clear whether the Bill as drafted goes to that area between high and low tide, which is obviously such an important area around the coast of Devon.

Amendment 21 also seeks to remove reference to livestock from Clause 1(1)(d). This is merely so that it conforms to the other paragraphs. It is not clear why livestock should be included in managing land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates climate change, when it is not included in managing land or water in a way that protects the environment. It is very unclear as to why livestock should appear specifically in Clause 1(1)(d) when it does not appear in (a), (c) and (e). I note the points that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made around reservoirs, but farmers are not water managers. They use water, and I very much agree that the environmental aim should be to prevent what they do on their land having an adverse impact on water—but they are not by definition water managers, and we should recognise that.

To continue with the water theme, I propose Amendment 91, which adds the term “wetlands” to “uplands” in the definition of cultural or natural heritage. There is lots of important focus on uplands, because they are such an important part of our natural environment. However, I do not want your Lordships’ focus to depart wholly from wetlands, which are equally important to our biodiversity. They are equally marginal in many respects as a form of agricultural land, and are equally important culturally. I took the train this morning through the Somerset Levels, and we all remember the terrible floods they suffered a number of years ago. The focus should not be just on uplands. The other point about wetlands is that, given their often low-lying presence near the mouths of estuaries and rivers, they are often very proximate to large urban settlements. The interface between a large urban population and a rural, ecologically sensitive landscape is very important; it is an important part of ELMS and it should be focused upon.

The final amendment in this group, which I am proud to propose, is Amendment 236, which is supported by the Greener UK group. It seeks to add some teeth to the enforcement of the environmental provisions. As they currently exist under European regulations, good agricultural and environmental condition requirements cover the management of soils. This is in the cross-compliance provisions of the current European legislation. That will be lost from January 2021, and it is not clear that there will be adequate enforcement of the maintenance of the quality and nature of soil going forward.

The amendment adds to the agricultural diffuse pollution regulations and provides the Environment Agency with some teeth in forcing farmers to maintain the quality of soil. Soil is obviously all-important to the management of our agricultural land. Over this past winter we have seen how soil runs off in heavy rain, but how, if you have good organic matter in your soil, in a very dry spring such as the one we have just had you can retain some moisture. It enhances the resilience of our agriculture, and as climate change takes effect, that is absolutely key to our agriculture. Those are the amendments I wish to speak to now.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Dundee [V]]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming and supporting the Bill, and I thank the Minister for his helpful responses to this Committee debate, which has covered a wide range of matters concerning sustainable food production and a well-cared-for environment.

Proposed amendments have included: requests for better soil management; the mitigation of floods—whether or not these may have been induced by crayfish, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, warns; the reduction of air pollution; a focus on the predicament of farmers having to deal with hill and marginal land; the case for being ever alert to promote innovations, such as further developments in energy crops or new livestock species; the case for improved management of land around towns and cities where it is not being used for housing development; the need for timely advice to farmers on how to raise and maintain standards in terms of the Bill; the need for impact assessments; and, not least, the desirability that all parts of the United Kingdom should benefit together from the Bill’s useful prescription.

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on my Amendment 74 about how incentives might be paid slightly differently for those farms that are responding to what is already offered by the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Dundee Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 9th July 2020 Lords Chamber

We certainly have the talent within the sector to do this. It is worth noting a particular favourite of mine, the great plantswoman Carol Klein—what a legend. She demonstrates that there is no lack of talent in this country to take the industry forward, Spark funding would enable both the energy sector and under-glass production to blast ahead. I believe this amendment would give the opportunity for these businesses to grow at speed. It would enable industry to thrive, areas across East Anglia to level up and carbon dioxide emissions to be brought down, and it would provide clarity in the supply chain and a fabulous opportunity across the whole of East Anglia. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on this suggestion.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 101 seeks to improve the Bill’s current definition of a producer. It broadens that definition, so that instead it reads

“starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity”.

This would make clearer which relevant parties stand to benefit from financial assistance.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I now call the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. There is a problem with connecting to the noble Lord. We move on to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the draft of the Bill, and particularly for the definition of “livestock” on page 3, which

“includes any creature kept for the production of … drink”.

I had to look that up on Google. I will not repeat most of what Google suggests. The most printable is seagull wine, but I had not realised that we had such industries in the UK.

My amendment would make the definition “in connection with” the farming of land rather than “in the farming of land”. I want to quiz the Government on why they have drawn the boundary in that way. It seems to me to exclude a number of common inhabitants of the farmyards I grew up on, such as dogs, pigeons, cats and, indeed, horses. I do not know how horses, even New Forest ponies, come in under the definition of livestock in the Bill and I cannot find a place for maggots, although maggot farming is still an active business in this country. Other than that, Amendment 68 seems on the prescriptive side, although it reminds me of my cousin, who was shipped out to Australia with a one-way ticket and found himself on Intercourse Island in Western Australia castrating sheep with his teeth.

[The Earl of Dundee [V]]

Amendment 44, which is in my name, seeks financial assistance to encourage the rearing of livestock outside as opposed to factory farming. Outdoor rearing of animals reduces the use of antibiotics. Too many of those in farming have already undermined the efficacy of antibiotics in British medicine. Equally, animal-to-human transmission of diseases is far more likely to occur when animals are farmed indoors—for example, Covid-19, SARS, swine flu, avian flu et cetera. The grazing of animals outdoors also benefits crop rotation, since they keep soils healthy without the overuse of synthetic fertilisers. Animals reared on good quality pasture also produce less CO₂ and methane compared to those reared indoors and fed on animal feed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]]

My Lords, I am speaking to my four amendments in this group and I obviously heartily support Amendment 77, which was tabled by my noble friend Lady Bennett. My amendments are focused on improving animal welfare. They would also ensure that minimum standards are enforced and that no public money is given to the most harmful farming practices. Amendment 66 would prevent financial assistance being given to a number of cruel farming practices such as mutilations, including debeaking, tail docking and tooth pulling without anaesthetic. Castrating sheep with your teeth would also most definitely be included. The amendment would require publicly funded farmers to keep animals in species-appropriate numbers, not exceeding specified stocking densities or certified levels of illness and disease. Public money should not be used to support animal cruelty. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Amendments 125 and 136 would require the Secretary of State to consider animal welfare specifically when planning and reporting financial assistance. These amendments are important in putting animal welfare at the forefront of the Minister’s mind, and in ensuring that the health and happiness of our farm animals does not fall behind other priorities, such as profit.

Finally, while much of the Bill is focused on offering farmers and land managers a financial carrot, my Amendment 225 will bring a big stick for those who refuse to adopt even the most basic standards of environmental protection and animal welfare. I loathe the concept of new criminal offences, although I accept that sometimes they are necessary, and I think this is necessary. While the Government might not choose to adopt such a harsh approach as imposing criminal liability, I want at least to draw attention to the apparent lack of any plan to raise the standards of those who consistently fall behind and refuse to bring themselves up to modern standards of farming and land management. As always, I look forward eagerly to the Minister’s assurances on animal welfare and hope that he or she will specifically address what will be done about those farmers who lag behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, to which I added my name—it is unfortunate that he is speaking after me. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has already said that trees offer a safe, nature-friendly and relatively cheap way to soak up the carbon that we urgently need to sequester if we are to meet our legal climate obligations. Trees have an extraordinary range of other benefits that he also set out. I certainly do not want to repeat what he had to say and what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, might also say. In view of the extraordinary qualities of trees and the range of their benefits, I hope Ministers will take this very seriously and accept the principle of what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and, somewhat differently, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, are putting forward.

[The Earl of Dundee [V]]

My Lords, I support and will first comment on Amendment 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and others. The new and welcome direction pointed by the Bill is furthering the joint aims of healthy food production and good environmental land management. Whole-farm agroecological systems are central to this. They should therefore be clearly described. That is what Amendment 97 would do.

Following this, and for the same reason of its central consistency with the Bill, I am in favour of Amendment 42, which would ensure that financial assistance is given for whole-farm agroecological systems. I also support Amendment 48, which would properly recompense farmers more than the Bill currently does for converting to organic and ecologically sustainable systems. I am in favour of Amendment 84, on encouraging agroforestry, and Amendment 96, which seeks better to reward nature-friendly farms. I agree with Amendment 120 about monitored targets for integrated pest management, and equally with Amendment 217, which advocates improved productivity programmes related to soil analysis.

Amendment 41 in my name relates directly to Amendment 40 on agroforestry, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. It encourages a connection between afforestation and agroforestry. Its purpose is for agroforestry development to contribute towards afforestation targets. Although most of the target of 30 million trees which the Government have committed to plant will apply to upland areas, through agroforestry an increasing proportion could be planted on lower ground, which is otherwise, and for good reason, often the sole preserve of agricultural production. Conversely, agroforestry itself, where deployed on low ground, can assist afforestation targets, since it maintains fields of agricultural crops, with trees planted at certain wide intervals between them.

Through agroforestry, as carried out on United Kingdom farmland, it is estimated that 920 million trees could be planted in fields, yet this would cause agricultural output to reduce by only 7%.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge [V]]

My Lords, I shall not detain the Committee long. I have added my name to several of these amendments. I want to underline the importance of getting some of these things right—whether it is nature-friendly farming, the reduction of pesticides, the increase in organic or the agrochemicals reduction. I support particularly Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on meadows and grasslands. I am a member of Plantlife, as I am of Buglife.

These amendments are crucial. But the time is late. Very eloquent people are making their points and I think it is time for me to be quiet.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Dundee Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. I second his comments about the importance of food security and its absence from the Bill at present. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I commend Amendment 35 in her name for its focus on food security. One of the major roles of the Government must be to ensure that people can eat. I also commend Amendments 46 and 70, which are supported by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

I shall speak chiefly to Amendment 47, in my name, which my noble friend Lady Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, have kindly backed. I am also grateful that in our discussions last week, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, commenting on the linked Amendment 77, expressed support for the principle of this amendment and for the Bill to cover this explicitly.

To some degree, this amendment is a rebuttal of the statements made last week by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, suggesting that outdoor livestock production is not giving us enough food and, implicitly, that factory farming is essential. That suggests that production of meat is one of our problems, which is clearly not the case. In fact, we have meat production which is largely food waste. I am talking about factory farming, of course—feeding large quantities of perfectly edible grains, oils and proteins to produce far smaller quantities of meat. This is something we can no longer afford.

Land is a scarce resource, as the Government acknowledged last week. We cannot afford to waste it growing food that is immediately fed to animals, as we currently do with about 20% of farmland. There is an argument for small quantities of winter feed for predominately pastured animals, but that is very different from the vast chicken sheds, piggeries and factory dairies that we have seen expanding in the UK in recent years. The problem with them is not simply food waste, or the failure to produce healthy food. I often come under attack from people who wave a finger at me and say, “The Green Party wants people to eat less meat, isn’t that terrible?” Usually I point to those well-known radical environmentalists of the British Medical Association, which also says that we need far less meat in the British diet and meat of a far higher quality. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said last week, this is a very strong medical recommendation.

The noble Baroness also alluded to the crucial issue of antimicrobial resistance, something we hear concern about from all sides of politics, including the former Prime Minister David Cameron, who some years ago made it the subject of a major speech. In the past week, we have seen the chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline identify antimicrobial resistance as a predictable threat to global health on the same scale as Covid-19.

Sadly, Covid-19 has made all too clear the need to think about the welfare of workers, not only on factory farms but in the giant, fast-moving, mass-production abattoirs. There is also the health of our environment, including dead zones in our oceans and rivers from nitrogen pollution, and the air pollution problems on which my noble friend Lady Jones has tabled amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was right that we need protein. That is where the positive side of this amendment comes in, as it seeks to promote a shift to plant-based food production, particularly—one of the things that we have seen some progress on, but it must be much faster—the production of protein crops. It is interesting that this also means the potential for farmers to diversify into different crops, reducing risk. Of course, growing nitrogen-fixing crops often reduces or ends the need to rely on artificial fertilisers, with all the other benefits that have been rehearsed in this debate.

This amendment says, “We want to see the Agriculture Bill positively promote crops that are good for the environment, good for people’s health and good for farmers’ incomes and farm security.” I need to point to the possibilities of a pretty small-scale operation. A wonderful company called Hodmedod’s, which is very much focused on promoting different crops and restoring historical ones, recently grew lentils in the UK for the first time in quite some time. I also learned that it has been promoting carlin peas, which, as I learned in an internet discussion, are apparently a traditional cultural bar snack in Lancashire. Rather than peanuts, we could have local carlin, or parched, peas. This reminds us that we can have cultural restoration as well as the restoration of our health, well-being, soils and food. I commend Amendment 47 to the House.

I was also pleased to attach my name to Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. It would introduce a requirement to support healthy and nutritious food and, implicitly, avoid supporting unhealthy food. It is clear that our global food system, of which the UK is a closely enmeshed part, is entirely broken. Last year, before Covid, 690 million malnourished people were unable to get the basic calories they needed; a similar number are obese, unable to get the healthy food they need, and billions more are on that route. Yet we have just seen a truly tragic figure in the UK: the number of cases of children admitted to hospital suffering from malnutrition has doubled in the past six months to 2,500—and that was with only two-thirds of NHS trusts reporting. I hope that, in responding, the Government will say that it is their business to ensure that the UK meets the second sustainable development goal: zero hunger. Part of that is having a healthy diet, not simply an adequate number of calories. We not on track to meet that goal by 2030. In his response, I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government hope to achieve that goal if they are not intending to use the Agriculture Bill to do so.

Amendment 75—tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and backed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville—seeks to improve public health by increasing the availability, affordability, diversity, quality and marketing of fruit, vegetables and pulses. I want to focus on marketing in particular. The World Cancer Research Fund has said that countries, including the UK, are failing to protect children from the effects of “harmful” junk food marketing. Children are having unhealthy food promoted to them but are not seeing the promotion of healthy food; the World Cancer Research Fund says that this is a human rights issue.

Finally, Amendment 75 refers to reducing the use of antibiotics and related veterinary products. I have been contacted by members of the public and industry asking what “related veterinary product” refers to; I would point to anthelmintics, in particular their impact on dung fauna and on insects on land and in watercourses. I do not consider this amendment as covering vaccines. I also note the similarity between this amendment and my Amendment 49, which would put a similar provision in Clause 1. If the EU target is for a 50% reduction in pesticide use in a decade and if the UK is to be world-leading in that regard, how will we get to that standard if not through the Agriculture Bill?

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my own business interest in farming as already detailed in the register. In this group, I support Amendments 35, 36, 60, 69 and 71. All of them emphasise growing healthy and nutritious food. That also means growing and offering a rather better selection of food than we now do. Therefore, I am also in favour of Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which advocates a shift in direction to achieve improved diets—still containing, but much less dominated by, animal products. I also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which urges more food production in urban areas.

Amendment 63 in my name would encourage urban and peri-urban growing enterprises to provide fresh local produce close to the market where it is required. I hope that my noble friend the Minister agrees that the Secretary of State might provide incentives accordingly. During the coronavirus pandemic, we have witnessed the importance of food security and local supply chains delivering food to where it is needed. Farming endeavours within conurbations can have an immediate and beneficial impact on supply chains, responding accurately to local demands. This contrasts with large supermarket chains sourcing goods from overseas and adding to the carbon footprint of such produce through transport costs.

Small-scale intensive food production uses little space yet reveals a high yield per acre as well-evidenced in the Netherlands. Those examples are particularly suited to towns and cities where ground is in short supply. Green-belt areas could also be freed up for such endeavours. They would also offer quality outdoor employment for people in urban environments.

Some of these projects might fulfil a social purpose too: for instance, city farms to educate children about animals and agriculture; and allotments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has already referred, which can teach people about food production at the same time as allowing and encouraging them to grow their own food. Not least, they also enable more green areas in cities for the benefit of those living there.

[The Earl of Devon [V]]

My Lords, I will endeavour to be brief: we have an awful lot to get through. I am grateful to see Clause 1(4) in the Bill. It was remarkable that, in its early iterations, a Bill about agriculture had no specific reference to the provision of food. My Amendment 71 would merely improve upon that provision of food by the specification that it should be both “healthy and nutritious”.

I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, on this amendment. I understand that all the amendments in this group are directed to a very similar goal. There is clearly strong support across the Committee for making sure that the food whose production we are encouraging is healthy and nutritious, and not the sort of food that causes ill-health, obesity and so many other issues that are being brought into full focus with the onslaught of coronavirus. At this time, of all times, it has become clear that the health and well-being of our nation are a result of the healthiness and nutrition of the food that we eat. This is therefore not just about agriculture; it goes to a much wider issue.

Some may say that the health and nutrition of the food could be secured by the fact that the clause provides that it must be environmentally sustainable. Of course, the two things are vastly different. It is perfectly possible to produce food in an environmentally sustainable way and it not be healthy and nutritious. There has been much talk over recent days of insect farming and novel agritech. You could certainly see insect farming as a very environmentally sustainable means of farming. It is the feeding of waste product, typically to insect larvae, which are then mashed up for their protein. That is the production of food in a very environmentally sustainable way, but I am not sure that it is either healthy or nutritious food, albeit it has an important role to play in the feeding of fish, for example, and other larger animals.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Dundee Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 16th July 2020 Lords Chamber

These are deep concerns. Many local abattoirs have already closed, as has been mentioned, largely due to high compliance costs. The cost per unit of production in a small abattoir is significant; to lose even more will put at risk the future viability of the livestock sector. Their existence is essential and if we wish to expand local and regional food markets, involving organic, native breed or pasture-reared livestock, et cetera, I suggest that we should want to expand them rather than see a reduction in these local opportunities. Including “slaughtering” in the Bill is important. Adding value to local and regional food products will be even more important when we leave the European Union, and this will be impossible without access to local abattoirs. In line 38 on page 2, “processing” is open to interpretation and may not include abattoirs, so I support this amendment.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as has already been urged, there is a compelling case for paying attention to the plight of small abattoirs and for the Government to offer financial support to enable their survival. They are relied upon by farmers who market the meat from their own animals locally.

A small abattoir is one which slaughters fewer than 1,000 livestock units each year. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, in spite of strong and growing local demand, they are being driven out of business by a combination of factors beyond their control. For example, in the last 12 months a further seven have had to close. The Government seek to protect local farming communities and their ancillary services, and to increase rural employment. In the conditional and qualified way that the noble Lord has outlined, it is therefore all the more consistent with the Bill that they should now assist small abattoirs.

I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give us reassurance about this today. Meanwhile, in supporting this amendment, I pay tribute to the Food Standards Agency for doing as much as it can in difficult circumstances, as I do to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for the useful recent report he has written on small abattoirs, as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, in line with this amendment, I support the principle of slaughtering animals as close as possible to their place of growth and finishing. To me, there are three main reasons why this is a good idea, some of which have already been touched on.

First, it minimises the stress on the animals, which must be a golden rule or ambition underlying everything that our livestock industry stands for. I might add that this lack of stress has also been proven to improve the quality of the meat.

Secondly, local abattoirs allow specialist producers to generate premium prices from the sale of meat, based on branding due to genuine local provenance and high animal welfare. For some of our breeders, especially those in remote and special landscapes, this USP is crucial to the success of their enterprise.

Thirdly, local slaughter allows for the handling, cutting, processing and marketing of the meat to be done close to the point of production, thus enabling the economic and social benefits of the whole production process to be captured by the local rural economy.

All three of these reasons are important for remote rural communities, and particularly island-based communities, as mentioned by noble Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, the shenanigans and even cruelty involved in the process of getting animals bred on the Isles of Scilly to slaughter is a prime example of how to almost destroy a perfectly good-quality local organic food business. Clearly, small abattoirs result in an expensive system, but with the market emphasis focusing more and more on high-quality and specialist production, particularly local production, it is to be hoped that the Government will support such schemes wherever they can.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Dundee [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 90, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which includes fungi as subject to conservation, and Amendment 183 from my noble friend Lucas, which also covers wild plants within an agri-food supply chain. Through Amendments 178 and 185 respectively, my noble friend Lord Lucas also points to the need for a proper analysis of agri-food supply chains, not least to that for relevant data collection in the first place.

With Amendments 187, 190 to 192 and 194, on how information itself should be best gathered through tactful and fair-minded approaches to people asked to give it, my noble friend Lord Caithness offers excellent guidance, as does my noble friend Lord Carrington with a number of proposals, including Amendment 203, which would retain the current common agricultural policy objectives exemption from competition law for relevant agreements.

Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister may agree that, taken together, and if incorporated within the Bill, all these proposed adjustments, mainly concerning information and analysis, would provide useful and necessary checks and balances, and equally that he might feel able to support Amendment 195, tabled by my noble friend Lord Empey and myself, which would ensure the provision of regulations for fair-dealing obligations of business purchasers of agricultural products.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 195 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee; Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch; and Amendment 207 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I and others are signatories.

Clause 27 is about fair dealing with agricultural producers and others in the supply chain. For a considerable time I have felt that there has been an imbalance in the supply chain that has been disproportionate and has had a diminishing impact on producers. If we believe in public money for public goods, we should be trying to cherish and protect our farm producers.

The Groceries Code Adjudicator is perhaps a very good place for the regulations specified in Clause 27 to be enforced. I would like the Minister to indicate how the regulations will be governed; in the absence of that, I can see a need for proper scrutiny and oversight of the supply chain. That is a missing area. Surely the oversight could be provided by the Groceries Code Adjudicator.

I pay tribute to Christine Tacon. I recall that when the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, was chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place, of which I was also a member, we took evidence from Ms Tacon and examined the relationships within the supply chain.

I also believe—and this is a singular view—that smaller retailers should be subject to scrutiny as well, because they have caused many major problems for producers in our supply chain.

We need greater joined-up working between Defra and BEIS, but to provide that oversight, we also need the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I see a direct link between Amendments 197 and 207. This would ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts was given to the Groceries Code Adjudicator. As well as telling us how the regulations will be governed, perhaps the Minister will advise us about ongoing discussions between Defra and BEIS about a possible role for the GCA in this respect. Or perhaps there would be another body. But surely the body that has been tried and tested, and has proved its worth, should be the one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am afraid that I could not hear much of my noble friend Lord Naseby’s speech, but I gather that he gave his support to Amendment 105, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I was certainly glad to ask for my name to be added to it because it seems a prudent, sensible and balanced approach. I will not weary your Lordships by going through a whole list of amendments.

It is important that our farmers have a degree of clarity and the opportunity to plan. They are going through a very difficult time. I live in Lincolnshire, a great farming county. I talked to a farmer whose family has farmed here for generations, going back a couple of centuries or more. He was a very worried man. He said, “We had those desperate floods in the latter part of last year and the beginning of this one. We then had the driest spring that we can remember. We have all the uncertainties created by Covid-19. Dairy farmers were pouring hundreds of thousands of gallons of milk away because there was no custom from the catering trade. This is creating a real deterrent to young people because we have all the uncertainty created by our leaving the European Union and we do not know precisely what is planned for us.” I hope that, this evening, my noble friend the Minister can give some real guidance, clarity and certainty.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, with his enormous knowledge of farming, spoke about this, but of course there are so many small farmers. We do not want to see the creation of a farming community that consists of, relatively speaking, a handful of major industrial concerns. The farmers who live on the land, who love the land, who have created the land and who, quite rightly, will be rewarded for maintaining it also have the duty of producing food for our people. We talked about this on Tuesday evening—that is, the security of the food supply being essential to the very defence and existence of the nation. They deserve some clarity and stability. I hope that, in responding to the debate, my noble friend the Minister will be able to give that.

Without our farmers, this country would be in a parlous state. We have a national duty to give them clarity and the opportunity for stability, and to encourage our younger generation to go into farming. It is one of the noblest callings; indeed, it is a vocation, with the hours that farmers work and the uncertainties of the weather that they face. We must not let down our farming community.

[The Earl of Dundee [V]]

My Lords, as has been intimated, many of us are particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for tabling Amendment 139. If adopted, it would greatly increase efficiency since the type of monitoring here envisaged is a comprehensive one that would apply to regulation, productivity improvements, ancillary activities and market interventions. However, to maintain consistent and improved clarity, competent monitoring must be allied with timely parliamentary scrutiny, as advocated in Amendments 133 and 232, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, respectively.

Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept both these qualifications and my noble friend Lord Northbrook’s Amendment 126, which, in calling for financial assistance to protect the production of food in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way, precisely reflects the central new joint purposes of the Bill.

[Baroness Northover (LD) [V]]

I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 105. As we all made clear at Second Reading, British agriculture is now in a period of enormous uncertainty. This has run as a theme through the Committee stage of the Bill. As the NFU notes, British agriculture does not know what will happen in relation to its main market, the EU, or access to labour from the EU, let alone arrangements for other markets around the world.

Farming is an especially long-term enterprise—as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, rightly emphasised—and is risky and uncertain, especially for small farmers and tenant farmers, who farm a third of the UK’s agricultural land. It is therefore vital that when the Government talk about the transition period from the CAP for agriculture, they sustain the level of financial assistance to this sector despite the many demands that will be in competition.

Amendment 105 aims to ensure that there is not a reduction in the level of that financial assistance. It has been striking how short a period the Government have attached to their funding commitments, and already there are cuts. It is all very well the Government saying they “may” take certain action, as the Bill has it, but that does not mean they must or will deliver it, as my noble friend Lord Greaves said. Like him, I recall the chaos of the Rural Payments Agency.

If we bear in mind the many changes planned for the United Kingdom from next January—right across the economy, including in agriculture, and as we may or may not be coming out of the pandemic—it is understandable that farmers are deeply worried. I therefore welcome Amendment 105.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Dundee Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an arable farmer and landowner in receipt of BPS. Before I come to the amendments, I want to defend the RPA after the swipe at it by my noble friend Lord Caithness. What he said might have been true some years ago, but I pay tribute to the Minister for its much improved status over recent years, although it will clearly have its work cut out with the new regime.

The Bill establishes a framework for phasing out direct payments over seven years. It is highly likely that payments under the ELM schemes will result in significant reductions in net income, especially for cattle and sheep farmers, whether in less favoured or lowland areas, and delays in its introduction until 2024 will have a serious effect. Hence, I support Amendment 149, in the names of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but would extend it to certain smaller lowland cattle and sheep farmers. I also strongly support Amendment 144, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, believing that interim financial assistance measures need to be given to these sectors of farming in particular.

I do not support Amendment 130, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, as he did not really mention the effect it would have on farmers, which could be serious—in fact, I do not think he mentioned farmers at all—but I do support Amendment 143, which proposes a delay in the start of the transition period, and appreciate my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s support, even though he is on the Brexiteer side. I also support the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the lack of detail on the progress of the BPS reduction after year one. I also ask, like my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, whether a new set of countryside stewardship schemes will be forthcoming in the autumn.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as detailed in the register. Along with others, I agree with Amendment 143 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh: the transition period should begin in 2022 rather than 2021. Equally, the case for being more realistic about timescales, although in a different context, is addressed by my noble friend Lady Rock’s Amendments 151, 152 and 150 respectively. The first would ensure that those entitled to payments receive them within guaranteed periods to achieve certainty of cash flow. The second would, through regulations, offer legal certainty to farmers, otherwise possibly disadvantaged where delinked payments, if introduced, might lead to extended transition periods. The third, Amendment 150, would enable the Secretary of State to increase payments during the transition period, after phasing out had started, to use up any unspent money and, when necessary, to protect the industry from harm.

Corresponding to the pragmatism of the latter proposal is my noble friend Lord Carrington’s useful Amendment 144, ensuring that any cuts in direct payments do not undermine businesses before the new public goods programmes begin. Then, reflecting the purposes and principles of the Bill themselves, there is Amendment 148 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This emphasises the preservation of animal welfare standards, irrespective of financial consequences, while my noble friend the Duke of Wellington’s Amendment 149 would ensure direct payments to smaller livestock farmers in less favoured areas. Since all these contributions would much improve the Bill, I hope the Minister will accept them.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this has been a particularly thoughtful debate, as it should be, because underlying the whole series of amendments being advanced is the recognition that this is, first, a major change in how we approach support for our land and our farming. Coupled with that is concern about how we bring about the change, and concern that the period allowed to bring it about is not flexible enough and may not be of the right length. Various proposals have been argued very eloquently that perhaps it should be a bit shorter—five years instead of seven. I favour a seven-year period, because the challenge is so great that we will not be able to tackle it. There are so many changes, not only in our approach—public money for public goods, instead of just production costs—but against a changing background as it is. I do not think many of us fully appreciate the changes taking place in agriculture at the moment.

I have a particular interest in the uplands and hill farming, but one cannot look at hill farming without looking at the low-level farming that depends on, feeds on and feeds from the upland areas. One has only to drive in the national park, for example, and once one gets on to the low-level farming, there are no longer any cattle, mixed farming or dairy farming: all the sheep are down on the low level 12 months a year, and that is causing problems in itself. So there is the unstable nature of farming to start with, and we then wrestle with the problem of how we make sure that the various aspects of the new legislation are tied together. Is Defra capable of handling such a major change when it is also dealing with Brexit and will face the challenge of pressure from the Treasury, in spite of what the Government may say? Then, from my experience of running the Cabinet Office, I am concerned about the ability of the Government, or any public body, to run major computer programmes. We are not always able to employ the best people, we do not have the experience, yet we take so much for granted when we look at these proposals.

I must admit that when I look at the ideas, I think Amendment 146, in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, has some suggestions of a way forward. It suggests a slightly later start date—2022—coupled with some flexibility if we find that even that is too early. It even goes so far as to say that if we find that the seven-year period is not correct, it can be changed by affirmative resolution. I am not sure that I entirely agree with that, but I could be persuaded in an emergency that it is the way forward.

We are right to spend so much time debating this. Unless we get it right, the whole thing will be a disaster and there will be tears of woe, not only from the farming community but from foresters, environmentalists and a whole range of people who love our countryside.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Dundee [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 156, from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, provides flexibility as not yet sufficiently available for Defra to help farming households carry out the purposes of the Bill. In the names of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, Amendment 155 is equally pertinent in anticipating delays following the introduction of the United Kingdom shared prosperity fund—hence its safeguards, financial provisions and continued socio-economic interventions under rural development programmes.

With regard to food supply chains, does the Minister consider that local, regional and domestic supply chains ought to be strongly encouraged, while backing for our producers is essential if we are to set them against cheap imports from America and subsidised food from Europe, and that rural development funding should therefore be provided for this purpose? Does he agree that government incentives for food supply chain infrastructure are not the same as subsidising food directly, and do not therefore conflict with the market, but instead—to the advantage of so many communities —would assist production viability, reduce food miles, improve animal welfare and create jobs?

The range of examples to be encouraged comprises outdoor markets; local food delivery hubs; enterprises that collect from farmers to sell to supermarkets, school canteens and hospitals; local farmers’ processing co-operatives; small factories making cheese, bacon, vegetable burgers, apple juice and other products processed from local farms; and, not least, small abattoirs, including mobile ones, in certain farming areas.

Does my noble friend also agree that local food supply chains already work very well with supermarkets, where the majority of United Kingdom consumers shop? This is evident in several countryside areas, such as Yeo Valley in Somerset. A processing co-operative there makes yoghurt, crème fraiche and butter, selling to large retailers, including Tesco. These are organic farmers using agro-ecological systems, yet they can sell their yoghurt at a very reasonable and affordable supermarket price. It is also now well illustrated in a number of other countries, including Germany, the Netherlands and Norway, how local food hubs and farmers’ processing co-operatives can easily supply supermarkets, school canteens and hospitals.

Currently, and through this Bill, we have to review the best ways of replacing and restructuring previous schemes for rural development. Can the Minister reassure the House that, within the new arrangements, proper government incentives will be given to local food supply chains?

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Clause 16 allows the Secretary of State, by a negative resolution, to modify existing rural development schemes agreed under the common agricultural policy as to both time and content, and to devise new schemes entirely outside the present parameters. I fail to see any requirement for consultation. Is there any and, if not, why not? Who will represent rural interests in Whitehall and inform funding decisions? The whole point of devolution in Wales and Scotland was democratically to bring the interests of all sectors closer to policymakers—and it has been highly successful.

England has very disparate rural and regional interests that have to look to Whitehall for compromises and single solutions. Perhaps a devolved Yorkshire assembly could occupy the hub that the Government propose to create in York, once the Westminster politicians have been there, done that and departed with the T-shirt. Clause 16, however, creates very significant powers, and their exercise should be open to full parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Government commit to amending the Bill on Report, to require the affirmative procedure? No consultation, and the negative procedure proposed in this Bill, make a very strong case, both in principle and practice, for the stand part opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She described it as a voyage into the unknown—and that is exactly what it is.

Funding for rural development has, over the period of our membership of the European Union, come from the rural development basic act and the common provisions basic act, and has accordingly been ring-fenced against the austerity cuts that have affected such areas as education and social services throughout this country. That ring-fencing of rural interests is about to be dismantled. I note the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the absence of ring-fencing.

I have always feared, and have said so in this House on a number of occasions, that in the post-Brexit world, there will be overwhelming political pressure on the Government to switch money from rural communities to urban areas. Demands on public services, particularly health and social care, must be answered—there are votes at stake. This issue is even more acute since the last election, when the Government derived significant support from the crumbling “red wall” urban areas, whose interests they now have to consider. The further centralising of services and jobs in large conurbations may drive further depopulation from the countryside. It may even destroy the Conservative Party’s traditional rural base of support. Will the Government make a commitment now, in the post-pandemic world of massive government expenditure, that rural communities will receive the same level of support for rural development as they do at present under the CAP regime? This issue is addressed in Amendment 155.

We await the details of the shared prosperity fund, and I am particularly concerned as to Wales’s involvement in that. I share the doubts expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and Lord Curry, who pointed out how unclear it all is. It is important to build an infrastructure to support work in the rural communities—the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred to some agricultural-based industries. Part of that is addressed in Amendment 157, through the extension of broadband and mobile networks. All of us are learning the advantages of working from home and I have no doubt that, with proper investment, fresh employment opportunities in rural areas will arise from that, enabling people in rural areas to lead optimal lives with digital literacy, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, put it.

I have pleasure in supporting all the amendments in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, apropos of the discussion on the previous group of amendments, this is the first time I have contacted your Lordships from rural Dorset. The bandwidth and the stability of the internet connection appear to be somewhat suspect, so if I get cut off, your Lordships will understand.

This amendment is about introducing a new generation of farmers to our agricultural system. Much of the debate on the Bill has been about the outputs of farming: food, and the impact on the environment and the countryside. The key inputs into farming are of course the skill and enterprise of those who work the land, but we have heard very little about that in the debate. A subsequent amendment from my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch deals with the general improvement of the supply, quality and skill of labour in agriculture, which I will strongly support. However, this amendment is about getting people in who will run their own farms and who need to be given that opportunity.

I well remember when I was first made an Agriculture Minister—over 20 years ago now—and I was told that the average age of English farmers was about 59; I was slightly younger at that point, but not a lot. I was slightly shocked at that, but then I was told that this was always the case, because you either inherited your land from your father or your uncle or you had to save up enough money to buy the land. Another way in was provided from the beginning of the last century by many rural counties, which established tenancies directly for young farmers who could not afford to enter in the normal way through inheritance or purchase. It was a successful scheme, and it continued and was reinforced after the Second World War. However, from the 1980s, there was a drastic fall in the number of tenancies and the acreage covered by such tenancies almost halved. We sped it up a bit around 2000 but in the last 10 years, as a recent report by the CPRE shows, there has been a further 10% decline in the areas covered by county tenancies.

This is a crucial way in, yet some of our proud rural counties have drastically reduced the acreage covered by county tenancies. These include counties such as Herefordshire, Somerset, North Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and some counties, such as Northumberland, Northamptonshire and Lancashire, appear from the figures not to have any county tenancies nowadays. Even my own adopted county of Dorset—whose internet connection is not great—has also capped its tenancy by 10% over the last 10 years. This is pretty disastrous in terms of getting new blood into managing farms and running their own farms.

My amendment is quite modest, but it would require those counties with such smallholdings to review the situation and not to dispose of any such holdings except for the purposes similar to the objectives of the county farm tenancies. That would require each county to work out a new strategy, discuss it with Defra, continue to provide support for those tenancies that existed and, hopefully, resume providing further tenancies.

I was heartened at the end of the previous day of the Committee stage when the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, indicated that there will be some support for county farms as a result of the new agricultural system. I have yet to see any details of that, but it would be important to improve availability for rural young farmers, or indeed urban people who wish to get into farming, if the county scheme could be revived or, at the very least, stopped from declining further. An objective assessment by the counties and Defra would reinstate tenancies and start increasing the amounts of such tenancies that are available, which should help to herald a new future in farming for those who desperately want to run their own farm and improve the environment at the same time. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Dundee [V]]

My Lords, within this grouping I support Amendment 158, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and others, which sets out to enable new entrants to county farms, to provide education in farming these holdings and to stimulate innovation within them.

I am also in favour of Amendment 246, in the names of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and others, which suggests that landlords should contract longer farm business tenancies.

I also support my noble friend’s Amendment 237, which would enable tenants to object to a landlord’s possible refusal of consent to enter financial assistance schemes.

I come to Amendment 159 in my name. This proposed new clause would encourage agricultural smallholdings in areas close to towns and cities. In terms of the Bill, there are a number of advantages.

The first is consistency with the Government’s commitment to building houses where people want to live. Many would like to live in the countryside; however, very often this is not possible due to planning constraints and the high costs to applicants of gaining permission. The proposed new clause would allow for the development of affordable green homes arising from government incentives to local authorities for that purpose. Local authorities might then incentivise the private sector to invest in this type of endeavour. Along with other locations, green-belt sites could be used. Since we are considering agricultural smallholdings, these would not be subject to current urban restrictions applying to green belts.

Secondly, the developments would be combined smallholding, home and work spaces. Residents would have two occupations: farming some land; and working from home. An example might have 30 houses and 180 acres of farmland, thus 6 acres per unit. A typical occupant might farm vegetables in polytunnels while also working part-time as an IT consultant via high-speed internet. Post coronavirus, two interconnected trends have emerged: a greater demand for property in the countryside and a growing potential of being able to work from home. The proposals outlined thus fit in with those new demands in facilities.

Thirdly, the projects, as envisaged, would provide fresh, high-quality produce to local urban markets, thus strengthening the United Kingdom’s food security, while assisting government aims for the countryside by increasing opportunities for rural employment.

Fourthly, in connection with this Bill, the farming methods adopted by these smallholdings would qualify to benefit from this financial assistance for the purposes detailed in Clause 1. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can support this proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Dundee [V]]

My Lords, I agree with Amendment 170, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, which calls for United Kingdom food security reports properly to reflect the necessary link between food provision, diet and the environment. Amendment 169, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and others, points out that such reports ought to assess not just food supply but how much of it is wasted—a point made by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. Clearly, these reports must also be closely connected to targets and actions, as additionally emphasised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and others. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, I am also in favour of her Amendment 62, which would require the Government to produce their report on food security annually, rather than every five years, as in the Bill.

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the amendments in this group that propose that the required reporting cycle should be more frequent than at least every five years. A more frequent reporting cycle will give the Government and others a quicker and clearer understanding of the issues and emerging trends, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. At Second Reading, I also said that a more comprehensive understanding of the realities would be gained from reporting if it included reference to emissions, climate change impact and supply chain sustainability. I therefore welcome the spirit of Amendments 163 and 172, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Their exact detail may differ from what I was proposing, but they would broaden the scope and context of the reporting in a not dissimilar direction, as well as encouraging the Government to detail any proposed changes to policy.

Finally, while declaring my interests as a Scottish farmer, I note that certain amendments in the group, notably Amendment 164, seek to ensure liaison, co-ordination or collaboration with the devolved Administrations. This should be seen as an important objective, both in Clause 17 and elsewhere in the Bill.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Dundee Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I fully support Amendment 226, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It implies four actions: first, analysis and monitoring of the harmful impact of pesticides; secondly, proper research into alternative methods of pest control; thirdly, such alternatives should be not just researched but, once identified, used so that they take over from pesticides; therefore, fourthly, an inferred timetable, with target dates set for phasing out pesticides, without which discipline the aspiration and process of replacing them at all is likely, yet again, to be procrastinated and prevaricated.

Some may even argue that the harmful effects of pesticides require no further analysis and monitoring in any case, pointing out that despite overwhelming evidence that a variety of these are carcinogenic, and that others pollute air, food and environment alike, nothing much has ever been done to control them, and that any future corroboration would probably be similarly disregarded and equally given short shrift. What might work much better, however, is to adopt a firm, balanced and comprehensive approach in the first place. If so, that is exactly the essence of this amendment, which calls for and contains several other elements alongside, and additional to, the request for continuing analysis of damage caused. Such a pragmatic approach is relevant, taking into account that, as long ago as 1975, Fred Peart, when he was Minister of Agriculture, correctly wrote:

“The repeated use of pesticides, even in small quantities, can have cumulative effects which may not be noticed until a dangerous amount has been absorbed.”


Looking back between then and now, sadly, this statement of 44 years ago only too clearly reveals also that successive Governments have been well aware of the cumulative effect of pesticides but have taken hardly any action to give protection against them to rural communities, wildlife and waterways.

Of course, as my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Blencathra have pointed out, some pesticides are not as bad as others, but the framework of Amendment 226 would enable such qualifications to be taken into account. Following its direction, target dates should now be set for phasing out pesticides and replacing them with alternative methods. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can endorse that prescription.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[The Earl of Dundee]

228: After Clause 34, after subsection (2)(c) insert—
“(d) proposals to support landowners to make land available to new entrants and farming entrepreneurs.”Member’s explanatory statement
Within the land use context of the new Clause this amendment would enable the Secretary of State to support landowners to make land available to new entrants and farming entrepreneurs.

[The Earl of Dundee [V]]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and others, I support Amendment 227, which, as a proposed new clause, advises a land use strategy for England, as the noble Baroness explained.

First, it is consistent with the purposes of the Bill, for if we carry out the Bill’s dual intention of improved food security and environment conservation, we will have followed a different land use strategy in any case.

Secondly, however, we do need targets—this is what the noble Baroness’s amendment implies—for these are what strategies must use if they are to be successful. Meeting them does not have to be mandatory, but setting them in the first place makes it far more likely that we will get nearer to where we hope to be in 30 years’ time than if we do not start out with such targets in the land use strategy for England.

My Amendment 228 relates directly to the new clause suggested by the noble Baroness. It

“would enable the Secretary of State to support landowners to make land available to new entrants and farming entrepreneurs.”

As we are well aware, the average age of a United Kingdom farmer is 60—that has been mentioned frequently in our debates—yet for new and aspiring farmers, land continues to be hard to come by. Nevertheless, although it is a long-standing problem, we are now even more challenged in two ways.

We are challenged first by the terms of the Bill, for its twin aims of improved food security and land conservation require of our farmers ever more energy, vision and initiative; and, secondly, by the economic circumstances affecting and surrounding the United Kingdom, including the impact of cheap imports from the United States and of highly subsidised agricultural produce from European Union states. These considerations make it all the more necessary to encourage new entrants to farming.

On measures to increase their opportunities, the Scottish Land Commission recently made some useful recommendations proposing business incentives for young farmers and income tax relief incentives for landowners to make more land available. Provided that they already own three hectares of land and produce a workable plan, new entrants aged between 16 and 41 would qualify for a business grant, some of which would be paid at the outset and the balance of which would be paid at the end of four years if by then they have generated a stipulated amount of business income. Corresponding to this, under the current farm business tenancy scheme, income tax relief incentives would also be offered to landowners provided that they have contracted with a new entrant for not less than 10 years.

Does my noble friend the Minister agree that new entrants to farming are essential to the success of the Government’s intentions; that measures along the lines of the Scottish Land Commission’s recommendation would achieve a significant uptake; yet, that apart, but in the first place, the resolve of the Secretary of State to provide such incentives to encourage new entrants to farming should now be incorporated within the Bill? I beg to move.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have put down Amendment 228A largely because I had an amendment down in one of the mega-groups at the beginning of this Committee—that seems a long time ago now—which I never spoke to, because there was too much to speak to in that group and so I just ignored it. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, very carefully and kindly spoke at length about it, which I was very grateful for, and the Minister actually replied to my amendment, even though I had not spoken to it, so I got something out of it.

It seemed to me that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady—I am going senile, I think—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Earl, Lord Dundee.

[The Earl of Dundee [V]]

My Lords, on the need for better and clearer incentives to encourage many more new entrants into farming, and as indicated in my opening remarks, I believe that the Scottish Land Commission’s recent recommendations are well worth studying. These set out to provide mutually attractive incentives to both parties, landowners and new entrants, to form farming business contracts together.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to all noble Lords for their useful comments. I will look carefully at what has been said and possibly return to the matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 228 (to Amendment 227) withdrawn.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Dundee Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister and all those in Defra who have worked so hard between Committee and now to provide us with letters and briefings. The time they have given it is very much appreciated and will hopefully speed up this process.

I will speak primarily to Amendment 5 standing in my name, which seeks to ensure that public access is “granted voluntarily” in the ELM scheme

“by the recipient of that assistance.”

The Minister confirmed this during a virtual session we had the other day, and it is important that he puts it on the record, because there has been some confusion as to whether Defra would be able to impose any of the conditions in Clause 1(1)(a) to (j) as part of giving a grant. If the Minister could assure me that each and every one of them is voluntary, that would be a help.

I support what the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has just said. His wording in Amendment 2 is better than that in the Bill. I also support what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said about irresponsible behaviour. It is important to remember that irresponsible behaviour is both ways—both by those who come to the countryside to take exercise and walk along a footpath, and also by the farmer who prevents that for various reasons.

Your Lordships will recall that, in Committee, I went on at some length about litter, which is the blight of Covid-19. I got an email from somebody who said, “You’re absolutely right but don’t forget the farmers, who leave an awful lot of litter around, from their black plastic sacks and other things”—and that is absolutely right. I wrote back to him and said I totally agreed with him. The responsibility has to act both ways, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that it does when the Bill becomes an Act.

I would also like to ask my noble friend about the status of access. If it is a voluntary agreement as part of an ELM scheme, what is the status when that part of the ELM scheme comes to an end? If it is a five-year agreement and there is voluntary access at the end of five years, does that access become statutory or just fade away?

A final thought: when we are talking about access, one of the great things that Covid has shown is that if you give animals and birds a bit of peace, they will come out and show themselves and they will prosper more than when they have humans around. There are certain times of year when the use of footpaths is not helpful to breeding animals and birds, and I hope that there will be a bit of flexibility on both sides to ensure that these rights benefit animals and birds as well as human beings.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which encourage public access and improved accessibility. Equally, I am in favour of Amendment 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness. Public access should not be forced on farmers just because they have been given financial help. That would be inconsistent with the purposes of the Bill. What should happen instead, as proposed by my noble friend, is that, where relevant, access would be

“granted voluntarily by the recipient of … assistance.”

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

I have a suspicion that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, had not quite finished, but we will return to him if he indicates he had not completed his remarks.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

No, I have finished my remarks.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

Would the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, please finish his remarks?

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

I confirm that I have finished my remarks already.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

I beg your pardon: they were worth waiting for. The next speaker will therefore be the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 8, 21 and 23. I say again that I am very pleased that the Government have added a definition of the word “agroecology” to the Bill. That is a great step forward. I not only thank the Government but congratulate them on recognising this type of agriculture as something that is not just from the past—although it looks to the past for many of its methods and ethics—but is an important way to move forward. The motive of the amendments I have put forward—and I thank the noble Earls, Lord Dundee and Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support—is to reinforce that message within the Bill.

The area that is not mentioned is agroforestry, which is equivalent. This is not the forestry that the Forestry Commission is into—not that I have anything against that generally—but is around integrating forestry into whole-farm management. Benefits from water management include biodiversity, crops from those trees, silviculture and even energy. So the motive of these amendments is to up a style of whole-farm management that looks to the future and entirely fulfils the reason for having ELMS and this new funding structure. I very much hope that the Government, having taken this one step forward, will be able to take it further forward as well.

My Amendment 21 adds to the word “agroecology” at the top of page 3 of the Bill, which states that

“‘better understanding of the environment’ includes better understanding of agroecology”.

I am just suggesting that we add “and agroforestry” to the Bill. I am sure that that is something the Government would wish to promote in the new financing structures and I can see no reason why it would change the meaning of the Bill in any way. If the Minister could do that, I would be hugely grateful to him, knowing of his commitment to the future of farming and ways of farming that promote biodiversity.

That biodiversity and quantum of nature, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just mentioned, are crucial to how ELMS rolls out. I will be talking about this later, so I will not say more about it now, but biodiversity is something that agroecology and agroforestry can promote to achieve what the Government want.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support a number of themes and their corresponding amendments in this group. They suggest that more should be done in the Bill to promote them. The first is consistency between encouragement of production and of ancillary activities. However, Clause 1(2) almost implies a division between them, because the Bill implies that, although the Secretary of State might support both, equally he might choose to give a great deal of help to one and nothing much to the other. To that extent, Amendment 10 in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbrook usefully deals with this anomaly. It is also addressed by my Amendment 20, which also seeks backing for primary production and ancillary activities on peri-urban farms supplying food.

Secondly, as indicated by my Amendment 13, the allocation of rural development funding to local food infrastructures would enable the Secretary of State to continue and enhance rural development funding, previously available from the European Union, to invest in local food infrastructures. Clearly, investment in local food will improve the financial viability of all farm businesses, create many jobs, strengthen our domestic food system and decrease carbon emissions by reducing food miles, while facilitating access to fresh and nutritious food, to the advantage of all.

--- Later in debate ---

The RSPB report that came out yesterday was called A lost decade for nature. We have an opportunity here not to lose the next decade, and I believe that we should start by making sure that that transition period is not seven years but five. For us—an advanced nation that knows what we are doing and has the experience of a good agricultural sector—surely, that has to be possible. Many, many farmers out there are already carrying out the sort of agricultural practices we want to see and that have been shown to be practical. They are there as an example and I hope that the Government will listen and reduce this period, rather than give into the temptation, as some noble Lords want, to extend it.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

In this grouping, I support various amendments on monitoring and analysis. First, Amendment 18, from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, advises that impact assessments be published and that public responses to them be taken into account before financial schemes are themselves launched.

Secondly, and correspondingly, my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering’s Amendment 30 would have the Government set out expenditure levels and their predicted outcomes as part of their multiannual financial plans. I am also in favour of Amendment 34, from noble Earl, Lord Devon, which would improve parliamentary scrutiny by insisting that multiannual financial assistance plans be considered for at least two months before coming into effect.

I also support Amendment 32, from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. We have just heard him eloquently express the reasons why he advocates this. The five-year period, rather than seven, more accurately reflects how long developments arising from the Bill are likely to take. Thus, the amendment prevents an unnecessary delay or transition from the old payment system to the new one.

Finally, I support Amendment 47, from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which correctly points out that financial assistance to United Kingdom farmers should take into account how they are operating and competing within the international economy.

[The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]]

My Lords, Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, is this weekend—Shanah Tovah.

The seven-year period cited in Amendment 33 is not accidental. We all know of the seven fat and seven thin cows of the pharaoh’s dream in Exodus. Jewish law prescribes a seven-year agricultural cycle, with a fallow year—the Shmita—every seventh year. What was good for Moses should be good for us, and we should set our agricultural policy in seven-year cycles.

The transition period is seven years and the period between multiannual financial assistance plans should be the same. This will allow farmers longer to plan and to commit resources to the published policy. It will permit farmers time to recover from any poor harvest, avoid the politicising of multiannual financial assistance plans and remove their coincidence with the five-year political cycle.

As to Amendment 34, along with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I note that the Government have published their own Amendment 35, under which they agree to publish the multiannual financial assistance plan at least 12 months before it comes into effect for all instances other than the first one. However, the first plan is by far the most important. It will make by far the greatest impact on farming and take by far the greatest effort to distribute within the farming community. My amendment seeks at least two months’ notice before January’s plan comes into effect, but even this will not be permitted, it appears. We are told the plan will be available this autumn, but I note that the autumn ends on 21 December.

Just this morning, I spoke with representatives of the Dartmoor hill farmers, who are hugely concerned. These small farmers see the Dartmoor National Park, the Duchy of Cornwall and other large commercial bodies secretly trialling ELM schemes about which these small farmers are wholly ignorant. They are really scared that the rules are changing for large wealthy land managers, who can afford professional assistance, while they—the actual farmers—remain wholly in the dark as to what is coming, as do we.

As to the compelling arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I fear that five years will only increase the negative impacts of what may be a chaotic transition. The noble Lord listed many species that he sees fewer of now. I would ask him to consider whether he sees more crows, magpies, buzzards, badgers and foxes than he used to. Their impacts on nesting farmland birds are well established.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Dundee Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 52 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and then to Amendment 57 tabled in my name. I am grateful for the way in which the Minister has listened closely to the House and brought forward amendments. This is immensely helpful. On Tuesday, several noble Lords rehearsed the reasons we need the highest levels of food security possible, and I will not repeat those arguments now. Although I agree that this is a difficult call, my personal view is that annual reporting would be preferable. Nevertheless, I shall listen carefully to the arguments as they are made.

On Amendment 57, while I welcome the Government’s commitment to produce a regular report on food security, it is vital that this is a means by which Her Majesty’s Government can express their policy targets and mechanisms to address any issues in this area. Currently, the provisions in the Bill envisage a fairly static output that merely reports on the current food security situation rather than a more dynamic report which seeks to set out an agenda for change where change is required. There is little point in the Government merely producing a report of which Parliament is required to take note; we need a platform for evaluation, repurposing and, of course, to inform future actions. At the very least, it will be essential to ensure that food security targets are both met and monitored. Where the report indicates that there are issues with aspects of our food and environmental security, the Government must come forward with their plans and policies for addressing those shortcomings.

This amendment would provide the necessary architecture for the Government to take the matter forward and ensure responsibly that the UK is adequately prepared for any future uncertainties. It would be a failure if, having taken the time to consider the importance of having a food security report, we do not also ensure that it is used to inform changes in policy and procedures. A statutory requirement for Her Majesty’s Government is needed to address these issues and it needs to be included in this Bill.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 53 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which recommends that government reports on food security should take into account measures of household food insecurity. As the noble Baroness has just pointed out, it would be anomalous if in isolation, on its own, some assessment of national food security were to have a good reading while at the same time, United Kingdom household food security might have a poor one. That inconsistency would be prevented by this amendment, which requires the Government’s report to consider household food insecurity alongside food security.

I am also in favour of Amendment 57, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, on specifying food security targets so that thereafter, actions can be taken to ensure that they are met. The prescription within the amendment is irrefutable, for how can we proceed efficiently and competently if we do not state and specify targets in the first place? If we do not use targets at all, how then can we properly calculate any future level of progress and judge whether we have acted correctly to attain certain levels of food security in the United Kingdom?

I come now to Amendment 55 in my name on supply sources of livestock feed as an input to food production and the reliance on the food supply chain. As I pointed out in Committee, there are three major disadvantages from imported animal feed. First, these imports undermine the country’s food security. Secondly, there is the carbon footprint arising from their production and transport. Thirdly, there is the environmental damage which their cultivation causes in certain countries, notably soya beans in Brazil and Argentina.

In 2019, imports of animal feed broke a record by exceeding £2.4 billion. The feed is mostly soya or intensively produced grain being grown by companies that are responsible for deforestation in the Amazon. If we use feed from land that should be forest, we are adding to the destruction of an ecosystem which sustains our climate and biodiversity. Regarding the resolve to increase our own homegrown animal feed supply as much as possible, my noble friend the Minister has already referred to the Pulse Crop Genetic Improvement Network, a project due to end in 2023. Its aims include the production of better quality animal feed and to discover alternatives to imported soya beans. Based on the existing level of research, can my noble friend say what targets can already be set both for the reduction of imported feed and an increase in homegrown feed?

Meanwhile, United Kingdom importers could be encouraged to buy feed from countries that demonstrate similar environmental standards to those of the United Kingdom, and perhaps guided in this endeavour by international certification bodies. Does my noble friend agree with that? If so, what steps might the Government now take to buy from certain countries rather than others and to make use of international certification bodies?

[Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. What we are talking about is very important and it is heading in the right direction but the approach should be much more about management by exception, as they say in the private sector. Crucial targets and standards should be set and there should be reporting when things go wrong. It should not be a matter of waiting a year, two years or three years. There should be indicators and then the Government should report to Parliament when things are going wrong. It means doing that at the earliest time and saying what is being done to put it right. That is slightly similar to how, in the private sector, companies are required to give profit warnings if the track they indicate they are following is being deviated from. There should be a much more dynamic approach to this question. I would like to see standards set and reports produced when the standards are not being met.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on moving this amendment, which on the face of it has much to commend it and covers a wide-ranging issue. In his introduction, he stated that he wanted to put in the Bill what the Government are committed to doing to deliver safe, healthy and affordable food to all. I cannot imagine that any Member of your Lordships’ House would disagree with that.

We are very fortunate to benefit from the expertise and knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who is, of course, a member of the advisory panel on the national food strategy, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, all of whom have signed this amendment.

The noble Lord also went on to say that the Government are committed to publishing a White Paper six months after the publication of part 2 of what I call the Dimbleby report on the national food strategy. After that, Mr Dimbleby is invited to review progress six months later. My concern with the amendment, and I look forward to what the Minister will say in summing up the debate, is that it pre-empts part 2 of the national food strategy. It is not always that I say this, but again I commend the Minister in this regard, because the Government seem to be on the side of the angels and have commissioned Henry Dimbleby to produce his report. I pay tribute to Mr Dimbleby and all those who have contributed, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, Minette Batters and a host of others who have huge expertise and add great value in this field.

I understand, looking at the first part of the national food strategy, that the recommendation covers two main themes: making sure that a generation of our most disadvantaged children do not get left behind, that eating well in childhood is seen as the very foundation stone of equality and opportunity, and so it goes on; and then the second part of part 1, which I am going to draw on heavily when I come to later amendments. Mr Dimbleby talks of the essence of sovereignty being freedom, saying that this is a one-time opportunity to negotiate our new trade deals, that the Government must protect the high environmental and animal welfare standards of which our country is justifiably proud, and so it goes on.

So I am slightly confused, because I do not disagree with one iota of what is in this amendment. But there are many issues that I have found cause to criticise the Government on, and my noble friend has been patient in the extreme in listening to this, both outside and inside the Chamber, and I thank him for that. But when the Government have gone to the lengths of commissioning a national food strategy, are we not being a little pre-emptive in Amendment 58 before the House this evening?

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 58 on the national food strategy in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, connecting as it does to the useful Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which we have just debated and which recommends that government reports on food security should include assessments of household food insecurity.

As has been said, healthy food and a healthy environment are central to the Bill; therefore, it would be consistent with the Bill if the Secretary of State should present a food strategy to Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has indicated, its aims should be to increase sustainability of food production, to support food production and consumption and, not least, to improve dietary health and reduce obesity. I hope the Minister will back this proposal.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Dundee Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, I alert the House that we have been having some technical difficulties with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, but I hope that he is now on the line.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support these amendments on controlling the application of pesticides. The amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others helpfully consider the consequences of different wind conditions, calling for the analysis and monitoring of effects, as well as for immediate limitations on pesticides use in wind conditions that threaten dwellings, water sources and members of the public. Her Amendment 76 usefully urges that when pesticides are already labelled as harmful, it should then become an offence to fail to inform residents living within a certain radius of the pesticide application that such an application is to occur. I am also in favour of Amendment 78, from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which seeks to ban pesticide applications near buildings where people live and work.

I come now to my own Amendment 80, which addresses two aspects: first, the need to develop targets for the adoption of integrated pest management associated with agroecological farming practices, including organic farming; and, secondly, and connected to these targets, to develop a system of analysis. This would monitor the reduction of harm to people and animals and the reduction of pesticide residues in food.

In Committee, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield gave a number of reassurances. These covered government backing for research into alternatives to pesticides and other chemicals. She pointed out that the transforming food programme, which includes methods such as robotics and vertical farming, might well cause pesticide use to diminish. As a result, does my noble friend agree that there is already consistency between what the Government confirm and what Amendment 80 seeks? Does she also consider that there is no divergence between confirmed government plans and the amendments in this grouping from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty? These latter amendments simply advocate safeguards and the expedience of good practice until alternatives to pesticides are successfully found.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[The Earl of Dundee]

79: After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning guidance for agricultural smallholdings
The Secretary of State may create planning guidance for local authorities to facilitate the development of combined smallholding home and work spaces for the following purposes—(a) to encourage the construction of affordable rural houses;(b) to create employment in farming and ancillary enterprises;(c) to increase supplies of locally grown fresh food to improve food security;(d) to increase productivity and profitability through agroecological farming on smallholdings; and(e) to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, regenerate soil fertility and nurture biodiversity through smallholder farming.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would enable the Government to give guidelines to local authorities to encourage combined smallholding home and workspace development, thus promoting employment whilst also increasing local food supplies through productive and profitable agroecological smallholder farming.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, this proposed new clause would enable the Government to give guidance to local authorities. Many new entrepreneurs would like to set up agricultural smallholdings and to start viable businesses connected with high-quality jobs to do with farming and local food production, but are still prevented by restrictive planning regulations. The aim instead should clearly be to encourage innovative smallholding and workplace developments, promoting employment and affordable housing as well as increasing local food supplies through more productive and profitable agroecological farming. Since such smallholdings deliver significant public goods to the environment and society, they deserve full recognition and backing within planning policy.

I moved a similar amendment in Committee, not so much in terms of planning guidelines but instead to ask the Minister, my noble friend Lord Gardiner, what his views were on the scope and benefit of these projects. He could not have been more supportive. He pointed out that the Government, as stated in Defra’s Farming for the Future: Policy and Progress Update last February,

“intend to use the powers under Clause 1 to offer funding to councils, landowners and other organisations to invest in … opportunities for new entrants to access land”.

He also mentioned the Government’s resolve to “work with local authorities” and other institutions, mentioning that

“further details will be set out in the Government’s multiannual financial assistance plan.”—[Official Report, 21/7/20; col. 2134.]

He drew our attention to how local authorities would now be able to use rural sites for the delivery of affordable housing and how the National Planning Policy Framework will help the building of homes in isolated areas.

I am very grateful to my noble friend and, regarding smallholdings, much heartened by the positive background he explained. However, there are two different kinds of smallholding under discussion: county farms controlled by local authorities and the different kind of smallholding, not owned or controlled by local authorities yet entirely dependent on permission from local authorities to be able to establish or develop at all. Perhaps these two types may not have been sufficiently distinguished from each other in Committee. That is why I have brought back a revised amendment on planning guidance.

For instance, a modern agricultural smallholding might well combine farming with other work. Residents would have two occupations: farming some land and working from home. An example could be 30 houses and 180 acres of farmland, thus six acres per unit. A typical occupant might farm vegetables in polytunnels while also working part-time as an IT consultant via high-speed internet.

Post coronavirus, two interconnected trends emerge: a greater demand for property in the countryside and the growing potential of being able to work from home. The proposals outlined therefore fit in with those new demands and facilities. At the same time, such projects would provide excellent fresh produce to local urban markets, as a result strengthening the United Kingdom’s food security while advancing government plans for the countryside by increasing opportunities for rural employment.

In connection with the Bill, the farming methods adopted by these smallholdings would qualify for financial assistance for the purposes detailed in Clause 1. In view of their relevance to the purposes of the Bill, yet taking into account the tendency of local authorities hitherto to be restrictive, does my noble friend Lady Bloomfield agree, first, that the Secretary of State might now give planning guidance to local authorities to facilitate the development of combined home and work spaces for the purposes outlined in this amendment? Secondly, even if planning permissions are now less likely to be withheld or procrastinated over than they previously have been, there would be all the more consistency if the Government were to offer such guidance as envisaged. In any case, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

No noble Lord has indicated to me that they wish to come in after the Minister, so I call the Earl of Dundee.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their comments and support, as I am to my noble friend Lady Bloomfield for her positive evaluation of this amendment. As already indicated, the focus here is not upon the merits of agricultural smallholdings, which are already recognised by the Government and by your Lordships. The issue instead is whether the Government should give planning guidance for local authorities to facilitate these developments. My own view, shared perhaps by many noble Lords, is that such government guidance would not unreasonably constrain or inhibit local authorities; yet at the same time, it would help to reduce restrictions and delays. I understand that my noble friend might feel that this cannot immediately be done, but I appreciate the very positive context in which she is considering doing it. As time moves on, the Government might increasingly take a view which is translated to local authorities to good effect. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 79 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 89ZA, 93 and 103, and I simply ask the Government to honour their election manifesto commitment that

“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”


Amendment 93 would ensure, on a statutory basis, that import standards cannot be lowered to below equivalent domestic standards as part of free trade agreements. Such agreements cannot be a race to the bottom; environmental, animal welfare and food standards need to be protected and improved over time. Imported products produced to lower standards than required from UK farmers would undermine our farming industry and create unfair competition. Import standards have not been addressed in the Trade Bill, so they need to be addressed here. I do not accept the belief of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the Government can be trusted to stand by their word; we need statutory assurance.

For example, a few weeks ago, I was one of a number of Peers briefed by the Trade Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who said that such standards issues would be best dealt with by differential tariffing against substandard imports. I remain unconvinced that tariffs alone would effectively prevent the import of substandard products. However, I am very interested in Amendment 103 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which would ensure that tariffing, combined with other measures, also worked in the interests of maintaining standards. It would be a useful, but not sufficient, condition.

Others have talked about labelling, but, with regard to standards, this will not work. If you are poor and hungry, cheaper food will be attractive irrespective of standards. To enshrine the Conservative manifesto commitment in primary legislation is, in my belief, entirely in line with World Trade Organization rules, which allow countries to put in place non-discriminatory measures designed to protect human, plant or animal health or a limited natural resource. The Government need to use fine UK ingenuity and leadership to design and justify sensible import restrictions, which could be made compatible with WTO rules; that is what Governments and trade negotiations are for.

We know that the US negotiating mandate for a free trade deal sees harmonising standards as a central objective, and this means harmonising them to their standards. We know that statutory instruments introduced using European Union (Withdrawal) Act powers have already deleted from the statute book considerable amendments governing, for example, antibiotic levels in foodstuffs. That is just one example of what can happen if we do not keep our eye on government commitments.

Once the transition is over, the Food Standards Agency adjudicates on the risks of foods and treatments, but its chief executive officer has recently said that Ministers have the final say on whether food produced to lower standards can make it onto UK supermarket shelves. I think that UK supermarkets will have a view on that. Maintaining high standards is supported by farmers, by 75% of the public and by major retailers across the board, and they are responding to the concerns of their customers. They will not stock produce that they believe their customers do not want to see on their shelves.

I know that the Government will want to maintain wiggle room in the trade negotiations, but, to be frank, the more they wiggle, the more they will reap the wrath of the people they are here to serve, who are committed to high food, environmental, employment and human health standards.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, within this grouping, I support my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s helpful amendments. First, on United Kingdom and EU standards, he corrects a misapprehension or, maybe, he forestalls it before it has time within the Bill to solidify as a regular misunderstanding. For, as he points out, there is no difference between domestic standards and European Union ones. They are identical.

Secondly, what is also insufficiently known—and as my noble friend also usefully observes—in certain respects, the UK and EU are not compliant with World Trade Organization rules. I am in favour of Amendment 103 of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which urges that United Kingdom global tariff rates should take into account the well-being of the agricultural sector and that imported goods must be equivalent to, or exceed, domestic standards.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will make a brief contribution. In fact, I was going to opt out altogether because I did not want to repeat anything that anyone else had said. Certainly, I support the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked at the beginning of the debate and, frankly, I expect the Minister to answer all six of them. They were quite specific.

It is worth pointing out that, unlike Ministers, the Food Standards Agency is actually required to do things by law. I will read out Section 1(2) of the Food Standards Act 1999:

“The main objective of the Agency in carrying out its functions is to protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food (including risks caused by the way in which it is produced or supplied) and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food.”


By law, Ministers do not have that obligation. They think they can hump it away in the Commons, but I have news for them: if they want to take on the role of Food Safety Minister, they ought to have a bit of a history lesson about salmonella, orange juice, BSE and CJD. Then they will realise why the FSA was put there in the first place. It was not a happy experience for previous Ministers without its support.

I will make one further point relating to what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has said about chlorinated chicken. I do not think I have got her wrong, but I do not want to mislead. She said that she could eat it safely because the issue was about animal welfare, not the safety of the food, and she is right. However, published research from the University of Southampton has shown that chlorine washing of food does not take away all the nasty bits. They started off, I think, by washing vegetables, but they have since looked at meat—I am not sure whether this was chicken or other meat. However, the fact is that this is not a solution to the problem.

The other thing that is also worth point out is that, in the United States of America, over 400 people a year die from salmonella. In this country, no one has died—I think there was one case in the last eight years—compared to 400-plus in the United States. I am not saying that it is because they ate chlorinated chicken, but I am saying that it is pretty unsafe in respect of deaths from salmonella in the United States, which seeks to push its food onto us without necessarily labelling it. Therefore, there are some issues here that must be carefully looked at.

As for the Minister, I have not been in my office or at my desk for well over 12 months, but I have a little file up there with at least a dozen quotes from the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, who is a reputable Minister, on food standards over the last three or four years. He has more of a claim than any other Minister to reassure the public and Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the four signatories—proposers and seconders—to Amendment 101, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. I support this amendment and added an amendment to it because I wanted to ensure that this Trade and Agriculture Commission had full representation from some of the people who should be on it. I notice that my noble friend Lord Naseby has added another amendment. Actually, I am not sure that my amendment is necessary; it was more to point out the lack of representation in these areas.

In the previous Division, I supported, some what reluctantly, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I did not do so because I doubted, even for one moment, the sincerity of my noble friend Lord Gardiner—I have immense respect for him—but I have been around politics for a while now, and I know that all parties can change manifesto commitments and find some way out of them. Sometimes it is more difficult to explain how they have changed them; for example, I remember a Conservative manifesto pledge about the expansion of Heathrow—“no ifs, no buts”—and that soon changed. I will not get on to that hobby horse at the moment, but I am saying that, despite assurances, things can change.

Therefore, I will address this amendment’s extension of the remit of the Trade and Agriculture Commission beyond the short period for which it has been set up. I believe it was set up because the Government needed something to try to quell those who were anxious about where the Government were going. I do not think it went far enough. We just sent something back to the Commons, having agreed the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and—from my 12 years’ experience as a Whip in the other place—I think there is every chance of it being overturned.

However, as has been said, the Government have a wonderful opportunity; as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, put it, what is not to like about this amendment? As we heard, it has the support of the NFU, the CLA, environmental bodies and that well-known left-wing organisation the Mail on Sunday. Therefore, this is not some bearded environmentalist’s amendment; this is something that I think the public would like to see as a matter of reassurance. The Government could take credit for accepting this amendment—or tabling their own modification—to reassure the country that we will not be sacrificing our standards to gain a particular trade benefit. Of course those trade deals are incredibly important, but not at any price.

I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to have a good look at the amendment and to think that if the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, puts it to the House, I will be supporting him. I am sorry to say to my noble friend Lord Naseby that I will not be pressing my own amendment, but we ought to look at some sort of compromise that will sort out this remaining issue.

Most of the time when I have spoken, it has been about the environment and so forth. This is one issue where I am fully supportive of farmers and their livelihoods.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

I agree with my noble friend Lord Trenchard on the question of criteria to ensure that UK standards comply with WTO rules. However, in this grouping my main consideration is the composition of the Trade and Agriculture Commission itself. So far, the suggested membership comprises larger industry representation and experts covering quite a narrow group of issues. It does not take in those for environmental matters, climate, pesticides, food safety and other public interests; nor does it those from small and family farms. Consequently, arising from current proposals for this type of restricted TAC membership, there is the worry that problems raised by the public and farmers’ organisations would not be sufficiently addressed, the public interest thereby becoming neglected and even undermined.

That is why Amendment 104 in my name seeks to broaden the composition of the TAC to make it more representative and effective, hence the proposal that its membership instead should look after a much wider field of public interest. That would include animal welfare; climate; pesticides; food safety; hygiene and traceability; agricultural livelihoods; the protection of the environment, including forests; and fair trade with developing countries. I am sure the Minister would agree that this might be a better way to proceed.

[Lord Trees (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 101 in the name of my noble friend Lord Curry of Kirkharle. The Government are well aware of the great concerns shared by farmers, the veterinary profession—of which I am a proud member—animal welfare and environmental bodies and, above all, the public about maintaining standards in food, animal welfare and the environment as we embark on negotiating trade agreements in a global market where standards and prices vary greatly and low prices may correlate with low standards, environmental exploitation and, indeed, human exploitation. We must set a threshold of high standards to our global trading partners and, to use a familiar term, level up where necessary.

I hear the Government’s repeated assurances that standards will not be compromised but assurances, to use an old English proverb, butter no parsnips. I regret to say that I am still unconvinced by the Government's arguments explaining their reluctance to incorporate a commitment to standards in this Bill. I also still wonder at the inconsistency of a situation where there is a determination to maintain a legally dubious ban on chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-treated beef but not to provide our trade negotiators with minimum requirements for much more significant animal welfare, public health or environmental concerns.

That said, the establishment of the Trade and Agriculture Commission is to be welcomed, and the Government are to be commended on this pragmatic step. The commission incorporates much expertise and has been given important goals. But—I am sorry that there is a “but”, and it is a big one—born in July, the commission will be dead by December, which is hardly enough time to grow some feathers, let alone fly. With such expertise at its disposal, as we just begin to negotiate trade agreements—a process that will continue for years in a rapidly changing environment—would it not be wise to maintain the commission until it is clear that it is no longer required?

We understand that other existing bodies will ensure the maintenance of current standards. The Food Standards Agency has a proven track record of assuring food safety and I am confident that our food safety will not be compromised, partly because its independence is guaranteed in statute—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in an earlier debate. But which body or bodies will be monitoring, auditing and inspecting, if necessary in countries of origin, animal welfare and environmental standards in the future? If it is to be the FSA, it will need much enhanced resources and expertise.

The recent trade agreement with Japan is welcome news, and we have been assured, in a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, of 11 September, that

“we have maintained all existing protections for our high standards of … animal welfare”.

But in the World Animal Protection ratings for farm animal welfare legislation, Japan has a G, which is substantially lower than the UK’s rating. Japan has no specific legislation on animal transportation, the rearing of pigs, laying hens or chickens, and still permits sow stalls and conventional battery cages, in contrast to the UK, which prohibits sow stalls, veal crates and conventional battery cages for laying hens, and has extensive legislation on animal transportation. While the UK has legislation preventing the import of meat not slaughtered to UK standards, will that prohibition be maintained for all countries and, if so, how?

Echoing a question from my noble friend Lord Krebs in the debate on Amendment 93, which body or bodies are going to ensure animal products imported from Japan or anywhere else are produced to standards of welfare and husbandry, and with due regard to environmental standards, that are not lower than we demand of our own farmers? In reply to Amendment 93, the Minister said that we will repatriate audit and inspection capability hitherto provided by the EU, but I ask the Minister, who is going to carry out these vital audit and verification functions? Are they ready and fit for purpose? What about their independence?

This whole issue merits continuing oversight of welfare and environmental standards by an independent group of experts analogous to the Food Standards Agency. The BSE and other food crises demonstrated, historically, the need for and value of an independent body to oversee aspects of our food. It led to the creation of the Food Standards Agency. It separated the conflicted interests of Defra, which quite properly supports the producers and suppliers of our food, from the role of protecting our consumers. Surely it is in the Government’s interest and is a basic tenet of good regulatory process that these two functions—supporting providers and safeguarding consumers—be separated.

I have a last question. While the TAC is due to be wound up after it reports in December, the minutes of its first meeting in August show that it is considering the enduring need for a similar group or groups in the longer term. I ask the Minister, if the commission advises that it ought to have a continuing role or that a similar body be created with a similar role, will the Government give that genuine and serious consideration?

In conclusion, I strongly support this amendment to ensure that, for imported food products, there is an independent body of expertise in animal welfare and environmental standards to advise the Government on future trade agreements.