Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill

Debate between Neil Parish and Julian Sturdy

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point, which I am leading on to. As we deal with farm payments in the future, we have to make sure that we build on our environment and that we do not forget food production, healthy food and delivering British food at high standards. I think it is the NFU that says:

“You can’t go green if you’re in the red!”

That is the issue. We have to make sure that there is enough money flowing into farming businesses to ensure that we have good healthy food.

The one little criticism I have of the new Agriculture Bill is that there is possibly not quite enough in it on farming and food production. It is better than it was, and I give great credit to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench who have worked very hard to get that into the Bill, but I still want to ensure that an Agriculture Bill is actually about food production and about agriculture. It is also about the environment, but I would like those to be equal parts of it, and I think that is the great challenge.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a really important point. Does he not agree that we have to make sure we secure fair trading arrangements for food producers in future trade deals? If we do not do this, we can talk about the vast environmental policies we want, but ultimately if we do not get those correct future trading relationships, that could destroy British agriculture.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend, who was on the previous Select Committee, raises an extremely good point. Again, not only does the income of farmers come naturally from the support payment, but much of it comes from what they sell. Of course, farmers would like to be able to make sure that they can sell their product at a good price so that they do not have to rely so much on public support, so these trade deals are going to be very important.

I do worry about the future trade deals, but provided we are sensible and put forward a trade agreement that maintains our high standards of environmental, crop and animal welfare protection, and that we make sure those products coming in from trade deal are meeting the same standards, then I have not got a problem. What I do not want to see is this being massively undermined by lower standards, because with lower standards come lower costs and, basically, that is what will put farmers out of business in the end.

I think there is a bright future for farming provided we get this right. I think we can, and I know that the agriculture Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), is very keen on reducing bureaucracy and on delivering a more simple payment. I am looking forward to all this coming before us so that the Select Committee can look at it in great detail, because this is a great opportunity.

I made this point in a debate last week or the week before, but we now have the interesting idea that we must have a three crop rule. The three crop rule was introduced because eastern Germany has produced maize after maize for a generation, and to break that continuous maize production, the three crop rule has been brought in. However, in a country like our own—especially on the western side of this country in particular, from Scotland right down to Cornwall—we find that there is so much grass production, including a lot of permanent grass, that we really do not need a three crop rule. It is completely unnecessary.

We also do not need re-mapping every three years when we make payments, and there is an issue there. I think farmers should be considered innocent until they are proven guilty. At the moment, they are guilty until they can prove they are innocent. They are always being checked on, and then fined if there is a slight discrepancy between the maps and the areas of claim. If there are some rogues out there—dare I say it, and I speak as a farmer, but every community has one or two rogues—and they are really defrauding the system, we should come down on them like a ton of bricks. However, for a lot of farmers, what they do is very genuine and the way they make their claims is very genuine, and even if there is a small discrepancy, we should not have to be checking on them all the time, giving fines and all of these things. There really is a great deal we can do there to simplify this, and I look forward to my hon. Friend coming forward with those ideas. We can make farming the solution for the countryside, and ensure that we deal with the environment. The Opposition talk about having zero carbon emissions by 2030. We cannot get there by then, but much of farming could get there by 2040. When we take payment from direct support systems, perhaps we could put those payments into getting agricultural and other buildings to store slurry and the like.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend, the new MP for Totnes, makes a good point. When considering an agricultural policy that is, rightly, much more linked to the environment, we must ensure that we do not stop the means of production. We must look at new technologies. Some in this House will throw up their hands in horror when I talk about gene technology and other things, but there are ways to reduce the amount of crop protection we use, while still keeping a dynamic and productive agricultural industry.

Take oilseed rape, for instance. In this country we cannot use neonicotinoids, yet all the oilseed rape we import has largely been treated with a product that we cannot use here. We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater—we want a productive agricultural industry and to produce food in this country, and that will be the great challenge for us. As we look for a new policy, plant trees and help our environment, let us ensure not only that we plant those trees, but that we are smart about where we plant them. At the same time we can help to stop soil erosion and flooding, and we can make a real difference. During the election there was a sort of bidding war over how many trees each party could plant, and it got to some ludicrous figure in the end. I am not sure where we will plant all those trees, but I think we can plant them and do so smartly.

I have made this point in the Chamber before, but as we plant trees we must ensure that there is an income from doing so. Let us return to my dear bank manager. If I bought some land, had a big mortgage and said, “I will plant some trees and come back to you in 50 years when there might be an income”, I think he would say, “It’s probably best not to buy it in the first place, and do not borrow the money from my bank if you do so.” To be serious, however, if we are to look at land and those who own it, we must ensure that there is a support system, so that the right trees are planted in the right places. We also need a support system that takes people through a period of time, and ensures a crop of trees. People should be able to replant trees where they need to, or take wood from those areas, because they are sustainable. I am putting on my hat as a farmer and landowner, but at the moment people might be cautious about planting too many trees on their best land, because they cannot be certain that they will get an income from it in future, or that they will ever be able to cut those trees down. This is about ensuring that we improve the environment, but also that we have enough land for really good food production.

We have spoken a lot about the Agriculture Bill, and that is for the future. I expect you want me to shut up in a minute, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] I am still waxing lyrical, because I am keen to ensure that we have good food and enough land to produce it. We also need affordable food. If I have any criticism of the Agriculture Bill, it is that it rightly focuses on high welfare and high standards, but also probably on quite highly priced food. This country has a highly competitive, productive poultry industry that delivers good poultry to good standards and at an affordable price. Dare I say that most of us in the House—I can talk about myself in particular—are fairly well fed, and we probably do not worry about buying food? To make a serious point, however, a lot of the population have to look at their budget and be careful about how much they spend. We can produce food in this country, even under intensive conditions, to a much better standard than the food we import. We must be careful that we do not exclude intensive production, but then import it from elsewhere in the world where there are much lower standards, including on welfare. That is key.

[Julian Sturdy]

It is also about importing environmental damage.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend must have read my mind because—you will be glad to hear this, Mr Speaker—my final point is that as we consider ways to improve the environment in this country, we must remember that part of that involves food production. If we reduce our food production but import food from Brazil, where they are ploughing up the savannah and cutting down the rain forest, that will not improve the world environment—it will make it much worse. When we import food from drier countries, we also import their water to grow that food. There is a great drive to have a good agriculture Bill that is linked to the environment, but we can also produce a great deal of good food in this country, and I think we have a moral duty to do so.

Fly-tipping

Debate between Neil Parish and Julian Sturdy

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I accept that that is indeed the case. Fly-tipping can involve anything from a mattress or a sofa to large quantities of rubbish. Around our big conurbations, certainly in the midlands and other areas, there seems to be what I would call industrial tipping, involving lorry loads of waste, perhaps from hospitals or wherever. Everybody thinks it is being taken away legitimately, but it is tipped. The closer one is to larger conurbations, the worse the problem, especially for cases involving large quantities.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree with me that there is a correlation between what local authorities charge for disposing of waste and the incidence of fly-tipping? Nottingham City Council cut all charges for small items in 2013 and has seen a drop of two thirds in fly-tipping in its area.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. When it comes to small-scale fly-tipping, if people can go to a tip and not be charged, it encourages them to dispose of waste properly. It seems to have had an effect in Nottingham, and I shall have a series of asks for the Minister at the end of my speech. However, it might not reduce industrial tipping, where people have to pay quite a lot for disposal because of the cost of landfill. That is where there seems to be a major problem.

If we could find who has carried out the fly-tipping, we could impound their lorries and take away their means of operation. That would also send a message to others that it is a dangerous job. We do not need to catch many people operating on an industrial scale if we are prepared to take really tough enforcement action.

Food Labelling

Debate between Neil Parish and Julian Sturdy

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of food labelling.

I draw hon. Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Accurate food labelling is vital to UK food producers and consumers. It is important in ensuring that there is a fair, functioning market in the sector. It enables products to compete on a fair basis—especially given that imports are often made to lower quality, with poorer animal welfare standards. It allows consumers to make informed choices about how they want to buy, without being misled. As the 2013 horsemeat scandal demonstrated, our labelling regime has an impact on consumers and businesses in every community in the country. Of course it also has a particular impact on farming and food manufacturing businesses and the wider rural economy.

The Minister’s Department calculates that the value of food and farming to the economy is about £108 billion, and the sector employs one in eight members of the total workforce. The strength of British agriculture is essential to maintaining food security and to the conservation, through its vital role in land management, of the countryside and landscapes. A strong farming sector also sustains rural communities, especially in more remote areas where there may be fewer alternative sources of employment. I know that the Government are committed to supporting the agriculture sector, and that support is all the more important as we face the challenges and opportunities of leaving the European Union.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

rose—

[Julian Sturdy]

I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend for obtaining this excellent debate. It is great that we have high standards of animal welfare, but they cost the industry money; does he agree that, as we get new trade deals and leave the European Union, we must be certain to label products securely so that we can stop imports coming in if they do not meet our standards? We should properly label our products; otherwise our farming community and food industry will be seriously disadvantaged.

[Julian Sturdy]

I entirely agree, and that is exactly why I wanted to have the debate now. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen a copy of my speech; but he is right. There will be opportunities and challenges for the food and farming sector in leaving the European Union. Developing a comprehensive and accurate food labelling regime is an indispensable element of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Sturdy]

That is another excellent point in what is indeed an important debate. I entirely agree: this is about making sure that labelling is accurate and fair to the producer and the consumer—so that the latter can make a properly informed choice. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that is not always the case.

I firmly believe that withdrawal from the EU must not mean going back on the progress that we have made.

[Neil Parish]

Will my hon. Friend indulge me again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Sturdy]

I am not making much headway, but I am happy to give way.

[Neil Parish]

On the point about mislabelling, there is a big chain in this city and others that sells Angus beef, which I suspect is not Aberdeen Angus, from either Scotland or the rest of the United Kingdom, but mostly south American. I suspect that because it is labelled Angus beef, a lot of people eating it think that it is home-grown Angus beef.

[Julian Sturdy]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know exactly the places that he is talking about; I cannot say I have frequented them, but I know where they are and they stand out very well in the capital. What he says is right, and it goes back to the point made earlier. It is a question of consumer choice, but consumers want accurate information—whether online or in restaurants—so that they can make an informed choice about the products they buy.

The three main types of origin label are country of origin, method of production and method of slaughter. In this short debate—I am already running out of time—I intend to concentrate mainly on country of origin labelling, because I feel it is both the category for which accurate labelling is most important and because a British product is already guaranteed to be made to some of the highest standards of quality and animal welfare in the world. While accurate labelling is obviously important for producers, we also know that it matters deeply to consumers. It is therefore only right that labelling is clear and accurate.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs figures from 2016 show that just under 40% of shoppers check food labels for national origin, while separate research suggests that figure rises to 47% for meat products—double the percentage who look at nutritional information. Under EU rules, country of origin labelling is currently mandatory for unprocessed pork, sheep, beef, goat’s meat, shellfish, poultry, most fruit and vegetables, wine, honey and olive oil. That is a fairly recent development for sheep, pigs, goats and poultry, applying only since April 2015.

The bottom line is that the substance of these regulations must be preserved as the bare minimum when we cease to be an EU member state; promoting “brand Britain” through our exports will become all the more important as we move towards the exit door. I also believe that the Government must act to remedy existing problems with these regulations once they have the power to do so independently. As the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee was told last year during its “Farmgate prices” inquiry, EU rules allow for the national origin of meat to be given as the country where the last significant change in production took place and not where the animal spent all of its life. For me, that does not amount to a fair, common-sense definition of national origin.

Published in May last year, the Government’s response to the Committee’s report said that they were

“continuing to press at EU level for mandatory country of origin labelling for staple food products.”

The wide scope of action that that suggests is very welcome.

Broadband

Debate between Neil Parish and Julian Sturdy

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

I am not going to get drawn into giving an exact answer to the hon. Gentleman. I shall come on to that issue later. BT is doing a good job in some areas, but it could do better in others; that is what we all want to see. However, we must recognise that, rightly or wrongly, BT is a major player in delivery, and delivering broadband to all our businesses and residents, wherever they are, is essential.

The Government have been ambitious in their plan to transform broadband in the UK, which has been co-ordinated by Broadband Delivery UK. The Government’s roll-out of superfast broadband has reached more than 1 million homes and businesses across the UK. The £1.7 billion nationwide roll-out is firmly on track to extend superfast broadband to 95% of UK homes and businesses by 2017. The rate at which fibre technology is being rolled out under the programme is rapidly accelerating, and up to 40,000 premises are gaining access every week. A key part of our long-term economic plan is to provide the digital tools that people and businesses need to thrive.

However—there is always a however—the move to online services is in serious danger of leaving thousands of people in digital darkness. The current target of 95% superfast broadband coverage by 2017 still leaves behind 5%. We must also ensure that we get to 95% by 2017. “The final 5%” is a misleading term, as it will not be evenly distributed across the country. Some communities—particularly those in rural areas—are disproportionately affected. More than 10% of the countryside is still without access to broadband in any form, and there are 12,000 premises with no digital footprint whatever.

As a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I took part in the inquiry on rural broadband provision and digital-only services. As our report made clear, the difficult geographical nature of some communities must not be used as an excuse for a lack of broadband or poor broadband speeds. Those challenges should encourage investment and innovation in new types of technology.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I join other Members in congratulating my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He is right to praise what the Government have done so far, but he is also right to talk about the growing digital divide. It is important that we get superfast broadband to the final percentage of rural communities. Does he agree that, to get to those rural communities, we need to embrace new wireless technology? Ultimately, fibre to the cabinet will not deliver to those communities.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Our experience in Devon and Somerset is that new technologies have not been used quickly enough in the roll-out of broadband. BDUK is beginning to pick up and pilot some new technologies, but more should have been done more quickly. One of the purposes of this debate is to say to the Minister and to BDUK that we must deliver broadband faster and look at new technologies. A lot of the technologies are already out there. For example, smaller boxes can be put on to telegraph polls. I am not a technical man, but there are ways to deliver broadband more quickly. I imagine that the problems in Devon and Somerset are similar to those in Yorkshire, so we need to work on them.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Neil Parish and Julian Sturdy

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Julian Sturdy]

My hon. Friend is right that any cut in fuel duty or reduction in potential rises that are coming down the line has a huge impact on the Treasury’s finances, and the money always has to be found elsewhere. However, I go back to my original point, which will have some resonance across the House: rural areas are particularly affected by high fuel prices and that has an impact on the rural economies. I ask the Exchequer Secretary to keep the matter constantly under consideration whenever he looks at increasing fuel prices.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a good case for reducing fuel duty, especially in rural areas. However, I also recognise that the Chancellor has only so much money and that taking people who earn up to £9,000 out of tax will help many lower-paid workers in many rural areas. That will help. We must concentrate our finance on where we can put it to best use.

[Julian Sturdy]

I agree. Raising tax thresholds will be hugely helpful, and I will speak about that later. My hon. Friend is right that the number of people we will take out of tax has sadly been a little lost in the press and media coverage of the Budget. We must champion and emphasise that policy.

I want to consider another controversial issue at a household level, which several hon. Members have already mentioned: the child benefit reforms in clause 8. In the early consultation on the proposals, I wrote to Her Majesty’s Treasury, asking for them to be reviewed. The amendments in the Budget are clearly positive developments, which brought some fairness back to the policy. My concern now is about how it will be implemented and whether the costs of administering the reduction in child benefit will be worth the benefits. I hope that more light will be shed on that in due course. I would also like to put on record again my support for transferable tax allowances as a way of increasing fairness in the system. I believe that Ministers are still examining that, and I hope that it will get due consideration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) briefly raised the personal tax allowance changes that the Government have made. Again, I commend the Government for raising personal tax allowances faster to ensure that more of the lowest paid are lifted out of paying tax altogether. That is an excellent policy and a very Conservative principle.

The controversy about the so-called granny tax in clause 4 is understandable. I have great sympathy with those who are unhappy about the changes, but I must make a couple of points. We live in extreme times. The largest budget deficit since the second world war requires a strong Government to make decisions that they would not choose to take in other circumstances. Opposition Members can attempt to make political hay out of such decisions, but they were not charged with the responsibility of cleaning up the current mess. With an increasing state pension, the triple-lock guarantee and the protection of key benefits such as free eye tests, prescriptions, TV licences and bus travel, pensioners remain at the top of the priority list when it comes to protecting individuals from the full impact of the economic crisis.

In summary, the Bill contains a great deal of positive, forward-thinking and private sector-encouraging policies. It deals with the difficult but necessary financial decisions and judgments, which will be truly appreciated and tested only in the fullness of time, and yet the message is almost more powerful than the contents. The Bill is unashamedly proactive in building a more competitive international economy. For that reason alone, I hope hon. Members give it full backing tonight.