Food Waste and Food Distribution

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. It has been a busy few weeks for DEFRA since we were all last together, with the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries knighted and the Secretary of State overriding his civil servants. Anyone would think there was a major event coming up soon. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), can pass on our congratulations to his colleague, whose knighthood is very well deserved. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) on securing today’s debate, on all the work she has done as chair of the national food strategy all-party parliamentary group and on her excellent introduction to the debate.

Nobody wants to see good food wasted, but the scale of food waste in the UK is shocking, as many contributions this morning have outlined, with 3.3 million tonnes of UK food wasted on farms every year and 2.9 million tonnes of farm produce that could still be eaten going to landfill, incineration or waste treatment plants. UK on-farm food waste alone is estimated to use an area of agricultural land half the size of Wales—we have heard lots of similar comparisons this morning—and that land could be used to help sustainably feed the UK and restore nature to address the biodiversity and climate crises.

After leaving the farm gate, the UK food supply chain and households currently waste 9.5 million tonnes of food every year, 70% of which could have been eaten. This annual waste has an approximate cost of £19 billion and causes emissions of 36 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent—a point made very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). That means that over a quarter of all the food grown in the UK is never eaten, and this wasted harvest counts for between 6% and 7% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, this is at the same time that 2.1 million people in the UK are living in a household that has used a food bank in the last 12 months.

As has been mentioned today, high food inflation also hits poorer families much more severely, forcing them into buying cheaper, less healthy food at best, or hunger at worst. As the Food Foundation recently pointed out, if poorer families were buying the lowest priced fruit and veg available, it would cost between 34% and 52% of one person’s weekly food budget to afford a week’s worth of the recommended five a day. That is twice as much as the 17% to 26% for the wealthiest 10% of families. Despite the high prices, too many farmers and growers increasingly despair when it comes to being able to make a living, particularly in the face of cheap, lower standard imports. As we discussed in last month’s food security debate, this is leaving the UK vulnerable to global supply shocks and disruptions.

Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy and others have pointed to some of the causes of food waste that run throughout the supply chain. We have heard much about them this morning—it is familiar stuff: vegetables grown for a market that has dried up; wonky carrots cast aside; wasted peelings; unappetising meat offcuts; over-ordered food, which supermarkets or restaurants cannot sell; food we bought but no longer fancy at home; and food that rots because of a shortage of labour to harvest it or while stuck in post-Brexit queues at the border. There are problems, it seems, at every stage through our system. But there are also opportunities, and—as ever in this country—there are plenty of good initiatives.

With the encouragement of WRAP and the food waste reduction road map, almost a third of large UK food businesses are implementing “target, measure, act”, representing almost 60% of the overall turnover for UK food manufacture, retail, and hospitality and food service. The redistribution of food by groups and businesses that we have heard much about this morning, such as FareShare and Too Good To Go, helps to feed hungry people through food banks and is of course praiseworthy, but frankly we should not kid ourselves. Voluntary waste reduction and surplus redistribution can, at best, only ever be short-term sticking plaster solutions to food waste, poverty and hunger.

The food waste and surpluses created arise from market failures in the food supply chain. Not only can the Government act to redress them; they committed to a target in last year’s environmental improvement plan, to reduce food waste by 50% by 1 January 2028 in line with the UN sustainable development goal 12.3—but I am afraid that the evidence is that food waste levels have not decreased overall relative to baselines. Furthermore, since 2018, despite huge efforts from some businesses, there has actually been an increase, if waste by producers and manufacturers is included. Including inedible parts, businesses produced 5% more food waste in 2021 compared to baseline, with a 9% increase from producers and manufacturers.

Does the Minister accept that the problem of food waste has actually got worse? Can he tell us whether the 50% reduction target will be achieved in 2028? If not, what further measures does he plan to take? Will he strengthen the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator with an explicit focus on tackling unfair trading practices that lead to food waste?

Will the Minister finally deliver on requiring food waste to be monitored and reported through the supply chain, because businesses—as we have heard—are clear about the importance of a level playing field to ensure that all supply chain participants use better-practice methodology with robust processes to capture and measure their food loss? Does he agree with them that voluntary actions are inadequate, and that the continued failure of many businesses to reduce food waste risks undermining the progress that has been achieved voluntarily?

Businesses supporting mandatory food-waste reporting know that identifying and reporting their waste will enable them to drive down costs and to improve their efficiency and productivity. It is not surprising that the Government’s response to the consultation rejecting regulation faced a legal challenge on the ground of irrationality, given all the evidence in their own impact assessment that costs can be recouped with only a small reduction in food waste. The Secretary of State was therefore right to withdraw his predecessor’s consultation response last November, but, as we have heard, we still have no decision. Instead, the Secretary of State told WRAP to run yet another consultation and said that any decision could still be another six months away. Will the Minister tell us today whether we are any nearer a mandatory scheme being introduced?

Finally, on labour shortages, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee found clear evidence that food insecurity and food waste have increased significantly, with food left in the fields to rot because of lack of labour. It is 10 months since the publication of John Shropshire’s independent review into labour shortages in the food supply chain. What is the Government’s strategy for preventing yet more waste? Where is the response to the Shropshire report, which the Farming Minister promised that we would see last autumn?

Let me conclude by reiterating that for us it is clear that food security is national security. Labour will back our food producers by ensuring that we buy, sell, make and grow more of our food here at home, entrenching our reputation as a beacon for quality food, high standards and ethical treatment of animals. We will ensure that more of our British-grown and reared produce ends up on people’s plates, using the Government’s purchasing power to back British produce with 50% of food in our hospitals, army bases and prisons locally grown or certified to higher environmental standards. We will work with business to design and deliver a proper food waste monitoring programme. Put simply, it is time to end the waste.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Food Security

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I congratulate all those who secured the debate, the three Select Committee Chairs on their very thoughtful introductions—exactly as one would expect—and the members of those Committees, who put in so much hard work. I assure all those people that I will look very closely at their recommendations. I also thank others for their contributions. I found myself very much in agreement with the comments on biosecurity made by the hon. Members for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) and for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). I struggled slightly with some of the other contributions on hedgerow protection. We find ourselves in the unfortunate position of hedgerows being currently unprotected because the Government have failed to introduce legislation quickly enough.

On food security in general, I am delighted by the conversion of Government Members to the cause that Labour and I were advancing four years ago during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020. Government Members consistently voted down our amendments proposing an annual food security review. We have now come to that point, which I welcome, but I remind those Members that it was not what they supported four or five years ago.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

rose—

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will not take interventions, because Conservative Members have spoken at length this afternoon and we do not have much time. I do not mean in any way to disregard the significance of the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

As far as Labour is concerned, food security is absolutely a matter of national security. As the reports point out, the sector has seen significant shocks over the last few years, as various climate events across the globe have impacted on so many crops and harvests, and made life so hard for many farmers, particularly the recent floods. However, some challenges are not consequences of things beyond our control; quite frankly, some have been made worse by political decisions made here. Others—the skyrocketing costs of fertiliser, animal feed and energy—are consequences of the situation in Ukraine. Alongside that, there has been a difficult transition from the previous agricultural support system to ELMS, and persistent labour shortages.

I will ask the Minister about the Government’s response to John Shropshire’s good report on the agricultural workforce, which highlights many of the problems that the EFRA Committee report picks up. I think his analysis and many of his recommendations are sensible. He is very critical of the overly bureaucratic and slow administration of visas, and of the lack of a long-term strategic workforce plan, and he calls for urgent action from the Government. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when we might expect the Government to respond.

I could speak at length about ELMS—almost as long as others have—but I will not. It seems to me that ELMS have left too many people, particularly in the uplands, in a parlous state. Although I support the overall goals of that move to public money for public goods, I absolutely endorse the Environmental Audit Committee’s argument that food security is a public good—there is a bit of a discussion with economists about what those terms mean. I have been arguing for some time that food security should be a public good. We have not mentioned the problems that tenant farmers face at the moment. Will the Minister say a little about when we can expect more responses to Baroness Rock’s report, because they are long overdue?

Put all that together and it is pretty clear that we are seeing a decline in food production, which is disappointing and worrying. Staples such as eggs and some vegetables are in decline—there is less and less. At the NFU conference the other week, an interesting Farmers Guardian article rather summarised the situation pretty starkly:

“UK food production in free fall”.

Frankly, that is not the position that we want to be in. If that is to change, we must ensure that farm businesses get a decent return, because they are businesses, and for too many, the risk-reward ratio is out of kilter at the moment.

As we know, that has also hit consumers. The rise in prices has slowed, which is welcome—they were very high a few years ago—but prices are still going up. There is a whole range of reasons why that is happening. We also know that too many of our fellow citizens are struggling. The Trussell Trust statistics on the escalating reliance on food banks is deeply shocking. The EFRA Committee report echoes that feeling of, “Do they feel food secure? Clearly, they do not.” I welcome and agree with the Committee’s criticism of the fact that the Minister with responsibility for food has claimed that the issue of household affordability and access to food does not constitute food security.

There are many matters that I would be happy to cover, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am rushing through my remarks because I am conscious of time. Let me turn briefly to the food chain supply issues, and particularly waste, which is relevant to these discussions. It is pretty clear that pressures in the food chain, such as last-minute changes to specification, are leading to economic stress for producers and to disappointing levels of waste. One grower told me that, at best, he sells only about 50% of the lettuces that he grows. It is particularly depressing that that food is being wasted at a time when so many of our fellow citizens are struggling. The NFU reported that as much as £60 million of food on farms was wasted in the first half of 2022 alone.

To turn briefly to pesticides, a very interesting set of observations was made by the Chair of the EFRA Committee, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), and the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I would just point to the evidence that is given in the Science and Technology Committee’s report—the view of the experts on neonicotinoids. Once again, for the third year running, they pointed out that they were not able to support an authorisation for Cruiser SB because

“the potential adverse effects to honeybees and other pollinators”

outweigh the likely benefits. I am not going to rehearse the entire debate—we have also had debates on Westminster Hall on this issue—but it is clearly a major issue, and the public are clearly concerned. Quite frankly, it is time that we stopped ignoring expert advice.

However, I fully understand the problems that farmers face and the serious points that were raised by the Chair of the EFRA Committee. Sadly, it looks like the weather is not with us again this year, and we are going to see problems from virus yellows. I have been out in the field, looking at sugar beet plants with the British Beet Research Organisation, and there are some economic choices here. We might have to move to other varieties, but there is a yield penalty. To me, that is the decision and the challenge we face: not just producing food, but producing it in an environmentally sustainable and nature- positive way.

As I say, I am not going to go through all the recommendations, but I will just make a few comments. I take very seriously the points made by the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells about insect decline, and will look very closely at that issue. I have to say, I think the prospect of an invertebrates strategy will be a joy for parliamentary sketch writers, but possibly we can get them beyond that. I also echo the points about the wait for the national action plan on pesticides—it really is unacceptable. I hope the Minister can say something about it, but after a six-year wait, I do not think we are going to be holding our breath.

It will not come as a surprise to anyone to hear that Labour agrees with the Environmental Audit Committee report about using the Government’s purchasing power to ensure that more food in our hospitals and prisons is locally produced. That is Labour policy, and I think it is also Government policy; the question is whether the Government can actually make it happen. Should we get the opportunity, we will endeavour to do so.

The land use framework is another thing that we are waiting for with bated breath. I have challenged a colleague of the Minister on new ways of defining the words “soon”, “next”, “spring” or whatever. We really would like to see that framework, but again, if this Government cannot do it, I hope whoever forms the next Government will pick it up. It is a really important point as we deal with the complicated trade-offs of trying to ensure food security while recovering nature and not causing further environmental damage.

Finally, I will just pick up on the points that Henry Dimbleby made, referred to in the EFRA Committee report. I do not want to reopen the whole debate, but I do not think it is surprising that he says that in his view, the Government do not have anything resembling a proper food strategy, and that one is long overdue.

I reiterate my thanks for all the hard work that has been done to produce such comprehensive reports. I will be referring to them frequently for guidance—I already do so, because they identify some of the most urgent challenges we now face. To me, they are an example of Parliament working at its best, because they can inform not just Government thinking but certainly Opposition thinking too. For us, the goal of delivering food security and stability while optimising social, economic and environmental objectives is a priority.

Draft Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the Chair, Mr Gray.

I am grateful to the Minister for his good explanation and introduction. I echo his points about the excellence of the UK dairy sector. The regulations have been a long time coming: people in the industry have been pressing for change for a decade or more. It is almost four years to the day that we sat here discussing the Agriculture Act 2020 which paved the way for the regulations today. I am aware there has been full consultation and, I suspect, a fair amount of negotiation behind the scenes, and I share the Minister’s view that producers and processors are largely happy. If it is good enough for them, it is clearly good enough for me, so we will not oppose the regulations today.

I welcome the new regulations. But the delays have meant that too many dairy farmers have suffered while waiting for them. It is right that contracts be in writing and as transparent as possible, with clear pricing terms through either a fixed or variable price and a proper explanation of how the price to be paid is generated. Farmers do need to be empowered to challenge prices if they feel the correct process has not been followed, and they should be able to terminate contracts within a longer cooling-off period or if a buyer misses payments. It is right that any alterations to a contract will have to be agreed by both parties rather than buyers just changing their minds unilaterally.

As ever, enforcement is critical. The Government have chosen to create another adjudicator, in addition to the Groceries Code Adjudicator. As the Minister said, the post is currently being advertised through headhunters on a significant salary. It is not clear why a separate system and a new enforcement agency should be set up when we already have the Groceries Code Adjudicator. We touched on this during the passage of the Agriculture Act, four years ago, when we argued that the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator could be extended and possibly facilitated by the additional funds allocated to the new agency.

Can the Minister explain why he has chosen not to consolidate and streamline those tasks within one body, particularly as the activities concerned are similar, well-aligned and actually overlap? Why will the adjudicator sit within DEFRA rather than enjoy the independence that the GCA has? As we anticipate further fair dealing regulations in other sectors, we could end up with a plethora of such adjudicators—I am not sure what the collective noun would be. I cannot help feeling that this is something that could end up being revisited in the future, so it might be sensible to try to work out why it is being done now.

The explanatory memorandum states:

“There is a small anticipated negative financial impact on the public sector”—

beautifully worded—

“for the set up and maintenance of the new enforcement agency.”

In other words, it will cost money—obviously. Can the Minister tell us how much this process will cost?

In the Minister’s introduction, he said that the adjudicator will be in place by the time the regulations come into effect. I have heard comments from the industry, which welcomes the regulations, that they will be implemented in 12 weeks. That is quick, which is good because we want them to take effect, but can the Minister assure us that the adjudicator will be in place by that time? Will he ensure that full guidance will be available? That is important because although the legislation is quite detailed, I suspect that people will look for even more detail, and what we do not want to see is a situation in which rules are enforced but the industry does not quite know how to do that.

I will also just pick up on the points made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which raised the vexed issue of Northern Ireland, where some farmers, of course, are selling directly into the Republic of Ireland, where this legislation would not apply. I wonder whether the Minister could say a little bit more about that.

There is just one other issue that I will raise. We know that there is a lot of waste in the food system, particularly when buyers have a habit of rejecting produce that seems to everybody else in the system to be perfectly acceptable. I wonder whether we have missed an opportunity here to consider waste in the food supply chain. That point was made by an academic, Carrie Bradshaw of the University of Leeds. She has pointed out that none of the Government’s consultations on using the fair dealing powers have made reference to waste. Could the Minister say whether that issue was given any consideration?

Although I appreciate that there are differences in how the dairy sector operates compared with the egg, pork or poultry sectors, which require individual consideration, there is a system-wide problem that needs to be addressed. Again, that came up in the discussions about the Agriculture Act 2020. Have the Government conducted a thorough assessment of the fairness, or lack of it, in the food supply chain as a whole, and where does the Minister think the weaknesses now exist? How much progress has been made in mitigating them?

We need to take complaints from suppliers in the supply chain very seriously; that issue is raised consistently in the food industry. As I say, we do not oppose this measure, but we do not think that the Government have really approached this issue with the pace and urgency that are required. A much more strategic approach is called for. We need to be more confident that the food supply chain works efficiently, effectively and equitably —a market in which risks and rewards are shared more proportionately and fairly. The danger is that if nothing is done to improve the supply chain, more suppliers will be driven to the brink and pull out of producing food all together. Sadly, we are already losing too many British growers and food companies. That is bad for them, bad for the UK in general and bad for UK food security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Obviously, this is a cyclical industry and it is particularly distressing when we hear stories of milk being poured into ditches, which of course it should not be, or being disposed of in other inappropriate ways, because of some of the imbalances in the supply chain. Is the Minister confident that the new system will lead to less milk being wasted in that way?

[Mark Spencer]

I actually am. I think this measure will help, because it will mean that there is much more fairness in those supply chains and that those contracts are much more robust in how they are formed. So, I think we will be able to avoid such wastage of milk in the future.

The shadow Minister mentioned devolved Administrations. Of course, we have consulted very closely with the devolved Administrations and they are very supportive of the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Farmers need support against potentially devastating contagious diseases, such as African swine fever. I recently visited Dover, where the diligent Port Health Authority regularly seizes contaminated meat. Yet next month, its DEFRA funding will be cut by 70% and, incredibly, those border checks will be moved 22 miles inland. Why are the Conservatives putting the farmers of this country and our national security at risk?

[Steve Barclay]

That is a timely question. Just yesterday I had a meeting with the chief veterinary officer to discuss our security risks, particularly in the context of bluetongue disease. It may not be catching the House’s attention today, but I am concerned that it will become a widely debated issue by the summer. I am actively engaged in that discussion, and the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries is having a roundtable on that live security issue next week. Last week, I spoke at the British Veterinary Association annual dinner, which the hon. Gentleman also attended, so he saw in first person just how engaged we are with these issues.

Draft Sea Fisheries (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Graham. The return of bluefin tuna in their thousands to British waters in the past few years, after such a long period of absence, has been widely welcomed. These iconic fish are no longer listed as an endangered species and are now often spotted hunting close to shore.

Although it is not entirely clear why stocks have been replenished so remarkably, experts have suggested that environmental factors, particularly the warming of the waters around the UK, have played a role, as has the increase in the supply of sardines and other pelagic fish prey that they feed on. Credit should also go to international interventions to ensure careful management of numbers. Those efforts must be joined up and international because the fish are highly migratory and mobile. We must learn the lessons of the absence of these important fish for so long from our waters and take every appropriate measure to prevent a reversal, through overfishing, of those successful interventions. We must ensure that the revival of the species continues.

We recognise that it is important for the UK to comply with rules and obligations relating to our membership of ICCAT. We recognise that this statutory instrument is necessary to amend retained EU law, as it is now out of date, and to ensure the clarity and enforceability of the provisions in relation to bluefin tuna. We will not oppose it. I also appreciate that current ambiguities surrounding offence, penalty and enforcement provisions require clarification, and this statutory instrument presents the opportunity to do so. It is also right to prohibit farming and the use of traps in UK waters, or by UK vessels in the convention area for bluefin tuna.

I understand that traders in bluefin tuna already use the catch documentation system, as it is considerably less cumbersome that the alternative paper-based system. More importantly, it is much less vulnerable to inaccuracies and fraud. Ensuring that the relevant authorities have the appropriate powers to enforce the eBCD should not necessitate any procedural change for the traders or incur additional cost. We are moving effectively from a voluntary to a mandatory use.

I see no substantive objections to this legislation, but I have some questions for the Minister, of course. I cannot resist commenting on paragraph 8 of the impact assessment. I do so because in the discussions that we often have about public money for public goods, I often fall back on the economists’ definition: non-rivalrous and non-excludable. That generally draws blank looks from any audience, so I really enjoyed this paragraph:

“Government intervention is required as fish stocks are a common pool resource. That is…they are non-excludable, yet rivalrous. Rivalrous here means anyone can catch a fish but once a fish is caught and retained it cannot be caught again. They are non-excludable because it is not possible for one actor to exclude another from catching fish. Market agents would only consider the benefits of catching and not weigh it against the impact it will have on the stock health, overall, leading to overexploitation of the stock. As such, only government intervention would be able to effectively manage fish stocks as incentives of market agents do not align appropriately.”

[Mark Spencer]

indicated assent.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Quite—the Minister nods. It is an excellent account, marred only slightly because my understanding from the discussion in the House of Lords is that the recreational part of the quota will be put back. The Minister there said:

“The current plan is that all the recreational fishery will be catch and release.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 2024; Vol. 836, c. GC17-18.]

Therefore the fish can actually be caught more than once—non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The Minister may care to explain paragraph 8, but I do not think that it alters the rationale for intervention.

Paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum refers to the tuna catch quota. The UK now has a quota for bluefin tuna, which is in line with the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. Can the Minister explain the process by which we were allocated 65 tonnes? Perhaps he can give an outline of the negotiations that took place. Can he also explain how he and colleagues arrived at the distribution of the UK’s quota between commercial and recreational fishing? What is the rationale underpinning the allocation of 39 tonnes of our quota to trial a new, small-scale commercial fishery and 26 tonnes of bluefin tuna to be distributed between a possible 10 available licensed authorisations? It is good that stocks are sufficiently replenished that we are permitted a quota, but can the Minister give a bit more detail about the ways in which this whole process is scrutinised to ensure that the numbers of bluefin tuna continue to grow and do not diminish?

I understand that many responses to the consultation exercise mentioned in paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum requested training in catch-and-release techniques. I am not surprised by that, as tuna is a large fish and clearly it is sometimes extremely challenging to perform a catch-and-release operation properly. It is important that we do not damage fish in the process of releasing them, and I am told that without clear instructions and possibly training, that could happen. Can the Minister reassure me on this point? Are there any plans to issue clearer guidance and/or training on catch and release?

Having asked those questions, I am very happy for us to proceed.

Zero Total Allowable Catch: Pollack

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), not only for tonight’s debate but for the work he continues to do to support his constituents. I also put on record my recognition of the efforts of my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) and for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who have been equally tenacious in their pursuit of support for their constituents.

To begin with the scientific advice, back in June 2023, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas provided advice that the total allowable catch for pollack in western waters for 2024 should be set at zero tonnes for the first time. This followed a benchmark for pollack—a process whereby assessment methods for a stock are reviewed and best available methods are selected. That benchmark led to a change in the assessment from a data-limited method, which was mostly reliant on landings data only, to a category 2 assessment that includes fisheries survey data. The recent benchmark suggested that the stock went below safe biological limits in 2015-16. The ICES advice received in June 2023 is the best available scientific advice, and was the basis on which DEFRA negotiated a EU-UK bycatch TAC of 832 tonnes. That bycatch TAC aims to avoid choking other healthy fisheries in the south-west, where pollack is caught; however, it does not allow vessels to target pollack. I recognise the difficulties that that is causing, particularly for those who predominantly target pollack and have done for some time.

In addition to securing the bycatch of pollack, my Department has been working hard to find ways to assist and support those most affected, while of course keeping the long-term sustainability of the fishery in mind. With that in mind, on 23 February, we announced the reopening of the fisheries and seafood scheme, which is providing up to £6 million in funding to support projects in a variety of areas, including health and safety, processing and—importantly—business diversification. We are also expediting FaSS applications for hand and pole line fishers on under 10 metre vessels, bringing the application processing time down from eight weeks to four weeks. That will mean that we will be able to get support to the most affected the quickest.

In addition, on 23 February I announced that affected fishermen will have the opportunity to take part in a new scientific study led by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. This study will see a collaboration between scientists and fishermen to increase our understanding of the stock structure of pollack. Fishers will be engaged in the project to collect generic samples from around 3,000 pollack, receiving payments for initial training and participation. They will still be able to sell at market the pollack they have caught as part of that study. Applications, along with detailed eligibility criteria, will be open as soon as possible, encouraging the most affected pollack fishers to apply for that study.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s announcements on 23 February, but did he see the comments made by Andy Read in Fishing News, where he asked a very salient question: could this not all have been predicted and could it not have been done earlier?

[Mark Spencer]

We do of course continue to monitor fish stocks, and we do follow ICES advice. It is a fair criticism that we have seen a decline in pollack over many years—over the last 20 years—but certainly the ICES advice continued to recognise that pollack could be caught until last June, when we were forced into the position where we had to take action. I am truly sorry for the impact that is having on the fishermen who have relied on that stock. We want to follow that advice to the best of our ability to try to recover that stock. I want fishermen to be able to catch pollack in those waters, so we do need to manage it in the most responsible way possible.

Neonicotinoids and other Pesticides

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Henderson. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) for securing the debate. Her introduction was full and thorough, and I will echo many of her points. I am also grateful for the other speakers. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has left us. I have long wondered what he was on to keep him going, and now we know the answer: two spoonfuls of honey on a piece of toast in the morning. We will all have to try that.

I was particularly taken with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). His passion for bees is legendary and he raised a series of important points, many of which I will touch on. I thought that the exchange between him and the Minister on the threshold issue was illuminating. I fear that, because of the weather this year, we are likely to cross that threshold again, so in reality we are talking about a derogation that will be applied this year. He made a point about flea treatment for pets, and I think that issue will rise and rise in salience. It is clearly a significant problem.

The key point is that we are here again—for the fourth time. It is almost an annual debate—the annual neonicotinoids debate. It really is a case of déjà vu. We are also still waiting for the national action plan on pesticides. I have had this brief for four and a half years now, and Josie Cohen and others from the Pesticide Action Network have been pressing me on this point all the way through. I have lost count of the number of changes in terminology so, if the Minister cannot give us a date, perhaps he could tell us whether it is soon, imminent or in due course, or maybe, just possibly, after the election—who knows?

There is a serious point here: why on earth has it taken so long to deal with these issues, which have already been raised? Why can’t we find a way forward? How many times is it that the Government have ridden roughshod over expert opinion by allowing yet another emergency authorisation for the use of Cruiser SB? We have already heard the answer; it is four times. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said, that hardly constitutes an emergency because, once again, the Government have ignored the advice of Government scientific advisers on the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides. Back in September, it said that it was unable to support an authorisation for Cruiser SB because

“the potential adverse effects to honeybees and other pollinators…outweighs any likely benefits.”

It is right. We simply cannot afford to allow further devastation to the number of bees in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has already quoted the statistics: one third of the UK bee population has disappeared in the last decade. Since 1900, 13 of 35 native bee species have been lost. There has been a dramatic decline in the number of all pollinators, which has fallen by over 50% between 1985 and 2005.

This is a fundamental threat to the survival of a much-loved part of our natural world—a threat that we should challenge not only for its own sake, but because the economic consequences are severe. Quite frankly, we would struggle to survive without bees. They are crucial to our physical health and the health of the wider environment. In the UK alone, approximately 75% of our crop species require pollination and around 70 crops depend on, or benefit from, bee pollination. Though there are of course other methods of pollination, wild bees can pollinate on a much bigger and more efficient scale than the alternatives.

The economic benefits are estimated to be worth approximately £690 million to the UK economy in terms of the value of the crops they pollinate. From a global perspective, bees pollinate 70 out of the top 100 foods we eat and an astonishing one third of every mouthful of food we consume. They are also essential for the crops used for animal feed. Without them, it would be harder to produce much of our meat, egg and dairy products. I am told that in China they have had to resort to pollinating fruit trees by hand because pollinators have been nearly wiped out by pesticide use. That should serve as a warning to us. Estimates suggest that it would cost UK farmers an incredible £1.8 billion a year to manually pollinate their crops. Without bees, it would not be long before our ecosystem was in severe trouble.

Not only are bees in more danger every year, but they are more important every year. According to the UN, the volume of agricultural production dependent on pollinators has increased globally by 300% in the past 50 years. The UN also found that greater pollinator density results in better crop yields, so it is also good for farmers.

These pesticides are not only toxic for bees; at certain levels, they are toxic to aquatic life and build up in river systems. Research by the Rivers Trust and Wildlife and Countryside Link found neonicotinoids in more than one in 10 English river sites tested by the Environment Agency. The levels of neonicotinoids in many of our rivers was above the environmental quality standard deemed safe for aquatic wildlife. The rivers most affected by the pesticides were found in the east of England, south-east England and west midlands, including the Ivel, Waveney, Nene, Ouse and Tame. The evidence is pretty clear. It is no surprise that other countries are heeding the advice of their experts on banning these pesticides.

A European High Court ruling last year found that no derogation concerning seeds treated with neonicotinoids was justified, including in exceptional circumstances invoked to protect sugar beet. The French Government announced on 24 January 2023 that they had decided not to pursue a further exemption for neonicotinoid use on sugar beet, in the light of the court ruling, effectively putting an end to the emergency use in Europe of three banned substances—imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. We are going in the opposite direction from scientific and legal consensus in comparable countries.

I recognise the problems that growers face in combating diseases transmitted by aphids. I am an east of England Member of Parliament and I absolutely understand the importance of the sugar beet industry to our region. Virus yellows, in particular, causes significant yield losses. The National Farmers Union, as has been said, reports that for some that can be up to 50%, and I thank the NFU for its background briefing. The most complex and serious example is that spread by the peach potato aphid, and it is hard to control. In 2020, the sector lost 40% of the national sugar beet crop, bringing down the five-year average yield by 25%.

I was grateful to the NFU and British Sugar a few months ago; I met their representatives and some from the British Beet Research Organisation in Rougham near Bury St Edmunds. We stood in a field and looked very closely at the impact of the disease on a variety of sugar beet plants. That was an informative and chastening experience, because one could see the damage being done to those plants. I fully appreciate the challenge that farmers face. I also think that most farmers know that the use of this chemical will not be a long-term solution. In 2023, 40% of sugar beet farmers in England chose not to use them, despite the authorisation allowing their use. That is up from 29% in 2022.

To go back to earlier discussions, many have been able to successfully deploy integrated pest management systems. There was an interesting piece in Farmers Weekly a few weeks ago detailing the recommendations being made by BBRO, including a move to more tolerant varieties. That is part of the issue—it is an economic one. The problem is that, in moving to some of those more tolerant varieties, there is a yield penalty, a financial calculation. What that tells us is that there are choices, and that it can be done. The question is whether we choose to do so.

My view is that the future will be different, and I think that is why so many people are exasperated and genuinely shocked by the Government’s continuing stance. The reaction to the Government’s latest decision to authorise the use of Cruiser SB has been damning. The Wildlife Trusts called it a

“deathblow for wildlife, a backwards step in evidence-based decision making and a betrayal of farmers who are producing food sustainably.”

The chief executive officer of Wildlife and Countryside Link said the decision

“flies in the face of ecological sense”.

It is not just environmental and wildlife groups who are outraged. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has already referenced the campaigning work of Anabel Kindersley, chief executive of Neal’s Yard Remedies, who helped to establish the “Save the Bees” campaign with a number of businesses that have repeatedly called for an end to the use of bee-killing pesticides. That is partly because they see the threat to bees as a threat to their businesses. In the modern world, that is the challenge: not just to produce food, but to do so in an environmentally sustainable, nature-positive way. I acknowledge that that is hard, and we may need new tools to help us, but change has to come, and it should start now with an end to the use of these toxic chemicals in our fields.

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a farmer, although we do not and have never produced sugar beet at home. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this interesting debate. We agree on more than we disagree on, including the necessity to find a way forward, to which I wholly subscribe.

Decisions to allow or not to allow the use of pesticides are based on careful scientific assessment of the risks. The aim is to achieve a high level of protection for people, animals and the environment while improving agricultural production. The decision to grant the emergency authorisation of Cruiser SB was not taken lightly and was based on robust assessment of the environmental and economic risks and benefits.

The emergency authorisation was issued with a strict threshold for use. The seed treatment was authorised to be used if—and only if—a virus incidence rate of 65% or more over the summer months was forecast by the independent model developed by Rothamsted Research. That forecast was made on Friday 1 March.

The use of Cruiser SB on sugar beet in England will be allowed this year as yellows virus incidence thresholds, as predicted by the Rothamsted model, has been met. Emerging sugar beet seedlings and young plants are vulnerable to feeding by aphids, which transmit several viruses collectively known as virus yellows. These viruses lead to reduced beet size, lower sugar content and higher impurities.

We withdrew authorisation for the use of pesticide products containing three neonicotinoids on outdoor crops at the end of 2018. Since then, sugar beet growers have been adjusting to the new conditions. In 2020, there was severe damage, with 24% of the national crop being lost, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), recognised. Many individual growers were severely affected and less sugar beet was planted in 2021, because some growers were reluctant to take the economic risk. In recent years, the virus threat has been relatively low.

This year, the threshold has been set at a predicted virus incidence of 65% or above. That is a slight increase from last year’s threshold. The change reflects our improving understanding of the fit between the model used to predict virus incidence and the real-world outcomes. The aim of the threshold is to ensure that Cruiser is used only if damage is predicted to sugar beet production.

Members will be aware of the strict conditions of use that have also been set as a requirement of the emergency authorisation. As the threshold has been met and neonicotinoid-treated seeds will be planted, those conditions are in place to mitigate risks to the environment, including risks to pollinators. Neonicotinoids take time to break down in the environment, and during that period, may be taken up by flowering plants. The conditions for use of Cruiser SB therefore allow only a limited range of crops, none of which flowers before harvest, to be planted in the same field within 32 months of a treated sugar beet crop.

Growers must also comply with a stewardship scheme. As part of that scheme, treated fields are monitored to determine the levels of neonicotinoids in the environment. Full details of the conditions of use have been published online.

To be clear, we remain committed to the existing restrictions on neonicotinoids. Emergency authorisations are approved only where strict legal requirements are met. There must be special circumstances. Use must be limited and controlled, and the authorisation must appear necessary because of a danger that cannot be contained by any other reasonable means.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I wonder whether we could turn the question round. What would need to happen for the Minister not to grant a derogation? I cannot really see circumstances in which this situation is likely to change.

[Mark Spencer]

There are circumstances where it is likely to change. There are advancements in other products that are coming forward in the marketplace. The gene editing Act offers opportunities for research institutes to find alternative genetic possibilities to help improve resistance within the sugar beet plants to some of these pests and diseases. In those circumstances, as those new technologies come forward, of course they will be assessed on their merits. We are very keen to support the development of alternatives to try to help sugar beet producers and the environment at the same time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

rose—

[Luke Pollard]

rose—

[Mark Spencer]

I give way to the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner]

As I said in my speech, it is not that tolerant varieties or alternatives are not already available; it is that there is an economic cost. I do not really see how that is different from the situation the Minister has described. They will not necessarily provide the same level of yield, even with the gene editing. There will still be a cost.

[Mark Spencer]

Let me give way to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, and then I will take both points at the same time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Last week’s report from the Government’s environmental watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, was a damning indictment of the Government’s record. It said they were “largely off track”, with just four of the 40 targets being achieved. When it comes to the environmental land management schemes, can the Minister tell the House just how much environmental improvement they have helped farmers to deliver so far?

[Mark Spencer]

I think that two months into a 25-year plan is probably too soon to judge that plan. We are making huge strides with our stakeholders and farmers, who are working up and down the country to improve the environment. They have spent generations creating that environment. We should celebrate what they have achieved, and we should encourage them to do more. That is what the sustainable farming incentive is designed to do, and what the scheme is delivering.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Minister doesn’t know, does he? The Government are spending large amounts of public money, but they did not set up a system to measure it. The new Secretary of State is generally on the money, so I am sure he has asked this question: what we are getting for the money? Let me try a simpler version of the question. With ELMs so far, has there been environmental improvement or environmental degradation, or is it simply “Don’t know”?

[Mark Spencer]

These things are actually quite easy to see and to measure. If we look at the hedgerows planted in England in the last decade, we see that thousands of kilometres of hedgerow have been planted. Large areas are being dedicated to biodiversity and creating food for wild bird populations. That is what the SFI is delivering; it is there to see. All the hon. Member needs to do is get out of Cambridgeshire and look at some of those farms.

Draft Animal Welfare (Primate Licences) (England) Regulations 2023

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd.

I thank the Minister, as ever, for his full introduction. I assure the Whips that we will not oppose the draft SI, but I have a few things to say, because it is an unusual one. The Minister did not mention this, but it has been lifted largely from the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill of more than two years ago—helpfully, I found the bundle from a couple of years ago in my desk. We considered that Bill in great detail, with evidence from a number of organisations in Committee, and we had the capacity to amend it in a way that we do not today.

An odd precedent is set by lifting legislation from a Bill, which can be properly debated, amended and voted on, and putting it into secondary legislation, which clearly does not get that level of scrutiny, although I will do my best. In passing, I also point out that it sets an interesting precedent for any possible future Administration who might wish to amend the Animal Welfare Act without introducing primary legislation. I am sure Members understand that code.

That brings me to my first question to the Minister: why has this been done in this way? Is he, as an esteemed former Leader of the House, comfortable with it? Will he explain what is meant in the explanatory memorandum, at paragraph 7.3, by “scope creep”, which is given as the reason for the kept animals Bill being withdrawn? Who decided it should be withdrawn? What was coming into scope that so worried the Government? Many of us have heard the rumours of what that might have been, but perhaps the Minister will enlighten the Committee as to why the process was undertaken. A lot of work was done on the Bill: we were in Committee for many days, it got all the way through Committee and it was ready to go. As I have said previously in debates on animal welfare legislation emanating from that Bill, the suffering that animals have endured has been prolonged because the Government failed to act two and a half years ago.

The explanatory memorandum is brief, but the draft regulations themselves run to some 17 pages. The Minister has given us a good account of them. I do not intend to go through them line by line—as I am sure the Committee is pleased to hear—as I would have done in a Bill Committee, but I will make some significant points and ask some questions.

I will start by quoting from the excellent briefing provided by a collection of non-governmental organisations—Born Free, the Humane Society International, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the UK Centre for Animal Law, Wild Futures and Wildlife and Countryside Link—which states:

“In the press release that accompanied the draft Regulations, the Government repeated its claim that ‘Keeping primates as pets will be banned under new legislation introduced by the Government today (14 December), improving the welfare of thousands of animals’. However, the Regulations do not ban the keeping of primates as pets, but rather introduce a licensing scheme for primate keepers. It is important that Government messaging is clear and honest in this regard.”

Will the Minister confirm that this is indeed a broken manifesto promise? The Government are not banning the keeping of primates as pets. Frankly, it is about as accurate as saying that they have banned the sale of alcohol—that is licensed. The Government should be saying as much. There is widespread disappointment that this is not a ban, and I suspect that is the point of the message that Committee members may have received, as I did last night, from Professor Stuart Semple:

“I am writing to express the very strong support from the Primate Society of Great Britain (of which I am President) for the attached letter voicing concerns about the Animal Welfare (Primate Licences) (England) Regulations 2023”—

he is referring to that collective NGO paper.

To cheer the Minister up a bit, the NGO paper goes on to state:

“Nevertheless, we hope that the proposed Regulations, if implemented effectively and accompanied by strict guidance designed to deliver the Government’s stated intention to restrict who can keep primates to those who meet ‘zoo level standards’, should reduce the suffering of many primates.”

We agree—if that is to happen, it needs to work.

A problem was identified in Committee that I discussed at some length with the Minister at the time: what happens to those animals for which no licence is applied? Are they then held illegally? There was extensive evidence from those who run animal rescue centres and we were advised that there is not capacity in such centres. Are those animals euthanised? Clearly no one wants to see that, either. The NGOs rightly point out that whereas in the previous Bill there was a so-called transition period and a so-called grandfather clause, that has now gone. Will the Minister explain why, and how that will be resolved?

Let me pose a series of questions posed by the RSPCA in its briefing. On regulation 9, it queries the point about grandfather rights—rather more elegantly than I have done—and asks why the Government withdrew the clause and what steps the Government will take to ensure that there is a framework for local authority enforcement officers, animal welfare organisations and primate sanctuaries to manage the SI’s implementation and ensure the welfare of the thousands of primates who will all need to be rehomed if the Government are to achieve their stated intention of restricting primate keeping to those who meet zoo-level standards.

On paragraph 1 of schedule 1, the RSPCA asks for clarity on the definition of

“any other individual who is suitably qualified to provide that advice or guidance”.

That was also raised in debate in Committee. It is important that the guidance accompanying the regulations clearly specifies what constitutes a “suitable qualification” both for veterinarians and for other individuals. We know that there is a shortage of vets, and there is a live discussion around the possible role of others who might assist them, so it is an important point on which the Minister could provide clarity.

Paragraphs 45 to 48 of schedule 1 specify conditions for breeding, on which the RSPCA makes a strong point. It opposes the provisions because it believes that the breeding of primates, even under high welfare conditions, will encourage the keeping of primates, which is something that the SI is intended to prevent. I agree with the RSPCA. It goes back to that manifesto promise to ban the keeping of primates as pets. Will the Minister explain why there are now provisions to allow breeding?

In paragraphs 25 to 37 of schedule 1, reference is made to “appropriate natural behaviours”, “appropriate social groups” and “suitable…spatial dimensions” that achieve the “zoo-level standards” promised by the Government. Maybe the Minister can tell us what “appropriate” and “suitable” mean. That detail had been expected to appear in regulations—but these are the regulations. Can we expect the detail in the guidance —which of course is not subject to scrutiny—or do we expect further regulations to be issued? If so, will they be subject to the affirmative procedure? In other words, previously such details would have been scrutinised; are they now to be hidden?

Paragraphs 24, 39 and 42 of schedule 1 allow primates to be removed from their enclosures, handled and transported so that they can be exhibited. Again, the RSPCA and others oppose the derogations which, as they rightly say, fly in the face of the stated intentions of the regulations.

There is much, much more, Mr Dowd, but I fear I risk trying your patience. The Bill had an impact assessment, which included a whole section on the keeping of primates. As far as I can see, the regulations have no such impact assessment. Will the Minister explain why? Does he really think that councils, in their current state, have the capacity to do what is being asked? In many cases, frankly, I doubt it. I remember in Committee pitying the poor council officer who finds a primate dumped at the desk on a Friday afternoon. That is the reality for the people on the frontline, which is why these questions matter.

Overall, in my view it is a pretty poor show—a long delay for no properly explained reason, and now what seems to me to be a rushed job which leaves too many questions unanswered. We do not oppose the regulations not because we approve, but because we know that action is needed: too many animals are suffering because of the delays. I urge the Minister to get on with it, but to set the standards very high so that, in effect, we genuinely do end the keeping of primates as pets, while also finding a way to deal with those that should never have been held as pets in the first place.

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us an example of this legislation receiving scrutiny—something that he accused the Government of not wanting, although we are here today to scrutinise it. As he indicated, it is a manifesto commitment to ban the keeping of primates as pets, which is what the legislation delivers.

What the hon. Gentleman is indicating is a banning of primates from the UK. The SI is about making sure that any primates that are here in the UK are kept in appropriate, zoo-level conditions. That means that someone cannot keep such an animal as a pet in their house or garden: they have to keep it in a condition that is equivalent to how it would be protected and looked after in a professional zoo. That is what the licensing process does and why we are asking those people who have those animals to register them.

Those people have time to get to the right standards or to find alternative accommodation for their primates. They have two years to comply with this legislation. We will help and support local authorities with guidance to make sure that they are aware of the standards and the work that needs to be undertaken. Of course, there is the ability to recover from the licence holders the full cost of licensing, meaning that those people who have a primate at home will have to pay the licence fee to the local authority, so the local authorities will not be out of pocket.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Will the Minister give some indication as to what estimate has been made of the costs that local authorities would be entitled to try to recoup? To go back to an earlier point, the grandfather clause that was in the previous legislation but is not here now was one way of trying to deal with the interim period.

[Mark Spencer]

We recognise that existing primate keepers will not immediately be able to provide zoo-level standards. To be clear, we do not expect them to do that, which is why there is a two-year implementation period, as I said. That gives them sufficient time to make the changes.

During the implementation phase, we will work with local authorities, with zoos and with the rescue sector to identify suitable rehoming facilities for primates and to foster network building among those groups. We will engage with the sector and continue to understand its positions to determine how it can be supported effectively to meet potential future demand for services. It will be down to local authorities to set the licence fee to make sure that they are not out of pocket, and we will help and support them on that journey to make sure that they get to the right level.

I hope that I have answered the hon. Member’s questions and concerns. I know that the Opposition share my conviction about the need for this instrument, and it is clear from this debate that animal welfare matters to the House. As I have outlined, the instrument establishes a licensing scheme, setting strict rules to ensure that only private keepers who can provide the high animal welfare standards required, akin to those provided by a licensed zoo, with be able to keep primates. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Hedgerows: Legal Protection

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this morning, Ms Elliott. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke), who made a fantastic speech, and others who have spoken commendably in the debate so far, especially the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby).

There is feverish political speculation at the moment, with all sorts of discussions about demographics, electoral movements, and blocs in the countryside or around the country. There is talk of how people will vote—red wall, blue wall—but we are very much focused on the dry stone wall where we come from. That is a particular Lib Dem demographic.

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who raised an important point. People think about the lakes, the dales and Cumbria and they think of dry stone walls. Those walls are not all in open landscape. Many are historical, many are ancient and many are in the midst of what was once pasture but is now quite mature woodland. There is an awful lot of that around the Kent estuary near where I live, for example. Huge biodiversity benefits come from dry stone walls and they are also incredibly important to our cultural heritage, as has already been said. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that we still have miles and miles of hedgerows in Cumbria, which are of enormous significance.

I have been involved in judging hedge laying competitions at Arnside and Stainton, where I assure you, Ms Elliott, that I was guided by people who actually knew what they were talking about, as well as considering just what seemed nice to me. Also, the Westmorland County Showground regularly has national and international hedge laying competitions, so it is a major part of our culture, as well as being part of the agricultural skillset that it is so important we protect, export and maintain.

There can be no doubt that hedgerows are of enormous significance to our country and our nature. They are teeming with life and are vital. I will focus most of my words on hedgerows in agricultural areas. As the hon. Member for Copeland said, 70% of England is agricultural, so the land on which we farm will be a huge part of protecting, maintaining and expanding our hedgerow network. It is also worth bearing in mind, however, the importance of residential hedgerows in built estates, in people’s gardens, and in public spaces, parkland and so on. We need to make sure that we have planning laws and regulations that support and promote those, and I might come on to that subject if I have time towards the end of my relatively few words.

If we think about the scale and size of Britain’s hedgerows—there are more than half a million miles—they would stretch to the moon and back. They are of great significance, bearing enormous biodiversity. They are an important wildlife habitat in their own right and the most widespread semi-natural habitat in the UK. They support a large diversity of flora and fauna and make a great shelter for animals and flowers. Their berries and nuts are a vital source for what are believed to be 1,500 different species of invertebrates in the UK that have their homes in our hedgerows. I think of the Government’s biodiversity action plan and the 130 species that are closely associated with hedges, including lichens, fungi and reptiles. Many more use those structures for food and shelter, at least during some point of their life cycle. Bank voles, harvest mice and hedgehogs all nest and feed in hedgerows, alongside birds that include blue tits, yellowhammers and whitethroats, while bats use them as what we might call “commuter routes”. We talk about nature corridors—they are so important.

There are many things we can say, and I will say, about the transition to the new ELM schemes. For those who have been able to get into them, there is the prospect of local nature recovery. Many farmers and landowners are involved in the project from Kendal to Penrith, which will potentially provide a continuous corridor, much of which is based upon the extension and maintenance of hedgerows. It will bring huge benefit to our biodiversity, by tackling climate change, and by providing an improved home for nature. Let us be honest, they are important boundary structures and really effective for efficient land use.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome set out so well, the loss of cross-compliance is really key. Like a lot of the current transition, a foreseeable mistake has been made. Alongside all sorts of other legal obligations, until last year every single one of the 85,000 farmers who receive basic payment also had an obligation through cross-compliance to maintain their hedgerows and do other environmental goods. I am not defending the direct payment schemes, but I will push back a little against those who said they were universally awful. They were not without environmental gain, and that was achieved through cross-compliance. I support the transition, but I think it is being done badly.

Under cross-compliance, 85,000 people were obliged to maintain their hedgerows, and 5% of them would have received an inspection from the Rural Payments Agency every year—so farmers knew it was coming. Now, barely 10% of people are in SFI. Of the 1,100 farmers in my constituency, fewer than 100 are in SFI schemes, and a minority of those will be in hedgerow options. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome set out very well, they are laudable and good, but they are also impractical, bureaucratic, and do not replace the money that has been lost. It is good that the options provided through countryside stewardship are there, but they will only be available to a very small minority of farmers, and a very small minority of Britain’s current and potential hedgerows. We are losing a lot to gain a little.

I do praise the Minister when it comes to the development and granting through Natural England of the Kendal to Penrith countryside corridor—that is a really great thing. For every one of those, however, I can name several that got turned down. The Lynster Farmers’ Group in Meathop and Ulpha bid for a scheme to protect their hedgerows from the totally avoidable flooding caused by the failure in managing the River Winster to follow its proper channel out into Morecambe bay. I would really love the Minister to look again at that, to ensure those farmers can protect their wildlife, both flora and fauna, including hedgerows.

The hedgerow options and the approach to hedgerows through the ELM scheme transition is emblematic of lots of other aspects of this transition. While they are laudable and good, they are not remotely capable of replacing a fraction of the income that farmers are losing. I was with farmers in Appleby recently. The least badly affected of them reckoned that through the various ELM schemes he could replace 60% of what he had lost. The average figure for which farmers thought they could replace what they had lost through the transition was less than 10%.

What do those farmers end up doing? Well, they go bust or their mental health ends up in a terrible, terrible state. I am truly frightened for the state of the mental health of many of the farmers in my communities—really frightened. This is not helping at all. The pressure will also lead them to make poorer decisions. If someone sees their income receding, what do they do? What do they have to intensify? They may feel against all their better instincts that they have to rip out hedges in order to maximise short-term value from the land, which I fear is happening. While these are laudable schemes, they are not even remotely attractive enough to draw people into them. They are bureaucratic and do not replace the genuine income that has been foregone, and so people are voting with their feet—like I say, 10% are in SFI. Meanwhile, my upland livestock farmers have lost 41% of their income under the Government in this Parliament.

What are farmers? Principally, they are food producers and stewards of the countryside, and they are proud to do both those things. They do not need beating over the head or to be given huge wads of cash to do things that are instinctive to them. It is really important in all of this that we do not allow people to demonise our farmers, who are doing their best with what they are given—but they are being given far too little.

I have a few words to say against those who may well be “more” culprits—our developers, who will always ask for more lax planning rules to allow them to do whatever they want. I am the opposite of a nimby, but the evidence in the lakes and the dales is that if we are really prescriptive in planning law and say what developers can and cannot do when it comes to affordable homes, zero-carbon homes and protecting and extending nature, they will grumble for a bit, but then realise that that is the only game in town, and they either build or do not build. If the Government were to give to local councils, and not just national parks, the power to be far more prescriptive about protecting and extending hedgerows, local authorities would have the power to do that.

What are the options? We can give planners and local authorities those powers, and we can extend legal protections, as the hon. Member for North Devon rightly said, but let us also think carefully about whether in the short term we need to roll over cross-compliance, so we do not lose all the good that people have done over the past few decades for the sake of a mismatched and botched transition. Ultimately, we are seeing something that is an unintended but totally foreseeable consequence of the transition. The Government can do things now to protect our hedgerows, and I pray that they will.

10.16 am

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott, and to listen to all the contributions this morning. It has occasionally felt like a DEFRA Front-Bench speakers’ reunion, but I have enjoyed all the speeches, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who helpfully contributed to Labour’s internal discussions. I can assure him that we will always be nature-positive in our approaches.

I also listened with great interest to other hon. Members’ speeches, particularly the last one. I can assure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) that whether it is the blue wall, the red wall or a dry stone wall, Labour’s ambitions are boundless now. I listened very carefully to what he was saying about the issues around the environmental land management scheme, and I found myself very much in agreement with a lot of what he said. I also enjoyed the speeches from the hon. Members for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) and for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke).

Most of all, I enjoyed the introduction from the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby). Before the debate started, I was slightly intrigued because I always wonder what it is that motivates hon. Members to bring a debate to Westminster Hall. I was wondering which of the proverbial five tribes of the Conservative party the hon. Lady sits in. I always thought of her as belonging to the more beleaguered, sensible part of the Conservative party—I am sure that that is where she sits. I was hoping that probably means the Minister has something exciting to tell us at the end of this debate—that she will produce a proverbial rabbit out of the hedgerow, and explain how she is going to deal with what is not at all a good news story for the Government, for the reasons that have been explained.

I thought that, in her normal powerful manner, but gently, the hon. Member for North Devon introduced a considerable range of quite pertinent criticisms of the Government’s record. I will go back and read her speech closely, and hon. Members may find me echoing some of those criticisms in addition to my own.

I welcome the chance for us to discuss a way forward on the agricultural transition that enshrines the necessary protection required for hedgerows, ensuring that they continue to play their vital role in our natural environment. As we have heard, hedgerows are much more than just markers that neatly divide up our countryside and farmlands. They are highways along which wildlife of all shapes and sizes flow, and home to insects that thrive on the pests that are sometimes fond of farmers’ crops. Crucially, they also store carbon and work as a natural means of reducing the risk of flooding.

Experts from the Woodland Trust tell us that two activities are particularly bad for the health and resilience of hedgerows: first, the spreading of agricultural chemicals up to the foot of the hedges; and secondly, poorly timed and over-zealous cutting—already mentioned in the debate—that physically damages the hedges and their ability to play their role as a habitat at crucial times of the year.

We have heard about the cross-compliance rules. I remember the discussions that took place during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020, when some of us talked at length about good agricultural and environmental conditions, the standards of GAECs, and the fact that there were good standards under the old basic payment scheme mechanism. We all have our criticisms of those schemes, but as has already been explained, they did at least produce a structure and a system for 85,000 producers. That scheme ensured that land managers kept a buffer strip within two metres of their hedges and banned the use of pesticides in those spaces. To protect the crucial nesting period, land managers were also prohibited from cutting hedges for six months of the year, between March and August.

None of what we have heard comes as a surprise. We were talking about this during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020 some four or five years ago; the Government knew the cross-compliance rules would come to an end on 1 January this year. I have regularly reminded both the current Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), and his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), of these points and of the benefits of cross-compliance. Despite knowing the potential consequences, the Government have dithered, delayed and failed to act. Perhaps the first thing that the Minister can do today is explain why we find ourselves in this situation.

The consultation was carried out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last year, but the Department has still not responded. We were told the response is to come early in 2024. Well, here we are—early in 2024. Will the Minister tell us when we are going to get that response? Frankly, it is only a response to a consultation. With no cross-compliance rules, protection for hedgerows is now substantially weakened. Does the Minister accept that point? Can she make an assessment of how much damage is likely to be done between now and when new rules are put in place? Because, although I entirely agree with the previous comments and do not expect farmers to be abusing the situation, some can, and I fear some will. What assessment has been made of the damage that will be caused by the Government’s negligence?

We are left with the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, which do offer some protection but only to “important” hedges. Sadly, the definition of “important” is so narrow that it rules out many hedgerows. The soonest we can hope to have greater protection—unless the Minister tells us something in this debate—is summer this year; that is not good enough. If the Government choose to introduce primary legislation to protect hedgerows, as some have suggested, we may have to wait until 2025 before protection is restored.

Of course, it is not just hedgerows. Cross-compliance rules on minimum soil cover, prevention of soil erosion and pesticide-free green cover near watercourses have all fallen by the wayside. History tells us that, without those protections, it is harder for us to meet legally binding targets on carbon and nature. Last week’s report from the environment watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, shows that the Government are already failing to meet almost all their environmental and nature goals. They should hang their head in shame at that report. We can scarcely afford to make the situation worse. It is interesting that the hon. Member for North Devon mentioned the Stacey review of some years ago; that was another example of things being promised and not delivered. I found myself thinking during her speech that there have been lots of targets—targets are all very worthy, but it is about delivery and action and measuring what is actually going on.

If the decline in species abundance is to be halted, the contribution made by hedgerows will be necessary. They also play a role in meeting the carbon goals that the environmental watchdog warns are in danger of being missed. Not only are they crucial stores of carbon in themselves but, as evidenced in research from the University of Leeds, the soil beneath hedgerows works as a sponge for carbon, capturing an average of 30% more carbon than intensively managed grassland parcels.

Two-metre buffer strips around hedges, which were protected by those cross-compliance rules, are also important to nature restoration. The strips host many threatened species and ensure the resilience of hedgerows. They act as corridors in what can often be inhospitable terrain for invertebrates and mammals. Significantly, buffer zones can also help stop the movement of pesticide and fertiliser away from their intended place of use and reduce run-off into our water system. Given that the Government have once again reneged on promises on neonicotinoids this year, that remains an important issue.

This is a sorry saga. The Government must act swiftly to provide clarity to the sector in the interests of land managers and nature. The first step should be finally to publish the consultation response on the future of hedgerow regulation. It is not good enough that we have yet to see it, over six months after it began. Legislation should also be brought forward at the earliest opportunity to, at a minimum, restore the protection that hedgerows enjoyed under cross-compliance rules. With support from wide across the sector for these measures, including voices such as the NFU and the Wildlife Trust, I urge the Government to move quickly on this issue. Every day without regulation risks more damage being done to these natural marvels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

We have to be careful. There is a suggestion that what I said might happen if there is a gap. I certainly got that impression from one or two comments, but that may not be how the hon. Gentleman understood them, and his point is on the record.

We recognise the importance of the legal protections in place to prevent any of the concerns that I outlined. We do not want any of those things to happen. Those concerns come from both stakeholders and farmers. I want to make it very clear that, as a result, we will seek to regulate to maintain hedgerow protections as a matter of priority, when parliamentary time allows. That is the rabbit that I am pulling out of the hat today. I hope that will be welcome news, because I think we all agree that this is a priority. We want to make sure that regulation is fair and proportionate to farmers. That has been very clear in all our consultations. We want to get the support of farmers, and we want them to comply with the law where they have to; but we want to work with them, not against them.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) mentioned that advice is important. Advice is critical, so that farmers know what they have to do. There must be guidance that ensures that they can protect hedgerows, and we should reserve sanctions for the most serious offences. On many occasions when I have been out and about, particularly in farming areas and protected landscapes where designated advisers were working with farmers, I have seen how useful it is for farmers to have someone to talk to. I met an adviser recently in the Kent downs area of outstanding natural beauty—now called a national landscape—who was an ecologist. She said that meeting and chatting with farmers was the best way to encourage them to sign up to the levels and different options in the SFI. It can seem a bit scary, or feel like there is too much paperwork, but we have simplified the whole scheme; we have listened to our farmers on that point.

There was a bit of negativity from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about the increased payment levels that we have just given for hedgerows. I thought she might have welcomed that. Although they have all gone up, we need to remember that farmers can apply for lots of different levels. It is not just one sum; they can get a sum for recording the hedgerow, a sum for managing it and so on—there are various amounts that will add up, given all the other things they can apply for in the SFI. The idea is that cumulatively the scheme will be attractive; we really want farmers to understand that and apply.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I loved the Minister’s reference to “burgeoning froth”. I think it could be her epitaph, frankly, because this is burgeoning froth. Will she tell us how many people, of the 80,000-plus who were protected through cross-compliance, have picked up on SFI and are receiving it as we speak?

[Rebecca Pow]

That is a good point. First, let us look at what is happening in our other schemes; this is not just about SFI. We have seen a huge appetite for our country- side stewardship schemes. There are now 49,000 miles of hedgerow that have one or both sides managed under the countryside stewardship or environmental stewardship options; and famers have already signed up for 2,300 agreements, including 5,474 hedgerow actions.

Lots of farmers have opted to do a number of actions through the SFI. Remember that this is a new scheme; farmers are rolling off their countryside stewardship schemes on to the new scheme, which is expanding every day. The best thing to do is to be positive and encouraging, rather than negative and damning. I think the former nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, would agree that we need to be positive about what is going on. This is a new, positive scheme. Please encourage farmers to apply for it, because the money and the options are there. We want our farmers and land managers to make the most of their hedgerows, and we support them in taking actions such as assessing and recording hedgerow condition, rotational cutting, and even leaving some hedgerows uncut altogether, which is obviously great for our nature and wildlife, and for those frothing, burgeoning hedgerows full of blackthorn and hawthorn. As I have said, farmers and land managers created or restored 8,450 miles of hedgerow through countryside stewardship capital grants, which is a great addition to our reaching our targets.

I have a few minutes left to cover some other points. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) made a good point about skills. We obviously need skills; we are aware of that and have a green jobs taskforce, with which I am involved. Through a lot of our tree strategy and action plan to plant trees, we have a big focus on skills, training and apprenticeships, including Forestry Commission apprenticeships; new funding of £4.5 million from the nature for climate fund was put towards this issue. Last year, 1,000 people undertook training in skills connected with trees, which inevitably includes skills connected with hedgerows. That is really ramping up. Those people will be out there, working together, and able to help and advise on schemes.