Agriculture Bill (Seventh sitting)
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Goodwill
The shadow Minister rather let the cat out of the bag when he said that this issue was somewhat tangential to the Bill. We all subscribe to the idea of reducing food waste and ensuring that the scarce resource and the high-quality food that we have in this country is consumed, rather than being thrown in the bin and contributing to methane production on landfill sites or to the expense of incineration.
I suggest that farmers are probably the people most angry that the food they produce ends up in the bin and not in somebody’s stomach, but the decision whether food is wasted is out of their hands; it is in the hands of the consumers, the supermarkets and the catering industry. How much food in fridges is thrown away because it goes past its sell-by date? How many pensioners in the supermarket will be tempted by a “buy one, get one free” offer, only to find that it gives them more than they can manage to eat?
We probably need to look at the catering and food service industry more closely, but it is not within the scope of the Bill. For example, I was in a hotel in Belfast last week where a marvellous breakfast buffet was laid out; I was there at the beginning of service, but the full range of food would have needed to be available until the end, so a lot of it would have had to be thrown away. Indeed, on Friday I was at a meeting of farmers in my constituency. Some of them had had a pub meal before I arrived, and even they could not eat the large amounts of chips that were put on their plates, so no doubt the leftovers went into the waste stream. Historically, a lot of waste used to go into the animal food chain, but because of mad cow disease, that is now much more controlled. Pig swill is not something that can be used in that way because of disease problems.
While I understand the feelings and the motivation behind the amendment, it should not be in this part of the Bill. Perhaps supermarkets could do more than they have so far with respect to what they call “ugly vegetables”. How often has a strangely shaped carrot been thrown away rather than put on the shelves because it is not of the right specifications? Indeed, we could go to the EU and talk about straight bananas and cucumbers, which was something that was often covered in the media during the referendum campaigns.
We also need to consider what waste actually is. A lot of the so-called agricultural waste—stock feed potatoes or stock feed carrots—can actually be used as a viable feed, so reducing waste per se is not always the way to go. I hope that the Opposition will understand that, while everybody agrees with what they want to achieve, this amendment is not the way to do it.
A part of the Bill that does not need amending relates to grants that could be made available to farmers for improving their storage. Farmers get very annoyed about the deterioration of crops in storage—particularly potatoes—over winter. The very best storage conditions mean that more of a crop can be marketed the following year. The Bill already includes provisions for capital grants for farmers to improve that situation. I hope that the hon. Member for Stroud understands that, although we can get behind what he says, this is not the right place to do it.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am chair of the all-party group on food waste. I will speak to the amendment briefly because I hope to table amendments to the provisions on data and transparency in the supply chain. That is probably the most important angle for tackling food waste because, as other hon. Members have said, in most cases farmers are not really responsible for the amount of wasted food. There is far too much focus on household food waste, and many people in the food supply chain have a vested interest in making it all about whether people throw out their salads or know what to do with their leftovers. In some ways, that lets people in the food supply chain off the hook.
A reason why farmers are forced to waste so much food to the extent that occurs on farms is that it is rejected by supermarkets. Although the Groceries Code Adjudicator has gone some way to addressing that, supermarkets now use spurious cosmetic reasons to reject fruit and veg. Vegetables might be accepted on one day and rejected on another. That is simply to do with the logistics of supermarket sales and the quantities that they need. We need to tighten up the Groceries Code Adjudicator, but we will come to that later in the Bill.
I put two questions about the amendment to the Minister. If food waste were a country, it would have the third-largest carbon emissions in the world, after China and the US. Clearly, from that point of view, food waste is a significant issue. There are measures in the Bill to support farmers who reduce their carbon footprint, and I wonder how the Minister sees food waste fitting in to that?
Measuring food waste on farms can be quite difficult, particularly when a lot of it is ploughed back into the land—would that be classed as wasted? Is using food waste for anaerobic digestion considered a waste or a good use? Farmers using food waste is a good thing—I have been to farms in Somerset where they use waste from local cider mills and bread factories for anaerobic digestion; that is absolutely fine—but how do we address the increasing amount of land being used to grow crops for anaerobic digestion? Fields should be used to grow crops for people to eat, but there is a prevalence of maize being grown for AD. I am not sure where that fits into the Bill, but I want to see farmers rewarded for doing the right thing with food waste, given what I said about it not being their fault. How can we do that while we also incentivise them to grow crops for AD?
Agriculture Bill (Sixth sitting)
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
As a Government, we have set out our approach and what we intend to do with these powers. We have already published some policy papers alongside this Bill, which address many of those issues. The Secretary of State has talked about public access to the countryside and the role of farms in educating children, so we have set out clearly in the policy documents that accompany the Bill what we intend to do with these powers. Come the next election, I am sure that the Opposition will have manifesto commitments that will set out their approach and what they intend to do with the powers.
Another issue was raised by a number of hon. Members: that, fundamentally, the decisions about public health and healthy eating are very much around consumer understanding, consumer knowledge and consumer choice. That is why Public Health England has the “Eatwell” plate that it promotes. We have obviously already implemented the first chapter of the childhood obesity plan. We have introduced a levy on sugary soft drinks. We are currently working on the sort of second chapter of the childhood obesity plan.
We take the issue very seriously. Work on it is led by the Department of Health; it is very high up on that Department’s agenda. It is for the Department of Health to lead on and for us to support, and it goes outside the scope of this particular Bill, which is very much about schemes to support farming, the farmed landscape and our environment.
I will give a final example about sugar, which was raised by some Members. When quotas on sugar beet production were removed, some people said, “Shouldn’t we keep sugar beet quotas? That would be a way of restricting the growing of things that we think are bad for public health.” However, the reality is that the most powerful thing was the introduction of a levy on soft drinks; the value of the sugar that goes into a soft drink is actually tiny, and messing around with the price of sugar is not what delivers the outcome. What delivers the outcome is a levy on sugary drinks that drives policies of reformulation, and that is why the levy has been a success.
We know that some of these measures to try to mess with the supply side of the chain are actually blunt instruments when it comes to delivering public health outcomes.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I mentioned in the few moments that I had earlier the recent research into food deserts. Particularly in urban areas, there are vast estates where it is very difficult for people to get access to healthy food. As I suggested, we could use this Bill to address that. It is not about the growing of the food; it is perhaps about setting up shorter supply chains, so that the food can get to these places. Maybe it could be about setting up farmers markets in local areas that do not normally have access to them. That would also help local farmers who produce the goods to find a market that would probably pay them a bit more than the supermarkets might.
George Eustice
There will be a place for those sorts of enterprises, although not for all. However, as I said earlier, we are looking at what we could do alongside, for instance, a county farms offer to support some of those peri-urban schemes. Sometimes they are box schemes, but they are community-led schemes in particular areas, quite often in our cities. I made it clear earlier that we believe we would be able to support those farms, under both subsections (1) and (2). That option exists, so it is there already if we should want to support it. We have been clear that we are exploring this idea and considering it. It will not be for everyone. There will always still be a place for larger-scale productions supplying the supermarket multiples where most people will get their food and where there is already quite a wide choice. However, it will be an option for some and we have kept the door open to supporting it.
To conclude, these are unnecessary amendments and many of the health benefits we have alluded to in our White Paper are dealt with through the existing measures in clause 1.
Kerry McCarthy
The Minister does not seem to have mentioned the food policy or food strategy or whatever it is called. I heard on the grapevine that it has been kicked into the long grass. Will he confirm that that is not the case and that work is still being done?
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Member for Darlington has made some well-argued remarks, and I am confident that the Minister will be able to reassure her on a number of the points that she made. We are all on the same page.
I will briefly concentrate on one aspect. Who could argue with the four principles in amendment 75? My slight problem is that, having served on the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for five years—and being partly to blame for much of this legislation, no doubt—the precautionary principle looks, on the face of it, like a good principle. In practice, sadly, it is often misused. My experience was that increasingly, it was being used as a fall-back to ban some activity or substance for which there was not any scientific evidence to justify a ban, or insufficient scientific evidence. For example, if I were to use the precautionary principle when I decide whether to cycle home on my bicycle tonight, I would almost certainly decide not to do so, because I could not prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I would not be knocked off or fall off, and end up in St Thomas’s hospital or worse. Sadly, that type of approach is used all too often.
I can give you an example from my time in the European Parliament, to do with the group of chemicals known as phthalates. They are used to soften PVC—the sort of plastic that is used in babies’ dummies, feeding bottle teats, and many medical devices. Phthalates are chemicals that have effects on human health; they are endocrine disrupters that affect how hormones in the body work. Some sought to ban the use of phthalates as a PVC softener in such products, but the problem was that the medical industry said, “If we cannot use those plastics, the devices that we will have to use will not be as good for operations”—those devices include complex catheters that are inserted during more complex operations. That was an area in which we needed to look at the risks and benefits in the round, rather than issuing a ban based on some risk that might have been unquantifiable, and certainly was not scientifically proven.
The most recent case that shows us why, when we move forward with our own legislation, we need something better than the precautionary principle—something that is much more scientifically based and that can, if necessary, be taken to judicial review and proved one way or another—is the prevention of the introduction of genetically modified crops across the European Union. Many farmers and enlightened environmentalists would have liked such crops to be introduced, to reduce our reliance on pesticides and fertilisers and to make food more nutritious and safer. That is how those crops are used around the world, but we cannot do so in the UK. The precautionary principle has been used to block such technologies, and that was a bad use of that principle.
Rather than accepting amendment 75, we need—now that we can, as we have heard, make our own legislation—something that does the same thing as the precautionary principle but in a more effective way, based on science and not, as is sadly often the case, on prejudice and misinformation.
Kerry McCarthy
I will confine my remarks mostly to amendment 71, although I will say that it is really frustrating that the animal sentience Bill disappeared into the ether after the agreement that it would be split from the sentencing Bill. We have not heard anything about it since then. It is not enough to get assurances from the Minister; we need to see that legislation if we are to be convinced that it will really happen.
My amendment is about higher animal welfare. I have seen a timeline from DEFRA that says that a definition of higher animal welfare standards will be set by 2020. I would like to know why it cannot be set sooner, because it rather complicates things if we do not know the parameters that we are dealing with. The key point of my amendment is to ensure that we are not rewarding farmers who just do what is required of them by law.
We are a little too self-congratulatory and complacent about animal welfare standards in this country. There have been numerous exposés of even some of the higher assurance schemes where the letter of the law was clearly not being followed and standards were being breached. We should always be vigilant about that, particularly as we know that future trade deals might result in a race to the bottom, with food that has been produced to lower animal welfare standards, food safety standards and environmental standards flooding into the country. There will be a temptation to cut corners. I know Ministers have said that they will not allow British standards to fall, but I cannot get them to say that they will not allow into the country, for example, US food that is produced to lower standards. Once what I would call substandard produce is allowed into the country, the pressure will clearly be on to compete by, as I say, cutting corners.
At the heart of the amendment is the fact that the Bill does not have a regulatory baseline, and we will lose cross-compliance as we leave the common agricultural policy. I am not quite sure how we will monitor whether farmers are meeting the regulatory baseline. Because we cannot do that, how will we reward them for meeting higher standards? At the moment, I think farmers get their payments withheld if they do not meet certain standards. The current wording of the Bill would make it possible for a farmer to break the law when transporting calves, for example, but still to receive payments for higher animal welfare. Are they going to be judged in the round, or just by particular things that they have cherry-picked?
I want to ensure that financial assistance under clause 1 will be given only to farmers whose welfare standards are higher than those required by law. The definition of higher animal welfare will be very important to that, and it should take into account the desirability of both preventing negative experiences and promoting opportunities to give animals a positive quality of life; those are two slightly different things. Scientists are increasingly recognising the importance for animals’ physical and mental wellbeing of their ability to engage in exploration, investigation, problem-solving and play. That is recognised by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee as well.
A second condition for receiving funding should be that the farmer is a member of a comprehensive assurance scheme.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful point. It was interesting that she brought up the question of single farm payment. As I have declared, I am a recipient of that and I am aware of the cross compliance rules. Does she not take some comfort from the fact that we recognisably have the highest welfare standards, not just in Europe but probably in the world? That gives us some encouragement that our culture is not just about working towards respecting legislation, and we need a carrot as much as a stick. In many ways, I agree with her, but does she recognise that we have the highest standards?
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Gentleman has plenty of carrots, although I do not know about sticks. For those who do not know, he is in the carrot business. I have already said that I get a bit fed up with the constant refrain that we have the highest animal welfare standards in the world, because I think it suggests a slight degree of complacency and we should constantly aim higher. The Minister is probably sick to death of the number of written questions that I table about slaughterhouses and conditions on farms, but we have seen from undercover investigations some of the conditions under which the more intensive farms operate. I am by no means tarring all farmers with the same brush, and it is good that we take animal welfare so seriously in this country. However, there are a lot of examples of when we do not, and we should not be too complacent about it.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I should declare that I am a livestock farmer and am in receipt of single farm payment. I understand that she may not have had much experience of visiting livestock farms, though she might have done so as a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She would be welcome to come and see the livestock on my farm—both cattle and sheep—and how they are looked after. That might encourage her to consider whether she wants to continue to be a vegan.
Kerry McCarthy
I have visited quite a few farms. The hon. Gentleman is completely missing the point. Anyone could take me to a farm with happy cows or happy sheep, by his definition, but that does not mean that there are not places where abuse occurs—where animals are not kept in the best possible conditions or treated well. That is exactly the point I have just made. I accept that we have high animal welfare standards generally, but I am also saying that we should not be complacent. As for the vegan thing, I have been a vegan for 27 years, so the hon. Gentleman would have to do a lot more to change my mind than simply show me his cows.
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Member for North Dorset wants to interrupt. He said earlier that we need dairy to be healthy. I do not know quite how I have managed to stay on my feet for this long; clearly, I ought to be wilting away, languishing and looking pale and anaemic.
Simon Hoare
I will leave that question as being rhetorical. I do not think it is complacent to say that we have the highest standards. It would be erroneous and complacent to say there were no breaches of those standards, but it is a statement of fact that we have the highest standards. We all appreciate that not everybody adheres to them, and there are responsible penalties for those who are identified as breaching those standards. However, it is not complacency to say we have the highest standards in the world; it is a statement of fact.
Kerry McCarthy
I think it is complacent to just respond, whenever questions about animal welfare are raised, that we have the highest standards, because that means that we are not engaging with the problem being brought to our attention, namely the breaches. If I raise the conditions on a mega-farm where there has been an undercover investigation showing all sorts of horrendous conditions—and in some instances even cases of cannibalism, which I have seen footage of recently—I do not want the response to be: “We have the highest animal welfare standards.” To any problem across the piece that we ever bring to the Government’s attention, we could say, “Well, we’re doing really well 90% of the time.” That is not what we are here to do. We are here to highlight where the system has gone wrong and to try to encourage people to do better.
I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not come back about whether I am healthy or not. Perhaps we should challenge each other to something—
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady radiates health from every pore. I suggest that she would radiate still further were she to have dairy in her diet, but her hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) does not radiate anything.
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West is now vegan as well—in fact, three of the four Bristol MPs are vegan. She is completely vegan and a model of good health.
The second condition for receiving funding should be membership of a comprehensive assurance scheme. The RSPCA assured scheme covers all aspects of welfare and has genuinely high standards and rigorous monitoring arrangements. I am not so sure about other assurance schemes, which have been criticised. We need to clarify what the criteria would be.
I want to finish by talking about a few things that Compassion in World Farming has mentioned as additional standards and perhaps the sorts of things that farmers should get additional funding for. On pigs, it says:
“Funding should be available for farmers who achieve intact tails”—
that is, neither docked nor bitten tails. It continues:
“Getting pigs to slaughter with intact tails is recognised by the Farm Animal Welfare Council and others as a reliable outcome based indicator of good welfare.”
In Lower Saxony, I am told, farmers are paid €16.5 per undocked pig under its curled tail bonus scheme. Is that the sort of thing that we could look at rewarding farmers for here?
Mr Goodwill
A local pig farmer told us the other day that he had 235,000 pigs. I am sure he would be very interested in a scheme like that.
Kerry McCarthy
I went to a higher-welfare pig farm when I was shadow Secretary of State and was appalled to learn that while it could make money selling the pigs to local butchers, any pigs that it could not sell to local butchers or restaurants for local consumption had to be sold to the supermarket, at a loss of £80 per pig. Something is clearly very wrong with a farming system where higher-welfare farmers cannot be funded that way. I also went to a higher-welfare chicken farm that was making 2p profit per chicken, which I thought said an awful lot about the broken market model. Perhaps the pig farmer who the right hon. Gentleman met would like to be paid per intact pig tail—perhaps he could raise that with him.
One of the problems with the pig sector is that it is quite easy to move into or increase numbers, therefore the market fluctuates. If farmers get a good price, people start moving in, and before we know it, too many pigs are on the market and the price dips again—we could spend a lot of time on the economics of farming.
Funding could be available for farmers in the dairy sector who keep their cows on pasture during the grass-growing season. That is a requirement of the pasture promise scheme, which is being developed by a group of farmers. There is a wide range in the welfare quality of laying hens provided for by free-range farms. We know that ordinary free-range systems are supported by the market and are very successful—once eggs started to be marked as free range, the public responded. However, some free-range systems have much lower stocking density, a low flock size, and trees and bushes around, so there are welfare differences among different free-range providers.
At the moment, only 1.2% of UK broilers are produced to RSPCA assured standards. There is an argument for saying that we should provide support only to broiler farmers who are members of the RSPCA assured scheme, so as to encourage others to move away from the lower standard of broiler production. I am not saying that the ones outside the RSPCA assured scheme necessarily have poor animal welfare standards, but clearly there is a higher benchmark to which people could aspire, and we ought to be encouraging them to do that.
Will the Minister say how cross-compliance will work and how we will monitor basic animal welfare standards? How is he going to come up with the higher animal welfare definition, what sort of things will it include, and will he promise to bring it forward a little sooner?
Sandy Martin
I want to add briefly to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East said about amendment 71. I worked in a British-built chicken broiler plant in Israel. It was some time ago, and no doubt improvements have been made since, but it was sufficient to make me a vegetarian, although I have not yet gone as far as to become a vegan. Ipswich is rather a long way from Bristol, but if I was a bit closer, maybe I would be a vegan by now.
Kerry McCarthy
Thursday is World Vegan Day, and I think there will be people outside between Committee sittings giving out free vegan pizza. If my hon. Friend wants to join our hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West and me to get a slice, he would be welcome. In fact, all Members can come.
Sandy Martin
I would very much welcome a slice of free pizza, whether it had cheese on it or not.
Sandy Martin
Or whether it was vegan cheese or cheese made from milk.
I want to focus mainly on amendments 74 and 75. On amendment 74, as Members may know, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee had extensive evidence and debate on the Secretary of State’s proposed Bill covering animal cruelty sentencing and incorporating animal sentience into UK law. The Committee took the very sensible view that it was important to stiffen the sentences for cruelty without further delay. We therefore advised the Secretary of State that it would be sensible to separate the sentence on sentience from the section on sentencing. However, we felt that the whole issue of animal sentience needed to be taken seriously, and that a way should be found to take on board the significance of the issue and incorporate it into UK law once we had left the European Union. I believe that the proposed new subsection in amendment 74 covers just one of the vital areas where an adherence to the concept of animal sentience would have a material effect on agricultural practice in this country and ensure that the default support for animal welfare implied by the concept of sentience is not lost when we have left the EU.
It is not just me who believes that, but the Secretary of State as well; otherwise why did he want to pass a Bill that supported the concept of animal sentience? If he did wish to pass such a Bill—and he clearly did, because otherwise he would not have put it forward—why would he not want it to have a real effect on actual animals and their welfare? Amendment 74 is a way of ensuring that the concept of animal sentience actually has some effect, and I cannot really understand why the Government are not happy to accept it.
I am sure that the hon. Member for North Dorset made some of the comments that he has with the best of intentions, but the overall feeling appears to be, “We intend to do the right thing, so leave it to us.” That is not the way that law works; it is not the way that Bills are meant to work. The whole point of having Bills, Acts, debate, amendments and so on is to make sure that things are written down in such a way that people know what will happen and do not just have to rely on the good will of the Secretary of State.
We need to look at what amendment 75 says. Clause 1(1)(e) refers to
“preventing, reducing or protecting from environmental hazards”,
which should be good things, but only so long as they actually meet up with the protection of the environment, as we provide for in amendment 75. I will give a good example of supposed prevention, reduction or protection from environmental hazards that clearly does not meet up with the proposals in our amendment: the flood defences in Ipswich, where serious amounts of concrete and large sheets of metal were shoved in on either side of the river to prevent flooding. Clearly, I do not want Ipswich to be flooded, and I am very glad that we have flood defences. In fact, Ipswich was seriously flooded before the war, before those defences went in. However, they are not in the slightest bit environmentally friendly, and I am quite sure that flood defences in other parts of the country are seriously damaging to the environment too.
There are far better ways of doing these things now, and there are all sorts of other activities that people might want to undertake that would be damaging to the environment, even though they protected us from environmental hazards. All that we are asking for is that work done to offer protection from environmental hazards is not done in an environmentally damaging way. Again, I cannot really understand why the Government are not willing to support that amendment.
Kerry McCarthy
I beg to move amendment 73, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert “, provided that such financial assistance also furthers and does not undermine the purposes in subsection (1) above.”
This amendment would ensure that future funding allocated to improve productivity does not support activities which would damage the natural environment/objectives set out in clause 1(1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 53, in clause 1, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
‘(5) The Secretary of State must hold a public consultation on—
(a) how “productivity” should be defined for the purposes of giving financial assistance under subsection (2); and
(b) the definition of “improving productivity” in subsection (4).
(6) In the consultation under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) persons, or bodies representing persons, who are in any part of an agri-food supply chain, within the meaning of section 13(3);
(b) persons, or bodies representing persons, who are—
(i) engaged in horticulture;
(ii) consumers of horticultural products; or
(iii) in the supply chain between persons described in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii).
(c) persons, or bodies representing persons, who are—
(i) engaged in forestry;
(ii) consumers of forestry products; or
(iii) in the supply chain between persons described in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii);
(d) persons, or bodies representing persons, who are not engaged in agriculture, horticulture or forestry but who advocate particular methods of managing land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment,
and may consult any other person or body the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(7) No financial assistance may be given under subsection (2) until the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out—
(a) in summary form, the views expressed in the consultation held under subsection (5); and
(b) the definitions of “productivity” and “improving productivity” which the Secretary of State proposes to adopt for the purposes of giving financial assistance under subsection (2), with his or her reasons for doing so.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult on the definition of “productivity” and “improving productivity” and report on that consultation before giving any financial assistance for that purpose under Clause 1(2).
Kerry McCarthy
The Minister will be delighted to know that I am going to be very brief on this one. There is concern that it is not very clear in the Bill whether the public goods that are identified in clause 1(1) will be the primary focus for any payments, as we have already said that there is a limited pot of funding available. The Bill needs to reflect the fact that the Government have made a commitment that future policies will be underpinned by payment of public money for the provision of public goods.
The public goods are listed in the Bill, but it does not actually indicate whether they will be a funding priority—it just says that these are things that money can be spent on. It does not specify that any payments for productivity should contribute to the delivery of public goods. The two things could be entirely separate.
We have already discussed the fact that the Bill contains powers and not very much on duties, which means that it is vulnerable to change or being dropped entirely by a future Secretary of State. As I understand the Bill, there would be nothing to stop him or her from implementing payments for productivity only, without any reference to the public good. There is no indication as to how the pot of money would be divided up between the two, so there is concern, and Greener UK and the pesky environmentalists that people have talked about have been working on the amendment. They just want some assurance that a future scheme would not be weighted in favour of productivity payments, with no requirement to reduce environmental impact, and to make sure that the delivery of the public goods listed in clause 1 would not be undermined by the productivity clause.
Dr Drew
I have very little to add to what my hon. Friend has said. Basically, the amendment seeks to clarify what is meant by “productivity”. We believe the Government have quite a narrow definition of productivity that undermines the environmental sustainability that the Bill is based upon. We hope the Minister will say how he would interpret productivity and that he will take a wider view since we are looking at different aspects of productivity besides the purely agricultural and limiting definition that could be implied. For us, the issue is about improving quality and efficiency, but also about how we go about doing that. Again, that is the weakness of the Bill. It says a lot about what it might want to do, but not much about how it will do it, so we want that clearly defined. Reducing dependence on pesticides, weedkiller and fertilisers is implied in the way in which the Bill is being promoted, but exactly how that will be attained is not in the measure.
Sustainability, a primary feature of the Bill, needs to be spelt out more clearly in terms of how the legislation is entailed, otherwise there will be a misuse of public money. For example, we are not really spelling out how we want to minimise the carbon impact of agriculture. We know that agriculture could achieve carbon sequestration much more fully than it currently does.
On climate change, we are looking at issues to do with restocking levels and how they would impact on emissions levels, and at the antibiotic issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East identified. Amendment 53 would require a proper consultation on the meaning of “productivity” and a much broader understanding of sustainable productivity.
Kerry McCarthy
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—Environmental land management contracts—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, make provision for environmental land management contracts.
(2) A person who manages land may enter into an environmental land management contract with the Secretary of State to deliver one or more benefits under section 1(1).
(3) A person who manages land and who seeks to enter into an environmental land management contract with the Secretary of State must first submit a land management plan.
(4) The Secretary of State must approve a land management plan submitted by a person who manages land before entering into an environmental land management contract with that person.
(5) Regulations under this section may provide for—
(a) one or more persons or bodies to act on behalf of the Secretary of State for the purposes of entering into an environmental land management contract, and
(b) requirements which a land management plan must meet if it is to be approved by the Secretary of State under subsection (5).
(6) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision for environmental land management contracts.
Given that the Committee has thoroughly debated the amendments to clause 1, I hope that comments in the clause 1 stand part debate will be brief, and will not rework arguments that we have already heard today.
Agriculture Bill (Fifth sitting)
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert “and enhances soil health”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 49, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after second “heritage”, insert “, including farming systems where they underpin delivery”.
This amendment would include farming systems in the land or water management activities for which financial assistance can be given in Clause 1(1)(c).
Amendment 41, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State shall also give financial assistance for, or in connection with, the purpose of establishing, maintaining and expanding agro-ecological farming systems, including organic farming.
This amendment would ensure that new schemes support agroecological farming systems, including organic, as a way of delivering the purposes in clause 1. Agroecology is recognised by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation as the basis for evolving food systems that are equally strong in environmental, economic, social and agronomic dimensions.
Kerry McCarthy
I should begin by declaring that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology for sustainable food and farming and have been for some time.
In amendment 72, we call for soil health to be mentioned specifically in the list of public goods. I hope the Minister will be receptive to that—he has made noises that suggest he might be. We know that soil fertility has collapsed in this country. There have been a couple of inquiries in recent years, including a very good one by the Environmental Audit Committee, which looked into soil degradation and the impact on, for example, food productivity and flooding due to run-off.
Mr Goodwill
We currently have record wheat yields in this country. Surely that is not evidence of lower soil fertility?
Kerry McCarthy
In some places, there is fertile soil. There are measures that one can take—we heard evidence from Helen Browning, I think. I apologise that I am slightly confused about whether I heard evidence in this Bill Committee last week or as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, because the same people have been giving evidence to both.
There is a lot that we can do to increase biodiversity in fields; for instance, we can take some land out of production, which adds to soil fertility and yield. We heard evidence from Helen Browning of the Soil Association about that.
Kerry McCarthy
Before Conservative Back Benchers try to suggest that I am not talking sense, let me say that the Secretary of State has estimated that the UK is just 30 to 40 harvests away from the fundamental eradication of soil fertility in parts of the country.
Colin Clark
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case, but I remind her that when the EU forced set-aside upon us, all that did was create a weed bank. It did not improve the fertility of our soil. I am from north of the border, where traditional rotations are still very much part of farming. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who says that yields are increasing. Does the hon. Lady not believe that in the last 20 years, agriculture in the UK has made great leaps to improve soil fertility? Perhaps she is speaking about something that is more historical.
Kerry McCarthy
No, I do not believe that. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, but I do not think he was a member during its inquiry into soil health. I suggest that he goes back and reads that report, which is quite devastating. The APPG held a three-part session and produced another report. I think that there is consensus on this and am surprised that Conservative MPs are challenging it.
As I said, the Secretary of State has acknowledged the impact of soil degradation. We can always point to examples where that is not the case, but in general this is an issue across the country. During the evidence sessions last week, the Minister indicated that he might be prepared to look at this. His view was that soil health is already covered in the Bill, although not specifically. I am saying that it is such an important issue that it should be specifically mentioned, rather than it just being assumed that it comes under public goods.
The amendment was drafted by the farming organisation Linking Environment and Farming and has support from the Soil Association, Innovation for Agriculture, and the Royal Agricultural Society of England. During our first oral evidence session, witnesses such as Caroline Drummond, chief executive of LEAF, and Vicki Hird from Sustain, agreed on the need for soil health to be separately listed as a public good. The importance of soil health is mentioned in the documents accompanying the Bill.
The explanatory notes state that
“Subsection (1)(e) will enable the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance for activities…to prevent…hazards to…the environment,.”
It could therefore
“be used to reduce flood risk by incentivising good soil management.”
I was shadow Secretary of State at the time of the devastating floods a few years ago. The people responsible for land management in any of those farming communities will say that soil mismanagement contributed to the scale of the problem.
Sandy Martin
I well remember that in 1972—when I was still quite young, I hasten to add—in Suffolk we had strong windstorms in the summer, and a significant amount of soil blew off the wheat fields. It was a notorious case at the time, and the farmers—including major farmers—learned a lot of lessons. Agriculture is a lot better than it was in the 1970s, but we continue to learn and to improve. I would have thought that any sensible agriculturalist would support any amendment that enhances soil health.
Kerry McCarthy
I think there is a consensus, at least on the Conservative Front Bench, that soil health is incredibly important and under threat. It should be specifically added to the list of public goods because it is critical to biodiversity, productivity, and mitigating and adapting to climate change—we have not mentioned that yet. The carbon sequestration function of soil is incredibly important. The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) said in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee:
“I just cannot understand why it is not specifically defined in the Bill. There is so much good that is there, but it is underpinned by delivering on actually improving the soil and the huge environmental benefits that flow from that.”
As Vicki Hird from Sustain rightly said, there is also a risk that farmers are getting paid for doing things on one part of the farm or on the edge of a field, but are not protecting the soil elsewhere. That is part of the regulatory process, and bringing it into the fold would make sense to ensure that it is part of the picture. I think we are on the same page, but I would like those three words to be added to the Bill to make clear how important soil is.
I tabled amendment 41 with two other officers from the APPG, the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—again, the amendment has cross-party support. It was drafted with the help of the Soil Association and Sustain, and is also supported by the Landworkers’ Alliance. Last week, the Minister suggested that he was fairly receptive to the amendment, which suggests that instead of a focus on individual public goods, allowing cherry-picking and just pursuing one or two, there should be a focus on a whole-farm approach, which is by far the best way of delivering many public goods at the same time as producing food.
The “Health and Harmony” consultation paper asked respondents to prioritise a list of public goods. I thought that was the wrong approach, because to prioritise public goods fails to recognise that intersect and that pursuing one public good will help to achieve public goods in another sense. For example, without a reduction in the use of pesticides and without maintaining soil health, water and air quality will suffer. Without output diversification, there will be no improvement to local biodiversity or crop resilience.
The worry is that a limited pot of funding could be focused on edge-of-field nature restoration within an unsustainable wider system. The system should be targeting what happens in the middle of a field, not just around the edges. Approaches to farming such as agro-ecology offer bigger picture approaches that would provide the largest amount of public goods. A whole-farm approach may also be easier to monitor, because the metrics of working out what is going on with individual public goods could be incredibly complicated.
In Committee, Helen Browning said:
“That is why I have been an organic farmer all my life: I do not want to be farming intensively in one place and trying to produce public goods in another… We will still need to do special things in special places so that we can preserve species, manage floods and so on, but the agro-ecological approach should be at the core of our farming system.”––[Official Report, Agriculture Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2018; c. 91.]
Agro-ecology is not just about organic farming. That is one method, but there are also things such as agroforestry, pasture-based livestock systems, integrated pest management, low-input mixed farming and biodynamic agriculture. Agroforestry is a prime example of an innovative approach to farming that produces benefits across several categories of public goods.
The “Ten years for agroecology” project in Europe, which was led by top scientific experts, shows that agro-ecology can address the apparent dilemma of producing adequate quantities of food while protecting biodiversity and natural resources and mitigating climate change. Although it is seen as a bit niche, France has become one of the first industrialised nations to make agro-ecology a central plank of its agriculture policy. In 2014, a law was passed to promote agro-ecological approaches actively. It set a target of implementing such approaches on 200,000 French farms by 2025.
If the French can do it, I dare say there is absolutely no reason why the British cannot. The law also added agro-ecology to the curriculum in agricultural colleges across the country. It has a triple performance: it achieves environmental objectives; it achieves economic objectives by improving yield and efficiency, especially for small and medium-sized family farms; and it has a societal impact, including health and nutritional benefits.
In evidence to the Committee, Ed Hamer of the Landworkers’ Alliance gave an example of how an amendment along such lines would work. He said:
“the integration of whole farm agriculture and agri-ecological principles would incentivise farmers to produce food on the field in addition to introducing ecological focus areas or diversity around field edges.”
He concluded that, with such an amendment,
“it is the farming system itself that delivers the public good.”––[Official Report, Agriculture Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2018; c. 116, Q160.]
The Minister was encouraging about that, saying that the Government are considering empowering agro-ecology under clause 1. Such farming methods ought to become far more mainstream. Since the Secretary of State first came up with the “public money for public goods” approach, I have said that I think he is on the right page and is doing the right thing. I just think he could go a bit further to ensure the Bill is about restoring resistant services, safeguarding our long-term food security and protecting the environment.
Mr Goodwill
I oppose amendment 72, not because I am against enhancing soil health in our country, but because I believe the amendment would act against some of our other objectives. As a farmer I manage soil, and as part of my agriculture degree I spent a year studying soil science. Although it is easy to define animal health—it is the absence of disease, or a state in which production from the animal is maximised—it is much more difficult to define soil health. As an intensive arable farmer, I know that the healthiest soil is the most productive soil. Therefore, levels of nutrients—nitrogen phosphate, potash and sulphur—should be optimised to produce optimal soil health. but we need other elements within the soil as well. The cation-exchange capacity must be optimised through the use of lime and other soil treatments so those nutrients are available. The soil also needs to have the correct flocculation status, so that nutrients and roots can travel through it and drainage is optimised.
It is easy to define what productive, healthy soil is, but for some of the objectives in the Bill we need less than optimal soil health status. For example, all farmers agree that the most optimal way to enhance soil health is to have drainage schemes in place, but we have other agri-environmental schemes to try to prevent flooding, such as flood plains and areas of reed beds. Innovative schemes are happening on the North Yorkshire moors above Pickering, where the soil health is not optimised because that land is flooded deliberately to enable the delivery of those schemes.
Similarly, the North Yorkshire moors are a valuable habitat. The land is moor land because the soil is particularly acid and the soil health is bad—bad for growing most things apart from heather. Measures that could be put in place to enhance soil health there could actually act against enhancing that particular environment. We need to look at how we help farmers to manage their farms across the board. Some of their land may well be managed in a way that optimises soil health and production, but elsewhere soil health should deliberately not be enhanced, to allow certain species and habitats to develop precisely because that soil is flooded, acidified or not optimised for production.
Kerry McCarthy
That all sounds tremendous stuff. We are talking about a limited pot of money, and I am concerned that we will get people with huge stakes who cherry-pick the public goods, doing bits and pieces and getting their hands on quite a lot of that pot of money, with the result that the share for people who farm sustainably across the whole farm and adopt some of the approaches the Minister has mentioned is reduced. Does he agree that we ought to be rewarding those people? I always make an anology with a big company that has a fair trade coffee brand, but 95% of their coffee is not fair trade. However, does it really deserve credit for that 5%?
George Eustice
The hon. Lady makes an important point. That is why we have set out clearly that we intend to adopt an approach to payments built around a natural capital principle, so that those who do the most will receive the most reward and those who adopt a holistic whole-farm approach that gives us multiple environmental benefits can expect to receive more than those farmers who say, “We’ll let a corner of the farm that is less productive go”, but not do much beyond that.
The answer to the hon. Lady’s concern is in the way that we price and reward the tariffs for the interventions that we propose. That will be very much in the scheme design, and we have been clear about the principles that we will apply.
By giving a quite detailed explanation of our commitment to explore these farming systems, I hope the hon. Member for Stroud will consider withdrawing his amendment on the basis that it is unnecessary, because it is already provided for in multiple locations.
Amendment 41 is a similar amendment specifically on agro-ecological farming systems—it relates to subsection (2) on support for profitability—which we also think is unnecessary because subsection (2) enables us to support and provide grants for businesses that are starting up in organics or a different agro-ecological system, such as agroforestry. The provision and power are there.
Let me reassure the hon. Lady about some of the things we are looking at. Under the productivity strand—subsection (2)—we are considering whether we can use funds to refresh the county farm model by supporting local authorities to reinvest in their farms, helping with facilitation funding so that the farms are more of a hub for new entrants, and working with them to make it easier to move tenants out so that we have a constant pipestream of new opportunities for new entrants.
Alongside that, we are considering whether that can be broadened beyond the traditional county farm, which has existed for many decades since the war, to include some of the peri-urban farms, which often have links to the agro-ecology movement and are often smaller community-based groups. Where local authorities have land that they can make available, we might be able to support the fostering of those schemes, which can be popular.
I hope all the amendments are probing and that we shall not find it necessary to divide the Committee. I hope I have been able to reassure Members that the issues that they sought to highlight in their amendments are already provided for in the Bill.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Minister for his response. There was a lot in there with which I agreed. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, not least because—as he rightly said—the “and”, rather than “or”, is problematic. I shall press amendment 41, however, because as we have ascertained, we are very susceptible to the whims of a future Government or any change in leadership. I would like to see whole farm systems recognised specifically in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 49, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after second “heritage”, insert
“, including farming systems where they underpin delivery”.—(Dr Drew.)
This amendment would include farming systems in the land or water management activities for which financial assistance can be given in Clause 1(1)(c).
Question put, That the amendment be made.
George Eustice
I do not agree. We recognise that climate change is happening, and everything we are doing to tackle it is about mitigating an event that we recognise is happening. Our efforts to change the mix of our energy, reduce carbon emissions, encourage the uptake of electric vehicles and so on, are all about mitigating the problem of climate change. Subsection (1)(d) has a very clear purpose, and it enables us to do all the things that the amendment seeks to achieve. I hope we can use this debate to clarify that. I have given a long list of the types of interventions that we intend to explore, pursue and pilot under subsection (1)(d).
Kerry McCarthy
I am slightly disturbed by something the Minister said almost in passing. He seemed to be saying that the only problematic issue relating to the importing of soya is the shipping miles. I hope he has read the evidence, including the UN report “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, work by Chatham House and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report last week, that shows that the carbon footprint of the industry goes way beyond shipping miles.
George Eustice
Yes, and I did not seek to give a fully detailed exposition of the impact of soya, but the progress that some sectors—notably the pig sector—have made in reducing their carbon footprint has been by reducing their reliance on imported soya. The hon. Lady is right that it has a range of impacts on the environment.
I recognise the intention behind amendment 50, but I think it would only lengthen subsection (1)(d) without adding any meaningful change. I hope I can reassure hon. Members that the powers outlined in the subsection already enable us to do what we all seek to do on gas emissions.
Dr Drew
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and we can disagree about what is Stalinist. Why did the Government call their White Paper “Health and harmony”? Why did they not just call it “Farming and harmony”? We all did our consultations, maybe more in oral form than in written form in some cases. Why did we all say, “The Government are on to something here, having linked together environment, food and health”? As we have discussed this morning, they already have some difficulties with food, but they have an even bigger difficulty with health, particularly public health.
This is a very minor amendment that would provide an additional sub-clause, supporting agriculture and horticulture businesses to ensure public access to healthy, local food, which we have not stressed. We are very much in favour of local food chains as an alternative to the globalisation of the food market, because we think it is very important that people have access to good, local food that is sustainably produced. That is very minor. It is just adding a sub-clause, which would do things that presumably the Government want to do, given their public health strategy. If they do not want to do it in this part of the Bill, where will the strategy have any bite? We should argue the case that public health is important to an agriculture Bill, and we make no apologies for pushing the issue. I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East has to say about her amendment. We believe this is important and should be in the Bill, and this debate is the start.
Kerry McCarthy
I entirely support my hon. Friend and his amendment 51, but my amendment 70 is a bit more detailed. I will talk first about the public health, food-related issues.
As has been said, the White Paper is called “Health and Harmony” yet there is a conspicuous lack of information about what the Government want to do to improve public health. Almost 4 million people in the UK have been diagnosed with diabetes, 90% of those type 2, which is very much associated with diet. That costs the NHS £12 billion a year, which is a good enough argument to try to do something about it.
Childhood obesity has been mentioned. We now have more children classified obese at the age of 11 than in the US, which is definitely cause for alarm. Recent research by Kellogg’s described food deserts in our most deprived areas, where it is really difficult for families to get their hands on affordable fresh fruit and vegetables. I think two of the top five areas are in south Bristol.
I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on school food and a member of its children’s future food inquiry, which recently published data. Members might know that the Government have an “Eat Well” guide, which is meant to indicate what a healthy diet looks like. It is not used as it should be, in that it does not inform public procurement in the way that it should, but it is out there. The inquiry’s report found that almost 4 million children in the UK live in households that would struggle to meet the official nutritional guidelines. They would not be able to afford to eat in line with what the Government recommend as a healthy diet.
My amendment also mentions the overuse of antibiotics in farming. That is not the use of antibiotics to treat illness; it is usually the result of intensive farming, with the routine over-prescription of antibiotics to compensate for the fact that animal husbandry is not as good as it could be. That is causing a public health crisis. The former Chancellor, now editor of the Evening Standard, went to the States and made a big speech to highlight that this is a public health crisis for anybody who is reliant on antibiotics.
We have seen the rise of superbugs in the NHS. I have a niece with cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis patients rely on periodic applications of antibiotics, which are fast becoming ineffective. We need to take serious steps to reduce their routine use in farming. The amendment also refers to reducing the use of chemicals and pesticides on farms, and the associated health risks have been mentioned.
I very much look forward to the Government’s food strategy document. I was originally told that the outline document would come forward just before Christmas, but I have heard rumours that is has been put back further and may even have been shelved. I do not want to rely on reassurances that all this will be dealt with in a food strategy document.
I appreciate the concerns that we cannot necessarily deal with what the finished product would look like, but we could look at measures such as grants for marketing, infrastructure for on-farm processing, creating local farm supply chains and what the Minister mentioned earlier about having food production around cities, so that it would be easier to get healthy food into cities. We could also look at an equivalent to the EU fruit and vegetable aid scheme. Public procurement is incredibly important as well. There is a lot more I could say on the subject. There is a chance in the Bill to ensure that people have healthier diets. It is crisis that we cannot just ignore.
Simon Hoare
I oppose the amendment. There is no doubting the correctness of the baseline of the data that the shadow Minister has put forward. We are facing an obesity crisis.
Agriculture Bill (Third sitting)
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Q
You have mentioned that overall you welcome the Bill, but you have both said that the devil is in the detail. What specific improvements would you like to see in terms of the relationships between Government and the producer organisations? Secondly, you talked about the supply chain and the imbalance between primary producers and the large distribution processes. What specifically would you like to see change? Improved data, information flow and transparency have been talked about, but how would that improve things?
Jack Ward: In terms of the producer organisation, going forward, first we want a single scheme if we can possibly achieve it so that we have a common scheme in all the devolved areas, so that we have not got a different scheme in Scotland from the one that we have in the UK. Within the producer organisations, if you take soft fruit, there is a massive amount of production in Scotland and a lot of them are members of English-based POs. That is really important.
We want the principle of match funding to continue. That has been a really valuable part of it—the idea that the farmer or grower puts in £1 and the taxpayer puts in £1. That binds the two together in a common aim, which is really important. We want a fairly thorough review of the scheme. We need to get into the nuts and bolts of it and cut out the superfluous bits. From conversations with the Rural Payments Agency, it knows as well as we do where all the wrinkles are, so there is a meeting of minds there. We want more flexibility around the way the money can be invested. Sometimes, it is too restrictive and gets in the way of making sensible things, rather than having to spread it across several different areas.
The other thing is to make it more UK-centric. At the moment, it is set up for a southern European production-marketing model. As I have said, we deal with nine customers, and they operate in a very different way from the rest of the EU. We are constantly in a position where we are looking over our shoulder and second guessing how the EU might interpret what we are doing in the UK. We are worried. The RPA is worried. We need to deal with that.
In terms of supply chain fairness, there needs to be a better meeting of minds between retailers and producers. I will give you a simple example. At the moment, we are right in the middle of the English apple season, but we are overwhelmed with southern hemisphere fruit that has been over-bought and is dominating the market—and probably will until Christmas. We have mountains of fruit that needs to move, and yet there is all that southern hemisphere fruit. Eventually, that cascades into difficult conversations between suppliers and retailers. Often, it is about more clarity between the two sides, so we understand what is going on and how we can make the system work better.
Helen Browning: If I can come in on that, I welcome the focus on the relationship between the farmer and the first buyer of produce. We often pin all the woes of the world on to the retailers, but most farmers and producers deal with a processor, not a retailer. Historically, there is a blame game that goes on in that relationship. The processor will blame the retailer, the retailer will blame the processor, and it will all start to shift up and down the chain. In my experience, the processors, many of which are very large businesses, have often not been keen on farmer co-operation, unless it is their own supply chain. If we are going to encourage more farmers to get their act together, market well, grow and plan, we need that relationship to work better and that collaboration to be welcomed by the processors and not crushed, as has often happened in the past.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
I have tabled an amendment on public health, which I hope that you will welcome. It talks about measures to increase the availability, affordability, diversity, quality and marketing of fruit and vegetables. It also talks about pesticide use and antimicrobial resistance—the overuse of antibiotics. Some environmental organisations have said that they do not support the public health goal. I wonder whether we could do more, other than putting it in as a public good, particularly around procurement. In France, for example, there is a rule that 50% of public procurement should be locally sourced or organic produce. Could we do more on that front in the Bill?
Jack Ward: There is a fairly urgent need to promote the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables—that is a given. It would be incredibly helpful to have something in the Bill that enabled us to do that, although I am not quite sure where responsibility ends for DEFRA and begins for the Department of Health and Social Care. Within the industry, there is certainly a lot of interest in how to extend the message about health and vegetable consumption.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Helen Browning: That is why we need to look at this alongside the food plan, if that is coming through. The two things need to work together. We need to grow a much wider diversity of fruits, nuts, vegetables and other crops on our farms; we can expand the diversity of what we do; dietary diversity is a big factor, because we eat far too much of far too few things. However, it needs to be married with the market pull end, which is achieved through things like public procurement. We need to ensure that food is not being ultra-processed. Otherwise, however good it was at the start, it will not be very good by the time it gets to our plates.
I want us to look at the whole picture, because at the moment we are only looking at part of it. We want to see health addressed in the Bill, because we are not seeing it being addressed anywhere else. If we had an absolute assurance that it would be dealt with in other places, and that we were looking at a farming future based on public health, we would not be lobbying quite so hard for it in this place.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Helen Browning: In my view, whole farming systems such as organic farming or agroforestry are probably the most efficient way to support the public goods that we want, because they actually deliver them as an inherent part of the food production system. That is why I have been an organic farmer all my life: I do not want to be farming intensively in one place and trying to produce public goods in another. The integrated approach gives us a balance of food production with environmental care. We will still need to do special things in special places so that we can preserve species, manage floods and so on, but the agro-ecological approach should be at the core of our farming system. We know that we need to start moving away from pesticides and antibiotic use, and towards encouraging rotations and using less manufactured nitrogen.
I welcome the steer on climate change, which is incredibly important. We need to soak up more carbon in our soils and in our trees. We need farming systems that deliver those things, but at the moment that is not coming through strongly enough. It will be financially and physically the most practical way to do it, and it will give people a vision of the future that we can all sign up to. A drive towards using the new technology coming through, as well as traditional techniques, would feel really exciting.
Colin Clark
Q
Part 6 of the Bill is about fairness in the supply chain. Several retailers have moved to central direct buying, reducing the role of packers to, effectively, contract packers. That has been part of the problem with the oversupply of apples this year. The industry is already changing: instead of producer organisations having 12 months’ integrated supply, the supermarkets are now trying to do it themselves. How will the Bill rebalance that? If you do try to rebalance it, you must maintain the natural effect of the market—how else will you control supply? What does the Bill actually do to give real powers of fairness between the power of the supermarkets, where they are already squeezing out the existing supply chain?
Jack Ward: Growers understand that they are operating in a very competitive market and that is the way the world goes. We also have to recognise that we only supply for a part of the year. For growers, with the exception of one or two crops, it is a seasonal operation. Some growers are growing overseas and filling that gap. Generally they understand exactly how the supply chain works. I think I am right in saying that the Minister is charged with developing something around supply-chain fairness in the future. I think it is just about getting a better understanding between the two sides about what supermarkets need and what growers can supply.
This year has been a good case in point. We have been through a really difficult growing season with a very cold start and then a very dry middle period. It took quite a long time before people appreciated that what was coming off the farms would be different from a normal year, as a result of those weather conditions. It is about getting that understanding, acceptance and realisation that things might be different. You are not producing off a spreadsheet. Even if your spreadsheet says you will get x volume of y specification at z price, the season can interrupt that. There needs to be a grown-up discussion about how to accommodate that, rather than buyers turning their backs and saying, “Okay, we will have it in from America,” or wherever.
Helen Browning: I will just add a bit more to that. There is also a need in the wider industry for a real culture change around co-operation and how we work together, both through the supply chain and between producers themselves. In some areas, we have better integration and better co-operative working. In the “Health and Harmony” document, the co-op that I belong to—the Organic Milk Suppliers Co-operative—was cited as a very good case study, and that is absolutely right. Differentiating markets, being very clear of our purpose, being inventive and entrepreneurial, and working well in partnership will all stand us in good stead.
There is a real need to look at transparency and information clarity, which we have already talked about a bit today. I also want to mention the opportunity to shorten supply chains and create new markets through investing in the kind of infrastructure that we need, in order to allow farmers and growers to deal more directly with the consumers themselves. We need to do that efficiently, so that we do not end up with white vans and lots of capital investment on every farm. But I think there are ways of doing that through processing hubs and good distribution networks, and that could be revolutionary in ensuring that fresh food is available affordably and does not always have to go through the normal retail chains.
Agriculture Bill (Fourth sitting)
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Q
Diana Holland: If that was true, paying workers less would mean the cost of food would have come down, and it has not. There are pressures; we have been part of various studies and commissions on access to safe, healthy food and the implications on wages. There are links that need to be made. However, we are trying to say that a minimum standard needs to be built in, below which no one should fall. Alongside that, there should be a possibility for all the stakeholders in the industry to come together in the way that used to be done with the Agricultural Wages Board—we recognise that there may be equivalent ways of doing the same thing, as has been done in Wales. All of us who are involved directly in this industry, including the workforce—not excluded and shut out, but part of it—could come together to say, “How should we conduct ourselves so that people are treated fairly, and what happens if the industry is protected?”
I completely recognise that there are issues in the supply chain. Those players all have a part to play, but we need them around the table to discuss that, rather than the current system where workers are extremely isolated in that process, in a way that they were not before. Before, their voices were part of a system, but now, in England specifically, they are not able to access that any more. That has weakened their position—their pay, sickness, holidays and so on. It has not created the improvements that it was claimed it would.
This is an opportunity. This was a very rushed abolition, as part of trying to get rid of red tape. The reality of it has not been a minimisation of red tape; it has just been a reducing of conditions, as we feared and said that it would be. If we really want people to choose to work in this industry and to feel respected in it, we need to do something about that. This is a fantastic opportunity to do just that.
Ed Hamer: Our members are largely self-employed—most of our members manage their own holdings. Consumers need to become more aware of the true cost of production, but the problem lies more in the supply chain: if you go to the supermarket now and spend £1 on produce, farmers receive anywhere between 8p and 20p. The rest goes to the middlemen and the supermarkets. Local food systems demonstrate that if you can reclaim a larger percentage of that food pound, you can generate much higher levels of income on a smaller area. One of our biggest challenges is accessing those local markets so we can reclaim the food pound. Then we can support decent livelihoods on small areas.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
The briefing from the Landworkers Alliance was very useful, particularly the paragraph stating what France has done to move towards a more agro-ecological approach, but I want to ask about the economics. I think agro-ecology is sometimes perceived as being just about caring about the environment, and not about improving farming productivity. Could you say something about the fact that there may be fewer inputs? We heard some evidence—I cannot remember if it was in this Committee or in the EFRA Committee, which is also looking at the Bill—about how taking some of the land out of production and using it to increase biodiversity, through pollinators and that sort of thing, can increase food yields. Is that just nice to have or could it make farming more productive?
Ed Hamer: The agro-ecological principle is a whole-farm approach; it does not take fields one at a time in individual focus areas, but looks at the inputs to the farm as a whole, as you say. Anything you can do to reduce dependence on external inputs will have not only a beneficial environmental impact but a beneficial economic impact on the farming system. Examples from our membership demonstrate how mixed farms used cereals for livestock bedding and then manure to fertilise the cereals. They used waste from the horticultural enterprise to feed a pig or poultry enterprise alongside. So by being sensible with food waste, in particular, on the farm, you can recycle those inputs and then essentially cut your losses through that margin.
On food waste, it is also worth bearing in mind that small farms tend to be much more concerned about and aware of what food is being wasted. Again, going back to local marketing, consumers are much more willing to accept food of a slightly lesser cosmetic appearance when dealing with local markets, compared with what you can sell through to the supermarkets. So there are a number of economic and environmental justifications for the agro-ecological farming system. Those are just a few of them; I can come back to you with more afterwards.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
Q
Ed Hamer: Could you repeat the thrust of the question?
Agriculture Bill (First sitting)
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I have a long list of Members who want to ask questions. Could I ask that both questions and replies are pithy, so we can get as many people in as possible?
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
Martin Lines: There are a number of farms with productive land, especially with the silts in the fens. They may concentrate and be more productive in the middle and just have the stewardship round the outside, but that is fine. There are other areas where it is more about the whole of the landscape. If each farmer has to do an ELM scheme to receive some money, it is about a whole-farm approach—all your soils and all your assets—not just the non-productive and productive bits.
Kerry McCarthy
At the moment, it is individual public goods. There is nothing that deals with whole- farm systems, such as organic, pasture-led livestock. Do you think that should be in the Bill?
Martin Lines: It should be a whole-farm approach and a whole-farm plan and it should connect soils, environment, health and everything else with where we get food production. It is not joined up. We have stewardship and production. They have been two separate payments—two separate deals. We need that linked back together and we need to say that from a good environment and from good soils, we will have food security for the lifetimes of generations to come.
Patrick Begg: On that point from Martin about integration, you are right. Dovetailing production and environment is what we are all after; it is at the heart of this. It is encouraging to see the mechanisms for this emerging around land management plans, as the underpinning for delivering finance through the environmental land management scheme. Integrating it feels like the right way to go, as long as the land management plan is not just about the public goods but also about the productivity. They need to sit within that one mechanism in order for them to gear properly against each other. On whether it will be more intensive in the middle of some farms or fields, it might be but that is okay.
This brings to mind my recent visit to the Raveningham estate in Suffolk, which is doing some extraordinarily good stuff delivering the public goods in this Bill brilliantly, with huge dripping hedgerows weeping into the fields, and right in the middle, 12 tonnes a hectare of high quality wheat being produced. They have reconfigured the whole farm to make the movement of machinery more sensible, so that fuel costs are massively down. In that way, they reduce input costs in order to be able to do that kind of farming.
Kerry McCarthy
What was the name of the farm?
Patrick Begg: The Raveningham estate, which is the Bacon family. There is a fantastic estate manager there called Jake Fiennes, who has been doing this for 15 years and has produced amazing results. If you want to see an example of what productive farming plus public goods looks like in the lowlands, that is a great example.
Thomas Lancaster: That example points to the idea that you can improve your profitability in some respects by going down the direction of travel the Bill has set out: by removing or reducing spray and drill overlaps, by taking out awkward and unprofitable corners, and receiving public payments on those areas for delivering public goods by creating habitats such as wildflower margins. In turn, the evidence increasingly tells us that they can improve yield and further improve profitability by creating habitats for pollinators and crop pest predators.
A study in 2015 by Pywell et al from the Natural Environment Research Council’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology highlighted that even when you took 8% of land out of production in an arable system, there was no net loss of yield for cereals such as barley and wheat because you had a lot of crop pest predators in the system, and there was a 25% increase in yield for field beans—a flowering crop—because of the sheer abundance of pollinators.
Martin Lines: We have done the same. We have seen the benefit. We took 12% out of production into environmental measures and squared fields off where the pollinating margins are to see a 20% yield increase. There is a system there but we have not been able to use it. It can be done.
Thomas Lancaster: Even in the uplands, we have been doing some work recently to look at the economics of those systems, and similar work has been done by others. What that is increasingly showing us is that in an inherently uneconomic farming system, where you are losing money per head of livestock, often what you would do through a stewardship scheme is to reduce the number of livestock. You would not remove them—it is still noticeably and obviously a farm—but if you reduce the number of livestock, and maybe look at adding value and supplying into local markets and short supply chains, the profitability of that underlying agricultural operation can be transformed.
What we are increasingly seeing from the top of the hill right down to the bottom of the valley is that it is not either/or. The economics of a farm operation can be massively improved by engaging in and going down the route of focusing on public goods, as well as on good quality food production.
Gilles Deprez: It is not that farmers are cherry-picking just to take the best advantage out of it. In certain areas, it is just not possible. To use the example again of Cornwall, field margins do not make sense for our operation if we are talking about fields of one acre or less. We have a lot of hedges, so we already have a very strong natural environment. Sometimes it does not make sense for a certain environment or a certain type of business to do certain things. That is why you get cherry-picking in certain areas, I assume.
What is important is that productivity needs to go up. We need to be more productive. We need to do a lot more with a lot less, but we need innovation for that. For me as a farmer, that is very important. I might be a little scared about it as well. If there is no innovation and we are not going forward and there is no balance in the short and long term, you will lose out on a lot of things. Innovation should be central in everything we are doing to increase yields. Building fertility and soil fertility will help with certain things. Innovation is very important.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Thomas Lancaster: For us, that is absolutely essential. At the moment, the Bill is a bit silent on that. We are told by civil servants that that is because there is this ongoing review by Dame Glenys Stacey looking at the future of farm regulation and inspections and that they will look to another Bill in the future to provide the powers necessary to secure that regulatory floor or foundation. We will be looking for assurances from Ministers and the Government about that regulatory baseline, because without that foundation, you do not have anything to build from in terms of your public goods policy.
For the progressive farmers, such as Martin and Gilles, who want to go out and restore natural capital and provide those public goods for society, it is absolutely critical that they are not then undercut by those looking effectively to go for maximum profit, regardless of the societal and environmental cost. We think that there is a really important case to be made for the importance of fair, proportionate, but effective regulation. That is not just about having the right rules in place, but having skilled and knowledgeable staff who then go out and enforce those regulations.
There is a lot of talk about advice-led regulation. That is about not just going out with a stick and applying penalties straight away, but going out and advising farmers and working with them to help them be more compliant in future. We would support that, but that needs investment from Government in the necessary resources. A recent report from World Wide Fund for Nature highlighted the fact that the Environment Agency only has enough capacity to inspect 0.5% of farms in any given year. It has about 40 inspectors who go out and look at how farms are performing on water quality and soils, and that is not enough to secure that regulatory foundation. It is also not enough to ensure a fair and proportionate inspection process for farmers, because those inspectors only ever have enough time to apply a penalty and go, rather than work with the farmer to help them comply with regulation in future.
Gilles Deprez: Knowledge is also very important. My crop is completely different from his crop, so the way we work with land, or the way we prepare our land, is completely different. For example, with my daffodils, the bulb is underneath the ground. I need to make sure that I do proper land preparation, which means soil disturbance. In a certain way, that is not ideal, but it would be a lot worse if I did not do it. Why? Because then I leave your daffodils in, and the moment I harvest the bulbs, I take all the soil out and all the stones away. The preparation for how I do certain things is completely different from what someone else is doing.
Crop rotation is crucial, but every crop has different demands, so knowledge, innovation and looking at new ideas are crucial. There is not one solution. We need to have an holistic view and look at all the different parameters to make sure that it can work, because a potato farmer has completely different demands from those of a daffodil farmer, a vegetable farmer, or a wheat farmer. They use completely different practical elements. The ideas and the principles are probably the same—working with the soil and trying to minimise the damage—but again, that balance of short-term and long-term profitability is important. If we focus too much on the long term in a certain way—and I know it sounds ridiculous—we might become bankrupt tomorrow, and then there is nothing.
Martin Lines: On environmental standard supervision, I cannot see that enforcement. There are base standards already out there, but how are they going to be enforced, and in which Bill? We want some clarity now, not an environment Bill coming later, so we as farmers have a clear understanding of where it lies. We want to keep the land in good heart. Previous Bills have been about keeping our natural assets in good heart for future generations. Where is that?
This goes back to short-term planning. There are a number of farms with short-term tenancies and short-term views: taking as much out of the land as possible today, with consequences for future generations. We need that bigger, long-term planning and a long-term view. It comes back to the landscape plan again: understanding what we have, with local variations of management systems for different parts of the country and the different crops we grow. As our consumers change their buying habits and as the climate changes, we may need to adapt our farming systems to produce different products. We need a land management plan that we can adjust to fit that change of cropping.
Patrick Begg: One thing to add, which we should not forget, is the stimulus that good regulation—and I mean good regulation—means for private sector investment and innovation. There are plenty of examples where regulation provokes quite a lot of clever thinking about what could be done. Someone said to me the other day, “Remember when the car industry was faced with having to put catalytic converters into everything?” There was a huge outcry: “We cannot possibly do that. It is going to put thousands on the cost of cars.” Within five or 10 years, it cost about £20 to put a catalytic converter into a car, and there was an industry around it, so jobs and growth came on the back of it.
There is a comparator with what can be done in agriculture. I see firms such as Nestlé investing premiums in their dairy farmers in Cumbria to meet regulatory baselines around water. There are already upstream supply chain businesses that recognise long-term resilience, but need that nudge of the regulatory baseline for that investment to be freed up. It is good for the farmer, good for the people using the drinking water downstream, and certainly good for Nestlé.
The Chair
Before I bring in Simon Hoare, we have eight Members who still want to ask questions, so again, can we keep the questions short? I also respectfully ask the witnesses to keep their replies short and concise. That would be great.
Agriculture Bill (Second sitting)
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Thank you, Mr Dunn. I must remember that my job is form filling and not activity.
Christopher Price: I agree with a lot of what has been said. I think that the way the Bill operates will inevitably result in some churn. People will feel inclined to move on at a faster rate than they have. There is no shortage of people coming out of agricultural colleges at the moment. There is a definite desire among a bigger number of young people than has been the case for a while to go into the sector. As George Dunn said, not all of them will be able to become the traditional owner-occupying yeoman farmer of myth, but I think there will be a lot of other opportunities elsewhere in the sector. Again, a lot of this depends on there being sufficient investment for people to get the skills and to be able to do the jobs that will be required in the new sort of farming.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
George Dunn: No. In a landlord-tenant situation, it is the tenant who will apply for the basic payment scheme—
Kerry McCarthy
Q
George Dunn: In a number of cases, there is either a direct transfer of a direct payment, from the tenant to a landlord, or the way that the rent is calculated will take into consideration the fact that the tenant is getting direct payment.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Christopher Price: It will be a combination of factors. As already said, we anticipate that rents will go down, at least in the short term, while the industry recalibrates itself. However, most landowners, if not all landowners, are already looking at what other opportunities there may be. Some of that will be to go and see what advantage they can take of the proposed new ELM scheme, see what natural capital they have got and see how they can better—it is a horrible word, but I will use it—exploit it under the new scheme. Others will look at how they can diversify—at whether, for example, the barn can be converted into offices, a wedding venue or what-have-you. People are starting to think in a much more market-facing way than was perhaps the case a few years ago.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Christopher Price: I would suggest that, say, on every farm—this is talking in averages—there is 10% to 15% where the input costs are greater than the value that is got out of the process. There is a lot of land that need not be used for farming and that could be used for nature in particular, provided that there are sufficient incentives in place for people to do so.
George Dunn: I also think it is important to appreciate that, in the current economic circumstances, the return on capital that the landlord is getting from a rental payment, even if it is £200 per acre, will only be 2% of the capital value of the land that they are offering to let. The reasons for people owning land and letting it out are simply different to the economic uses they are getting from it. So, it might be because they are looking for development into the long term, or they might be interested in using the reserve rights for minerals, for sporting purposes or for other activities.
Also, the tax system within which land is owned is quite beneficial, in terms of agricultural property relief and the ability to claim other relief. So there are other reasons why landlords will still choose to let land, and we have seen the area of land let in this country remain pretty static for about the past 30 years, at about a third. So I do not suspect that we will see a massive shift from the let market simply because we see rents adjust downwards a little bit.
Chris Davies
Q
Christopher Price: The headings are there; the issue is very much how those headings are used in practice. There are provisions to reward farmers for many of the public goods they provide, but there could be more explicit commentary on rural vitality and on the importance of preserving rural communities, because often farmers are at the hub of rural communities, particularly in some of the more remote areas of the country.
There are significant powers in the Bill to invest in improving productivity and that sort of issue. The big frustration is that we have had very little from Government about how they intend to exercise those powers. It is all very well saying that farmers have got to adapt to the new world of delivering public goods, but they have also got to become more efficient at farming, and Government have not given any indication at all really as to how the powers they propose giving themselves in the Bill will be exercised. However, if those powers are exercised in the right way, there is the potential to improve things very much for farmers and the agricultural sector more generally.
George Dunn: It goes back to what I said previously about this Bill being a scaffold, not a building. The issue for us is that we still need to be convinced that we will see the Government use the powers they are making available for themselves in terms of things such as the supply chain issues. The Groceries Code Action Network has put in some evidence to the Bill Committee—we are a member of it—to say how we can beef up some of that section. We are not convinced that the Government are as serious as they say they are if the Rural Payments Agency is going to be the body responsible for overseeing this particular bit of the Bill. The RPA is perhaps not best skilled for this type of work in terms of the supply chain issues.
We also need to be convinced that the productivity measures are going to be used to the full effect. Actually, the measures reserved for Wales in the schedules of the Bill appear to be better than the ones reserved for England, so we would ask for the Welsh ones to be transposed into England.
On the marketing standards issue, it is absolutely correct that we want to protect our production standards, but if we do not protect our trading positions so that we reject stuff from abroad that is not produced to the same standards, we will undermine our production at home, too. There is an awful lot of hope in the Bill, but not yet too much trust.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
John Davies: It is very important that we recognise the impact on our community, culture and language, because that is something that is very special to upland Wales and all of Wales. That is something that is particularly precious and one of the benefits of a thriving agriculture that can sometimes feel overlooked.
Dr Fenwick: We are concerned that what is proposed would have an adverse impact on all communities depending on their nature and the sector where they are primarily operating. Also, it is a great concern that most upland farms are not the big expansive areas of heathland and common land and moorland that people imagine them to be. Most Welsh upland farms—that is probably about 60% or 70% of Welsh farms—are self-contained units of simply fields. There is a grave concern that a movement to the public goods-type payment would have a huge adverse impact on the farms that cannot cash in on the carbon and the easy wins that you see for some farms that are right up in the mountains. Most hill farms and mountain farms are not the stereotypical type of farm. They are family farms of maybe 100 hectares or so, comprising mainly fields.
John Davies: We have some concerns around the tenanted sector too. Roughly 30% of Wales is in the tenanted sector. Would they be bypassed by the opportunity of public goods? That was highlighted in an earlier answer. We would be deeply concerned about that because young people need support and we would not like to see that taken away from our communities and possibly to other parts of the country or to trust funds or whatever.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
John Davies: I think it is broader than lamb, to be honest. It is about not allowing products that have been produced to completely different standards to those that are allowable here. We respect those standards. Obviously, we do not want to start producing hormone treated beef or chlorinated chicken or any of those things. It is really important that the Bill is robust in that way and does not allow that opportunity to be changed.
Huw Thomas: In that regard, the Bill may have missed something. This could have been the vehicle for making a statement about those standards and insisting that imports are produced to the same standards as our domestic products going forward.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Fenwick: With trade, you have the potential of a double whammy in terms of losing access to EU markets due to the height of the barriers that may come into place plus the potential for more imports of cheap produce. Given such uncertainty—there are dangers for the sheep industry in particular, but also for other industries—we firmly believe that now is absolutely the wrong time to add uncertainty by implementing the biggest changes to the underlying principles of rural payments since the Agriculture Act 1947.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
John Davies: Honestly, I am not the best person to answer that, but I think that consumers take safety as a given. Obviously, we have a great deal of confidence in the Food Standards Agency. Many changes have been made over the last 20 years. I started farming in 1986, which was a major period of change. We are subject to some of the most strict rules and regulations.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Fenwick: No, but the detection, containment and restrictions on most farms are testament to the fact that we have a very good system of detecting problems and clamping down on them when they do occur. Going back to your initial question, the concern would be if we opened the floodgates to places where their standards fall well below those that are a legal requirement here, then we open the floodgates to far worse problems than we would ever see in the UK.
Colin Clark
Q
Dr Fenwick: I referred earlier to the biggest changes since the Agriculture Act 1947. Those changes are the fact that we are moving away from what we currently have, which is an active farmer rule. Notwithstanding all the different changes that have happened since we went into the EU and moved away from the Agriculture Act and had various different CAP reforms, we have still ended up with an active farmer rule that is underpinned by the principles that were originally in the 1947 Act, were later incorporated into the treaty of Rome and are now in the Lisbon treaty. Those principles are about ensuring that active farmers receive the bulk of payments, which can then be distributed through rural supply chains and more widely.
We are moving from that system to what the Welsh consultation calls an “open to all” approach, under which someone who lives in London and fancies buying a bit of land in Wales to plant trees can claim money for doing so, while making no contribution to the local economy, the local schools or the local community. We saw the same thing happen in a different way, which we hope will not be repeated, when vast areas of Wales were bought up by private forestry back in the ’70s. We also saw it when entire communities, including schools, chapels and hundreds of farms, had their land planted up by the Forestry Commission. That is an acute concern.
Europe is tightening up its active farmer criteria to prevent people outside the industry from accessing money, because it recognises the key part that farms play in distributing money in rural economies. I am afraid to say that it looks as if we are moving in exactly the opposite direction.
John Davies: It is a very fair question. A simple, one-dimensional answer is that, yes, planting trees can mitigate the carbon challenges, but I think we need to be seen as part of the solution. There are many things we can do to improve our carbon footprint, and we are up for engaging with that challenge. In the past year or so, at home we have planted 10,000 trees in corridors for protecting hedges and the like, and it has worked really well.
I farm in partnership with the environment. It is an indivisible part of my business, so it is not a binary choice. My wish, my desire and my raison d’être is to hand on my business in a healthier state than I received it. That is no criticism of past generations; it is just the challenge that we face. We have the opportunity to be carbon free by 2050. We need to ensure that all of those mitigation choices are utilised, rather than taking simple, one-dimensional options.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
My hon. Friend raises an important point, but he should acknowledge that this is a pilot involving the small number of 2,500 people. Typically, when the previous SAW scheme ran from 1945 until 2013, in the region of 20,000 to 30,000 people came in under the scheme each year.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The charity Focus on Labour Exploitation—FLEX—has warned that the scheme to which the Minister referred involving temporary visas for non-EU workers to work on British farms could lead to a sharp rise in exploitation if there are ties to a particular employer. Later today, to mark Anti-Slavery Day, I will lead a debate on ending the exploitation and slavery of workers in the supermarket supply chain. Is the Minister aware of those concerns and will he follow this afternoon’s debate? This is one of the worst sectors for modern slavery and the exploitation of workers, so can he make sure that he is on the case?
George Eustice
The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority regulates all labour providers, including by looking at issues such as accommodation and its costs. There was no evidence that this particular scheme was abused, but there are issues of the type of abuse that the hon. Lady talked about. The GLAA always takes strict action when it finds that is necessary.
Agriculture Bill
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
It is important that we have a network of abattoirs that enables, wherever possible, sustainable local food production. I know that it is an issue close to the hon. Lady’s heart; it is also close to mine. I pay tribute to Patrick Holden and the sustainable farming network for the campaigning work that they have done. We are doing everything we can to support small abattoirs. When it comes to animal welfare, it is also important that we make sure that we have a strong network of official veterinarians guaranteeing the quality of our food. It is also important that we recognise that this Government—originally under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom)—have introduced, or required, CCTV in all abattoirs to make sure that there is no hiding place for animal cruelty. It is critical that we recognise that our farmers thrive on the basis of producing high-quality food with animal welfare at its heart.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
In the timeline that was published this morning, it says that higher animal welfare standards will be defined in 2020. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the bar for those will not be set any lower than they are at present? Ideally, they should be considerably higher.
Michael Gove
Absolutely. I recognise that I have been on my feet, although taking questions, for 27 minutes now, so I do want to draw my remarks to close.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
No matter what our views on Brexit are, there is near-universal consensus that the common agricultural policy is in dire need of reform. I want a farming system that is both economically viable and environmentally sustainable, with the highest possible animal welfare standards. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on agro-ecology for sustainable food and farming, and we have long called for more support for organic farming, agroforestry, pasture-based livestock systems, integrated pest management and low-input mixed farming—mixed farming is very important—as well as for a move away from unsustainable intensification and an over-reliance on agrochemicals and cheap fossil fuels.
We want to see whole-farm systems that support nature-friendly farming. I believe that the Bill, with its emphasis on public money for public goods, could provide an ideal opportunity to support that sort of farming, through rewarding farmers for what they do as custodians of the land for future generations, and not simply on the basis of how much land they own. Public money should be used not to subsidise market failure but to reward behaviour, which the market does not do. That means farming in a way that addresses the serious environmental challenges facing us, such as biodiversity loss, habitat destruction, disappearing pollinators, soil degradation, polluted rivers, water run-off and much more. It is vital that we get this right.
There are fundamental weaknesses in the Bill, however, including the uncertainty around funding beyond 2022, the emphasis on powers rather than duties, and the absence of any information on how the money will be split between productivity payments and environmental payments. The Bill needs to set a multiannual budgetary framework under clause 33 to provide more certainty for farmers. I would endorse Greener UK’s recommendation for a duty on Ministers to introduce an environmental land management scheme by a set date, and its call for targets and benchmarks for public goods. We also need clarity that the public goods listed in clause 1 are the priority for funding, and that any payments for productivity must contribute to their delivery.
I am concerned that there is no regulatory baseline in the Bill. The Minister will no doubt tell us that this will be determined by Dame Glenys Stacey’s review, which is due to report by the end of December, and that it might then be included in the environment Bill, but that would be the wrong place for it. Cross-compliance is a fundamental part of the common agricultural policy. It underpins taxpayer investment, and this Bill is setting out a replacement for the CAP. Can the Minister therefore assure us that the Government will introduce amendments to this legislation, most likely by the time it is in the other place, on the basis of Dame Glenys Stacey’s review?
It is also time that we looked far more seriously at reducing farming’s carbon footprint. This has already been mentioned, and all I will say at this point is that I would like to see a goal in the Bill for agricultural emissions to reach net zero by 2050, in line with the Paris agreement. That is absolutely necessary following Monday’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Bill is also missing an opportunity to link farm payments to public health goals. It is predicted that diet-related ill health will overtake smoking as the biggest cause of preventable death before too long. We spend more on the treatment of obesity and diabetes than we spend on the police, the fire service and the judicial system combined. I am quite excited by what I have heard so far about DEFRA’s future food strategy. It sounds promising, but we need to see measures in the Bill to increase the availability, affordability and accessibility of healthy food, including UK-grown fruit, vegetables and pulses. Also, as the Chair of the Health Committee said, we urgently need to act to address the public health crisis of growing antimicrobial resistance, and the associated rise in superbugs, by eliminating the overuse of antibiotics in farming and rewarding good animal husbandry. As I said to the Secretary of State earlier, I will be keen to hear where the bar for animal welfare will be set when it is defined in 2020. At the moment, we are too complacent about animal welfare standards in this country, and I would like to see far more ambitious targets and a more ambitious definition.
There have been calls to amend the Bill to include food production as a public good—this is basically about maintaining direct payments under another name—but we are talking about a limited pot of public money. Food production is ultimately rewarded by the market, or it certainly should be. We need to ensure that the market is fair and that farmers get what the president of the Country Land and Business Association, Tim Breitmeyer, describes as
“a fairer share of the food pound”,
along with the security that comes from a longer-term funding settlement.
The Government clearly accept, with the new fair dealing measures in the Bill, that they were wrong not to extend the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to cover indirect suppliers, but they need to go further to ensure the fair treatment of all those who produce our food, along the whole supply chain. I have just been told that I have a Back-Bench business debate next Thursday on ending modern slavery, human rights abuses and the exploitation of workers in the supermarket food supply chain, and I urge as many Members as possible to come along to support it. Cheap food in our supermarkets often comes at the cost of worker exploitation. The fair dealing measures in clause 25 must apply to all sectors and to all stages of the supply chain. I gather that dairy will be the priority because the existing voluntary code of practice is not deemed to have worked well, but fruit and veg farmers need protection, too.
The Bill alone will not be enough to safeguard farming in this country. The real battle and the real danger come from the global Britain Brexiteers and their enthusiasm for cheap food imports and the scrapping of standards post-Brexit. The US Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, made it clear that any post-Brexit trade deal will hinge on the UK ditching its higher, EU-derived food safety laws, which currently prohibit chlorinated chicken, hormone-pumped beef, ractopamine growth promoters in pork and much more. The implications of that would be huge for UK food and farming. It would drive out higher-welfare and smaller-scale UK farmers, who would be unable to compete on price, and make it more difficult for us to export to the EU.
There are also food safety issues. One in seven people in the US contracts a food-borne illness every year, compared with just over one in 70 in the UK, which must have something to do with US food production system standards. The Secretary of State has repeatedly said he has no intention of reducing standards, and I think he is entirely sincere, but I am not convinced that all his colleagues agree. We often hear them say that there will be no drop in British standards, but that does not mean that goods produced to a lower standard in other countries will not make it into this country under a trade deal, and I want reassurance about that. Without such a commitment, even the most generous and sensitively structured support that emerges from the legislation could be fatally undermined.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kerry McCarthy Excerpts(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
The Department is undertaking significant steps to ensure that high environmental standards are maintained not just in farming but across the piece in the event of the country leaving the European Union in March 2019 without a deal, but of course it remains the commitment of this Government to secure the best possible deal for Britain.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State support the recommendations of the agroforestry review by the Soil Association and the Woodland Trust and put on-farm tree planting at the centre of any environmental land management scheme?
Michael Gove
We absolutely recognise the vital importance of integrating forestry with farming on appropriate sites and at appropriate times.
Michael Gove
My Department and Ministers personally carry out extensive consultation with farmers and those who work alongside them. In the agricultural shows that I have had the opportunity to visit over the course of this summer, and in meetings with the National Farmers Union and others, I have been struck by the commitment that farmers have not just to food production, but to the highest environmental standards for the future.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I do not know whether the Environment Secretary has had a chance to look at Oxfam’s excellent new report, “Behind the Barcode”, which looks at modern slavery and human rights abuses in the food supply chain. I know that it is not his primary responsibility to consider issues such as modern slavery, but given that it is so prevalent in our food system, what conversations has he had with his colleagues about trying to stamp it out?
Michael Gove
I have had conversations with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Home Secretary about ensuring that high standards are maintained—not just environmental standards, but also social and labour protection standards—at every stage in the food chain. I will endeavour to look at that report and ensure that my colleagues across Government are acquainted with its contents.