Cost of Living and Food Insecurity

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House is concerned that households are bracing themselves for the biggest drop in living standards in thirty years; notes that the cost of living crisis includes steep price increases in everyday and essential food items, making the situation worse for the 4.7 million adults and 2.5 million children already living in food insecurity and risking more people experiencing food insecurity; regrets that the Government is making the cost of living crisis worse through tax hikes, low growth, falling real wages, and a failure to tackle the energy crisis; condemns a decade of Conservative-led governments for leaving Britain uniquely exposed to a global gas crisis and failing to create high paid, secure jobs; and calls upon the Government to set out a national strategy for food including how it intends to ensure access to high quality, sustainable, affordable food for all and meet the United Nations goal to end hunger by 2030.

Members on all sides are hearing more and more from desperately worried constituents who are concerned about rocketing household bills and the cost of food, but where is the Secretary of State? Where is the Cabinet Member responsible for this Department? The person who sits around the table with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor has not even bothered to turn up to this debate. That is absolutely scandalous. Is it that they do not understand the real-life consequences of food poverty and rocketing bills? The darkness of poverty is not just not being able to turn the lights on; it is being driven into debt and despair because you cannot afford to live. And the darkness is not just at night time: it is during the day when the curtains are closed because you are fearful of the debt collector knocking on the door. That is the darkness of poverty. That is what is clearly not understood by this Government, who are too busy saving the job of one person, the Prime Minister, instead of getting on with the job of running the country—Operation Shaggy Dog in full force—and I think that is absolutely outrageous. While the Government are putting all their energies into desperately trying to save the Prime Minister, they are hitting hard-working families with a triple whammy.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I do not think the operation was called Operation Shag a Dog, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to correct the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I heard shaggy dog. I am sure everybody heard shaggy dog.

Glue Traps (Offences) Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 4th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I believe it was my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) who, in an earlier debate on the Bill, described it as a rat protection Bill. Were it to be one, I would certainly not be supporting it. I grew up in an old farmhouse; some of my most profound memories of childhood involve rodents, and not in a particularly positive way. I remember lying in bed as a small child in that seemingly interminable period between being put down and actually falling asleep and hearing the scurrying of the mice—I hope they were mice, but we were never sure whether the mice or the rats had the upper hand at any one time. They would go up the wall and I would hear them pitter patter across the ceiling. I was used to it from an early age, so it became rather soothing after a while, which seems odd in retrospect.

We had a mouse in our kitchen for a period that became very bold. They are normally nocturnal, but one lived behind the gap where there should have been a dishwasher. It took to coming out into the kitchen while we were having our breakfast and would wander across the floor. It was rather sweet so we did not take effective action for a week or two, but I am sorry to say that my mother eventually decided that hygiene was the better part of that relationship. I am sure that she did not use a glue trap but an effective means was found to say goodbye.

I mentioned the contest between the ascendancy of the mice and the ascendency of the rats. It may be an urban myth but I have always assumed that there is only ever one kind in the house—mice or rats. I stand to be corrected on that. I remember that, when my brother was on a rat hunt in the larder with a baseball bat, he effected a clean hit on a moving target, which gave him enormous status, certainly in my eyes—I have looked up to him ever since.

[Lia Nici]

My hon. Friend is telling us a beautiful story of growing up in the countryside, about which I would like to read more in his future memoirs. I may have a sleepless night tonight though because “The Ascendency of the Rats” sounds like a new horror film. I am concerned that perhaps we should look at banning baseball bats with regard to rodents as well.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I thank, I think, my hon. Friend for her intervention. One thing to be said for baseball bats as a method of controlling rodents is that, although they may not be very effective, and people rarely make contact, when they do, they are decisive.

I reminisce because we need to control rats and rodents, but we share this world. Growing up with the kind of childhood that I had, I instinctively understood how much we share this world with wildlife and I benefited enormously from that. When we need to control animals, therefore, particularly sophisticated animals such as mice and rats, we need to do that quickly and humanely, so I support the Bill almost in its entirety.

I run the risk of sounding a bit like a lawyer this morning, because I made a rather tedious intervention on the previous Bill and I am afraid I will do so again. I made the point on Second Reading, and was punished by being put on the Committee as well, where I took the opportunity to make the same point, for which I received cross-party support and agreement, that there is an issue in clause 1(5) that needs to be addressed.

The Bill has the effect of outlawing the laying of glue traps, but not entirely. It is still perfectly legal for licensed operators to lay glue traps in certain circumstances. Clause 1(4) says:

“A person who knowingly causes or permits an offence to be committed under subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence.”

That has in mind people who perhaps pay someone else to lay a glue trap on their behalf. Clause 1(5) says,

“A person commits an offence if the person—

(a) finds a glue trap in England that has been set in a manner which gives rise to a risk that a rodent will become caught in the glue trap, and

(b) without reasonable excuse, fails to ensure that the glue trap no longer gives rise to such a risk.”

This subsection relates to the passer-by. It is in that context that I have significant concerns about the current drafting, because a bystander will need to know the legal requirements for the setting of a glue trap.

A perfectly innocent bystander or passer-by who sees a glue trap in any situation will have to identify, first, that it is illegal, and then whether it is a licensed glue trap. Either it will put the passer-by at risk of committing an offence or it will be a terrible nuisance to licensed operators who legally lay glue traps for which there is a specific need, as passers-by will throw themselves upon the glue traps to disable them. I am concerned that the drafting still does not take account of this genuine concern.

[Jane Stevenson]

I thank my hon. Friend for enduring the ordeal of serving on the Public Bill Committee, to which he made a valuable contribution. I understand his concern about these measures, but it is crucial that we close the loopholes. I do not think a member of the public could be expected to know, and it would be a reasonable excuse, because a glue trap is essentially a piece of cardboard that is not recognisable as being very harmful, but a pub landlord might ask a pest controller to put them down, and he would be liable. He could not claim, “It wasn’t me, so I cannot be prosecuted.”

[Jerome Mayhew]

Actually, my hon. Friend’s example would be caught be clause 1(4).

I am also concerned about clause 1(5)(b), because it has the seeming effect of reversing the burden of proof. The defendant, the innocent passer-by, has to prove that they had a reasonable excuse. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that point to reassure me and other hon. Members that we will not inadvertently create unintended consequences while continuing to support what is, without doubt, a very useful and much-needed amendment to our legislation.

Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I join all other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on introducing the Bill and getting this far. There is a worrying sense of unanimity in the House, which always gives me cause for concern. I will not breach it, save to highlight one or two slight concerns I have about the drafting of the Bill.

There is much to welcome in the Bill, and chief among them is the immediate impact that the levelling of a fixed-penalty notice has on both the individual who receives it and the wider community. There is a direct relation between cause and effect. We all know that speed in justice is enormously important. One of the great problems we have in society today is the delay that has bound up the criminal justice system, particularly in the Crown court but also in the magistrates court.

I also like the direct link between the severity of the offence and the penalty notice amount, with the factors, aggravating and mitigating, set out in clause 4. I recognise that there is also provision for the Secretary of State to give guidance on how those should be properly applied. That is a very important factor that needs to be taken seriously by the Secretary of State for the Bill to be properly applied.

However, the reasons behind the Bill’s benefit also give me some grounds for caution as we seek to apply fixed-penalty notices as a mechanism for bypassing the normal course of the criminal justice system. One of the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Romford gave for why it is so important to have fixed-penalty notices was the delay in the magistrates courts. Surely, the best way to deal with delay in criminal justice is not to bypass it with fixed-penalty notices but to adequately fund magistrates courts and the criminal justice system that serves all of our country.

There is a requirement in clause 1(1) for the enforcement authority to be “satisfied beyond reasonable doubt”, but there is no requirement in the Bill for them to obtain or secure sufficient evidence to be satisfied. I query whether there is a risk that a prosecuting authority may see this as a shortcut past obtaining sufficient evidence to create a proper prosecution, and that fixed-penalty notices may be given more readily than a decision to prosecute otherwise would be. If that were the case, it would be a cause for concern for us all.

That leads me to who those enforcement authorities are. We see from clause 1(4) that the Bill does not tell us who they are; we are told that that will be provided by regulation. There is nothing wrong per se in secondary legislation providing further detail, but in this instance I start to get a little concerned. In clause 1(5), we are told who the Secretary of State might consider to be an enforcement authority. It says that that may be the Secretary of State himself or herself—fair enough—a local authority or, in paragraph (c),

“any other person that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

It would be impossible to draft that definition more widely. I respectfully highlight that issue to the Minister and invite her at least to consider it in responding to the debate, because this is the very definition of a blank cheque for the Secretary of State.

I wonder whether enforcement authorities might include, for example, private prosecutors such as the RSPCA. If that were the case, it would run counter to the current considerations of the Law Commission, which is interested in considering the future for all kinds of private prosecutors. We have a recent history of significant miscarriages of justice where private prosecutors have acted. I have only to pray in aid the biggest criminal justice scandal in our nation’s history—the Horizon scandal, where the Post Office acted in the role of private prosecutor—to demonstrate why the Law Commission may not be keen to continue to allow private prosecutors right across our criminal justice system.

The reason I know that is that I approached the Law Commission myself in relation to the Care Quality Commission and its powers as a private prosecutor in the health sector because of a scandal at Cawston Park Hospital in my constituency, where three patients with mental ill health and autism, as well as Down syndrome, died over a 27-month period because of neglect and, certainly in one case, physical abuse. I therefore raise a serious concern about whether private prosecutors could amount to enforcement authorities under clause 1(4).

Finally, I turn to clause 5(2). Enforcement authorities can apply a fine of up to £5,000. Most of that money will return to the central funds, but clause 5(2) gives enforcement authorities the ability to deduct their own costs of prosecution from any fines. That is a clear financial incentive to issue fixed-penalty notices, because it pays for their own operations. I hope we will all be naturally concerned to ensure that we do not apply a parking fine company approach to this area of law. That would be wholly not what my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, or any of us, intends. It is important that the Secretary of State, when coming to the secondary legislation and regulation on this matter, thinks hard about that potentially poisonous mix of financial incentive and private prosecution.

In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Romford again for getting behind this legislation and bringing it to the House and, I hope, to a happy conclusion, but I ask the Minister to think carefully about potential unintended consequences. We have heard about Staffordshire bull terriers and about Spike and Buster, but let us not forget that we need to look after John Bull as well, as he is persecuted by the heavy hand of the state. We want to give him protection too, and we must ensure that our legislation is well drafted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)]

I rise to speak briefly in support of the Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who shares my enthusiasm for animal welfare. His commitment to the cause is valuable and appreciated by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It has also been a great pleasure to listen to many hon. Members share experiences of their pets of various shapes and sizes.

It is valuable for children and adults to have and care for a pet to learn an appreciation and love of animals. For many hon. Members on both sides of the House, it informs our choices in this place and advances the cause of animal welfare. I should mention my two Cavalier spaniels, Cromwell and Bertie, who appreciate everything I do in this place on animal welfare. I am sure they look forward to seeing me later and congratulating me.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I rise not to talk about Cavalier King Charles spaniels, but to ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that the direct impact of the fixed penalty notice being applied as soon as the relevant authority considers that there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt adds a powerful deterrent to people causing cruelty or neglect to animals.

[Jane Stevenson]

I absolutely agree. Education and those low-level interventions will be important. At the moment there is not a good enough safety net on animal welfare, because only the most serious cases are likely to be investigated and only the most serious abusers are ever likely to be fined or prosecuted.

The Bill will do a valuable job of introducing low-grade fines and of providing the opportunity to give advice to pet owners, which is key. Some people are unintentionally not creating the best environment for their pets, but we can have a culture where they might get a warning and advice on animal welfare from an appropriate officer. That is what I most like about the Bill: it is pragmatic, it is not heavy-handed, but it will certainly raise standards broadly in animal welfare across the United Kingdom. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Romford again for bringing forward such a useful and important Bill as part of the Government’s commitment to improve animal welfare.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

1. What assessment the Church of England has made of the steps needed to put the maintenance of churches and cathedrals on a sustainable basis.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

The Church estimates that over the next five years at least £1.14 billion of maintenance and repairs are needed for churches and cathedrals. The Church is very grateful that 550 churches and cathedrals have already benefited from the culture recovery fund, but there remains an urgent need for predictable and sustainable sources of funding, which enable us to keep skilled builders and craft people in work.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Last week, the listed places of worship grant scheme was extended until 2025, which I welcome. It is absolutely crucial for churches such as All Saints in Beighton, in my constituency, and the repair work on its thatched roof. Almost half the grade I listed buildings in this country are church buildings. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that that scheme should be now made permanent?

[Andrew Selous]

I am delighted that the thatched roof of All Saints, Beighton, has been fixed and that the listed places of worship grant scheme, which covers the VAT cost, was helpful in achieving that. The Government have extended that scheme for the next three years, but in order for churches and cathedrals to continue contributing some £50 billion a year to national wellbeing, my hon. Friend is right that we will need to put these repairs on a sustainable footing. That is why I will be copying this exchange to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Glue Traps (Offences) Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Friday 19th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

When I was preparing for this debate, my mind was drawn to the question of how long we, as a community, have been considering our responsibilities for and relationship with the animal kingdom. I thought of Genesis 1:26:

“Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Genesis is traditionally attributed to Moses, who lived at roughly 1,200 BC, but modern scholarship suggests that it is slightly more modern, from about the 6th century BC. Either way, we have been considering our relationship with the animal kingdom for at least 2,500 years. During that time, public attitudes towards our relationship with animals have developed enormously, although perhaps not so much in the first 2,000 years; right hon. and hon. Members will recall that man traps with teeth were outlawed only in 1827. I wonder what the devout members of our community would have thought of the Bill if we had introduced it in 1826. As a matter of passing interest, man traps were not outlawed in their entirety until 1861, which was not actually that long ago.

I am very pleased to say that public attitudes towards animal suffering—and human suffering, for that matter—have developed over the past 150 years or so. Section 8 of the Pests Act 1954 introduced restrictions on trapping animals, including restrictions on non-approved spring traps, albeit with an exception for

“rats, mice or other small ground vermin.”

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 included further prohibitions on cruelty to animals. It focused particularly on traps and snares, whose use was controlled but not outlawed entirely; from memory, there were exceptions for agriculture and public health. A wider, more all-encompassing approach to our relationship with animals was taken in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. As hon. Members will recall, it created a wider offence of allowing or causing unnecessary suffering to any animal—including trapped animals, of course.

The underlying factor in all that legislation was an increasing concern, reflected in the views of the public, about suffering—particularly the suffering, over time, of animals that might need to be controlled for public health or other reasons. Public attitudes have changed, so I think it is right to consider the prohibition of glue traps for vermin. They do not cause a quick death; the animal is just stuck. It is not like fly paper; these are intelligent animals, as hon. Members have said, and they are physiologically capable of suffering.

The British Veterinary Association has expressed concerns about how animals caught in glue traps die. It notes that they

“can suffer from…torn skin, broken limbs and hair removal and die a slow and painful death from suffocation, starvation, exhaustion and even self-mutilation.”

Should we really allow that kind of animal control in the society that we have the honour to represent? The RSPCA has received about 200 reports of non-target species being caught, often fatally, in just the past five years. That includes birds and hedgehogs, as well as people’s pet cats.

Glue traps are an important issue that we need to address. I welcome the action that the Bill proposes to control their use, but we have to recognise that rodents equate to a significant public health risk. In large numbers, they can breed incredibly quickly.

Members may have been amazed by television footage from Australia from about a month ago that showed an absolute explosion in numbers of, I think, mice. I am pleased to say that we do not suffer from such plagues in this country, but it highlights the need for ongoing control of rodent numbers. We need to retain an effective range of measures to control our rodent populations.

I welcome the licensing regime element of the Bill—I vary in that view from Opposition Members—because there are certain circumstances, perhaps in an operating theatre, where the public health imperative is so overwhelming that we need to accept such measures. They should be licensed, however, and operated by pest control professionals.

Although I am concerned that we retain effective and quick measures when other systems are not available, it is crucial to maintain regular monitoring and follow up by humane dispatch or killing of the rodents that are caught in glue traps, as is already addressed in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Originally, when I read this Bill, I was concerned that there was an omission, but on reflection I think that the 2006 Act encompasses that.

I have one concern with clause 1(5), which I wonder if the Minister will consider in her response. It proposes creating an offence if a passer-by sees a glue trap and does not take effective action to remove it and make it harmless. I am deeply concerned that we are at risk of criminalising passers-by who may, or in fact are very likely, not to have any idea of the legislative status of a glue trap, particularly as it could be legal in some circumstances under the terms of the Bill.

What steps does a passer-by have to take to satisfy him or herself that the glue trap that they have seen is one that potentially exposes them to criminal liability if they do not take steps to make it harmless? That is a recipe for chaos if a pest control professional has spent time, effort and money properly laying a glue trap in legal circumstances, only for the good samaritan to throw themselves on the glue trap to prevent their own criminal responsibility. We need to perfect that area at a later stage of consideration.

With that exception, I support the Bill. It shows that we are listening to the changing attitudes of our society and are being responsive as legislators.

Environment Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Ah— Jerome Mayhew. I had just been informed that he did not want to take part in the debate, but I see that he is there.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]]

Madam Deputy Speaker, please would you accept my apologies for the confusion that I have managed to cause?

I wish to speak on new clause 6 and amendments 3 and 30 and—if I am permitted by you—to make significant reference to amendment 39, although we have already voted on it.

New clause 6 deals with air quality. I absolutely recognise the challenge of poor air quality, and a number of hon. Members have spoken very movingly about it during the debates this afternoon and this evening, but I am not sure how the creation of an annual policy statement to the House is the best way to address that. We already have a range of existing reporting requirements available to Ministers, as well as two new ones contained in the Bill. They include a new requirement for the Secretary of State to make an annual statement to Parliament on local pollution objectives, in addition to publishing a national air quality strategy every five years.

Amendments 3 and 30 both deal with water quality—with flow rates—and again there is a suggestion that an annual report on water abstraction would be an effective way of improving standards. I question whether that is the right way to approach the subject. When requirements are introduced for such onerous statements, they are effective in increasing costs and increasing delay and the bureaucracy of Government, but I am not sure that they are effective on the ground.

In my constituency of Broadland I am lucky enough to have a number of chalk streams, including the Stiffkey and the Wensum, and I have experience of the Environment Agency and its approach to water extraction licences. To my mind, a much more effective way of policing the area of water abstraction and flow is to use the powers already given to the Environment Agency to deal with abstraction licences—I hope, in co-operation and collaboration with abstractors, which include farmers. I declare my interest as a director of a farming business.

Finally I should like to turn to amendment 39, because its target was very squarely the sugar beet growers and the sugar beet processors of the east of England. EU law has rightly allowed for short-term exemptions to the rules on plant protection products in the event of a virulent outbreak of disease. This year, that is exactly what we have had with virus yellows, so I think the Government are entirely right to allow the exemption with a huge number of protections for bees and other pollinators. To require an obstructive vote in the House would be a backward step.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but, no, it is not in order for him to have spoken to amendments contained in the previous group. It is not in order. I make the point because I could not reasonably interrupt him under the circumstances under which we are working, but we do expect Members to stick to the rules and not to bend them just because we are working virtually. It is important to keep standards.

I call Barry Sheerman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

What steps the Church of England is taking to promote regenerative agriculture on its landholdings.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

What steps the Church of England is taking to assess the efficacy on its land of zero-till conservation agriculture in promoting increased soil health, reduced use of carbon, biodiversity gain and carbon sequestration.

[Andrew Selous]

The Church Commissioners are undertaking a natural capital assessment to provide a baseline for our carbon outputs and to understand our ecosystem services. This will provide a plan to lower carbon outputs and inform our natural capital strategy. Where possible, our tenancies have clauses relating to good husbandry and the non-removal of topsoil, and with longer-term tenancies, soil analyses are carried out at the beginning and the end of leases to ensure that soil health is maintained to a good standard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew [V]]

The Church Commissioners’ ownership of a large amount of land—over 100,000 acres—gives us an opportunity to lead development of conservation agricultural farming techniques, improving soil health, reducing carbon inputs, and developing the evidence base on carbon sequestration. Does my hon. Friend agree that practitioners should approach management of their farming assets in the same way as they do with their other ethical investments?

[Andrew Selous]

As a leading global ethical investor, we regularly engage with all the businesses in which we are invested to improve best practice. While farming practices and management decisions are mainly taken by our agricultural tenants, we have some who do practice zero tillage, and we strongly encourage sustainable farming practices when new tenancies are granted.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

It  is obviously a devolved policy area, so the Northern Ireland Executive and DAERA will make their own decisions. I suspect that it is likely that they will depart from the legacy schemes in a more cautious fashion, given their proximity to the Irish Republic and some of the cross-border trade that takes place, but it will be open to them and they will have the freedom to design policies that work for them. I suspect that, in common with other parts of the UK, they will quite quickly want to switch off some of the bureaucratic requirements that have been there in the existing basic payment scheme.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

As well as wanting to be custodians of the land, people farm because they want to produce food. While I warmly welcome the thrust of the plan, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government remain committed to increased food security and, if so, can he clarify how this plan will help farmers to maintain or increase food production?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are absolutely committed to domestic food production and the crucial role that that plays towards our food security. The Agriculture Act 2020 requires that every three years, there will be a review of our food security, and that will look at the viability and profitability of our domestic food production. The paper that we have published today sets out plans for a farm investment fund that will have a whole suite of grants available to support farmers to produce food in a more cost-effective way and to add value.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this country has built a proud record based on the quality of our food and food provenance in particular, and we will maintain that. On the specific point that he raises about outbreaks of coronavirus at three meat plants, we are looking at that and have been investigating the causes of it. We suspect, as I said earlier, that it is linked either to shared transport or canteen areas, and new guidance will be issued to those meat plants.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to increase the productivity of UK farms.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

The Agriculture Bill will allow us to introduce ambitious new schemes in England based on the principle of public money for public goods, so that we can reward farmers who protect our environment, improve animal welfare and produce high-quality food in a sustainable way. The Bill will also help farmers to stay competitive.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Despite spending £3.4 billion each year under the common agricultural policy and subsidies for our farmers, the productivity growth rate has not significantly increased since the 1990s. This is in stark contrast with unsupported sectors such as egg production, where in 2019 alone productivity increased by 3.8%. Does my hon. Friend agree that the removal of the damping blanket of the CAP, as well as increased competition, will drive productivity growth throughout farming, allowing Government support for farming to focus on public money for public goods?

[Victoria Prentis]

I absolutely agree that moving away from the CAP provides the opportunity for a more prosperous, competitive and self-reliant industry. We will support UK farms to focus on their business modelling and to improve efficiency, which may well, in turn, reduce their environmental footprint.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I am so pleased to hear how the work of the church benefits my hon. Friend’s family and the families of many of her Penistone and Stocksbridge constituents. I also recommend that families check out the Faith at Home video resources of the Church of England, which nurture a growing faith and this month focus on hope, courage, love and humility—all qualities that we need at work and in the community, as well as at home.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

What assessment the Commissioners have made of the implications for the access of clergy to their churches of the most recent Government advice on covid-19.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

Clergy can now return to their churches to pray and live-stream services. For the time being, churches must remain closed for public worship, as set out in law. The Government set out their ambition to reopen places of worship from 4 July, subject to further scientific advice. No place of worship will be able to reopen before a final decision by the Government, the necessary changes to the legal position in the published regulations and the accompanying decision by the diocesan bishop, which will take into account local circumstances.

[Jerome Mayhew [V]]

During this national crisis, there has been a vital role for the established Church to represent the concerns and fears of the whole nation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the physical presence of a parish church, open for prayer and attended by its priests, is an important signal that we are not alone in our struggle? Health workers, care workers, bin collectors, posties and now all those who are unable to undertake their work from home have been asked to accept additional personal risk to carry out their important work for the health and wellbeing of the nation. Should our clergy not be allowed to provide the same level of service to their—[Inaudible.]

[Mr Speaker]

Whatever you can answer of that.