Family Farming in Devon

Debate between Robbie Moore and Daniel Zeichner

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

It is always a pleasure to serve when you are in the Chair, Sir Mark. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for bringing this debate in his characteristically forceful way. He seduces; he charms; he flatters. I particularly enjoyed his account of the centuries it has taken to produce the wonderful farms we see in Devon—centuries, of course, that preceded the current agricultural property relief regulations. I also enjoyed his account of the weather that the previous Government created, which left the farming sector in such a parlous state for the new Government to inherit. But he also encouraged me to visit Devon, and I can tell him that, actually, within my first 10 days of being appointed as Minister I had made my way to Devon, as I had done in opposition on a number of occasions, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

However, I also frequently heard from local people that they were concerned about others coming to buy up land over the top of local people. I suspect that we can share our concerns on some of these issues. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referenced the excellent debate that he secured in this Chamber last year on the future of Dartmoor, which I will come on to.

Many important points have been raised, and I have listened carefully to all the thoughtful contributions. I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). I will go away and look carefully at her points about the moorland stocking rates, which I know my officials are looking at closely, and how they affect Greenwell farm. I always listen closely to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) also made important points. I was struck by the points made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), particularly around border controls. I remind him that one of the first things we did was to strengthen those controls, so I very much agree with him about threats at the borders.

We absolutely recognise that the farming sector is vital. Family farms are crucial: they produce our food, steward the environment and look after nature. We are all indebted to farmers across this country for doing that, and we all recognise the stresses and strains, the mental health challenges, which the hon. Member for Winchester mentioned, and the pressures from the weather and from disease in the last few years. That is why this Government are investing £5 billion into farming over the next two years—the largest amount ever directed towards sustainable food production, rural economic growth and the recovery of nature in our country’s history. That should send a powerful message to farmers about the value we place on all that they do. Within that, we have committed £1.8 billion for environmental land management schemes, delivering improvements to food security and biodiversity, tackling carbon emissions and improving water quality, air quality and flood resilience.

I will address the point about basic payments made at the beginning by the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock. He is right: we are accelerating the end of the era of payouts to landowners simply for owning land, and the fastest reductions in subsidies will be for those who have historically received the largest payments. For example, it is true that the 4% who received more than £100,000 in subsidies in 2020 will receive no more than £8,000 in 2025, whereas the majority of farmers who receive less than £10,000 to start with will see a gradual reduction in their delinked payments, but they will all have access to ongoing funding through SFI and other schemes. That is the key point. We are speeding up that vital transition, which I fully recognise the previous Government set about initially, to get to a better place in terms of the environment.

The issue of capital grants is interesting, because I must tell the Opposition that there is no magic money tree. The reason why the capital grants have stopped is that they are oversubscribed. We have seen an unprecedented demand this autumn. The Rural Payments Agency received more applications for capital grants from May to November 2024 than over the whole of the 2023-24 financial year. They are also worth more—as of November ’24, the standalone capital grant applications were up by 45% compared with the whole of the last financial year. This is a basic problem that we inherited: there is no management of public funds. That is the core problem that the whole of Government faces with our inheritance from the Conservatives, and we will deal with those points.

I turn to the Dartmoor issues, which the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock rightly raised. On 29 October, we appointed Phil Stocker to chair the new Dartmoor Land Use Management Group, which was one of the central recommendations of the Fursdon review. We are moving forward with David Fursdon’s recommendations to create a long-term plan for land use that preserves the cultural heritage of the area, recovers nature and boosts food production. The group will provide a space for stakeholders to discuss important issues and work to strike the right balance between food security and preserving the diversity and abundance of nature in the area. Mr Stocker will be responsible for steering the group to meet its aims and objectives, and one of his first tasks will be to identify and appoint members who bring the necessary knowledge, expertise and engagement to the group. That process is under way, and we expect the first meeting to take place shortly. I absolutely hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s invitation, and at an appropriate point I will, I hope, visit and constructively support the work being done.

I also understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman met officials from Natural England in October for an update on progress implementing the Fursdon review. We have been in discussions since I took up the role, and we wish the whole process well.

I will turn to the agricultural property relief issue—a well-rehearsed debate that will continue in the main Chamber tomorrow. I will repeat the points that I have made before. We are confident that the changes are proportionate and that smaller farms will be protected. Those above the threshold will have 10 years to pay the tax, with zero interest incurred. No one is doubting that it was a difficult decision, but the truth is that the economic situation that the Government inherited has required us to make tough choices. I reassure Members that based on the figures we have, which are the only ones we can go on—actual claims on estates—we reiterate our point: we feel that the vast majority of people will be not be affected.

[Robbie Moore]

On that point, will the Minister confirm whether, when the Government brought in the £1 million cap, they took into account the size of farming units in any analysis on its impact on future IHT claimants?

[Daniel Zeichner]

That will be debated further. On our side, the debate will be led by Treasury Ministers who are in a better position to answer those kinds of questions. However, the complexity and the different range of set-ups and structures that family businesses have makes it difficult to make that assessment. The hon. Gentleman will know that when it comes to legislation, there will be a full assessment and we can look into those details then. I stand by the figures that the Treasury has given us. We expect that the changes will affect only around 500 claims for agricultural property relief in 2026-27, so we believe it is a fair and balanced approach.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Lady will know that we are one Government and we stand together. Going forward, we are picking up the mess that we inherited, and that is the problem we face. On each of these issues in turn, we have to answer the basic question: who will fix the economic mess? The answer is this Government.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister indulge me one more time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Just once more.

[Robbie Moore]

Only because I will not have the opportunity to raise this point at the Dispatch Box tomorrow if a Treasury Minister is responding. Will the Minister correct me if I am wrong? When the Government introduced the £1 million cap, they did not look at the size of family farms that will be impacted. Surely they do not understand the value of an estate on death if they have not looked at the size of it, therefore how can they understand correctly the number of claimants who will be impacted?

[Daniel Zeichner]

We can, because we simply look at the number of claims that have been made in the last few years. That is how we arrive at that conclusion.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Debate between Robbie Moore and Daniel Zeichner

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore]

How does the Secretary of State expect farmers to do more with less? Why is he happy to hand our next generation of farmers an impossible tax bill?

Next, the Government claim that small family farmers will be protected, yet the Country Land and Business Association and the NFU have today disputed the Government’s figures. Will the Minister commit to releasing a full assessment of his policy, including an impact on national food security?

While the changes to inheritance tax relief have been gaining the national headlines, there are many other negative impacts on farming businesses from the Budget. Increased national insurance contributions, coupled with a lower national threshold; an accelerated reduction in de-linked payment rates; higher taxes on double-cab pick-up vehicles; new taxes on fertilisers—I could go on, but this all begs the question: does the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) actually know anything about farming at all? More importantly, after the Secretary of State looked British farmers in the eye and specifically promised them that there would be no changes to agricultural property relief, how on earth can farmers believe a single word that his Minister is about to say?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for promoting me to Secretary of State—I hope he has similar success in the coming hours.

The hon. Gentleman raises a whole series of questions. He asked again, as others have, about other elements in the Budget. The figures are absolutely there; they were published by the Treasury and are there for all to read. They are the facts on the estates that have made claims on agricultural property relief in the last year available. [Interruption.] They are there for everyone to see. It is not difficult, it is not complicated—they are there.

Something that perhaps has not been said, but which should be, is that there were many calls to reflect the changing way in which farming operates by including environmental land management schemes within the scope of agricultural property relief. I hear nothing from Opposition Front Benchers about that. Do they not understand the way in which British farming is changing?

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Robbie Moore and Daniel Zeichner

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Latham. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal for inviting me to be on the Bill Committee; I very much hope she does not come to regret it. I am interested in the Bill both in a practical sense—we all want to see livestock properly protected—and as someone who is, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion pointed out, a veteran of the kept animals Bill. I will come back to that in a minute, because some of the issues that have been raised were addressed in that Bill.

I will not delay the Committee by discussing the harm that is done. I echo the points that have been made. The harm was certainly raised by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), on Second Reading, when he detailed a number of cases in offering the Opposition’s full support for the Bill, which I echo.

It will not come as any surprise to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal that I make the point again that we were discussing the kept animals Bill some two and a half years ago. I was delighted that she gave me the first explanation that I have heard for its withdrawal, but I am not convinced by it. That Bill was an extraordinary collection of things in the first place, and the only additions that I recall being made were some amendments—unhelpful ones, I suspect, from the Government’s point of view—from Conservative Back Benchers. It was withdrawn, and we have not had the relevant protections for two and a half years, due to political management issues in the Conservative party. Leaving that aside, there were important points in that Bill, some of which have been brought forward in private Members’ Bills, although that is a chancy way of doing things.

I was fortunate to find the bundle of papers from that period in my office earlier. I am glad that I did because, as the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon and the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said, the original kept animals Bill was a very different piece of legislation. It was much more comprehensive and introduced the notion of control orders and disqualification orders, which I think would very much address the points that have been raised. I am not clear why a different approach has been taken with this Bill.

The kept animals Bill would have effectively replaced the 1953 Act, but this Bill amends it and is quite different as a consequence. That includes the lack of a debate such as the one we had then—I am sure Members will remember it—about not just the control orders and disqualification orders but the very definition of “worrying livestock” in the 1953 Act. That led to a lengthy and complicated discussion about whether people should be expected to keep their dog on a lead when close to livestock. I am not sure why that has not been reintroduced, either. The then Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), declined our amendments, but we were strongly of the view that that would send a very strong message to people that if they are close to livestock, their dog should be on a lead. I would like us to return to that discussion, if possible, and consider including that provision in this Bill.

More could have been done for those reasons, but, having said all that, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal for promoting this Bill. We support it and I wish it well as it progresses through the House, but it would be good to strengthen it on Report, if possible.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for promoting this incredibly important Bill. From the contributions we have heard in this debate, we know just how impactful it could be on constituents who have unfortunately experienced livestock worrying or livestock attacking.

I also thank right hon. and hon. Members for trying to improve the Bill as it moves through the House. “Our Action Plan for Animal Welfare”, published in 2021, set out our plans, aims and ambitions across animal welfare. It set out the commitments that we are focused on pursuing to deliver a better life for animals in this country and abroad. The Bill supports our commitments to ensure that new powers are available to the police so that they can respond efficiently and proactively to the worrying and attacking of livestock by dogs.

The Bill’s purpose is to amend the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. It will strengthen police powers and extend the location and species that are within scope of that Act. As we have heard, livestock worrying and attacks on livestock can have awful impacts. The behaviour of dogs that chase, attack or cause distress to livestock can result in injury or death. Our own family farm—I refer Members to my declaration of interest—has experienced sheep worrying and sheep attacking, so I know from experience how detrimental it can be not only to the financial measures of a business but to health and wellbeing. We must also consider the impact of the inability to protect one’s own livestock. Livestock can also suffer wider tragic impacts as a result of livestock worrying, including abortion. Such impacts go beyond animals and their welfare. As I have said, they will also have a direct impact on farmers and lead to financial loss.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal raised a case relating to the difference between attacking and worrying. Paragraph 1 of the schedule updates the terminology used in the 1953 Act and addresses that specifically. Attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock, to recognise the violent nature of such offences.

Statistics from the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society show that UK farm animals worth an estimated £2.4 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2023. That was up by nearly 30% compared with the previous year, which demonstrates why the Bill is so important. In addition, a survey carried out by the National Sheep Association found that 70% of farmers had experienced sheep worrying incidents in the past 12 months. Some 95% of the 305 sheep farmers surveyed said that they experienced up to 10 cases of sheep worrying every year.

The Bill will improve police powers and enable them to respond to livestock worrying incidents more effectively by extending powers of seizure and modifying entry powers. It also introduces new powers to take samples and impressions from livestock and the suspected dogs. That should facilitate investigations by making it easier for the police to collect evidence, which, in turn, should improve the rate of successful prosecutions and hopefully reduce the risk of further incidents.

The Bill extends the scope of the 1953 Act by broadening the locations where the offence may take place to include roads or paths. As Committee members have mentioned, it is important to move livestock from one field to another but attacks can happen when that transition is taking place. The Bill addresses the point of roads and paths being considered.

The Bill also amends the wording of the offence of livestock worrying to create separate offences for attacks on livestock and the worrying of livestock, in recognition that both attacking and worrying livestock are serious and devastating. I am particularly pleased that the Bill will also extend the species protected by the Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas. I note the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, however, about other species that could be included, such as ostriches, should things change in future and should farming practices include other species. There may be a wish for that to be considered on Report.

I turn to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. Other Committee members referred to it and expressed support for higher levels of fines for the offence of livestock worrying. The current maximum fine that may be imposed in any case is a level 3 fine not exceeding £1,000. I understand that my right hon. Friend is keen to amend that fine to provide the courts with the appropriate flexibility to impose a higher fine where that is warranted. We as a Government agree that increasing the fine will serve as an additional deterrent to help to reduce the likelihood of future livestock worrying.

As drafted, however, the amendment is out of step with the current fine guidance as it refers to level 5 fines, when the practice since 2015 has been to provide for unlimited fines rather than level 5 fines. It also includes a tiered approach to take account of reoffending, which the courts can already supply under the Sentencing Council guidelines on aggravating and mitigating factors. As my right hon. Friend referenced, my officials will work with her as the Bill progresses to Report stage, before it comes back to the House, so we can table a revised amendment that will deliver on the desired intent to increase the fines that courts can issue to unlimited, and to act as a deterrent.

I am aware of the support for animal welfare in this country and the interest that the matter continues to receive. The strength of feeling has been apparent again from the discussions that we have heard. I will make a couple of additional points. On common land, the definition of agricultural land in the 1953 Act does not expressly reference common land but it does include land used for grazing, and therefore common land could be in scope of the Bill. Ultimately, it remains a matter for the courts to decide if the land in question is in scope in any particular case, but our interpretation is that common land could be determined by the courts to be in scope as grazing land.

On the shadow Minister’s point about dogs being kept on leads, the Bill does not cover that and, from our experience, there is good reason for that. The Bill deals with having control of dogs, but as Committee members may know, it is not right in every circumstance to have signage that specifically relates to keeping dogs on leads. I am aware of circumstances in Yorkshire where signage has stipulated that dogs must be kept on leads, but then someone might keep a dog on a lead and take it into a field full of cattle. If there are young calves, there will, of course, be mother cows that will want to protect their calves. If the dog owner keeps their dog on a lead and does not let go, there is a risk that the owner will also be put at risk if a mother and calf become separated and the mother wants to take down the dog. It is therefore not right in every circumstance.

That is why dogs being kept on leads does not fall in the scope of the Bill and has not been progressed at this stage. Of course, I would always refer people to the countryside code, which deals with the challenges that have been raised. The Bill builds on the Government’s ambitious programme of animal welfare reforms, and we are very pleased to support it.

Food Waste and Food Distribution

Debate between Robbie Moore and Daniel Zeichner

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

Let me highlight some stats that have been presented to me and the Department by WRAP. From the 2007 baseline to 2021, total post-farm-gate waste has dropped by 18.3% and households are wasting 17% less than in 2007. Of course we recognise that household waste is still too high, and we are doing our utmost to reduce it. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about education and improving food technology and home economics lessons, so that everyone going through the education system has a better understanding of ingredients, nutritional values and the quantities needed to produce good-quality meals.

All speakers today have referred to the request for mandatory food waste reporting. We support Courtauld’s delivery of the food waste reduction road map, which provides guidance to businesses on identifying and measuring food waste and food surplus. We support the “target, measure, act” approach, as it enables food businesses to drive down food waste through measuring their surplus and waste. It also shines a light on any surplus that arises and how to get it to redistributors.

We consulted on improving the voluntary approach with options that included making it mandatory for large businesses. Members will be aware that when the Secretary of State took up his position in November last year, alongside a new ministerial team that includes me, our determination was to review previous decisions. We are gathering new evidence to make the most informed decision using the latest available data. We look forward to making that decision soon.

I have met Too Good To Go in my constituency, through a visit to Booths supermarket in Ilkley. It is a fantastic organisation, which I hope will be rolled out further in the north-east, if it is not there yet—I can certainly confirm that it is in Yorkshire and working its way north. I took on board the points it made in its request to roll out mandatory reporting, which is being considered by the Secretary of State as we speak.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am sure that the Minister heard the enthusiasm for mandatory reporting from a number of Members. What is causing the Government not to go forward, given that businesses want it to happen?

[Robbie Moore]

A previous Secretary of State made the decision to go for a voluntary approach, and it is right that the new team are reviewing that decision, alongside various stakeholders. As I have said, we aim to make an announcement soon.

The Government strongly support the surplus food redistribution sector because we recognise the environmental and social benefits of making sure that good food is eaten rather than wasted. Since 2018 we have provided nearly £13 million in funding to increase the capacity of the sector, funding infrastructure such as warehouse facilities, freezer units and temperature-controlled vans, taking great strides in improving the capacity of redistributors to access, transport, process, store and ultimately redistribute surplus to people in need. The results of our investment and the hard work of all people involved in the redistribution sector are reflected in the latest report from WRAP, which shows that the total amount of food redistributed in the UK in 2022 was more than 170,000 tonnes. That has a value of around £590 million and is the equivalent of more than 404 million meals. That is an increase of 133% since 2019.

Hon. Members have raised examples of good voluntary schemes in their constituencies. I commend the work done by the Company Shop Group in the constituency of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who noted that 6.3 million meals have been saved that would otherwise have gone to landfill. It is good to recognise the work that is going on in our constituencies. As well as meeting Too Good to Go, I met with Olio just yesterday to discuss its app-based system. A great deal of work is going on in the private sector and in voluntary schemes to reduce food waste.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) raised particular on-farm issues, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. In addition to the work on post-farm-gate surpluses, the Prime Minister announced at the National Farmers Union conference earlier this year action to tackle surplus food on farms, with a £15 million fund to redirect that surplus into the hands of those who need it. We will provide further details in coming months. We are working with stakeholders to ensure the scheme works adequately and appropriately, to make the most positive impact on reducing food waste.

We seek a productive and efficient farming sector that prevents waste from occurring in the first place. We are supporting investment in productivity, boosting equipment, technology and infrastructure through the farming investment fund, which provides grants to farmers and growers that will help their businesses prosper, while improving their productivity and enhancing the environment.

WRAP supports the measures that the Government are rolling out. It recognises that the total amount of edible food on UK farms that might be suitable for redistribution is approximately 330,000 tonnes per annum, or about 10% of the total of 3.6 million tonnes surplus and waste estimated to be generated on farms. The Government are working with various stakeholders, including WRAP, to address how to minimise and redistribute on-farm food waste.

The hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) and for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) spoke about the supply chain and contracts, We have taken steps through the fair dealings powers awarded by the Agriculture Act 2020 to clamp down on unfair contract practices. Last December, we launched a review into fairness in the fresh produce supply chain. We are analysing responses and will soon publish a summary of them, as well as our proposed next steps. We intend to work with stakeholders to explore how those powers could be exercised to reduce those concerns and provide more certainty to farmers, who are being negatively impacted by some of the decisions supermarkets are making through unfair practices in their supply chain contracts.

Many hon. Members raised challenges related to kerbside collection of food waste. The food and drink surplus and waste hierarchy lays out clear guidance for the use and disposal of surplus food and waste. We ask all businesses to take into account the measures that the Government wish to take, particularly in relation to the food hierarchy—first, to prevent food waste, followed by the redistribution of food surplus to those who need it, and, as a last resort, to end up as animal feed. There is tax relief when businesses donate to charity.

There will always be some waste that cannot be prevented. The hierarchy prefers disposal of that waste through anaerobic digestion rather than landfill, because of its recognised negative impacts on the environment. Whatever preventative and reduction actions are taken, some food waste will arise. Anaerobic digestion is the Government’s preferred option for recycling food that eventually ends up as waste. Treating food waste through anaerobic digestion removes it from the residual waste stream, where it can end up in landfill and create harmful greenhouse gases.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central asked how local authorities would roll out kerbside collection of food waste. Under section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended by the Environment Act 2021, we will require all local authorities in England to arrange weekly collection of food waste for recycling. It is frustrating that my local authority in Bradford does not collect food waste; other hon. Members said the same. There is a disparity in what local authorities across England are doing. The Government want to make it clear that all local authorities must adhere to this measure. The waste must always be collected separately from residual waste and dry recyclable materials, so that it can be recycled appropriately. The Act also requires non-household municipal premises, such as businesses, hospitals and schools, to arrange food waste recycling collections.

On simpler recycling, in the Government response published last October we announced that the requirements must be implemented by 31 March 2025 for non-household municipal premises in England such as hospitals, schools and businesses; by 31 March 2026 for kerbside collection for domestic properties; and by 31 March 2027 for microbusinesses. DEFRA has up to £295 million in capital funding to roll out weekly food waste collections across England. The Government will also provide resource funding to be spent from this financial year to support local authorities to implement food waste collections.

The Government are committed to preventing and driving down food waste. We are supporting prevention initiatives and taking action to get surplus food into the redistribution system. That is crucial to ensure that it does not end up in landfill or anaerobic digestion. We are helping businesses to be more resilient and efficient and to cut costs while protecting the environment, and helping citizens with advice on how they can reduce their food waste and save money.

I thank all Members for their contributions today, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central for securing this important debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Robbie Moore and Daniel Zeichner

Thursday 9th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

13. What steps she is to taking help increase foreign direct investment into the UK.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

17. What steps her Department is taking to help increase the level of inward investment into the UK.