South West Water

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

I was about to remind hon. Members to bob if they want to speak, but it looks as though I do not have to. I gently urge Members to restrict their comments to about five minutes. I call Luke Pollard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) on securing this debate. I have spent many summer holidays in his constituency over the years, so it was great to hear those names.

This issue is vital, so I welcome the opportunity to discuss the performance of South West Water in more detail. There are lessons for us to learn about the whole sector by examining this case, but many of the issues that have been raised are specific to the south-west. Although there are strong opinions on this issue, there were some very valuable contributions to what has been an excellent debate.

The first point made by the hon. Member for East Devon that is worth repeating is the fact that across the country, many people working for water companies have become the victims of harassment. They are not in any way responsible, and I echo his point about that. He welcomed, as others did, the recent increase in funding for the Environment Agency. However, the context is that the Environment Agency had a 50% cut from 2010 to 2022. If it is the case, as I believe it is, that more money for the Environment Agency will improve the quality of its monitoring, it must be accepted that the huge cuts it experienced in the first 12 years of this Government have been a contributory factor.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) spoke about the need for more honesty from South West Water, which other Members repeated. He spoke powerfully about how important the issue is for his constituents. He also invited us to imagine him swimming in various amounts of Lycra, which many people will have enjoyed when thinking about his outdoor swimming. It is important that we reflect on the fact that swimming is key to both the enjoyment of people in the south-west and the economy down there.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) reflected on the lack of investment in infrastructure over many years. She also said, in what was a very good speech, that she believed that South West Water had not been honest. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) spoke about the specific challenges in the local area, particularly the fact that it is a popular tourist destination, with the population expanding hugely in the summer months. That has specific consequences, and is not necessarily reflected in who pays the bills. He also questioned where the responsibility for companies stood between shareholders and the general environmental good. Businesses have a statutory responsibility to respond to their shareholders, which is why it is down to Government to have responsibility for ensuring that they perform to environmental standards as well. That informs much of the approach that the Labour party takes.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) identified a failure of investment between 2012 and 2015. She placed responsibility at the feet of the Lib Dems, who were in government with the Tories at that time, but we would say that it has happened throughout the past 14 years. She also took the unusual step of suggesting that the major issue that people were angry about was the performance of the local campaign group, which I have to say is a new development that I was not expecting.

The recent report by the Rivers Trust, “State of Our Rivers”, which was published only last week, shows that the dial overall has not shifted on the health of our waterways. Not a single English river is in good overall health, and that has not changed since the previous report in 2021. A multitude of factors inform water health, but 54% of rich river stretches failed because of activities attributed to the water industry. That simply is not good enough.

Yesterday, along with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, I spoke at the launch of the election manifesto for the Surfers Against Sewage campaign. It was a shame that the Government were not able to send the Minister, although he was intending to go. It is an important coalition, because the issue is of huge importance to our constituents, particularly to the economy of the south-west. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton reflected, we heard from Jo Bateman about the powerful campaign that she is fighting for the ability to swim in clean waterways, recognised as an amenity that should be available to us all.

In preparing for this debate, I was pleased to hear about the work of Jayne Kirkham and Perran Moon, Labour’s parliamentary candidates for Truro and Falmouth and for Camborne and Redruth, respectively. They have supported protests and started petitions that add to the community fight to preserve Cornwall’s waterways. Jayne stressed that the discharges into Cornwall’s rivers was impacting on tourism and costing millions alongside the environmental damage.

Many people are concerned that Ofwat’s new growth duty will further reduce its ability to be a force for environmental good. When the Minister responds, I hope that he can set out how he sees that duty working alongside Ofwat’s responsibilities to improve environmental outcomes. Does the Minister agree that the perception that our waterways are not fit to swim in is damaging to growth as it depletes tourist revenue? If so, will he confirm whether he has instructed Ofwat that its new growth duty must mean that no sewage discharge is liable to reduce tourist growth?

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

Order. May I stop you? I am afraid you have run out of time.

[Mr Perkins]

Okay. Thank you, Mr Henderson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

That is why this Government have rolled out 100% monitoring of our storm overflows; once we have the data, we are able to hold failing water companies to account. That is exactly what this Government intend to do through our “Plan for Water”, which is all about more investment, stronger regulation and tougher enforcement.

I also wish to address some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) regarding South West Water’s resilience to drought, as I know many in the region experienced extended hosepipe bans. I am pleased to say that South West Water has informed us that, as of 22 February 2024, the Roadford reservoir is now at 100% capacity and Colliford is at 87%, showing significant improvement. The Environment Agency continues to work with the company on a range of new sources to improve resilience. I recently visited Hawks Tor, a former clay pit, that has been brought into the water supply to try to deal with some of those water resilience issues.

Many Members mentioned the issue of investment. Of course, addressing these concerns requires investment, and this responds to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). Following a DEFRA commission, Ofwat—which, it seems, the Lib Dems want to abolish—agreed to accelerate £128 million of funding to accelerate smart metering, build nutrient removal systems to improve river water quality and accelerate 15 storm overflow improvements in the Falmouth and Sidmouth catchments.

South West Water’s latest business plans include a significant £2.8 billion package of investment, which Ofwat is now scrutinising to ensure that it will truly deliver for customers and begin to turn its poor record around. Its commitments will also include achieving the lowest level of pollution incidence in the sector and significantly increasing water quality and water resilience by investment in new treatment works, reservoirs and tackling leakage. South West Water must now deliver on those ambitious plans, and this Government will hold it to account every step of the way. I look forward to my next meeting with the chief executive to be able to get an update on those plans.

I also wish to assure the House that the Government and our regulators, Ofwat and the Environment Agency, do not take underperformance lightly. As a result of failing to meet its performance commitments, Ofwat has directed South West Water to return £9.2 million to customers during the financial year of 2024-25, in addition to the £13.3 million returned in the financial year 2022-23. I again reiterate that, if the Lib Dems want to get rid of Ofwat, I am not quite sure who would be directing South West Water to do that.

South West Water was also instructed by Ofwat to produce a service commitment plan to demonstrate how it will meet the commitments made at the start of the current five-year price review period, and that was updated in November 2023. As I have said, I will shortly be meeting the chief executive of South West Water again to discuss progress on its plans and to hold the water company to account on its specific failures on pollution incidents.

When water companies fall short, we will not hesitate to hold them to account. Since 2015, the Environment Agency has secured fines of over £150 million, including a £2.1 million fine for South West Water in April 2023. Furthermore, under the action taken by this Government, we will be strengthening regulation to ensure that regulators have the tools to hold water companies to account. I want to thank all Members for their contributions today, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon for bringing this important debate before the House.

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman has one minute to wind up.

[Simon Jupp]

Thank you, Mr Henderson. This has been a really good debate, following on from the debate that I led last year as well. It is clear that people, on a cross-party basis, care about this. We have been paying South West Water bills for decades—I know my family has—and we all want to get value for money. We do not think that we have got that historically. If I may, I will make a point to the Liberal Democrats again. In January, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), when talking about the EA and Ofwat, said:

“the Government probably ought to be stepping in and removing those regulators”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 916.]

As ever, Lib Dem policy is as clear as mud.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the performance of South West Water.

Farmers, Supermarkets and Food Supply Chains

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered farmers, supermarkets and food supply chains.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I start by paying tribute to farmers, in particular those in my constituency, for their contribution to food security in the United Kingdom.

Food security is becoming increasingly problematic. A combination of unprecedented events has culminated in many farmers facing unsustainable pressures on their businesses, which could have long-term implications for our domestic food production capacity and food security if measures to support British farmers are not taken immediately.

The huge spikes and uncertainty in energy prices since the end of 2021 have had significant cost implications for primary producers. Annual inflation measures are now understating the cost pressures facing businesses and consumers, given that inflation has been apparent for over a year. According to data from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs itself, compared to the 2019 average, farm input cost inflation stands at 42%, with wholesale energy prices being one and a half times higher.

The UK is seeing a significant decline in production, as horticulture businesses struggle with unprecedented inflation, most notably in energy and labour costs. There are also seasonal shortages of business-critical workers, particularly in the horticulture sector. In the first half of 2022 alone, at least £22 million-worth of fruit and vegetables was wasted, directly because of such gaps in the workforce.

Two of the National Farmers Union’s key asks for the horticulture sector are for a minimum five-year rolling scheme for seasonal workers and the inclusion of horticulture in the energy and trade intensive industries scheme, to help to remove uncertainty and inject confidence in production.

Declining self-sufficiency, coupled with supply chain problems abroad, has resulted in empty supermarket shelves, and the more that we become reliant on imports, the more likely it is that we will see the level of market failure that has led to images of empty shelves across the UK.

In the national food strategy, the Government outlined their ambition to sustainably expand the national production of fruit, vegetables, plants and flowers. British farmers and growers are ready to meet this challenge. However, to achieve that, the Government’s growth agenda must be twinned with reform in the marketplace that levels up the balance of power in the agrifood supply chain and delivers a fair and functioning supply chain.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has just said something very helpful: British farmers stand ready. My farmers in Aberconwy have made the point that they are ready to step forward. However, does he agree that supermarkets have a duty to support farmers, and that they should not put undue cost pressures on farmers? Farmers need to be there tomorrow in order to deliver tomorrow, and there is a role for supermarkets in promoting farming, not just for their own interests but so that it is there tomorrow.

[Gordon Henderson]

I can only assume that my hon. Friend has been reading my speech, because if he is patient he will find that I will come on to that point.

British growers want to deliver on the Government’s vision for climate-friendly and sustainable land management, but there is a significant risk to our shared endeavour if we do not address market risks in parallel. Only profitable businesses can be sustainable and continue to invest in productivity and environmental outcomes. It is critical that retailers support British farmers and growers to be sustainable, achieve meaningful environmental gains, and invest in innovation and new technology. Food producers should have an equal stake in the value chain, with food processors and retailers sharing risk, data on performance and value gain.

Farm costs are a significant driver of food price inflation. According to the results of the 2022-23 NFU farmer confidence survey, farmers’ primary concern over the next 12 months is input prices, with 88% expecting negative effects. Data released by DEFRA in March shows that agricultural inputs have risen almost 42% since 2019. Inputs closely related to energy have seen the biggest inflation: energy and lubricants are up 58%. Although wholesale energy prices are falling, they remain one and a half times higher than normal. Fertilisers and soil improvers are up 161%, and animal feeds are up 50%. That is directly linked to the disruption caused by the war in Ukraine.

In recent months, the pressures in the horticulture supply chain have led to supermarkets rationing fresh fruit and vegetables. Soaring energy costs and the continued lack of people to pick crops pose a serious threat to the future of the UK’s fruit and vegetables industry. As a result, the industry is not able to mitigate the current supply chain shortages.

A report by Promar International in 2022 found that growers’ production costs increased by as much as 27% in the preceding 12 months, and that products such as tomatoes, broccoli, apples and root vegetables were most affected. The main drivers are energy, fertiliser and workforce costs. Farmers and growers across many sectors are doing what they can to mitigate rising costs, but they cannot be expected to absorb the additional pressure and risk in the supply chain alone.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making such an important speech on what I consider to be a matter of strategic importance to the UK. He is right to point out that farmers and growers cannot continue to absorb the input cost increases. Does he share my concern about the fact that, according to the latest NFU survey, 40% of beef farmers and 36% of lamb farmers have already said that they expect to reduce production in the light of the rising input costs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Henderson]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and it is not just livestock. In the garden of England—Kent—too many of our orchards have been dug up because they are not profitable any more. There is a growing lack of transparency in the communication received from retailers, in particular, and that leaves farmers in a vulnerable position. They have to absorb additional risk and are unable to plan and make important financial decisions during this extremely challenging period. If farmers and growers are unable to recoup costs, it will become unfeasible for them to run their businesses, resulting in a reduction in production. Ultimately, that will reduce competition.

I have spoken to a number of farmers in Kent, and I can cite examples of unfair practices by some retailers—particularly supermarkets. However, to do so would make it possible for those farmers to be identified, which they do not want for fear of losing business. That in itself is testament to the malign power of some supermarkets.

It is true that the groceries supply code of practice and the Groceries Code Adjudicator have had a transformative impact on the behaviour of buying teams and have helped to curb some of the worst abuses of market power. That is why I share the NFU’s view that any consideration of transferring the GCA’s functions to another public body, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, or removing it altogether, is misguided; that would have a hugely damaging impact on the groceries sector and, ultimately, consumers.

In my view, the farming industry is in crisis. In 2019, there were 149,000 registered agricultural businesses. In 2022, there were 142,000. That means that there are more than 7,000 fewer agricultural businesses today than in 2019.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

In the south-west of England, direct payments fell from 95% of total income from farming in 2016 to just 62% in 2021. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that that is affecting not only regions such as Kent, but the south-west? Both have seen a dramatic reduction in total income from farming as a result.

[Gordon Henderson]

I do agree. We are all in this together. That is the old saying, and it is true. Farmers across the UK—not just in England or Wales—are struggling. Without sustained, consistent and responsible action from all parts of the supply chain, we risk deepening a crisis that will lead to a significant contraction in supply to the marketplace and reduced availability of British produce, ultimately leaving many farmers and growers with no other option than to leave the sector altogether, which is what is happening.

To create a fair supply chain that supports food security, the sector needs to ensure sustainable farm-gate prices. In all farming sectors, DEFRA lacks the data it needs to monitor the market sufficiently and ensure that it is working properly. Without better data, the Government are unaware of what is happening in the marketplace and are therefore in no position to assess the market effectively, as required by section 20 of the Agriculture Act 2020. The Government need to support and invest in sufficient market infrastructure to enable markets to work efficiently, equitably and in the interest of food security. DEFRA needs capacity and expertise to conduct investigations of actual and potential market issues, and farmers need a concerted joining up of policy across Whitehall to unlock growth in the sector.

Finally, I want to explain what the NFU would like the Government to do. I appreciate that the Minister probably knows, but, given the current crisis in farming, the wish list bears repeating. The NFU wants the Government to produce an enhanced, policy-focused food security report that looks beyond food supply and supermarket shelves to assess the short, medium and long-term health of the food sector. The report should be published annually, as opposed to the three-year commitment in the Agriculture Act.

The NFU wants the Government to use section 20 of the Agriculture Act to conduct an urgent value chain inquiry into market failure in the poultry, meat, eggs and horticulture sectors, and to use powers under section 29 of the Act to continue progress with the dairy contracts code, develop equivalent approaches for other sectors and ensure that all are fit for purpose before legislation is introduced.

The NFU wants the Government to cement the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and publicly set out their commitment to its independence and powers. The NFU also wants the Government to publicly commit to supporting the work of the Food and Drink Sector Council and deliver a clear mandate for Departments to support its ambitions for sustainable growth.

The NFU wants the Government to establish a regular food forum with the DEFRA Secretary and senior executives, to support business engagement across the food sector—a similar concept to the Prime Minister’s Business Connect platform. The NFU wants the Government to set out their plans to invest in agricultural technology and innovation centres that bring benefits to UK farming, for example by taking the opportunity created by the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023.

The NFU wants the Government to ensure that food and farm businesses make a growing contribution to renewable energy generation and have affordable access to transmission infrastructure, improving the sector’s energy resilience and lowering greenhouse gas emissions from food. Finally, the NFU wants the Government to make changes to the planning system to permit development for the purposes of growing and processing fruit, veg, crops and livestock.

I thank Kent’s farmers and the NFU for feeding our nation. I assure them that they will always have my full support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Spencer]

We will look with interest at what the CMA finds. That is something we have looked at closely ourselves. It will require food producers and farmers to come forward with evidence to support the CMA, but that is why we launched our own investigation into the dairy sector. We are due to come back any moment with our findings and recommendations for how to support dairy farmers.

We have also indicated that we are going to support the pork sector and ensure that contracts are fit for purpose. Once we have delivered on that, we will be keen to look at the horticulture sector and the egg sector to ensure that the marketplace is working fairly for all in the industry. That demonstrates how seriously the Government take these challenges and issues. We will step in when we feel the market is not working equitably for all involved.

Last June, we published the Government food strategy, in which we set out our vision for a prosperous agrifood sector that ensures secure food supply in an unpredictable world and contributes to the levelling-up agenda through good-quality jobs all around the country. In the last year, farmers have continued to put great-quality food on our plates. The UK Farm to Fork summit is the next step in growing the thriving food and drink sector, with the aim of seeing more British produce on supermarket shelves in the UK and around the world. The summit focused on how Government and industry can work together to bring great British food to the world, build resilience and transparency across the supply chain, strengthen sustainability and productivity, and support innovation and skills—many of the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey called for.

The Prime Minister has been clear that growing the economy is one of his top priorities, and growing the food and farming sector is key to that.

[Gordon Henderson]

Does the Minister accept that farmers will only be able to help grow the produce if they are making a profit? Does he also accept that farmers are frustrated at retailers that too often force farm-gate prices down so that supermarkets can maintain their margins in the shops? We have to address that.

[Mark Spencer]

I understand my hon. Friend’s statement. It is right that we have a sharing of risk and responsibility in the supply chain and that primary producers get a fair price for their products. We also have to bear in mind that our consumers and constituents want to enjoy reasonable food prices. We do not want to drive food price inflation through the market, so it is important that we co-operate and work with retailers and those who manufacture in the food sector.

My hon. Friend referred to the Groceries Code Adjudicator and hoped that we would commit to keeping that as a separate authority. I can tell him that the Prime Minister announced this morning that we will keep the Groceries Code Adjudicator as a separate authority and it will not become part of the CMA, which I think is an indication of how important the sector is and that it requires its own Groceries Code Adjudicator.

Farmers should be paid a fair price for their produce. We have introduced new powers through the Agriculture Act 2020 to support the sector. We have made great progress in our reviews of the pig and dairy supply chains. We have recognised the impact of global events on the sectors in recent months, and the next reviews will take place in the egg and horticulture sectors, as I have already mentioned.

We can confirm, as I have said, that the proposed merger of the GCA will not go ahead. My Department has championed precision breeding, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey indicated, through the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. Building on the successful passage of the Act, we will convene a working group to bring plant breeders, food manufacturers and retailers together to agree an approach that enables precision-bred products to reach the shelves as soon as possible.

We will also improve future support for horticulture by replacing the retained EU fruit and vegetable producer organisation scheme when it closes in 2026 with an expanded offer, which will include controlled environment horticulture as part of our new farming

schemes. We will help the controlled environment horticulture sector overcome barriers to accessing future support and make it easier to build new glasshouses through changes to national planning policy.

Environment: Sittingbourne and Sheppey

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. I remind Members participating that they must remain here for the entire debate. I remind Members that they are visible at all times, especially to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks at [e-mail]. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room.

I call Gordon Henderson to move the motion.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered environmental matters in Sittingbourne and Sheppey constituency.

First, may I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani? Let me begin by making it clear that I fully endorse the Government’s long-term commitment to be the first generation to leave our environment in a better state than that in which we inherited it. With that in mind, I want to highlight some of the local environmental issue causing concern in Sittingbourne and Sheppey.

My constituency has a unique and varied natural environment. On the Isle of Sheppey, we have the Elmley nature reserve, a thriving coastline and some fantastic habitats for birds, including marsh harriers and a variety of wading birds. On the mainland, the bustling town of Sittingbourne is surrounded by a mixture of rural and built-up villages, all with a character of their own, including Iwade, which has its own nature reserve, attracting an abundance of wildlife throughout the year. All this wonderful countryside provides us not only with an enviable environment, but with many challenges for local communities. I want to address a few of those challenges.

When people contact me with concerns about our local environment, those concerns fall into a number of categories. Two main concerns revolve around the scourge of fly-tipping and littering. The impact that both of these thoughtless acts have on our local environment is huge. Not only is the discarded rubbish unsightly; it can be harmful to both humans and animals. I believe we need harsher punishments for people who are caught littering, with local authorities given more powers to clamp down on the offenders, as well as the resources needed to enforce those powers. However, fines are not the only answer. We also need to educate people about the antisocial nature of littering, most of which is caused by adults, who then set a bad example to their children. Those children pick up bad habits learned from their parents, which is why I set up the Litter Angels charity in Sittingbourne and Sheppey over a decade ago. Its sole purpose is to educate children about the harm associated with litter, and I am pleased to say that the charity has now extended the project into a number of other constituencies in Kent.

I turn to fly-tipping, which is littering on a larger scale. It is becoming a huge problem in Kent, including in my constituency. It places a financial burden on local landowners and farmers, who are seeing an increasing number of incidents in which lorry loads of rubbish are dumped on their land. They then have to pay to have the rubbish removed and disposed of, costing them hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of pounds.

I believe there are a number of reasons for the rise in fly-tipping. Two important causes are, first, the decision taken some years ago by Swale Borough Council to charge for the removal from homes of large items of waste, and, secondly, Kent County Council’s policy of restricting commercial companies’ access to its waste sites. I said at the time that both decisions were short-sighted and would lead to an increase in fly-tipping, and I was right. I appreciate that both decisions were taken for financial reasons. In my view, however, any cost saving made by our local authorities has been more than offset by the cost of cleaning up council-owned sites where fly-tipping takes place.

I believe the situation could be improved very quickly by reinstating the free collection of bulk waste and the free disposal of commercial waste at household waste recycling centres. Although this is an issue for the local authorities to resolve, I hope that Ministers will consider making the free collection of bulk waste and the free disposal of commercial waste a statutory requirement, backed up with the resources needed to implement it.

There is another environmental problem that last year blighted the lives of a number of residents in and around Iwade, the village I mentioned earlier. It became apparent that land in an area called Raspberry Hill Lane was being used to process building waste. For weeks, my constituents were subjected to the foul smell of melting rubber and burning, in addition to the noise and dust associated with the process. One result of this incident, which I believe is still taking place today, is the misuse of U1 exemption.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Mr Henderson, we seem to have lost your screen connection. Ah, you are back. Marvellous.

[Gordon Henderson]

I had got to one of the results of the incident, which I believe is still taking place today. It is the use of U1 exemptions to take waste from that site and dump it off the cliffs at the top of Warden Road on the Isle of Sheppey. I believe that the U1 waste exemption is a loophole that is open to abuse and should be closed.

According to the Government’s website, the U1 exemption allows for the use of suitable waste, rather than raw materials or items that are no longer waste, to be used in construction projects. For example, it would be in order, under the exemption rules, for crushed bricks, concrete, rocks and aggregate to be dumped to create a noise barrier around new development. Under the rules, it could then be topped off with soil and landscaped. It is also permitted to use road planings and rubble to build a track or path. Those are proper uses of the U1 exemption.

However, what is being done off the cliffs north of Sheppey is not a proper use. It is creating problems for residents who have to use the surrounding roads, and it harms the local coastal environment. That is the true danger of fly-tipping, which is a selfish act of throwing unwanted construction rubbish over a cliff. It appears that nothing can be done to stop those people, which is beyond belief. Apparently, because of the U1 exemption licence, the Environment Agency can do nothing. It does not seem to have the resources to monitor the terms of the licence to ensure that they are being observed. The problem could be solved by making the Environment Agency responsible for authorising, issuing, monitoring and enforcing the proper use of U1 exemption licences. I urge the Minister to look into this matter urgently.

While talking about the north Sheppey cliffs, I would like to highlight another ongoing problem: the plight of residents at Surf Crescent, in what is called the Eastchurch gap. The first anniversary recently passed of an incident that saw part of Surf Crescent fall into the sea, taking with it the home and possessions of a family, leaving them homeless. Many more of my constituents were moved out of their homes for their own safety, and they are concerned about their future in the homes that they have loved for so long.

The problem of the erosion of the north Sheppey cliffs is not new. I have raised the subject before, including in a Westminster Hall debate in December 2017. I will continue to raise the matter until something is done to save the properties that are under threat. Unusually, solving the problem is not about money. There are groups on the Isle of Sheppey that have put forward schemes to reinstate the cliffs, at no cost to the taxpayer. However, they come up against intransigence on the part of Natural England, which has stated publicly that it will oppose in principle any proposal to stop the erosion of the cliffs.

Natural England’s reason for its stance is that the cliff erosion is on part of the Sheppey coastline that has been designated a site of special scientific interest. Let me clarify what that means. The SSSI is in place not to protect land, which I could understand, but to protect the loss of land, which I find bizarre. I have asked in the past for SSSI designation to be lifted so that the homes of my constituents can be saved, but I was told it was an EU designation. We are no longer in the EU, so I urge the Minister to look again at the situation and see if the designation can now be lifted. If not, what other steps can be taken to protect my constituency?

Finally, I want to address another major issue that is having an impact on the local environment, which is housing. Kent has seen major housing development over the past couple of decades, which has seen too many of our green spaces concreted over. In addition, the increased population has put tremendous strain on our infrastructure. In many areas, the additional traffic created by those homes has harmed our environment, not least by worsening the already polluted air in our towns and cities.

My constituency in particular has taken more than its fair share of that increased housing, and its geography, demography and local environment have changed beyond all recognition. Sittingbourne and Sheppey has seen a tremendous increase in our population, without having the necessary infrastructure put in place to support those people. Now, we have overcrowded roads, over-subscribed schools and increased waiting times for health services because of a lack of doctors.

Under the current Government-imposed housing targets, my local authority, Swale Borough Council, is under immense pressure to build more houses, and there is mounting concern from local people about a number of proposed developments involving thousands more houses in our area. We are facing a proposed planning Bill that will increase further still the number of homes in Kent. No doubt Sittingbourne and Sheppey will be asked to take some of that total housing. More housing will mean more air pollution—[Inaudible.]

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Mr Henderson, you have muted yourself. Please unmute.

[Gordon Henderson]

I am sorry—it is the technology, I am afraid. I will repeat what I was saying.

Now, we are facing planning Bill that will increase further still the number of homes in Kent. No doubt Sittingbourne and Sheppey will be asked to take some of that total housing. More housing will mean more air pollution and even fewer green spaces. That will be a disaster for our local environment, which is why I want to use my speech to forewarn the Government that I will be unable to support the planning Bill unless it protects my constituency from any more unsustainable housing growth.

I do not apologise for highlighting what might be considered parochial issues. It is right that we have priority areas set out in law, including air quality, water, biodiversity, resource efficiency and waste production—all those things are mentioned in the Environment Bill, which is now in the other place—but I hope Ministers recognise that those measures go only halfway towards solving the issues that real people face on the ground. My constituents want an assurance that the basics, such as protecting their local green spaces and agricultural land, solving the problems of littering and fly-tipping, cutting regularly the grass on the verges of trunk roads such as the A249, and managing ground and air pollution, will also be taken care of.

In an ever-changing world in which the Government talk about building back to improve lives and livelihoods, please do not ignore the plight of those whom I have highlighted. Let us use this chance to make lasting changes for those people.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Mr Henderson—I am pleased that we survived those gremlins.

Hare Coursing

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of hare coursing.

I am very fortunate to represent a constituency that has both urban and rural communities. In Sittingbourne and Sheppey, we are privileged to have access to lots of green space where we can enjoy our wonderful rural natural environment. We are also privileged to be surrounded by many acres of good quality agricultural land, where our local farmers produce fruit, vegetables and cereals that are as good as any found in any other part of the garden of England.

I am conscious that those privileges come with the great responsibility of ensuring that we properly protect our land, its wild animals and the habitats that they call home. That protection extends to our population of native hares, which is why I applied for this debate. I want to highlight the damage caused by the barbaric practice of hare coursing. That, for those who do not know, is defined as the sport of hunting hares using sight rather than scent.

I beg to differ. Hare coursing is as far removed from sport as you can possibly get. It is nothing more or less than the cruel use of live hares to train dogs to hunt them down and kill them just to make money. Increasingly, the so-called training events are organised on a competitive basis and used as an opportunity for hare coursing supporters to take part in illegal betting.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s bringing to the House this important subject, which is of extreme concern to my constituents in Huntingdon and to people in wider Cambridgeshire. On the point that he raises, is he aware that those events are being streamed not just locally but nationally for gambling purposes, and that therefore this problem goes beyond all our constituencies and is a national problem that must be dealt with as such by the Government?

[Gordon Henderson]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The betting generates thousands of pounds for the greedy and unscrupulous organisers of the events, who truly have the blood of hares on their hands.

Hare coursing is having an adverse effect on our native hare population, which in turn has an effect on biodiversity. That is why hares are included in the UK biodiversity action plan.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Sir Christopher, I sought the hon. Gentleman’s permission to intervene. I suspect that he is coming to the game laws. Section 4 of the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 makes provision for “seizure and forfeiture”, but those powers do not extend to the aggravated offence in section 32 of the Game Act 1831. Therefore, does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the older game law should be amended to create consistent seizure and forfeiture powers for all poaching offences, including those involving dogs and vehicles, and that that would act as a deterrent, assist the police and enable the courts to impose penalties that reflect the seriousness of the offence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Henderson]

My hon. Friend will be delighted to learn that I am about to come to that in my speech; he has pre-empted me somewhat.

In addition to the adverse effect of hare coursing on the hare population, there is a negative impact on the lives of farmers and landowners, who have to put up with all sorts of illegal acts, such as vandalism of property, theft, intimidation and the destruction of crops, with the consequential loss of income. Of course, those who take part in illegal hare coursing are also guilty of other crimes, such as road traffic offences—including the driving of unlicensed and uninsured vehicles—drug taking, the possession of firearms, and the illegal betting that I mentioned earlier.

I would like to tell the experience of one of my local farmers, a friend of mine. In October, just before harvest time, my friend discovered that vehicles had been driven on to one of his fields, leaving wheel marks and scuffs on the turns. He said that although the marks left by the wheels largely faded away, the scuff marks did not, and he lost crops at harvest, which meant a loss of income and earnings. It was not the first time that that had happened. My friend is not alone: many of my local farmers experience similar problems.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

Other hon. Members have made the point that the old game laws need to be reformed to increase fines and the money that the courts can reclaim from those criminals. My hon. Friend mentions the impact of the damage on farmers. Farmers also have to invest quite significantly in defences against hare coursing, such as digging ditches and putting locks and bars on gates. Does he agree that it should be possible for councils or the police to recompense farmers for some of the costs that they incur in defending against illegal hare coursing if, as I hope he will mention, the courts can reclaim far more money from the criminals?

[Gordon Henderson]

My hon. Friend must have been reading my speech, because my very next paragraph explains that my farmer friend decided to dig ditches around his fields and install locked metal gates wherever he could. Even those sensible actions did not deter the criminals because, as my hon. Friend explained, they now come prepared with battery-powered disc cutters to cut off the padlocks or cut through the metal barriers to get to the fields and continue their hare coursing. How on earth are our hard-working farmers meant to earn a living in the face of these determined thugs who break down barriers to trespass on their land?

The behaviour described by that farmer is not that of opportunists, but well planned acts by people who are motivated by nothing more than greed and money. That is clear from the equipment they carry with them. They are prepared for breaking and entering, invading other people’s land, and causing long-term damage while they are there. That behaviour needs to be stamped out, but the available sentencing powers are insufficient to be a deterrent.

As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to our constituents and hard-working business owners to ensure that their firms are protected. Farmers are businesspeople. These callous acts of criminal damage would not be tolerated against any other business. Why should it be any different for farmers and landowners?

This year has proved challenging for lots of rural businesses, including farms, which have not escaped the pandemic and the resulting economic impact. Farms have also faced the worrying possibility of a no-deal Brexit. They do not need the additional threat posed by criminal gangs, who are increasingly targeting rural communities.

What can be done about hare coursing? The Crown Prosecution Service website admits that

“Hare coursing can cause significant disturbance in the countryside”,

as well as causing a lot of concern to people living in the wider rural community where the activity takes place. Those words are small comfort to farmers who believe that the “significant disturbance” is being ignored, as are the laws that have been put in place to protect them. As hon. Members have pointed out, three pieces of legislation cover the problems that farmers face.

First, section 30 of the Game Act 1831 includes two separate offences for trespassing during the day in search of game. Fines depend on the number of people involved: up to £1,000, or up to £2,500 if a group contains five or more people. Secondly, Section 1 of the Night Poaching Act 1828 sets out two separate offences: the first makes it illegal to go on someone else’s land unlawfully at night to take or destroy game, while the second makes it illegal to enter land unlawfully

“with any gun, net, engine, or other instrument, for the purpose of taking or destroying game”.

Someone caught committing those offences could be liable for a fine of up to £1,000. Finally, the Hunting Act 2004 outlaws activities associated with organised hunts.

Hare coursing, however, was an offence of its own long before the Hunting Act 2004 came into force. I share the view of the Nation Farmers Union and see no reason why the Hunting Act 2004 should have to be used to sort out this problem. Hare coursing is a much wider issue that should be treated in isolation, not in conjunction with the Act. Legal guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service says that more effective tools for prosecuting are either the Game Act 1831 or Night Poaching Act 1828, both of which I mentioned earlier. We have enough legislation to tackle hare coursing, but the problem is how the maximum penalties in those Acts are implemented: the truth is, not very well.

Rural crime, including hare coursing, has escalated in Kent in recent years and policing methods have had to adapt and change with the growing threat this now presents to rural communities. Officers in the Kent police rural taskforce do excellent work in tracking down the perpetrators of rural crime and building cases against them. However, they do not always receive the support they deserve because they are not always backed up by the rest of the justice system. For instance, the Crown Prosecution Service decides whether a crime is worth prosecuting and the courts decide what punishment should be meted out once prosecution goes ahead and somebody is found guilty.

Farmers and other people living in rural areas in my constituency want to see a toughening of the penalties imposed on those found guilty of rural crimes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) said, because the current penalties are simply not enough to discourage hare coursing criminals. The NFU released some research a couple of months ago that looked at the level of fines imposed on those found guilty of hare coursing. Between 2014 and 2018, the average fine under the Game Act 1831 was £227, when the maximum fine for offences under the Act is £1,000, or £2,500 if five or more offenders are involved. It cannot be right that the average fine imposed by the courts was just £227, and I am sure you would agree, Sir Christopher, that such a penalty is derisory.

As I mentioned, a lot of money is made from hare coursing. Sometimes hundreds of thousands of pounds is involved; surely nobody believes that such a small fine is going to put perpetrators off. Frankly, it is tantamount to a slap on the wrist. How can such risible fines be justified to farmers who, due to biosecurity concerns, may have to scrap tens of thousands of pounds worth of crops damaged by hare coursing? It is just adding insult to injury.

When the victims are brave enough to confront the trespassers—as some of the farmers in my constituency have in the past—they are met with threats of violence and untold amounts of verbal abuse, and it has to stop. We are a civilised nation that relies on its farmers, and we have to protect them from these thugs. They need Government support that they are currently not getting.

In the absence of that support, the NFU has this year worked with other farming business and rural wildlife organisations to create an alliance that aims to produce an action plan to end illegal hare coursing. This coalition believes that some simple changes to the Game Act 1831, together with better guidance for the judiciary when passing fines, would go some way to mitigate the worry, the disruption and the intimidation experienced. For instance, it has been suggested that the most powerful way to get through to the people committing those crimes is to seize their dogs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford mentioned earlier. Currently, police forces are deterred from taking such action because the cost of keeping animals in kennels cannot be recovered from the offenders in the same way as it would be if dogs were seized for their own protection under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

I understand that police fully support an amendment to the Game Act 1813 and Night Poaching Act 1828 along those lines. These are not controversial proposals, and, unusually, there is widespread agreement and an acknowledgement that something needs to be done as soon as possible. Why, then, have campaign groups been met with reluctance and hesitation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to take any of this forward?

These are issues that have been raised for many years and, sadly, these types of attacks on farming communities are nothing new. I have raised this subject before in a Westminster Hall debate. On that occasion, I read this letter from a constituent:

“Dear Sir,

The Isle of Sheppey has a population of over 36,000. During the summer this number is more than doubled. We have read in the local newspaper about yet another reorganisation, but the fact remains that police presence on the Island is inadequate.

On Saturday 2nd November…we had cause to phone 999 as there were four men with dogs coursing hares on our farm. Only one patrol was available. No criticism is intended or implied of the individual officer, but he had no realistic chance of apprehending four experienced criminals who were playing ‘cat and mouse’. With assistance from my husband they were caught, but yet again have got away with it.

This incident was not an isolated one. There have been six incidents here since September…We have witnessed them all and found numerous gates open on all six occasions. This is done deliberately so that the dogs have an unimpeded chase after the hares… we had twenty four incidents of this kind, all of which were reported. Some incidents were attended by the police and some were not. Of the twenty four incidents, arrests were made on only two occasions. In the first case the culprits received £250 fines and we are still waiting for the £15 victim cost.

In the second case the CPS abandoned the case only informing us the day before the hearing. This cost us money as we had already made arrangements for someone to care for our animals during our absence. The CPS claim there was insufficient evidence for the charge that was brought. Our view is that the case was dropped to save money. (It has been reported that the CPS drop 500 cases a week)…We are now in despair and have reached the stage where we may as well let these people have their fun without interruption.”—[Official Report, 9 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 99WH.]

That Westminster Hall debate took place on Wednesday 9 April 2014. If my calculation is correct, that is six years and eight months ago, give or take a few days. Sadly, the woman who wrote that letter is no longer with us. She died a couple of years ago. The scandal of hare coursing, which filled her with such despair, remains.

I do not want to have to come back for a Westminster Hall debate on hare coursing in another six years, so I urge the Government to listen to my farming community, make the necessary changes to the law and, at the same time, vastly increase the maximum fines for what is a truly barbaric crime. The time for such action is long overdue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

It is about priorities, obviously. I urge my hon. Friend to engage with his local police force. They understand rural crime and its big knock-on effects—it is not a one-off thing; it can spread to all these other things. Hare coursing has knock-on effects, from stealing to arson to other issues. That is definitely being highlighted in rural areas.

I have highlighted lots of good work, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey that there is more to do. My Department recently convened a roundtable meeting with a range of rural partners, the police and the Home Office to consider what further action could be taken to strengthen the response to hare coursing. Those discussions will continue. The Minister for Crime and Policing and I really value the insights that those meetings provide us with, and the input that we have had from other hon. Members who have written to us. For example, south Cambridgeshire MPs recently sent a letter about the issues in their area.

I am aware of suggestions that the police should be given greater powers to seize the dogs used in hare coursing, and that the courts could possibly confiscate the dogs permanently on conviction. At the moment, they can seize the dogs, and they look after them in kennels—often at vast expense—but when the person is prosecuted or fined, the dogs get handed back, which could allow for further illegal activities. That has definitely been raised, and we are exploring it further. Similarly, it is up to the courts to decide how to hand out fines and how much to fine, and valid points have been raised that some of the fines are not high enough. Sentencing guidance could potentially help with that, especially for these rural areas.

[Gordon Henderson]

I accept that the courts interpret the level of penalties. However, is for us to decide what the maximum penalty should be. If we increase the maximum penalty from £1,000 to £100,000, for argument’s sake, the courts would have to take that into account and would be less likely to fine somebody £100.

England Coastal Path

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect on landowners of the proposed England Coastal Path.

May I say how nice it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Gapes? I applied for this debate following representations from a number of small landowners in my constituency who face having part of their land expropriated by a Government agency, without compensation and against all their objections. That agency is Natural England, and the land being expropriated is being used as part of the England coastal path, which seeks to ensure that the public have access to England’s beautiful coastline.

While in some quarters that might be seen as a commendable and worthwhile aim, it is worth pointing out straight away that the justification for the original legislation for the coastal path was seriously flawed, because 70% of the coastline was already publicly accessible and an additional 14% was owned by the Government or large industries, with only 16% being in the control of private landowners. In addition, significant areas of that 16% were sites of special scientific interest and so could not be used.

The whole project is several years behind schedule and has put an additional strain on an already stretched public purse. Even if the scheme was good value for money, which is arguable, I believe it is simply wrong to route the path, without consent, through land that has been lawfully owned, kept and maintained by small family farmers and businesses, often for many generations.

Worse still, parts of the proposed route will put at risk not only the safety of grazing animals, but some of the people who will be using the path. The people who have contacted me are not major landowners with thousands of acres, but small-scale owners for whom the businesses they run on their land are their only source of income. They are little people who feel they are up against an overbearing, mighty, all-powerful state, and they are frustrated and angry at their treatment.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend saying that small landowners are facing a disproportionate burden that is not being acknowledged by the big industrial owners of some of the land, and that that is affecting their businesses?

[Gordon Henderson]

My hon. Friend is right. That is exactly what I am saying, and it goes further: Natural England is not showing any common sense but treating everybody the same, and that is simply not right.

To better explain the anger, I will set out some of the complaints that those landowners have relayed to me. I will begin by highlighting what is happening on the Isle of Sheppey, which lies adjacent to the Thames estuary and forms part of the Medway estuary. Parliament has made clear that the coastal path legislation is about access to the coast, not to estuaries, but Natural England is ignoring that guidance and pushing forward its plans for a path around the Isle of Sheppey, including along the island’s northern coastline.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing this timely debate. Is he aware that I promoted a private Member’s Bill, the Coastal Path (Definition) Bill, the main purpose of which was to omit section 301 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which deals with river estuaries? In my constituency, the proposal is that the path should go right up into Christchurch and across the River Stour, rather than across from Mudeford to Hengistbury Head, which would be a much more direct coastal route.

[Gordon Henderson]

I must be honest and say that I was not aware of my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill, but since he promotes more private Member’s Bills than all other hon. Members put together, it is hardly surprising that I would not remember that particular one. However, I am delighted to hear that it is not just my constituency that has concerns about the legislation.

Part of the north of Sheppey is given over to farming and holiday-related businesses. One of the families affected by the proposed route is that of Clive, Maria and Gary Phipps, who live on Connetts Farm. To survive financially, they have had to diversify into other activities, including fencing contracting, holiday lets, a farm and forest school and wild camping.

The latter activity, which allows campers to use any suitable land on which to pitch their tents, was last year judged a winner by the camping organisation Pitchup.com, with a review score of 9.8 out of 10 for clifftop camping. The biggest appeal for those campers is that they have exclusive use of the land and the peace and quiet it provides. For a few days they are able to experience a simple life, back to nature and away from such things as interlopers, public footpaths, uninvited visitors and dogs.

Hon. Members can imagine the anger felt by the Phipps family that, despite the land’s already being accessible to those paying campers, Natural England wants to include it on the coastal path. One of the problems that poses for the Phipps is that people using the path will be able not simply to walk along the clifftops, but to loiter, picnic, cycle, pitch a tent free of charge and even have a barbecue. If that happens, the whole attraction of wild camping will be lost, which would be a major blow. As Clive Phipps told me:

“Having to accept a public footpath on our land will completely destroy any business we get from the camping facility and will, I’m sure, affect the viability of our holiday lets, because most of the people who come to stay with us, value the privacy and security offered by our little piece of England.”

The irony is that one of the reasons why Natural England wants to run the path through Connetts Farm is that the neighbouring holiday park owner refuses to allow access through his land. He is able to do so because the legislation protects holiday parks and, quite rightly, only allows the path to cut across a park with the owner’s consent. Unfortunately, small businesses such as that run by the Phipps family are not afforded the same protection, and that is simply unfair.

Other family-run farms and businesses sited along the north Sheppey coast are similarly being discriminated against. For instance, the path would run as close as 6 metres away from the house of one of those families. The property cannot be fenced off to protect livestock and the owners have been given no clarity on issues such as liability, should people using the path injure, or be injured by, livestock.

The landowners are also fearful for another reason. The north Sheppey cliffs are unstable and steep, with regular mudslides that see the clifftop disappear. The coastguard helicopter is often called out to rescue people stuck in the mud created by the erosion, yet the proposed path will increase access to that dangerous environment. The risk is even more unacceptable because there are safer and more stable routes for walkers, further away from the cliffs. Yet Natural England refuses to listen to landowners who have witnessed so many near misses, where people straying on to the cliffs have been lucky to escape with their lives.

The danger is summed up by another of my constituents, Susan Goodwin, who told me:

“These cliffs are particularly unstable, and people are constantly getting stuck, requiring rescue by the coastguards. The local council even closed an old footpath to Barrows Brook because of safety issues. Allowing people to wander along the cliff edge is madness”.

Of course, if the cliffs were protected to prevent erosion, the risk would be reduced. Indeed, one of our local farmers put forward a proposal to protect the cliffs by using construction spoil to construct a coastal park in the area. Therein lies another irony: Natural England objected to that plan, because it wants the cliffs to erode. Mr Gapes, you simply could not make it up.

Landowners living on the Isle of Sheppey are not the only constituents who are alarmed at what is happening. Let me give a small example. Lower Halstow is a small village on the mainland that lies on the Medway estuary marshland. The area is popular with walkers, who use the well-established Saxon Shore Way—a path that opened in 1980 and gives fantastic views of the estuary and marshes. However, rather than utilising the Saxon Shore Way, Natural England is insisting on expropriating a farmer’s land to run another coastal path through the farm to the estuary, despite there being no requirement in legislation for the path to continue into an estuary. The landowners believe that that new path will rip the heart out of their farm and have a serious impact on the wildlife habitat that has been carefully nurtured over many years.

Let me quickly explain how that came about. The sea wall that protects the farm was privately funded by the family 60 years ago. That wall has helped to conserve and grow the habitat. The protection of what is an incredible Ramsar wetlands site is the responsibility of the landowners, and they do not begrudge or shirk that responsibility. Now, however, the route of the proposed path will allow free and unfettered public access across a very vulnerable site. One must question the cost implications of creating that section of the path, given that Natural England itself has said that it does not anticipate a great increase in the number of walkers along it, compared with those using the existing Saxon Shore Way.

Let me read out a quote given to me by another landowner:

“The sole benefit of this scheme is that in some areas it has created more comprehensive access for the public, something that could have been achieved with landowners in a much simpler way, using a carrot and stick approach, rather than the mighty sledgehammer of poorly constructed legislation to crack a small nut!”

I could not agree more. Frankly, this is essentially a land grab that totally contradicts Natural England’s claim that it takes into account land management by landowners. Only somebody or some organisation that has never actually farmed could pursue such a policy.

In addition to the anger and frustration, my constituents have followed the process with growing disbelief. They simply cannot understand why their views and local knowledge have continually been ignored by Natural England. It is baffling that such a worthwhile national project is being delivered in such a draconian way, unnecessarily affecting negatively the lives and livelihoods of the long-term custodians of our countryside.

I would therefore like the Government to take the following steps to bring some common sense into implementation of the scheme: first, make it clear to Natural England that coastal access is about access to the coast and not to estuaries, such as the Medway estuary; secondly, make it clear that Natural England is not expected to provide full coastal access around estuaries and that existing paths, such as the Saxon Shore Way, are considered suitable alternative means of circumnavigating an estuary; thirdly, encourage Natural England to signpost existing estuary trails from the new coastal path, so that the public can use them as an alternative route when circumnavigating rivers and estuaries; fourthly, instruct Natural England to extend to all small landowners who offer holiday accommodation the protection given to holiday parks; and fifthly, instruct Natural England to pay greater attention to the dangers presented by cliff erosion when planning the route of the coastal path.

My constituents need help, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give them the help and the justice that they deserve.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing the debate and my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and for Henley (John Howell) on contributing to it. Although Lord Gardiner is the Minister responsible for policy when it comes to the England coast path, I am of course happy to respond to the debate, but I will ensure that a copy of Hansard is given to my noble Friend, so that he can respond to some of the specific queries that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey has raised.

In relation to delivering the coastal path around England, I believe that the intention of the law is clear. The practice that Natural England is supposed to follow is that the needs of landowners are balanced with the aspiration to create a continuous route around the coast of England that will allow walkers to enjoy our stunning coastline, supporting tourism and the visitor economy in rural areas.

[Gordon Henderson]

Will the Minister give way on that, because it is a very important statement? She is effectively saying that Natural England should be using common sense and balancing the needs of the landowner with the need for a path. Is that right?

[Dr Coffey]

The duty is on Natural England to create this path around the coast of England. It builds somewhat on rights that were given with the right to roam under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Very specifically, Parliament, in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, placed a duty on Natural England to identify this route and a margin of land adjacent to the route for people to use for rest and recreation. Yes, this is about getting the balancing element right with the specific design of the path, but there is, as far as I am aware, no exemption for Natural England to ignore parts of the coast of our country in that regard.

England has about 2,700 miles of coastline, and 70% of that already has a legally secure right of access, as my hon. Friend pointed out. However, there is no doubt that in places the continuity of the access is patchy, meaning that walkers may find that they are unable to make further progress, sometimes even after just 1 or 2 miles, which has a detrimental effect on encouraging walking at the coast.

On completion, this coastal path will join the 2,500-mile network of national trails, which are long-distance walking routes that are maintained by trail partnerships to a higher standard than ordinary rights of way, to reflect their status and the popularity of walking in our nation’s finest countryside. On some of the routes, access for horse riders and cyclists is also provided.

There are benefits to bringing the England Coast Path to fruition. My hon. Friend was right to point out that that is behind schedule; I will address that point further in my speech. In essence, access to the natural environment is known to improve our mental and physical health. Access to the coast brings a more diverse range of people together to enjoy that natural heritage than many other accessible parts of our countryside. Studies have demonstrated that improving coastal access also brings with it economic benefits for coastal communities.

[Gordon Henderson]

Will the Minister accept that the landowners have the right to be protected from the mental stress that has been caused to them in seeing their hard-earned income being stolen from them by what they see as state intervention?

[Dr Coffey]

Because this is the first time that I have heard the specifics of the issues relating to land in my hon. Friend’s constituency, I do not feel qualified to provide an individual comment on a particular issue.

[Gordon Henderson]

But the principle?

[Dr Coffey]

But the principle is clear, and Parliament legislated for this coastal path to come into force and Natural England is under a duty to bring that forward. As I have said, the guidance is clear: engaging with stakeholders and landowners is a cornerstone of that approach. Nevertheless, Natural England has a duty under the law to take forward the coastal path.

Consultation and dialogue are supposed to form the cornerstone of the approach. I am conscious that landowners in my hon. Friend’s constituency feel ignored. The process that Natural England must follow when identifying proposed alignments for the path is described in detail in the coastal access scheme, which is the approved statutory methodology for delivering the path.

Understanding the strategic issues present on an individual stretch and working towards solutions to any concerns should be achieved through extensive dialogue with the landowners and occupiers, as well as the local authorities and other local interests. Natural England will also maintain frequent contact with the national stakeholder organisations as it develops its thinking on suitable alignments for each stretch of the path.

I am keenly aware that we have to continue to do as much as we can to ensure that there is meaningful engagement with landowners on the more complex stretches of the path, which are currently in development. Therefore, I expect Natural England to work carefully to identify all the legal interests on any stretch, and ensure that its emerging proposals are communicated to those interested parties early and in an easily understandable way. I also expect Natural England to ensure that adequate time is given to negotiating alignments on those stretches that include particularly complex features.

The 2009 Act requires a fair balance between the public interest in having new access rights over land and the interests of those whose land might be affected by that proposed new access. In preparing its proposals, Natural England should consider all relevant factors along a section of a stretch, and gauge the need for intervention in relation to any particular concerns raised by landowners and occupiers. Where intervention is considered necessary, the principle of the least restrictive option will be applied to the scope of the intervention.

Once Natural England has published its proposals for a stretch in a coastal access report, there will be an eight-week period for owners, occupiers and others to object and make representations about Natural England’s proposals. Any such objections will be independently considered by an inspector from the Planning Inspectorate, who will then make a report, which is presented to the Secretary of State, with recommendations on whether Natural England’s proposals have struck a fair balance.

The final decision on the approval of Natural England’s proposals will be taken by the Secretary of State, who must have regard to the recommendations in the inspector’s report. With that in mind, my hon. Friend will understand why I cannot comment specifically on the local issues that he has raised, given that it is subject to that quasi-judicial process.

In my constituency, I share the challenge of coastal erosion faced by my hon. Friend. We have met before to discuss the particular challenges that he faces. Provisions in the 2009 Act mean that the route can change in response to those challenges—a process known as roll back. When applying roll back to a stretch, Natural England will consult with landowners to ensure a fair balance.

My hon. Friend mentioned a particular part of the northern coast of the Isle of Sheppey. In my consistency there is a similar area with estuaries. I am conscious of the impact of walkers not following the path and getting too close to the cliff, which entails risks, as he highlighted regarding his own constituency, as well as the impact that walkers can have on flood defences and walls, which may become the paths. Therefore, I have taken up this matter as a constituency MP as well as an Environment Minister, to ensure that Natural England considers these matters carefully when looking at both estuaries and areas subject to coastal erosion.

If my hon. Friend believes that Natural England is not considering those issues proactively in the designation of the path, I would be interested to see the details regarding that, to which I would expect Lord Gardiner to respond.

[Gordon Henderson]

As a constituency MP, I have raised the issue with the Minister. I have to say, her response was very disappointing. At that time I was raising the issue of cliff erosion. This path will go on the edge of the cliff. As I pointed out in my speech, the erosion could be resolved by shoring up the cliffs, but Natural England’s position, supported by the Minister, was that it wants to see the cliffs erode into the sea.

Each year the path will have to be moved further back due to erosion, and eventually it will run through the gardens of some of my constituents. That is lunacy. Is it not better to use the alternative path? The options have been provided to Natural England, but it is ignoring them.

[Dr Coffey]

I do not know the detail of the alternative path. I do not know how close it is the coast. Again, I will not comment on specific schemes, because ultimately I am not the decision maker when it comes to that. I will share my hon. Friend’s comments with Lord Gardiner.

One reason for the delay in this process is that a European Court of Justice judgment was handed down in April 2018, known colloquially as “People over wind”. It affects the way Natural England manages the impact of its proposals on sites with nature conservation designations, as my hon. Friend mentioned. That has affected the pace of the path’s delivery, and Natural England has had to consider it carefully. It intends to continue to work towards opening as much of the path as possible by 2020.

I am sure that Lord Gardiner would be interested to understand more about my hon. Friend’s proposals for treating people with holiday accommodation in the same way as the holiday park. I will ensure that that is brought to Lord Gardiner’s attention. I would be surprised if Natural England was not taking the erosion into account, because it has done so in my constituency. If there is a lack of consistency in different parts of the country, Natural England should consider that urgently, especially regarding the proposals in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Cliff Erosion: Isle of Sheppey

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered cliff erosion on the north coastline of the Isle of Sheppey.

I am raising this issue because I am concerned about the impact that cliff erosion is having on the lives of some of my constituents living at the east end of the Isle of Sheppey, particularly people living in the Eastchurch and Warden cliffs area. I declare an interest, because I live in Eastchurch, although my home is not directly affected by cliff erosion. However, many other properties in the area are under threat.

As its name suggests, Sheppey is an island in the Thames estuary, situated just off the north Kent coast and separated from the mainland by the Swale. It is home to almost 40,000 people, but during the summer months the population increases with an inflow of visitors who stay in the thousands of caravans and chalets on Sheppey, most of which are at the east end of the island. Tourism is the bedrock of eastern Sheppey’s economy and the holiday parks are very important to that tourism. Unfortunately, the erosion of the cliffs is affecting, in addition to homes, some of the holiday parks in Eastchurch, Minster and Warden, with some caravan pitches now only feet away from the crumbling coastline.

The truth is that the Isle of Sheppey is getting smaller. Since Roman times, a third of the island has disappeared into the sea and land is still being lost every year. Some of my constituents are increasingly worried as they see their homes and businesses under threat. I have first-hand experience of the problem, because Sheppey East was the ward I first represented on Swale Borough Council over 30 years ago. I also represented the area on Kent County Council. Some of the buildings to which I delivered my election literature at that time are now in the sea and more homes are likely to disappear during the next 30 years.

I have been working with residents of one affected community, who have seen the cliffs near their homes collapse dramatically over the last few years. I facilitated a meeting between those residents, our local authorities and the Environment Agency, to see what could be done to help to protect them. It soon became apparent that very little would be done to help them. The Environment Agency made it clear that it would not act to stop the cliffs eroding because it has a long-standing policy of non-intervention in the area. I was given to understand that that policy was driven by economic considerations. It was considered that the cost of protecting the cliffs outweighed the benefit derived from saving the threatened homes. While I do not necessarily agree with that reason, I do at least understand the logic of a non-intervention policy based on a cost-benefit basis.

I was delighted when one of my local farmers came forward with a scheme that would have removed that cost obstacle. His plan was to use waste spoil from major infrastructure projects, such as Thameslink and HS2, to reclaim some of the lost land and create a country park along the north Sheppey coastline that would have stopped any further cliff erosion and, at the same time, boosted tourism. The development would have been self-financing, so it would have cost the Government nothing, but the Environment Agency has made it clear that it would object to the scheme because protecting the cliffs is contrary to its policy of non-intervention and managed retreat.

In addition, Natural England has confirmed it would also oppose in principle any scheme that prevents erosion of the cliffs, using as an objection the fact that the cliffs are designated a site of special scientific interest and are afforded legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The cliffs were designated an SSSI because of their deemed scientific interest features, namely:

“fossil assemblage, the natural active coastal processes along the coastline, including erosion pattern of the cliffs and the slumping clay”.

There we have it: in Natural England’s eyes, fossils and slumping clay are more important than the homes and livelihoods of my constituents. In my view, that is not only scandalous, but makes no sense, not least because when questioned, Natural England could not identify any ongoing scientific studies that are interested in the cliffs or their fossil assemblage. It was also unable to explain how losing the fossils and clay to the sea, which happens when the cliffs erode, is enhancing scientific knowledge. In my long association with the cliffs, I am not aware of a single incidence of scientific interest being shown in them—not one.

I understand that the Environment Agency has other environmental concerns, for instance the impact that stopping the cliff erosion would have on the mud and silt that ends up in the Thames and Medway estuaries. The farmer behind the scheme appreciates fully that those concerns would necessitate extensive geo- morphological modelling to determine the impact a reduction in mud and silt would have on our local wading bird species. My view is that a reasonable compromise can be found, because it can always be found when it comes to protecting our local wildlife. However, no compromise, reasonable or otherwise, can be found if Natural England continues to maintain its stance of objecting in principle to any plan that would stop the erosion of the cliffs, using the SSSI status of the cliffs as an excuse. When we consider the pressure for land to house a growing population, it makes no sense to allow more of the Isle of Sheppey to simply wash away.

Something must be done to protect my constituents. The proposal to build a country park along the north Sheppey coastline would do that by stopping erosion of the cliffs and, I repeat, it would do so at no cost to the taxpayer. Therefore, I urge the Minister to instigate an urgent review of the SSSI designation of the cliffs. I would like her also to have Natural England submit evidence proving there really is scientific interest in the cliffs; stating exactly what that interest is; and stating how and when scientific tests have been, and will be, undertaken.

Living Wage (Farmers)

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the living wage on farmers.

Last week, on 21 October, it was apple day, a day on which we could celebrate the wealth and variety of apples available in the United Kingdom. I am a proud man of Kent, a county that produces a high percentage of the fruit grown in Britain, including 60% of its apples. I fear, however, that Kent’s status as the garden of England might be under threat from a Government policy with which, ironically, I agree: the introduction of the national living wage.

I called for this debate so that I could set out some of the worries of farmers in Kent, particularly those who grow soft fruit, top fruit and stone fruit, but I will begin by making a couple of things clear. First, agriculture and horticulture are not low-wage industries, as is often suggested. Indeed, only a very small proportion of farm workers earn at the level of the national minimum wage.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important issue before the House. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, which shares my concern that the living wage has the potential to put farmers off employing those under 25 who do not have experience, which will have a knock-on effect. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that we should take that issue on board as well?

[Gordon Henderson]

Yes, and I will come on to discuss how we might resolve that later in my speech.

The second thing I want to emphasise is that, like me, farmers in my constituency and beyond support the principle of a living wage. Nevertheless, they are concerned that, because of a number of challenges unique to their industry, they will be forced out of business, not by the national living wage directly, but because they will be unable to compete with cheap imports from countries where farmers will not have to pay their workers as much as their British counterparts.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend from Kent for calling for this debate and setting out the case very well. Fruit farmers in my constituency are also worried about the effect of the living wage, although they also very much support it and often pay experienced workers well above it. They are worried that it will increase their labour costs by perhaps 11%, when they make margins of only around 1% or 2%. I feel strongly on their behalf that the Government must look at mitigating the impact if we want to maintain a successful British fruit industry.

[Gordon Henderson]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend and fellow Kent MP has raised that important issue, because I will be dealing with it later in my speech.

Another problem faced by farmers is foreign competition, which has made things worse. Their main customers are supermarket chains that are notoriously hard-nosed when it comes to price negotiations: they always look for the cheapest suppliers, whether or not they come from this country. It is inconceivable that supermarkets will, without protest, allow farmers to pass on the increased labour costs they will be forced to pay. The supermarkets will simply buy cheaper, imported produce.

Many of the workers employed by farmers are seasonal. Traditionally they were students who, because they were generally under 25, would not be covered by the national living wage, but the supply of home-grown student workers dried up and was replaced by foreign workers, many of whom came to this country under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. Sadly, two years ago the Government scrapped SAWS, a decision that will exacerbate the problems faced by farmers if they are forced to pay the living wage.

Some farmers will look into introducing even greater mechanisation in order to reduce their labour costs. There is little doubt that such a move will inevitably lead to fewer staff, so it is highly likely that an unintended consequence of the national living wage will be a rise in unemployment among farm workers. Of course, some farming sectors do not lend themselves to mechanisation, and horticulturists such as soft, top and stone-fruit farmers are in that category, which is why they face the biggest challenges. As I said earlier, some of those challenges are unique to farmers. For instance, they have to deal with the vagaries of the supermarkets, which, in addition to demanding unsustainably low prices, have been known to reject a delivery of perfectly good crops as imperfect, simply because they still had some of that crop in stock from a previous delivery.

Farmers have to contend with unpredictable weather, which can decimate their crops. They also have to contend with the additional costs associated with the sale and delivery of highly perishable products and, as I have pointed out, competition from foreign imports from EU countries such as France that are becoming even cheaper because of the fall in value of the euro against sterling.

Farmers are not like widget manufacturers: they cannot just buy in components to produce goods; they have to plant crops, nurture them and eventually harvest them. Top-fruit farmers face a particular problem, because when they plant trees they are unlikely to have a saleable crop for three or four years. When considering whether to invest in new trees, a farmer needs to be confident that he or she will be able to sell the eventual crop of fruit profitably. Such farmers believe that the national living wage will make that very problematic. There are farmers in my constituency who planted fruit trees last year based on the understandable assumption that, over the next few years, their wage costs would be in line with the trend in the minimum wage seen over recent years. Imposing the new living wage on those farmers, without consultation or warning, will put their financial stability in jeopardy unless mitigation is forthcoming from the Government.

I accept that it was announced in the summer Budget that the cost to employers of paying the living wage would be offset by changes to corporation tax rates. The problem is that in the horticultural industry a reduction in corporation tax will not have the beneficial impact that the Government suppose, because 95% of producers are sole traders or partnerships, for whom corporation tax is not payable. Similarly, although the increase in the employment allowance will reduce employers’ national insurance contributions, that will have little effect on horticultural businesses because, typically, they employ relatively large numbers of workers, and the change to the employment allowance applies only to a business, not to the number of workers employed.

Although horticultural businesses employ large numbers of workers, they are, in the main, low-turnover small and medium-sized outfits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate will now resume and will conclude no later than 4.45 pm.

[Gordon Henderson]

As I was saying before we were so rudely interrupted, while horticultural businesses employ large numbers of workers, they are in the main low-turnover, small to medium-sized outfits, which leaves them exposed to the impact of the living wage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) pointed out, profitability levels in the industry are low and having to pay the living wage will push many producers over the edge and out of business. Unless the Government step in and help farmers, we are likely to see the loss of British-grown produce and an increase in imported food, which would have serious long-term consequences for not only the British economy but our country’s food security.

Farmers also face a couple of other problems. Accommodation provided by an employer can currently be taken into account when calculating the national minimum wage. It is not clear, however, whether that arrangement will continue under the living wage. If it does not, many employers who provide accommodation will face rising wage bills without the benefit of a reduction in the amount that they pay to subsidise that accommodation. It might help if the Minister confirmed whether and how the living wage will differ from the national minimum wage in that respect.

Another problem is that the introduction of the living wage comes at a time when farmers, like other businesses, are facing increased costs from other employment legislation, including pension auto-enrolment and an increase from 1% to 2% in the employer contributions that will come into effect in 2017. Farmers believe that the rise in wages under the living wage will lead to a growth in contributions to auto-enrolment pensions. Assessing a complex, changing workforce and calculating contributions for short periods for seasonal workers who stay with a business for just over the current 12-week postponement period will add to farmers’ costs.

To help British farmers in general, and my local farmers in particular, I want the Government to consider several possible mitigating measures. First, supermarkets could be encouraged to work with farmers to help ensure that they receive a fair price for their produce. Ministers could do that by convening a meeting between the management of our major supermarkets and farmers’ representatives to put together a long-term plan for the industry. Secondly, the exemption from the living wage for workers under-25 could be widened to include seasonal workers. Thirdly, employment allowance could be changed so it is based on individual workers and not a business. Fourthly, we could introduce staged increases for the level of accommodation offset that counts towards an employer’s payment of the national minimum wage and, presumably, the living wage. Fifthly, the cumulative and disproportionate administration burden associated with auto-enrolment duties could be reduced by extending the current three-month postponement period to six months to help capture seasonal workers in the postponement period.

Sixthly, the starting point for national insurance could be aligned with the starting point for income tax. In 2011-12, the class 1 NI threshold was set at almost 95% of the income tax starting threshold. Today, it is just 76%. Finally, the review cycles for the national minimum wage and the living wage could be aligned to reduce complexity. As I asked earlier, will the Minister perhaps confirm whether and how the living wage will differ from the national minimum wage? In addition, will he provide clarity on how the two wage rates will co-exist and whether the various rates can be simplified?

Agriculture and horticulture are important to Britain. They are particularly important to Kent, which, in addition to being the garden of England, just happens to be God’s own county.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

My hon. Friend speaks for many of us who represent some of the fantastic areas of the kingdom of Kent. I am delighted to hear his comments, which forcefully express the importance of agriculture to our region. In my constituency is Hugh Lowe Farms, which grows the strawberries for Wimbledon, and the community there has done a great deal to develop not only the farm but the economy around it. Marion, who runs the farm, raised the possibility of considering the Australian piece rate, which is a concept that would see the average employee wage be 25% above the minimum. If my hon. Friend is not going to come on to that point, will the Minister consider it anyway?

[Gordon Henderson]

I welcome that intervention because I was not going to mention the concept, so it is just as well that my hon. Friend did.

In conclusion, I want to see a thriving farming industry in Kent that provides food security for future generations. To achieve that, however, we need the Government to back British produce.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

6. What policies his Department is implementing to boost the rural economy.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

A £165 million package of measures from the 2011 rural economy growth review is helping rural communities. It includes support for five rural growth network pilots, which are expected to create around 3,000 jobs and 700 new businesses, and rural development funding. We are improving superfast broadband infrastructure in the remotest areas and boosting key sectors such as tourism. We are increasing export potential and unblocking barriers to growth by removing red tape.

[Gordon Henderson]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s remarks, particularly those relating to broadband, because improving broadband reception in rural communities will help their economy. Is he as concerned as I am about the apparent reluctance of BT to pay its full contribution to funding the roll-out of superfast broadband?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I cannot think of any measure that we are undertaking that will do more to help a whole range of economic activities in rural areas. I had a meeting with Ian Livingston, the chairman of BT Group, the week before last. We also discussed the issue in Cabinet, and the Prime Minister himself chaired a meeting on it this week. This is an absolute priority for the Government. We are determined to reach the target of 90% of premises being connected to superfast broadband, with the remainder having a standard of 2 megabits. If my hon. Friend has data on issues affecting BT, he should write to me.

Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

It is delightful to start the day with you in the Chair, Mr Dobbin.

Agriculture is an important industry in my constituency, which is hardly surprising if we consider that Sittingbourne and Sheppey is situated in God’s own county of Kent. Agriculture will have an increasingly strategic importance nationally. Over the next couple of decades, food security will become a major issue as the world’s population increases and demand for food grows in those countries from which we currently import agricultural products. Britain will have to grow more of its own produce if it is to maintain a plentiful supply of affordable food. Britain’s farmers will become increasingly important to our national economy, and their success in feeding a growing population will depend not only on better use of a shrinking amount of available agricultural land but on having a well trained and willing work force to help harvest the crops.

Kent, which as everyone knows is the garden of England, is renowned for its orchards. Horticulture, which is defined as the cultivation of flowers, fruits, vegetables and ornamental plants, contributes some £3.1 billion to the UK’s GDP. The employment created by horticulture is crucial to many communities, particularly small communities in rural areas for whom other employment is simply not available. It is ironic, therefore, that farmers in recent years have found it so difficult to recruit local labour and have had to rely on foreign workers.

The vast majority of those workers come into the country on the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, SAWS, which is quota based and enables farmers to recruit temporary overseas workers to carry out planting and the harvesting of crops, as well as farm processing and packing. SAWS is an effective scheme controlled by the UK Border Agency and managed by contracted operators. Workers are issued with a work card that gives them permission to work for one employer for a fixed period of up to six months. Those workers must be paid the minimum wage and be provided with accommodation by their employer. The scheme has provided a pool of labour for the horticulture industry for 60 years, and without those workers farmers simply would not be able to survive.

Before 2007 SAWS applied to students from outside the European economic area, but since 2008 the scheme has been restricted to Bulgarian and Romanian nationals, as part of the transitional controls on migration from those countries when they joined the European Union. Those restrictions will be lifted in 2013, and farmers fear that they will have insufficient labour to meet their seasonal demands. One of the reasons why farmers find it difficult to recruit home-grown local workers is the seasonal nature of employment in agriculture and horticulture. The season generally lasts from March to September, with the peak months of employment being April and May. Setting aside the perhaps understandable desire of domestic workers to prefer full-time employment, fewer and fewer local people seem willing to undertake what can sometimes be hard, physical work with early morning starts and long hours.

As a boy growing up in the Medway towns, I remember being taken down to the Sun pier in Chatham by my aunt and cousins to queue up for the lorry to take us for a day’s picking on one of the local farms. I was about nine or 10, but I put in a full day’s work picking fruit, peas or hops—it shows, I know. Those days are long gone, but it would be good to think that we might be able to encourage more young people to spend their summer holidays working in the fields.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on an extremely important topic. In my own county of Herefordshire, we have many visitors who are reliant on SAWS. Farmers advertise scrupulously for local, English labour when attempting to fill such jobs, but often without success. Has that also been his experience in Kent?

[Gordon Henderson]

Very much so, and I will come on to possible ways to overcome that.

Some would argue that people on benefits should be forced to take the place of foreign workers and, on the face of it, that option is attractive. The problem is that forced labour is not productive labour. We can make people pick fruit, but we cannot make them pick it so as to ensure that it is packed in perfect condition. Bruised apples are no good to anyone, and certainly not to farmers and their customers, for whom quality is important.

Other countries, notably Spain, have schemes that allow those on benefits to retain their entitlement while undertaking seasonal work on a daily call basis. The so-called fixed discontinuous contract allows workers to have an indefinite contract with a farmer, while only being called to work if there is suitable work. On days without suitable employment, the worker may claim unemployment benefit, and a tally is kept of the days worked, not worked or taken off sick. That scheme not only provides farmers with access to seasonal workers, but offers those workers a route out of benefits, the opportunity for training and an increase in self-esteem. The Government should consider introducing a similar scheme here in Britain.

Another option, which could have more long-term benefits, is the voluntary employment of properly supervised prisoners to work on farms. Before I am misinterpreted, let me repeat those criteria: prisoners should be volunteers and they should be properly supervised. The Government have said that they want to see all prisoners working and being paid for that work, and such an arrangement would no doubt be a useful tool to rehabilitate prisoners and prepare them for release back into society. Giving inmates a skill that could provide them with work opportunities when they leave jail could go a long way towards ensuring that they do not reoffend.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I hope he recognises that we are not talking about unskilled labour. The dexterity and speed with which some of those people can operate machinery and harvest shows great skill, and such skills would enable people to go on to employment later in their lives.

[Gordon Henderson]

Absolutely right—and training prisoners to become agricultural workers might encourage them to work on the land when they leave prison, which would solve another problem. One of the problems with getting prisoners to work, however, is that unemployed people who are not in prison resent inmates being given jobs that might otherwise go to them. Encouraging prisoners to take jobs that other domestic workers have turned their backs on, such as those jobs in agriculture, would solve that particular problem.

I have spoken to the governor of one of my three local prisons and he was keen to trial such a scheme. Cynics may say that prisoners would not want to work on farms, but until relatively recently Standford Hill open prison on Sheppey, in my constituency, operated a farm that supplied produce to the prison estate. The workers on the farm were, in the main, inmates and they were bitterly disappointed when the previous Government decided to close the farm down.

Even if such schemes were successful, there would still be a need for more labour than the domestic labour force could or would supply. As I said earlier, the present SAWS arrangements finish in 2013, but the Government have not yet made it clear whether they intend to introduce a successor scheme. I urge Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to press the Home Office to deal with the problem as a matter of urgency, bearing in mind that we are already in 2012. Farmers in my constituency are keen to see a replacement for SAWS in place before the end of this year. They want any new scheme not only to recognise the continued need for a certain number of overseas workers, but to maximise the potential use of local labour.

The National Farmers Union has put together a proposal that includes the following criteria, which it believes are critical to the overall architecture of a new SAWS scheme. Any new scheme should be overseen by the Home Office, as SAWS is now, and be managed by licensed operators, again as now, with an annual quota decided by the Home Office and the Migration Advisory Committee. A new scheme should include a robust system for checking arrivals, departures and return to the home country. It should go back to the origins of the original scheme, as a youth work experience programme. It should require operators to continue to recruit from the European Union in preference to non-EU applicants. However, a new scheme should be available to university-level students of agriculture or agriculture-related subjects from any country, with return arrangements with the UK.

To be consistent with Government policy, the new scheme should be contained within tier 5 of the points-based temporary workers and youth mobility system. As such, it could meet the UK’s cultural and international objectives. It should have a specific set of standards that are subject to an accreditation scheme managed by SAWS operators. Permission to work and to remain in the UK should be via a work card or specific visa category, and restricted to the dates on the work card, with a maximum period of six months.

Under the previous SAWS programme, agriculture students were often set assignments to complete during their placement. That should be encouraged under a new scheme. A more robust educational element could include, for example, the provision of English language lessons and on-the-job training. Growers should be encouraged to provide cultural activities in the local area to enable the community and the workers to experience each other’s culture.

In addition, the Government should try to encourage British citizens to work in the agriculture industry. Changing perceptions and improving the career development and progression opportunities in the horticulture sector are an important part of achieving success. The Government should consider adapting the UK benefits system to allow those on benefits not to lose their entitlement while undertaking work on a daily call basis. I am convinced that that would encourage inactive citizens to take on seasonal work.

Understandably, the employment of prisoners and ex-prisoners is a touchy subject, and employers approach it with a certain amount of caution. I believe that an offer of financial support for employers to train and mentor prisoners and ex-prisoners might encourage more widespread take-up under the scheme. Consideration should be given to a summer programme carrying vocational and academic credits in addition to cash pay. Hopefully, that would attract more students to work in the industry.

I turn to two issues of concern to my local farmers that will have an impact on the future prospects of employment in the agriculture industry in my area. First, reforms to the common agricultural policy are being discussed, and farmers are worried about the way in which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs seems to be trying to divert funds from pillar 1 direct payments to pillar 2 rural development funding. In particular, the greening component, which represents 30% of the value of direct payments, is conditional on additional environmental action on their land. That includes cultivating a minimum of three crops every year, retaining areas of permanent pasture, and ensuring that 7% of arable land is an environmental focus area.

British farmers believe that such a proposal would put them at a disadvantage because many of them have already adopted additional environmental measures on their farms through agri-environment schemes, and it would be difficult for them to set aside more land to comply with the greening proposal. Farmers believe that greening will reduce their overall competitiveness, making them more rather than less dependent on direct payments. I would welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement of those concerns, and an assurance that they are being addressed.

Finally, my local farmers are worried about the delay in abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board, which they maintain restricts employers by demanding that they pay full wages for 16-year-olds, and which makes it difficult for agricultural workers to get a mortgage because they do not receive a salary. I would welcome an indication from the Minister of the proposed timetable for scrapping the board.