Agriculture Bill (Fourth sitting)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Q I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument on low pay in the farming sector—thousands of low-paid people work in my constituency—and I am trying to understand the driver behind it. I do not necessarily see exploitative farmers trying to take advantage of workers. Is it not the value chain? Do we need to be realistic and expect higher retail prices? Are the British public too used to low prices for farming produce? Looking at some of the other aspects of the Bill relating to the value chain, can we change the balance of power away from the far end—the retailers and distributors—and give a little bit more power to the suppliers? Is that not the answer?

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 I should say that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on agro-ecology and I tabled the amendment on moving to a more agro-ecological approach that Ed mentioned.

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, you talked about the potential through de-linking and smaller holdings. I wonder what potential there is for reducing supply chains with existing farmers. I ask that from the rural perspective of upland and lowland farmers, such as those I represent in Cumbria, as well as isolated communities. What potential is there for that in the Bill? What infrastructure would be required to facilitate that?

Ed Hamer: Could you repeat the thrust of the question?

Agriculture Bill (First sitting)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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 I have a couple of questions. They are a little complicated but I will try and make them brief. It is difficult to get your head round the economics of it when we do not know how each public good will be rewarded. I know some people have expressed concern that some farmers might cherry-pick one or two of the public goods and do that around the margins of their land, but compensate for the loss of direct payment by becoming more intense and more industrialised—a bit like what happened in New Zealand, where they did not have the compensatory public goods regime. What are your thoughts on that? How would the economics of that work out for farmers and will most of them be persuaded to go down the public goods route and do more on that front?

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 My second question is whether the Bill is strong enough or gives enough clarity on the regulatory baseline. Public goods should be rewarding going above and beyond what is legally required, but we will lose the cross-compliance element of CAP. How do we ensure that farmers are rewarded for doing the extra things and also enforce the people required to do the standard things, such as ensuring the water supply is not being polluted or whatever? This is your baby, Mr Lancaster, isn’t it?

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

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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 47 (Bristol East) (Lab): Can I turn to rents and economics? You said that at the moment a landowner would be charging £98, or whatever the going market rate is, for the land, but they are also getting direct payments on top of that. Is that right, or would that offset the rent payment?

George Dunn: No. In a landlord-tenant situation, it is the tenant who will apply for the basic payment scheme—

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q 48 Yes, but they may be required to pass it on, and we heard evidence this morning that quite a few have to pass it on—

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 49 My question was this: if the landowner is not then getting those direct payments indirectly, will it still be economically viable for them to rent out the land for farming, or will we find landowners choosing to go into other areas, for example tourism, quad biking and whatever it is they do? Or will they just require more money from the tenant farmers, but the tenant farmers will not be getting any more money, because they will not be getting the direct payments?

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 50 Presumably, if there is less land available for farmers, that will then push up rent prices?

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 51 (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con): We heard from our previous witness that there is not enough agriculture in the Agriculture Bill. Would you both agree with that and, if so, what would your organisations like to see in this Bill that is not already there?

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q May I ask about uplands farming and the economic viability regarding the future? I know people have expressed concern about support being withdrawn.

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 Changing tack completely, in terms of the trade deal scenario, Welsh lamb is a pretty important product. We have heard noises from Australia and New Zealand in particular about what they would like to see from a future trade deal. I know it is not specifically in the Bill, but is there anything we can do to protect it—the Bill goes to the heart of protecting standards and not allowing imports in. What impact do you think that would have?

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 Something like a non-regression clause in future trade deals?

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 One last question. A story broke today about 300 cases of salmonella poisoning in lamb products and the Food Standards Agency warning people to cook their meat more. I did not get a chance to ask the Food Standards Agency witness, but do you think we are doing enough to enforce food safety standards in this country at the moment? One of the concerns that has been expressed about the Bill is that there is no regulatory baseline and there might not be enough enforcement and monitoring. How do you reward people going a bit further, if you are not monitoring whether people are actually adhering to the legal standards?

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 The number of cases has risen significantly, which is why it has been reported. Do you have a feeling as to why that is?

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 I am a little bit concerned. We share similar issues in Scotland, where we have a lot of upland farms. If tree planting was too generous, we could lose a lot of upland farms. Also, the measurement of carbon sequestration for grassland and the sheep eating it is a very different thing to measure compared with trees. Are you worried that if the policy is too generous, we could lose land to trees and never get it back? What would you like to see in the Bill? Is there some sort of balancing priority that gives equal status in your mind to food and farming?

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

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[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

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Sustainable Fisheries

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Indeed, the White Paper explains how angling, which is a hugely important part of the life of the nation, can benefit from the additional opportunities that accrue as a result of life outside the European Union. He is absolutely right to underline that, and we look forward to responses obviously not just from the fishing industry, but from recreational and other anglers as well.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State explain the logic behind retaining the existing system of fixed quota allocations for the current quota? As he will know, there has been a great deal of unhappiness about that. Three multimillion-pound companies currently control nearly two thirds of our fishing stock. If he wants to take back control, should we not be reviewing something that is now more than 20 years out of date?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. One of the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) did when he was a Minister was to establish in law that we could move away from some of the FQAs, but appropriate notice needs to be given to do so because the way in which people exercise those rights has been safeguarded in law. However, the direction of travel that the hon. Lady outlines is one with which I sympathise.

Ivory Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Anna Turley]

Absolutely. I think the principle of trust is important, and I hope we would support the Government on that, but for me this is about timing. The issue is not whether it will happen, but the fact that it could be six months or a year before the Bill is passed. In the meantime, especially if the Bill proceeds successfully and is widely heralded, there will be a great deal of awareness about the crackdown on the ivory trade in this country. What concerns me is the knock-on effect in the next six months to a year on the trade in hippo teeth, which could be a direct consequence of the Bill. I therefore do not want any delay caused by the wait for secondary legislation. In principle, however, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we are going in the same direction.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her references to my contribution in Committee. Let me also express my admiration for her elephant-patterned dress.

On the question whether another Bill will be introduced, is it not the case that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which does not normally handle an awful lot of legislation, has so much on its plate at the moment, what with the agriculture Bill, the fisheries Bill and so many other strategies—the need to consider agriculture subsidies, for instance—that the chances are that this will get pushed to the bottom of the pile if it is not dealt with soon?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point, and one that is close to my heart. My private Member’s Bill to increase the punishment for animal cruelty was published in December, but we are still waiting for it to come before this place. There is a huge backlog in legislation, and I think it is dangerous to wait.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a whole list of animals that might be included, and we also had a full discussion about this in Committee. It was only when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds spoke to me this week that I realised that one species that had not been mentioned was the helmeted hornbill. I had no idea that there was a market in red ivory from the hornbill. Has that species come up in any of his considerations, and does he think that it should be put forward for protection as well? It is protected under CITES.

[Mr Paterson]

I am being told via a sedentary intervention that that is not ivory. This is an interesting issue, but surely the good point about Government amendment 3 is that it is very widely drafted, so that a lot of species and a lot of animals could be included. I think that that is a good thing. What the Opposition new clause is proposing, and what we were originally proposing in our letter, is actually narrower and less effective.

I shall sit down now, because it will be much more interesting for the House to hear what the Minister has to say, but this information is on the DEFRA website, and if we could get a statutory instrument out and get started on consulting on the day of Royal Assent, that would be the most rapid method. I think we all agree that we want to give the widest possible protection to the widest number of species, and that seems to be the right route to take.

Ivory Bill (Sixth sitting)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 12, in clause 35, page 21, line 3, leave out from “subsection” to the end of line 5

This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations in the future that would include any ivory species, even if not listed in an appendix to CITES.

Clause stand part.

It is rather warm and humid in here—with humour as well, hopefully—so Members should feel free to take off their jackets. Members who have already spoken in the debate but wish to make comments on parts of the group that they did not address in their first speech are welcome to do so. If they wish to be called again, they should catch my eye by standing. I understand that Liz Twist was speaking before lunch, but she is not here. Would anyone else like to speak?

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I feel that I have been slightly thrown into the middle here, because I was “slipped” for this morning and had not expected the Committee to have made such progress. Last week we took much oral evidence on broadening the definition of ivory beyond the tusk or tooth of an elephant to other ivory-bearing animals. It was disappointing that the consultation looked just at elephant ivory without the opportunity to consider narwhals, walruses or other animals. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire was particularly keen that mammoths should be included in the definition, although that would not come under a convention on international trade in endangered species definition, on the grounds that animals that are already extinct cannot be protected as endangered species. I suggest to the Minister that just because there was not a consultation on other species does not necessarily mean that they cannot be included in a definition.

We heard in evidence that the vast majority of trade is in elephant ivory. Exemptions for antiquities and precious items are nearly always concerned with elephant ivory; the new forms of ivory are very much secondary. There was a discussion about whether the Government would be subject to judicial review if a ban were to be implemented without consultation, and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that. My concern is that although the Bill makes provision to do things by statutory instrument, we will not have another ivory Bill for a long time. I therefore want reassurance that, if we are not to widen the definition in the Bill, those consultations and statutory instruments will be brought forward as soon as possible.

With regard to ivory-bearing animals mentioned in the CITES appendices, alongside African and Asian elephants in appendix I—those ranked as most severely under threat—are sperm whales, which are already under threat from ivory poaching. In 2013 the Spanish authorities seized 250 teeth, with a combined weight of 80 kg, which would have sold online for £1,000 each to be made into carved chess pieces. Appendix II includes narwhals, a single tusk of which can sell for up to $12,500. It has been reported that there are, on average, more than 200 trades in narwhal tusk every year. Although these species may not be at such an immediate and apparent threat of extinction as the elephant, they are at risk.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

We mentioned this morning the knock-on effect of some bans. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we have such a small Bill, focused only on elephants, the knock-on effect for other species not currently endangered could escalate their endangerment? There would be purely a knock-on effect for other species.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have heard that this is big business. There are organised criminal gangs involved in poaching ivory. We have seen in the past how they will move from one lucrative criminal activity to another. If the elephant trade is closed to them, which we hope it will be, they will move on and find new pastures.

I have mentioned a couple of species involved. Alongside those in appendix II there are also killer whales, hippos and certain types of dolphin. Appendix III includes the walruses. It is estimated that up to 3% of their global population are hunted and killed every year.

I want to make a final plea for the poor old warthog, which no one seems to care very much about—[Interruption.] Maybe it was discussed this morning. We have to look at why we are introducing an ivory ban. It is mostly presented as a conservation issue that threatens the survival of the elephant, which could be wiped from the face of the earth. We should look at it from the point of view that taking an animal’s teeth just for the purpose of ornamentation or to make money out of it has to be wrong, whether it is rare, precious and wonderful to look at, or an ugly old warthog, of which there are many running around. I argue that we should not hunt animals for ivory, whether they are endangered or not.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

I will speak briefly to amendment 12, which I tabled following a suggestion from the hon. Member for North Dorset, who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment. He suggested that in clause 35(3) everything following the word “only” should be deleted, so that it would read:

“The regulations may amend subsection (1) so as to include ivory from an animal or species not for the time being covered by that subsection.”

That would allow us to look at non-CITES species, a point raised by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire. That would include mammoth, for example. There is obviously also the dear warthog. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East missed a treat this morning when the hon. Member for North Dorset threatened to sing a song about the warthog in order to draw attention to its plight. She might like to have a word in private, to ask if he could entertain her.

Amendment 11 seeks to extend the scope of the Bill. Amendment 12 would allow us to consider any animal that might be affected in future by displacement or removal of other species from poaching, for example. This is an important area to consider. I hope that the Government will consider it seriously, because it is a simple amendment that would attract cross-party support.

Brexit: Trade in Food

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

Thank you, Mr Gray, for that clarification.

Farmers offer vital support to the rural economy, with the food and farming industry generating more than £110 billion a year, and employing one person in eight in the country. Food and drink, much of it produced in this country, is a vital industry, and the way our food is produced is so important for our natural environment, as we can see in many parts of the country.

The Secretary of State was in Exmoor and Devon last week, where the farming of sheep and cattle produces that lovely landscape with many natural features. Within those natural features is a managed farm landscape, which is why the profitability of food and agricultural production is so necessary. We can look at environmental payments, but they will not be able to replace the profitability of agriculture and food production entirely. The two need to go hand in glove, which we are really keen to see happen.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As a member of the EFRA Committee, I apologise for not being able to stay for the whole debate; I am on the Ivory Bill Committee, which sits again at 2 pm.

I entirely support what the Chair of the Select Committee says about the need for much greater clarity and strategic direction from the Department, but it is also important that we hear a lot more from the Department for International Trade and the Department for Exiting the European Union. I asked about rules of origin and their impact on the food sector this morning and got a very disappointing response. Does he agree that all three Departments need to send a clear message to farmers and food producers about what the future holds for them?

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for the excellent work that she does on the Select Committee. She makes a very good point about geographical indicators. Interestingly enough, when the Secretary of State visited Exmoor and Devon last week, there was talk of giving protected geographical indication status to Exmoor, where we can sell lamb from both sides of the border—from Somerset and from Devon.

All those things are intricately linked to the need for a future food policy, so that people know where their food has come from and so that we can market it better and, hopefully, get a better price for the producer. That money can then be linked back to the landscape. I cannot emphasise enough that the landscape and the food production, especially in certain parts of the country such as big livestock areas and more marginal land, are intricately mixed.

We must also ensure that we have high-quality vegetable production. Where we can produce organic vegetables, we should; where we can produce vegetables with fewer pesticides and fungicides, we should. We must be very positive about a food policy. I am worried that in the recent Command Paper on health and harmony, the only real talk of food production was very much at the high end. The high end of food production is great—from local restaurants, to tourists buying food and to everything linked to the countryside. However, we also need affordable food that the whole population can eat.

At least 90% of our food business goes through our major retailers, and people often buy on price. As we move forward, we have to be assured that our vegetable production not only is of good quality, with high welfare standards, but comes at a price that the average consumer can afford to—and will—pay. Whatever we buy in life, it is a choice, so not only do we want to have good, high standards, but it needs to be affordable.

We have a managed landscape with many natural features, as I said. The onus is on the Government to engage more closely with the industry to provide the food and farming sector with greater clarity. Tit-for-tat tariffs will do more harm than good—just look at the situation in America. The Americans have started putting tariffs on steel and aluminium. That might well help the steel and aluminium industries in America, but it will drive costs up for the industries in America that need to use those products. Food, a commodity and a manufactured product, does not need tariffs on it. In the end, that will only create more costs and could well lead to higher prices to consumers. I do not believe that those tariffs will ever come back to the producer.

It is imperative that we have a farming-focused free trade agreement with Europe. I repeat what has been said day in and day out in this House: two years since the referendum, all sectors—not just the farming sector— need some clarity on the direction in which we are going. People in all lines of business need to make investments, but those in the beef and dairy sectors in particular need to have a long-term view of where the world is going in order to make investments.