Biotechnology and Food Security

William Bain Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) on securing this debate. He made an extremely wide-ranging, comprehensive and thoughtful speech. I also commend the remarks made by the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who gave the House the benefit of his expertise in this area.

This debate is particularly timely because of the recent spike in global food prices. Yesterday, the Financial Times reported:

“Global food prices have reached a nominal all-time high, surpassing even the peak seen in 2007-08—when bread riots rocked poorer countries.”

Although rising food prices may be a great inconvenience for consumers in the United Kingdom, they are particularly worrying for the poorer economies, such as Brazil and India. In India and China, food costs account for almost 50% of household outgoings, so the impact of rising global food prices will be particularly badly felt in those countries.

I commend the remarks made by Professor John Beddington about 18 months ago at the sustainable development conference. He said that if we do not take much more intensive action to increase global food production, we face “a perfect storm” of problems by 2030. He said:

“Our food reserves are at a 50-year low, but by 2030 we need to be producing 50% more food. At the same time, we will need 50% more energy, and 30% more fresh water.”

It seems clear that the use of biotechnology and policy across the EU and G20 must focus on producing more hardy crops, less wastage in terms of crop yields and better use of existing water supplies.

In responding to the debate, there are three areas that I want to touch on. The first is biofuels, which the hon. Member for Sherwood referred to. Through my role in a previous life—my first Front-Bench responsibility, as shadow Minister for Transport—I know that the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Transport are engaged in a consultation on the renewable transport fuels obligation. There is no question but that sustainable biofuel production has a great deal to offer, both to our economic output and to reducing CO₂ emissions. However, we must be careful about which biofuels we support and invest in. The Government have already taken very welcome action on palm oil; however, there are concerns about some biofuel production, including some bioethanol production, which the Institute for European Environmental Policy has expressed. The IEEP has calculated that the indirect effect of the switch from food production to biofuel production could be to take between 4.1 million and 6.9 million hectares out of food production across the EU. As a result, that could lead to between 26 million and 56 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions being put into the atmosphere.

When the Minister responds, it would be useful if he told us what efforts the Government are making to shift investment and support in research and development and other incentives away from first-generation biofuels and into second-generation biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, the use of biofuels from algae and the use of woodchip, all of which are much more sustainable means of biofuel production than simple bioethanol production. It is clear that we must do nothing to put small-scale bioethanol producers in difficulty, but we need a real analysis of what large-scale bioethanol production is going to contribute, in order to establish whether it might be damaging overall in our fight against CO₂ emissions. I hope the Government will be able to conduct that analysis in the next few months.

The second crucial point is the importance of increasing investment in agricultural research and development. Work has recently been done by the academic community on this subject. The two authors, one of whom is based at the university of Bournemouth, of a paper I have been reviewing this morning entitled “Agricultural R&D, technology and productivity” make an excellent point about the benefits—in a sense, the disproportionate benefits—that accrue from investing in agricultural research and development by boosting both global food production and the overall investment in science. Since the second world war, increasing agricultural productivity has allowed food output to keep pace with demand, but that link will perhaps not be evident in the next few years.

It would therefore be useful if the Minister told us today what representations the Government have made at EU level about how the EU can boost R and D investment. Such investment must be boosted in the public sector. It is an aim shared absolutely by Members across the House that we want the EU to spend less on direct subsidies and more on investment in science and agricultural R and D. However, the Government must also consider how to improve the levels of private R and D. For example, what discussions is the Minister having with his Treasury colleagues ahead of the Budget to develop new initiatives that will strengthen private companies’ ability to invest in R and D, building on measures such as the R and D tax credit that the previous Government introduced? Also, can he give the House an assurance that levels of agricultural R and D will be higher at the end of this period of government than when the coalition took office?

The scale of the investment that will be needed is staggering. The paper that I referred to says clearly:

“By 2050, the world population is expected to grow…to 9.1 billion…and allowing for increased incomes and changes in diet”—

the hon. Member for Sherwood referred to those changes, including the immense growth in meat consumption in China—

“global demand for food…to grow by 50 per cent by 2030 and 70 per cent by 2050…The estimate”—

for the increase in agricultural R and D investment—

“is 1.34 per cent…per annum.”

That would be a massive step change in the magnitude of investment from current levels.

The Government must address this issue here in Westminster, but frankly, they must also address it at EU level and at the G20. Has the Minister discussed with the Prime Minister the latter’s raising the issue of biotechnology in discussions at the G20 this year? It is clear that if we do not start to increase the levels of agricultural R and D spend now, it will be very hard to meet the targets for increased food production and innovation that will be required by 2050.

The third area that it is important to address is, of course, genetic modification. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk was absolutely right that the debate about genetic modification must be rational and based on science. However, I depart slightly from the hon. Member for Sherwood’s analysis, in that my understanding is that last year, the EU decided to devolve down to member states the issue of determining whether genetically modified technology should be used. Therefore, GM technology will be an issue for the UK Government to decide on by assessing the best available science, the level of commitment to such technology, and whether they will permit its large-scale roll-out.

Clearly, there is an important national debate that we need to have. Many people in the food production industry and many academics who have looked at the problems we will face have said that there are clear benefits from investing in GM technology, for precisely the reasons, including innovation, that we heard about from the hon. Members for Sherwood and for Mid Norfolk. However, there are also concerns—very reasonable ones—that we must all address about the potential health issues that may arise decades down the line. It is important that we continue to invest in the science in order to gather the best possible data we can get, so can the Minister tell us what levels of investment in research in GM technology the Government will provide by the end of this Parliament?

The title of this debate is “Biotechnology and Food Security”, and it is clear that conventional biotechnologies such as breeding techniques, use of tissue culture, cultivation practices and fermentation have been readily used and accepted. Between 1950 and 1980, before the development of genetically modified organisms, modern varieties of wheat increased yields by up to 33%, even in the absence of fertiliser. Modern biotechnologies used in containment have been widely adopted. For example, the industrial enzyme market in the US reached $1.5 billion in 2000.

However, we now need a step change if we are to produce higher crop yields, make better use of water and increase sustainable food production—without increasing our overall emissions of CO₂ or other greenhouse gases—such that we can meet the competing but necessary objectives of reducing and alleviating climate change, and achieving greater levels of food production.

I hope the Minister can address those points. There is a consensus on the Front Benches about the need to increase food production. I hope the Minister can reassure us that the Government are committed to increasing R and D levels, particularly agricultural R and D, in both the public and private sectors, and that we can move forward together to tackle this issue, which is of enormous interest to our constituents and to people in many other countries across the world.

Intensive Dairy Farming

William Bain Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Leigh, as it was under Mrs Riordan’s. This has been an excellent debate. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) on securing it. He spoke with great passion and authority.

I also wish to commend the contributions of the hon. Members for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and for North Thanet (Mr Gale), who referred to the moral argument underpinning the issue and to the need for EU-level reform. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who made an interesting and thoughtful speech. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) spoke of the need to promote further scientific research with the authority of being a dairy farmer. I also wish to commend the speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish).

The dairy industry in the United Kingdom has been through an extremely volatile period. Intensive farming raises three challenges: first, animal welfare; secondly, greenhouse gas emissions, to which I think the hon. Member for Richmond Park referred; and thirdly, market distortions, which we hope the work on the grocery ombudsman, begun under the previous Government, will address. I hope that that work will be implemented under the current Government. I shall develop each of the points in turn.

After a period of extreme volatility, the dairy industry in the UK is still the third largest in the EU and the ninth largest in the world, producing more than 11 billion litres per annum, amounting to more than 16% of agricultural output last year, and contributing £3.1 billion to the economy. Despite the volatility in production and prices, yield per cow increased between 1995 and 2005, and average yield per cow increased in 2008 and 2009. The NFU said earlier this year that a typical UK dairy farm with a herd of 113 is likely to produce approximately a million litres of milk per year, with the average yield per cow increasing from slightly less than 6,000 litres in 2000 to more than 7,000 in 2010.

It is clear that it is ultimately for the local council and, if brought in by the Government, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to determine what happens in Nocton. I do not wish to comment on the precise legal technicalities of the process that may come in future. However, the debate has raised wider questions on what the view of DEFRA and right hon. and hon. Members should be towards intensifying farming, based on the three points that I mentioned.

There does not seem to be consensus that intensifying farming will universally lead to negative outcomes on animal welfare. The Farm Animal Welfare Council and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have said that, in their view, intensification will not necessarily lead to a diminution in animal welfare.

[Mr Gale]

Does the shadow Minister accept that there is a fundamental difference between animal health and animal welfare? One is quantifiable and easy to identify, and the other is much harder to identify, but just as important.

[Mr Bain]

That is an extremely good point. The hon. Gentleman anticipated the argument that I was going to advance. There is a need for more research into intensification. In the United States, farms of 15,000 cows or more are not unknown, and the proportion of farms with more than 500 cows has doubled from 31.3% to 59.5% of the national herd. Less than half the farms with under 99 cows are still in business, so it is clear that there has been an impact on the small dairy farmer in the US. It is important that we conduct economic research into whether the same would happen in the EU.

[Stephen Phillips]

In the US, which is a much larger country, there is a minimum separation zone between these sorts of intensive farms and the nearest settlement. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is important? It may be one reason why these intensive dairy farms are not appropriate for many places in the UK.

[Mr Bain]

That is another excellent point, and it is why we must move with extreme care and ensure that we get the best evidence on animal welfare and on the economic impact on small farmers. I hope that the Minister can give us further information in his closing remarks on any impact assessment that DEFRA is conducting.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation said earlier this year that the global dairy sector contributes 4% to total global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and the share from global milk production is 2.7%. There is a balance to be struck between the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which taking more cows inside and using anaerobic digestion more may diminish, and the wider arguments on animal welfare. Some concerns have been expressed by Compassion in World Farming, for example; it said that excessive intensification could lead to growing incidences of lameness, mastitis and other illnesses affecting cattle.

However, some advantages of intensification have been identified, which we must properly evaluate and not rule out. For example, the FAWC has said:

“In general, management of dairy cows that are housed all year round is easier for the farmer”.

It goes on to say that housing cows all year round allows for more effective control over feed composition and for diets that are targetable to specific groups. There is also a reduced risk of parasitic infestation and greater biosecurity. It is clear that there is no consensus on whether intensification is intrinsically bad, which is why we need further economic and scientific research to explore the issues more fully.

There have been extreme swings in the market in recent years, particularly in EU milk prices. Indeed, the Commission had to produce a package of support in 2009 to support dairy farmers in the UK and across the EU. In the discussions on CAP reform, which we hope will be concluded by 2013, there needs to be a longer-term settlement that will put the dairy industry, across the EU, on a surer footing. I hope the Minister can indicate the position that the Government will take on dairy farming in those negotiations.

This is an extremely controversial issue. The planning application for Nocton in itself raises important matters, but I think the wider debate we need to have about the three principles is more important—animal welfare, greenhouse gas emissions and correcting the problems in the dairy market. I hope the Minister can set out the Government’s position on all three in his concluding remarks.

Oral Answers to Questions

William Bain Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I am delighted to be able to draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that we anticipate an 80% increase in higher level stewardship schemes, notwithstanding the need for DEFRA to make a contribution to addressing the budget deficit that we inherited from the previous Government.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

We had expected the publication of the rural impact assessment, but I am afraid that all we got was more weak excuses for the Secretary of State’s failure to produce it. If she is having trouble completing her own assessment, will she at least back the findings of last month’s report on rural poverty by the Commission for Rural Communities—soon to be scrapped by her Department—which found a lack of proper business support provided to farmers by the Government, poorer access to welfare services in the countryside and a quarter of farming households living below the poverty line, under the first Government since 1926 to try to remove employment protection from agricultural workers? Is not the reality that this is a spending review that slashes investment from rural bus services and social housing, from a Government who are indifferent to the greater inequality that their policies will cause in rural Britain?

[Mrs Spelman]

Oh dear. I think that constitutes a serious own-goal. The hon. Gentleman should surely be aware that the data that the Commission for Rural Communities was using to make its assessment relate to the period when his party was in government.

Fisheries

William Bain Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, for what I think is the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on securing this important debate before the annual European Fisheries Council later this month. She has spoken with great fluency and passion about the crucial link between the fishing industry and the local economy in Peterhead and across her constituency and, indeed, Scotland, which constitutes about 70% of the UK fisheries industry. However, as we have also heard in the debate, fishing is crucial to community life in much of the rest of coastal Britain, from the south-east to the south-west and, indeed, to the north-east of England, too.

Let me commend the contributions that have been made by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members. I thought that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) spoke with great authority on the issue of decentralisation and the need to emphasise decentralisation in CFP reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) all spoke eloquently about the importance of fishing in their communities, which range from the north-east of Scotland to the south-west of England. I think that the theme that ran through all their remarks was the need in CFP reform to tackle the shameful issue of discards.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) spoke, of course, with the authority of an “insider” from the old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food days. I thought that he spoke extremely well and insightfully about the need for CFP reform.

Let me also associate the Opposition with the remarks made by several hon. Members about the contribution that the RNLI and other coastal services make to the fishing industry and indeed to Britain as a whole.

This has been an exceptionally enlightening and consensual debate and the only thing that would have improved it would have been if it had taken place in the main Chamber. I hope that that will be remedied in future years.

As the EU prepares to consider radical reforms of the CFP, there are several factors that the Opposition believe should inform that debate. First, the status quo on the annual setting of fishing quotas should no longer be an option. A longer-term approach is required to provide greater sustainability and certainty in the conservation of fish stocks, particularly cod stocks, regarding the connected threats of ocean acidification and climate change, and to provide greater security for the fishing industry itself. Multi-annual management plans might cover 30% of total EU catches for 2011 and indeed 80% of fish by weight caught by EU fishermen this year, but the ambitions of the Government and the EU must be to raise those levels quickly.

Secondly, EU Fisheries Ministers should be moving towards greater regional management of fishing waters, as many hon. Members have reflected upon during this debate. Thirdly, a reduction in the unacceptable levels of discards and by-catch is vital. The EU must reform the system so that the levels of fish caught are given greater priority in the regulatory approach that is adopted, as opposed to the quantity of fish that is landed onshore.

Let me develop each of those points in turn. There is an overwhelming priority to preserve our fish stocks within safe biological limits and to consider sustainability in the overall context of the ecosystem. That means examining the effects on the habitat and the other species in the waters from which particular species of fish are taken. Therefore, the view expressed by Commissioner Damanaki, rejecting the old belief that environmental conservation and development of fisheries are incompatible, is welcome. The EU Commission’s statement of 11 November makes it clear that only 40% of assessed EU fishing stocks have been fished sustainably, so we have an important issue to tackle in that respect.

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation reports that almost 28% of global stocks of fish are overexploited or depleted, with another 52% fully exploited. The World Bank has estimated that the annual cost of global overfishing is about $50 billion per year; cumulatively, that amounts to $2 trillion during the last three decades.

The Commission has proposed that the level of total allowable catches and quotas for 2011 will amount to a 10% reduction overall. Some 80% of global fish stocks are at or beyond the limit of sustainable use; many are beyond that limit. The challenge for the EU is to reduce structural overcapacity in fishing, yet incentivise those fishing fleets that are doing the right thing. Such fleets have invested in new nets and new technology and have adopted new fishing practices, as has been demonstrated by the industry in Scotland and beyond and which has rightly been praised by hon. Members today.

In 1995, the EU imported 33% of the fish consumed in Europe. In 2006, importation levels increased to 48% and are now at approximately 50%. Dr Peter Jones, a senior lecturer in the geography department at University college London, addressed a Westminster food and nutrition forum last month that I chaired. He said:

“We are importing more and more fish from developing countries, and that proportion is likely to increase if we see further quota reductions and perhaps the introduction of Marine Protected Areas into European waters, at least in the short term.”

A crucial element here is the future of small-scale fishing, as we heard from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) in an intervention and from the hon. Members for Waveney and for Totnes. The 2027 vision paper published by the previous Government in 2007 supported the wider economic, social and environmental benefits of small-scale fishing. A key issue if it is to thrive is improved accessibility to capital, particularly where short-term quotas are involved.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm why, under his party’s watch, the amount of quota allocated to the under-10-metre fleet was underestimated by about three-quarters? That is what caused the problem with the quota management for that sector of the fleet.

[Mr Bain]

The hon. Lady details an important point. I certainly take it on board in terms of the formation of policy within my party’s processes, and I am sure that the Minister will have taken great note of it, too.

It is important to illustrate the further assistance that Commissioner Damanaki has provided. In an address to the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee of the European Parliament on 29 September this year, she said that small-scale fisheries

“often contribute to a vital extent to the social fabric and economic well-being of our coastal communities. Small scale vessels often carry out fishing activities that are less harmful to the environment and often more selective than other parts of the fleet. For me it is therefore absolutely important to ensure that these coastal fleets do not lose out in the reform.”

Another important point to be emphasised on CFP reform is greater regionalisation. That will involve integrating fisheries policy with other marine policy. Mike Park, executive chairman of the Scottish White Fish Producer’s Association, said at the Westminster food and nutrition forum in November:

“Part of the problem we have had is the fact that it has been top-down…it has been prescriptive. The best way to resolve that is to actually incorporate fishermen into the system, allow fishermen to take part, build that policy from the bottom upwards, only then will you gain respect, and if you relate it back to the terms of what business does best, fishermen will then…help create policies that actually deliver a sensible, sustainable regime.”

Those are wise words indeed. Commissioner Damanaki echoed that view in her address to the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee of the European Parliament to which I referred earlier. One mechanism that the Council could consider is setting targets at EU level, but then permitting the technical details of how these outcomes are to be decided and implemented at the local or regional level.

In addition, the Council needs to build upon the incentives introduced last December to cut the level of discard and by-catch by permitting fishermen who install CCTV on their boats, and use the excellent techniques that the hon. Member for Strangford said were being utilised in Northern Ireland fisheries, to receive increased quotas. In the Scottish fishing industry, trialling systems have been established incorporating cameras and data reporting as a means of basing enforcement on levels of fish removed from the sea, rather than on levels of fish landed. It is important because by-catch can have damaging effects on the marine environment as a whole.

At a global level too, marine conservation is an important concern for policy makers. The GLOBE International Commission on Land Use Change and Ecosystems produced a marine ecosystems recovery strategy in June, which starts from the principle that marine conservation requires a globally co-ordinated response, with action needed at all political levels, including a review of fishing subsidies at World Trade Organisation level. It recommends:

“Within national and regional parliaments where fishing rights are held in common, measures are needed to address fleet efficiency and to ensure that the management of domestic fisheries is governed by a sustainable, ecosystem-based approach.

The largest importers of fish must also pass robust regulations to eradicate illegal fish from the market and promote sustainable sourcing.

Regional cooperation is needed between key port and coastal states in order to ensure there are no safe havens for illegal fishing.”

Some of the specific ideas mentioned in the strategy include rights-based management, where fishing rights are allocated to individuals or communities, on either a transferable or non-transferable basis, which create incentives for resource conservation and economically efficient fishing, but pay particular attention to local communities. It also mentions cap and restore programmes for severely depleted fisheries, which involve a temporary moratorium on or drastic reduction in fishing effort and catches to allow fish stocks to recover, while paying compensation to fishermen either to leave the industry or to work in scientific assessment and enforcement activities. The EU could consider those issues as part of CFP reform.

Let me conclude by asking the Minister a couple of short questions. The first is on the hugely important issue of the dispute involving the UK, Iceland and the Faroe Islands over the shared mackerel quotas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned. The Minister will recall that he told me in a written answer on 23 November that further talks between the coastal states would take place on 25 and 26 November. What progress has emerged from that meeting about the unacceptable behaviour of the Icelandic fleet in unilaterally seeking to increase its share of the quotas? What are the priorities of the Government for reform of the CFP in 2012 and, in particular, which measures will they propose to tackle the problems of discard and the structural overcapacity of the EU fishing fleet, while protecting vulnerable fishing communities in the UK?

All Members, including Opposition Members, wish the Minister well in his negotiations in the Council. Will he pledge to make a statement to the House before it rises on 21 December on the outcome of the December Council, so that Members have an opportunity to scrutinise effectively how the Government have progressed in the areas that Members have outlined in this debate?

This is a time for EU member states, collectively, to grasp the nettle of thoroughgoing reform of the CFP. That is strongly supported by the Opposition. I hope that in replying to this debate the Minister can demonstrate that it is a key priority of the Government as well.

Sustainable Livestock Bill

William Bain Excerpts

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on speaking with such eloquence, authority and relative brevity to this important private Member’s Bill, on which he has worked so assiduously, and I commend those other hon. Members who have participated: the hon. Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), for Banbury (Tony Baldry), for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). They have provided extensive initial scrutiny of the proposals.

Agriculture is one of the most significant parts of the UK economy. It directly employs 534,000 people and contributes £7.1 billion directly to the UK economy each year, with the agri-food sector constituting almost 6.7% of economic output. It is increasingly recognised that farmland has a wider role than simply agricultural production. In particular, it has a role in water protection and in sustaining landscapes and habitats that are rich in biodiversity.

Globally, as the “Food 2030” study by the previous Government made clear, world population growth of between 2 billion to 3 billion in the next four decades will necessitate increased global food production, but that must be sustainable.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Bill applies only to England and Wales. Does he feel in any way inhibited when commenting on it, coming as he does from a Scottish constituency?

[Mr Bain]

Not at all, because I have farmland at the northernmost tip of my constituency, so I am aware of precisely the issues that Members from English, Welsh and Northern Irish constituencies have discussed today.

The Bill points to a future of greater food security and more effective further action on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture accounts for 14% of global greenhouse emissions, and in 2006 the food supply chain was responsible for 160 million tonnes of CO₂-equivalent emissions: one third came from primary production; a further third came from manufacturing, distribution and the sale of food; and a final third came from household food emissions and emissions embedded in imported food. Just as every other part of our economy is making its contribution to tackling climate change by reducing emissions by 34% by 2020 and by 80% by 2050, so too must agriculture. Currently, under the low-carbon transition plan, agriculture in England has an emissions reduction target of 3 million tonnes by 2020.

One key concern that has been raised is the use of soya in animal feed as a source of protein and for the generation of certain biofuels. In some parts of the world, such as Brazil, soya production has become connected with deforestation and environmental damage, amounting to almost 80% of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions. Friends of the Earth pointed out in its recent analysis that global soya bean production increased by 4.6% annually from 1961 until 2007 and reached an average annual production of 217.6 million tonnes between 2005 and 2007. World production of soya beans is predicted to increase by 2.2% annually to 371.3 million tonnes by 2030.

Let me pay tribute to the work that the English pig industry is doing to promote the sustainable and seasonable sourcing of products, cut the use of imported soya in animal feed and encourage the development of sustainable soya production in Brazil through FEMAS, the feed materials assurance scheme that the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) referred to, and other initiatives. The Bill provides an excellent opportunity to assess how agriculture can further maximise its role in the vital function of reducing greenhouse gas.

The market for meat is increasing in other continents. In 1985, the average Chinese consumer ate 20 kg of meat a year; now he or she eats more than 50 kg a year. In developing countries as a whole, the demand for meat has doubled since 1980. As the 2009 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation report on the state of food and agriculture says, between 1980 and 2007, China increased its production of meat more than sixfold. Today it accounts for nearly 50% of meat production in developing countries and 31% of world production.

Brazil expanded meat production by a factor of almost four, and now contributes 11% of developing country meat production and 7% of global production. But agriculture also has a central role in driving an increase in global economic growth, food security and poverty reduction. According to the FAO report, agricultural productivity growth has positive effects for the poor in three areas: lower prices for consumers; higher incomes for producers; and growth multiplier effects through the rest of the economy, as demand for other goods and services increases. The 2009 FAO report also establishes that agricultural growth reduces poverty more strongly than growth in other sectors.

Recent research by Julian Alston, published by the OECD, has found that the world has benefited greatly from productivity growth in agriculture, a substantial amount of which has been enabled by technological change resulting from public and private investments in agricultural research and development, although he encourages countries to increase their levels of investment in such R and D. But that poses a clear question: what policy changes must be made to ensure sustainable growth? The FAO’s agriculture and commodity prices report of last year found that in June 2008, the prices of basic foods on international markets reached their highest levels for 30 years, threatening the food security of the poor worldwide. In 2007 and 2008, mainly because of high food prices, an additional 115 million people were pushed into chronic hunger. Since then, although prices have declined, they are still high by recent historical standards.

Last December, to enhance the role that agriculture plays in reducing climate change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, sought to increase international co-operation, collaboration and investment in public and private research by confirming our participation in the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases at the climate change summit in Copenhagen.

How does the Bill meet the challenges of increasing food production sustainably but in ways that protect our environment? Clause 1 sets down a statutory duty for the Secretary of State to ensure the sustainability of the livestock industry with reference to factors including public procurement, appropriate public information and labelling, the support of research into sustainable practices, and a reduction in the amount of food waste, as well as finding suitable means for disposing of it. The Secretary of State would also have a duty to consult appropriate stakeholders on livestock farming, technologies, production and processing, environmental impacts, consumer attitudes and animal health and welfare. Clause 1 appears to strike a balance between enhancing growth and protecting our environment, and it would allow the Secretary of State, in devising policy, to create such a balance.

Clause 2 would create a further duty for the Secretary of State to publish the indicators against which progress on sustainability can be measured, with the use of two-yearly reviews. Such an approach, with the Secretary of State accountable for that report in this House, would increase the accountability that she will have in relation to food security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[Mr Nuttall]

In fact, subsection (1) requires the publication of the review of progress to be much more frequent than every two years. We can only assume that that is the case because the review of progress referred to in subsection (4) is the overall analysis and review. Would the shadow Minister like to comment on that?

[Mr Bain]

The key point for the hon. Gentleman to consider is that the Bill would not introduce any order-making power that affected the agriculture industry. It would create a duty for the Secretary of State to have a balanced strategy that took on the points made by the National Farmers Union and Friends of the Earth, and it would allow the Secretary of State to calibrate a balanced policy for which she will be accountable to this House.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Mr Bain]

I will make a little progress and then give way.

Clause 1(3) would ensure that the UK, in its discussions at international level, promoted sustainable food production. At the moment, EU policies promote a reduction in two forms of greenhouse gas emissions: methane emissions from livestock digestion processes, which are stored in animal manure, and nitrous oxide emissions, which originate from organic and mineral nitrogen-based fertilisers. Currently, about 9% of total EU greenhouse emissions stem from agriculture. That represents a 2% reduction from comparable statistics from 1990. The Commission’s 2009 White Paper indicates that agricultural emissions in the 27 EU member states reduced by 20% between 1990 and 2007 owing to the marked decline in livestock numbers, more efficient application of fertilisers and better manure management. This 20% fall in emissions from agriculture is significantly higher than the 11% reduction in emissions in all EU sectors, and contrasts with the 17% increase in global emissions stemming from agriculture.

The cross-compliance and rural development measures of the EU’s common agricultural policy are assisting in the further reduction of agricultural climate change emissions, through the modernising farms programme, extending the use of energy-efficient equipment and buildings, expanding the available support to generate biogas through anaerobic digestion, and the compensatory measures for farmers who assist in environmental protection through agri-environment schemes. These measures should form key elements of a reformed CAP, which members on both sides of the House will wish to see emerging by 2013. They are measures which, under clause 1(3), the Secretary of State would be able to promote at EU level.

[Mr Nuttall]

Is it not the case that the Secretary of State could do precisely that without this Bill?

[Mr Bain]

It would be more effective if the Secretary of State could bat for Britain in the EU Council and demonstrate to this House the progress that she is making towards effective CAP reform, which all of us will want to see by 2013.

I wish to highlight another point that the 2009 European Commission report stressed, which is the scope for improvement in livestock management, such as changes in diet, the use of additives that can mitigate methane emissions, the increased use of anaerobic digestion, and better nitrogen-based fertiliser management in order to cut nitrous oxide emissions. If the Bill commits the Government to negotiating the expansion of those or similar policies, it will make a substantial contribution to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and be worthy of the House’s support.

The Opposition support the principles behind the Bill. Should it receive a Second Reading today, several clauses will undoubtedly require detailed scrutiny in Committee, but its commendable purpose is to bring about a step change in food security, promote the greater efficiency of food supply chains in the UK and the EU, and ensure that alongside other industries in this country, agriculture makes its contribution to the ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets established by the previous Government and accepted by the current one. It is a bold and ambitious Bill in pursuit of a noble cause, and I hope that Members throughout the House will provide us with the opportunity to give it detailed examination in Committee and a fair chance of the further progress that it merits.

Oral Answers to Questions

William Bain Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that I have already had consultations and discussions with ConFor. I have discussed various options with its representatives, who, obviously, will submit a response to the consultation when we launch it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a number of the timber trade businesses rely on a constant supply of timber from the Forestry Commission, and I am very much aware that that factor will have to be taken into account to ensure that our important timber industry gets continuity of supply.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his letter of last week about the future of Forestry Commission land, even if it is regrettable that it has not been accompanied by a full statement to the House.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Woodland Trust have said that the sale price for that ancient forest land does not match its environmental or social value and that they lack the resources to purchase the land. Why has the Minister failed to give the House any assurance that the money raised from this fire sale of English woodland will be reinvested in environmental protection or green jobs, rather than simply ending up in the Treasury’s coffers? Is not the reality that big business, not the big society, will benefit from this land grab?

[Mr Paice]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position—and long may he hold it, if that is the best that he can do. I had hoped that we could have a rational debate about the future of our forests. Much of what the hon. Gentleman said is absolute nonsense. As I have repeatedly said, we are determined to protect our forests and increase the rate of new planting in this country, beyond the failure of his Government, whom he supported. That is what has to be done. Working towards new ownership does not in any way countermand the important value of our British forests, which we intend to maintain.