Agriculture Bill (Ninth sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Stringer. Clause 9 provides the Secretary of State with the power to modify, for England, the legislation governing the basic payments scheme, which includes the greening and young farmer payments. We will remove the unnecessary bureaucracy. From the responses to the extensive consultation that the Department undertook in 2018, and further consultation with stakeholders, we think that that will be welcomed by farmers up and down the country.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to continue our discussion with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I want some clarification from the Minister. The clause is obviously quite apposite, as it will give the Government powers to simplify the system, and it is topical, given that the three-crop rule is controversial and unpopular, and something on which many farmers would like urgent action.

Farmers Weekly reported that Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers Union, said at its conference last week that farmers were hugely frustrated:

“We have left the EU, half the country is under water and…we are still going to abide by the three-crop rule and process thousands of force majeure applications. It just seems absolutely extraordinary.”

The Secretary of State explained the complex situation we find ourselves in, but I ask the Minister to explain why we cannot move more quickly, given that we have now left the European Union.

[Victoria Prentis]

The situation is under consideration, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for the Department to consider the matter further. Farmers are undoubtedly suffering because of flooding in their fields and concerned about whether they will be able to plant their crops. There are, for them, many other mechanisms for asking—whether by force majeure or otherwise—for the three-crop rule not to apply.

The position is under active consideration and I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman outside the confines of the Agriculture Bill, which refers to future payments—so probably this is not the place to be having the conversation. I want him to be clear that the Department is looking carefully at the next steps for this year.

As to future years, it might help if I say that we intend to make some minor simplifications in 2020 on greening payments, if I can use that terminology, using our existing powers. We intend to simplify the penalties for small overclaims of land, for example. We are also removing some of the paperwork connected to the young farmers scheme, which I think will be widely welcomed. We plan to introduce further simplifications for the 2021 scheme, such as removing some of, or possibly all, the greening rules, so watch this space.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Power to provide for phasing out direct payments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to apply reductions to farmers’ payments under the basic payment scheme in England so that we can phase them out. We plan to start reducing payments in 2021. Clause 11 concerns reductions to be applied to direct payments under the basic payment scheme; de-linked payments are dealt with in clause 12.

We will apply the reductions fairly, with higher reductions initially applied to amounts in higher payment bands. All farmers will face some reductions from the start of the transition. That reflects strong calls from industry stakeholders and many farmers for the reduction to be shared across the sector.

We have set out the maximum reductions that we intend to apply in 2021. We will set the reduction percentages for subsequent years taking account of our detailed plans for future schemes—which, as we have rehearsed many times, we do not yet have—and the wider perspective of Government spending. I reassure the Committee that regulations setting out the reductions will be made using the affirmative procedure, so there will be an opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise and debate them carefully.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for that explanation. We had quite a discussion of some of these issues last week. Unfortunately, it appears that there is a second policy paper, which I am not sure every Committee member was entirely aware of last week. The Minister will be delighted to know that it is my new favourite document.

[Victoria Prentis]

Oh good!

[Daniel Zeichner]

But before people start applying cold compresses to their heads, I assure the Committee that I will not subject that document to detailed scrutiny. Some of it would have been helpful in our discussions last week, but it is as it is.

The document, which is entitled “Farming for the future: Policy and progress update”, sets out at page 36 the approach that is going to be taken to phasing out direct payments. As the Minister said, the reduction will be 5% for payments up to £30,000, and so on up to 25% for payments of £150,000 or more, so there will be significant reductions.

I have a genuine question, which I would like to explore. It is not clear to me what constitutes a payment in this sense. Can one simply look at recipients? The database shows that some recipients get a £1 million payment. Do these figures apply to that amount or to all the smaller payments that go to make it up? There would be a significant difference between the two.

I sought advice from one or two people, who were also puzzled, so I do not necessarily expect the Minister to know the answer this minute. However, it seems to me that it makes a huge difference, both to the people who receive payments and to the amount of money available in the system. If we cannot get an immediate answer, perhaps we can come back to that point later in the day, because it is key to the discussion.

[Victoria Prentis]

I hesitate to behave like a lawyer, but it seems to me that what is specified under subsection (2) is the power to reduce basic payment scheme payments and, of course, any regulations made in the past under the basic payment scheme. I hope that is a sufficient answer for the hon. Gentleman. If not, perhaps we can take the conversation offline and I can talk him through what is planned. I accept that this is difficult. One of the problems with the common agricultural policy is that it has been accused of being not very transparent and difficult to manage, and it has different pillars, but I assure him that we are talking about BPS payments.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I understand the difficulty, but I think this is a pretty important point. This is a framework Bill, but people are looking for certainty over the next couple of years and will want to know how much they stand to lose. There could be a huge difference, depending on how the figure is calculated. Someone in the Department must know the answer to that question. I am not necessarily expecting it this minute, but it is important that we find it out.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am reassured by the departmental staff present that the reductions will be applied to the total basic payment, including the greening and young farmer allowance. That is my understanding of the scheme and I hope that is sufficient for the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that I fully understand his question, so this is possibly not the most productive place to have this conversation. We could discuss the matter on our own or exchange letters, if he is still confused.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Power to make delinked payments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Victoria Prentis]

The clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to enable de-linked payments to be introduced in England for the remainder of the transition period. De-linked payments will remove the requirement to farm land. Once introduced, de-linked payments will replace the basic payment scheme for all farmers in England.

De-linked payments benefit from further simplification during the agricultural transition period. Farmers can access payments for the remainder of the transition without the bureaucracy of the basic payment scheme. Instead, farmers will have maximum flexibility to plan for the future, choosing to spend the money as best suits their circumstances. That should help those who wish to retire to do so, freeing up land for new entrants.

The clause allows us to introduce de-linked payments from 2022 at the earliest. Alternative enforcement mechanisms will be introduced before direct payments are de-linked, so that we can maintain agricultural and environmental best practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Power to provide for lump sum payments in lieu of relevant payments

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 13, page 11, line 8, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) Regulations under this section shall make provision for circumstances in which an eligible person may receive a lump sum under this section.

(4A) The circumstances under subsection (4) shall include a commitment by the eligible person to use the lump sum to—

(a) make a change or changes to practice in managing land in such a way as to deliver one or more of the purposes under section 1(1) or 1(2); or

(b) make land available to other persons or bodies who undertake to manage the land in such a way as to deliver one or more of the purposes under section 1(1) or 1(2).”

Before making my comments on the amendment, I would like to point out that I am not confused about the previous issue; the Government are the ones who have the confusion. We will seek that out, I am sure.

[Victoria Prentis]

Okay, we will discuss that.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We will do that.

Turning to clause 13, de-linking is significant for our farmers and there is a worry around it. The House of Commons Library briefing talks about the effect and the responses to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs summary last year. A lot of respondents felt this was a less popular option than retaining and simplifying the existing scheme. More significantly, the DEFRA evidence and analysis paper, “Agriculture Bill: Analysis and Economic Rationales for Government Intervention”, says:

“Most farm businesses will be able to make modest cost reductions in order to improve efficiency, which will be required when Direct Payments come to an end.”

That is strong statement. A lot of people will feel that it is not going to be easy to make those changes.

The analysis that DEFRA published alongside the paper notes that the impact of the removal of direct payments on overall profit margins is likely to be “non-negligible”. That is a wonderful civil service word that can be synonymous with “considerable”. I urge the Government to be cautious. De-linking has some positives, but the reductions are challenging for many.

The Bill outlines the seven-year agricultural transition period during which direct payments will be phased out, which is a significant change. It means there will no longer be a requirement to farm the land in order to receive the payments. In some ways, that is the gist of the Bill. Some will remember that, on Second Reading, a Government Member said, “Surely not!” because the common agricultural policy used to reward people for not farming. This is CAP on steroids in that case, because it completely breaks that link and is a significant change, and it is something that needs to be thought about.

In clause 14, we also look at how someone who potentially wants to come out of farming can request to have their remaining de-linked direct payments put into a lump sum. We understand the attraction of that for some, giving some flexibility and, as the Government have said, a route out of farming and the possibility of setting up a new business or diversifying, if they do not want to transition into the new world of environmental land management schemes. As the Minister said, the Government’s policy statements have made it clear that the intention of that is to increase opportunities for new entrants. In a wonderful, idealised world, this is all one would hope to happen—but the world does not always work in the way one expects.

Without a condition requiring farmers to make their land accessible to new entrants or to encourage transition on their land to a more sustainable way of farming, we believe the Bill poses a risk whereby retiring farmers could simply take lump sum payments and possibly sell the land to a larger holding or move out of farming altogether. That may be part of the Government’s underlying intention, but there are significant consequences to it. It is not entirely obvious that that will lead directly to new entrants.

I have mentioned the additional policy paper we have discovered. I point to page 39, which Members will probably not have to hand but which I will quote:

“Receiving a delinked payment will not disqualify the recipient from applying for payment under our new schemes, including our Environmental Land Management system.”

I ask the Minister whether the intention of that is as it seems to me to be read. Many of my constituents on benefits would love to continue getting their benefits when they got a new job, but no one would think that remotely reasonable. There is potential for double payment here and I ask for some explanation on that.

Going back to where the de-linked system has been initiated, we could conceivably be left in a situation whereby the provision of de-linked lump sum payments had incentivised a reduction in the amount of land being farmed in accordance with the aim of securing environmental public goods. It takes the land, which we are hoping will be managed in a more environmentally friendly way, out of the framework. I am sure the Minister gets the drift of where I am going with this.

That concern was raised by a number of witnesses in Committee, particularly the Landworkers Alliance in their written evidence. We think that that would be not only a detrimental and unintended consequence, environmentally speaking, but an unjust and politically unacceptable use of public funds, as it would hand public money to farmers who might already have a large capital asset in the farm and the house.

I have already said that the double payment point is an issue. How are we making sure that land will be put to continued use and deliver the environmental public goods at the heart of the Bill? There is a danger that the land will be left to the market with no guarantees that new entrants will take over and farm in an environmentally conscious way.

That is why amendment 74 would help the Government to tackle this conundrum by making the receipt of a lump sum de-linked payment conditional on either transitioning the farm to being run according to purposes outlined in clause 1(1), delivering public goods, or in clause 1(2), improving productivity, or on making land available to new entrants or for community ownership to ensure it continues as farmland. We think that would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that stipulated that retiring farmers wishing to sell their land must offer it for sale to new entrants or the local community for a fixed period before offering it on the open market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the spirit in which he made them. We will certainly all have to work together on perfecting the new schemes for the benefit of us all. The amendment seeks to apply conditions on those opting for a lump sum. Given the tenor of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, it would be helpful, with your leave, Mr Stringer, if I made a few comments about de-linked payments and the definition of de-linked payments and lump sum payments. It is important to be clear about that.

De-linked payments, once introduced, will replace the basic payment scheme for all farmers. They will not be paid as a lump sum. A lump sum payment will be completely optional for farmers; it is something they can apply for. Such payments will replace any future basic payment scheme or other delivered payments that they would have been entitled to receive under a previous payment regime. De-linking payments from the land will allow farmers to access their payments easily and, we hope, bring much simplification.

Along with the phasing out of direct payments, de-linking sends a clear signal that we are leaving behind the common agricultural policy. It will give farmers greater flexibility to plan for the future, because they will be able to choose how to use the money they receive to best suit their circumstances. Some farmers may choose to use it to contribute to their retirement from farming, which would help new entrants get into the industry, while others may use it to adapt or expand their business.

When clause 12 becomes effective and we introduce de-linked payments, those payments will replace the current basic payment scheme for all farmers in England and be paid each year during the remainder of the agricultural transition, rather than as a one-off lump sum. Separately, clause 13 provides the power to make regulations to offer farmers the option of taking a one-off lump sum payment in place of future payments, whether BPS or de-linked payments, during the agricultural transition.

On the hon. Gentleman’s points about regulation and the current cross-compliance regime, we have a strong domestic legal framework for enforcing environmental and animal health and welfare protections, but we will, of course, keep those powers under review to check that they are adequate. We will maintain strong regulatory standards and introduce a new approach to monitoring compliance and enforcement.

Currently, as the Committee has rehearsed, checking takes place in only a small number of cases. We hope to move to our new system as we go through the transition period. We hope for improved co-ordination between authorities, better data sharing and greater use of earned recognition. Enforcement will be proportionate and fair, and those who do not comply with regulations can expect to be sanctioned in future.

The Government want to see more public goods and farming to become more productive. The amendment is counter to the purpose that underpins lump sums: it would tie lump sums to financial assistance under clause 1, but the whole point of lump sums is that they are separate from that.

As the Secretary of State outlined in his speech to the National Farmers Union last week, we are looking to provide a means for older farmers to leave the profession with dignity. We are committed to phasing out direct payments and doing so in a way that helps those in the profession to adjust. Lump sums could bring many benefits. They could increase the ease for new entrants and those existing farmers who wish to expand and acquire land. They could also help those remaining in the industry to invest in their businesses.

The Bill gives the opportunity to move away from the highly bureaucratic and complex rules in the CAP. The amendment would go against the thrust of the desire to move to lump sum payments, by adding conditions to the receipt of funding without any consultation.

The clause would allow the Secretary of State to attach conditions on those opting for a lump sum, but we want to get it right. Therefore, it is important for the Government to consult the industry, so that a lump sum scheme is effective in achieving our aims, without introducing needless bureaucracy. I heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say about specific ideas. I would like him to rest assured that we will take those into account and that we are also very keen to discuss with him any further ideas he may have about the lump sum scheme.

Our commitment to the farming industry and to the provision of greater public goods is clear, but lump sum payments are different, as is this chapter. It is about phasing out direct payments. Lump sum payments are one way that we are going to help farmers during the transition, alongside our other plans to deliver real simplification of the scheme. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I have listened closely to the Minister’s response. Although I recognise some of the points she makes, she has not addressed our fundamental concerns. All Governments talk of spending public money wisely. There is a real risk that it will be hard to keep track of how the system is working, and that public money might not be used for the hoped for outcomes. That is why we are cautious and will press the amendment to a vote. It is important to get more clarity.

We keep coming back to the same point. The Minister wants to set out options for the future, go to an iterative process and learn from it. The truth is that, once it starts, unless there are protections in place, there are the risks we have outlined. There are also risks around taking away some of the cross-compliance rules. The irony is that it could inadvertently allow for lower environmental standards rather than the higher ones that we are all keen to achieve.

I do not underestimate the complexity and difficulty, and I understand why the Government would not want to be constrained by extra suggestions put at this point. However, it is not clear that we will be able to exercise much leverage further down the line. The Government are asking for a huge amount of trust to go and design these systems and schemes, taking away many of the protections, both regarding money and the environment.

I do not think I heard the Minister address the double payment issue, which I would like to know about. Many people outside will not necessarily be following this closely. I say to the Minister that Governments are rarely rewarded for the successful bits of policy but are tripped up on the bits that the media can alight on and ask why they are happening.

The Government might want to look at the issue and be ready to explain to the public why that might happen. We are facing huge pressures on public expenditure in general and this could look very generous to those outside. I have nothing against being generous; I would like the Government to be more generous in general. I just think there are potential problems in this area. On that basis, I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I will say a few words, not least because I hope they will answer the hon. Gentleman’s point. Clause 13 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to give farmers greater choice, by offering them the opportunity to apply for a one-off lump sum payment. That lump sum payment would be instead of receiving basic payment scheme or de-linked payments during the remainder of the agricultural transition. I hope that answers his question. We feel that lump sums would provide extra flexibility and choice for farmers.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am afraid that does not answer the question. I will repeat what the policy document says on page 39:

“receiving a delinked payment will not disqualify the recipient from applying for payment under our new schemes, including our Environmental Land Management system”.

It seems to me that there is a risk there. That is not to do with the lump sum, but with de-linking in general. I suspect we will go around in circles on this, and I do not intend to go any further now, but that is why I have raised a concern.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

General provision connected with payments to farmers and other beneficiaries

[Victoria Prentis]

I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 14, page 11, line 45, leave out “any”.

This drafting amendment removes an unnecessary word from clause 14(3) for consistency with other similar provisions of the Bill.

As the explanatory statement says, this drafting amendment removes an unnecessary word from clause 14(3) for consistency with other similar provisions in the Bill.

Amendment 43 agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Duty to report to Parliament on UK food security

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 17, page 14, line 20, leave out “five years” and insert “year”.

I am very happy to move this amendment; as keen-eyed Members might notice, it was originally tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), so this is probably a circumstance that neither of us would ever have predicted. We entirely agree with the proposal to make this extremely important change to the clause 17 food security provisions and amend the timing of the reports from once every five years to every year.

We are all glad that the Government paid heed to the warnings of stakeholders and our predecessors on the previous Bill Committee and included a duty in the revised Bill to report to Parliament on UK food security. It was widely commented at the time that it seemed curious that an Agriculture Bill’s purposes would not include producing food. I think that the clause is the Government’s response to that. It is unthinkable that food security provisions—particularly the Government’s intentions with respect to the proportion of food to be produced domestically or imported—should not be included in discussions of the post-Brexit future of our agriculture sector. Clause 17 is welcome, but the stipulation that the Secretary of State must prepare a report on an issue as important as the state of the nation’s food security only once every five years seems weak.

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the five-yearly reports. There should be annual reporting. The guidelines in the Bill are not clear, so does he agree that there should be clear targets and actions, and that the Bill should say what needs to be carried out to look at food security?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We need much more clarity. The clause is clearly not strong enough, at a time when food security has the potential to become a major cause of uncertainty and concern as we leave the EU and negotiate our own trade deals. It is of course an extremely topical matter, given many of the discussions going on at the moment.

Our food security in terms of self-sufficiency is already in long-term decline. We now produce only 61% of our own food, which is down from 74% around 30 years ago. It is a matter of strategic national interest to ensure that our country can, as far as possible, feed itself. A reasonable level of domestic production in a volatile world is a critical aspect of food security. It is a hugely complicated and contested issue. The modern world that we live in is highly interconnected—something that, as we speak, is looking increasingly difficult, for reasons we are all aware of. Those things raise questions, and different approaches are taken in different countries, but this is a good time to be discussing them.

There is still a huge amount that we do not know about the impact that the Government’s new trade and immigration policies will have on domestic food production year to year. Last week I quoted the concerns from some sectors—particularly the poultry sector—about our ability to continue without the people to do the work. We do not know whether the Government will make good on their as yet empty promises and protect our domestically produced food from being swamped by imports of a lower standard. That is the—I was going to say “the elephant in the room”, although I am not sure that we are farming elephants. This is a huge issue, which we shall obviously be coming to in the next few days, and, I suspect, returning to on Report and Third reading. It is one of the top issues at the moment. We do not know what the impact will be of any outcomes with respect to trade deals, but I suggest that they should be informed by a view on what we are trying to achieve overall. This Committee is a place where we can have at least part of that discussion.

I guess that some of those advising the Government have rather let the cat out of the bag over the weekend. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby is not here, as he has had problems with cats in the past, although I was not going to tease him about it too much. The Sunday newspapers, of course, were full of the press scoop that one of the new Chancellor’s top economic advisers thinks that our entire food sector is not critically important to the UK.

I recognise that the comments of one adviser do not Government policy make, but for many of us it feeds into a concern about where these policies are going. It is also part of the argument I made last week—that there is a real risk that we are looking at a much smaller, albeit high-quality and environmentally friendly, food sector in this country than we have now. That is something on which we really need clarity from the Government.

It was not just agriculture; the adviser also talked about fisheries, and suggested that maybe we should follow the example of agriculture in Singapore. We are a very different nation from Singapore. We are hugely different geographically, because they do not have much arable land in the way that we do, so they rely almost entirely on imports of food. I would go further than that and say that this is part of the debate about what it means to be English or British. Our rural heritage is a key part of our country, and the suggestion that we do not need some of it is, frankly, deeply shocking.

I am sure the Minister will disassociate herself from that kind of comment, but, given the extraordinary turmoil going on within No. 10 at the moment, this seems a classic example of taking advice from weirdos and misfits. I am afraid that the frivolous musings of people in such positions have very real consequences on the good work that the Minister is trying to do on a Bill such as this, and I am sure she did not welcome some of the publicity over the weekend. I would gently impress on her the importance of paying heed to something that we on the Opposition side have been trying to warn her about throughout this Bill Committee: that this Bill needs to be strengthened to guard against exactly this kind of approach, which undermines many of the worthy intentions behind it.

Going back to the food security report itself, the danger in that, under this clause, we will not even see the first one until after the next election, when we will have been out of the EU for half a decade. To us, it seems extraordinary that we would wait so long. We believe it needs to be done much more frequently. Given the kind of dramatic changes we are seeing around the world with the climate crisis, flooding and so on, we think that having reports on our food security annually would be a vital tool in the Government’s toolkit, enabling them to react to trends as they develop year on year and to address them. A further weakness of the food security report approach is that we can have a report, but we then need some tools to respond to what the report is telling us.

There is considerable consensus, not just among the hon. Members who have signed the amendment previously and on this occasion, but across the sector. We have heard from the NFU and the Tenant Farmers Association, and from the environmental organisations Greener UK and the Nature Friendly Farming Network. It is unusual; we have seen remarkable consensus on a number of these points, but on this point there is real consensus. I hope that the Minister has been paying attention to the fact that the original proposal came from her Government’s own Back Benchers. There is now a cross-party effort to shift the Government on this.

This is the first time in more than 40 years that a Secretary of State has been directly responsible for the nation’s food security. It is vital that we get this right, so we welcome the cross-party support for the amendment—not necessarily from the Government, but from their Back Benchers. Five years is simply too long to wait for these important reports. I hope the Minister has noted the strength of feeling. It is not going to go away, and that is why we will push this amendment to a vote.

[Victoria Prentis]

Although the issue of standards is not entirely on-topic, I will deal with it briefly. I refer the hon. Gentleman not to leaks from Downing Street advisers but to a speech in the Chamber last night by the Secretary of State for International Trade, who said very clearly that

“we will not lower our standards. We will maintain our food safety and animal welfare standards and will not lower them as part of this free trade agreement. We decide which standards we abide by here in the UK. We have exceptionally high standards of animal welfare”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2020; Vol. 672, c. 649.]

I am sure we will come back to that later in our consideration of the Bill.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the amendment and its cross-party origins, and I understand why it may appear to be an attractive proposition. However, I will explain the clause’s proposed frequency of reporting “at least” every five years and why we think that will provide for both a more meaningful report on food security in the medium and longer term and a sounder basis for any relevant and appropriate policy response.

Food security is a complex issue that cannot be measured or defined by a single metric. The Government work closely with the food industry to ensure that we have a secure food supply. As the hon. Gentleman says, this is very important at this important point of change in our farming practices, and it may well be that it is appropriate to have a report before the five years is up. However, I would like to maintain the provisions in that allow the Government to decide that this is appropriate “at least” every five years.

I also ask the hon. Gentleman to view this in context. There has not been a food security report since 2010. I think we all agree that a report is a positive step. We are making an important new commitment to analyse and publish a regular report on this important subject. The report will use a set of core measurements for each key topic area, so that we can consider the trends over time. These will be drawn from a blend of national and international data sources. Sources that we expect to draw on include trade and domestic production data and statistics on energy, household expenditure, food and food safety. Many of those sources are in the public domain already and can be considered by anybody who wishes to consider them in between reports, but we propose that we do a really substantial report not on an annual basis but within a longer period, and at least once every five years.

The frequency of reporting every five years was included to balance the commitment to regularly report with the need to allow sufficient time to observe key trends from this vast variety of sources. I hope that explains why the clause is in the Bill. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Minister makes a fine attempt, but I am afraid that this is a basic issue of trust. Governments are rarely trusted, however hard they try. She asks us to take this on trust, and frankly we do not. As we will come back to time and again, we hear Ministers repeatedly say this, in which case they should put it in the Bill. That would solve the problems. Of course, we know that they will not, because this is all part of the new macho-posturing negotiating world that we now live in post Brexit. We used to have a civilised approach to the world, but no longer. This is the new world, but these questions are not answered.

Food security reporting is particularly interesting, and our further amendments will tease more of this out. The Government could reassure people by saying roughly what they expect the future to look like for food security. By not so doing, they absolutely stoke the scepticism of people who look at that adviser’s comments and think that that is actually where some of these people want to go. I invite Government Members to think hard about whether they are actually in the loop on this. I think some people out there have a very clear idea about where we should want to go. That is why the Government are reluctant to issue a food security statement. That would give some idea of what they hope for in future. If they do not have an idea, that is also pretty scary. There are plenty of reasons why Oppositions and the country do not always trust Governments. Sadly, experience often suggests they were right to be sceptical.

It is absolutely right to ask these hard questions, particularly because the Minister said that it would be at least once every five years. We are being asked to trust the Government. If the Government have stuff to hide, which I suspect they have, they are not going to do that very often. Five years is far too long. I agree with the Back-Bench Government Members on the side who tabled the amendment and clearly share my concerns. I want to see a much clearer outcome, which is why I will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 13

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 6

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 17, page 14, line 25, at end insert—

“(aa) the impact of food production upon global resource sustainability (including global carbon emissions, impacts on biodiversity and water usage);”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 76, in clause 17, page 14, line 27, at end insert—

(ba) food poverty and progress towards achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goal on hunger, malnutrition and food poverty (SDG 2);”

[Daniel Zeichner]

We believe there are a number of missed opportunities to strengthen clause 17 to provide adequate reports on food insecurity. Very little has been revealed in the Government’s “Farming for the future” policy document about what those reports might involve. It merely repeats the provisions in clause 17 that the reports may include global food availability; supply sources for food, including the availability to the public of food from domestic and other sources; the resilience of the supply chain; household expenditure on food; and food safety.

All of those are important, but we believe there could be much clearer requirements relating to the degree of the nation’s food security derived from domestic production. That is a point I have already alluded to. There should also be a clear commitment to prevent any further decline in self-sufficiency. That prompts the question of whether one considers the current position to be the right one. I am happy to engage in a debate on that.

As a starting point, we believe that a further decline would be unwelcome. All I am trying to find from the Government is whether they agree, which they ought to be able to tell us. The clause could also have included a requirement to specify food security targets and to identify the actions to be prioritised if those targets are not being met. That goes back to my point that it is all very well to produce a report but, if it is to be used as a tool for change and action, levers will also be needed. We believe amendment 75 would help with that.

Entirely absent from this clause is the contribution of our agricultural workforce to food security, and how immigration changes will affect that. It is fairly clear to those of us who are close to the sector and know what it is talking about that, as it stands, there could be quite substantial changes. They could be unintended, but changes there would be, and we need to know how they will be dealt with.

I turn to amendment 76. It is disappointing that the remit of the proposed report does not include that aspect of food security: not just supply, but whether people can access that supply. It is worth noting that the Environmental Audit Committee’s January 2019 report “Sustainable Development Goals in the UK follow up” found that

“Food insecurity is a significant and growing issue in the UK, with…levels…among the worst…in Europe, especially for children.”

Avid watchers of “Countryfile” will have noticed that this weekend one of the lead reports was on food banks in rural areas.

The report—the Environmental Audit Committee’s report, not the “Countryfile” report, although “Countryfile” is more fun in some ways; I really should not ad lib when I have notes—explicitly highlighted how the

“Government has failed to recognise and respond”

domestically, allowing these issues fall between the cracks. The Committee recommended that the Government appoint a Minister for hunger, but they have not responded to that sensible suggestion. The fact is that, sadly, food poverty is now all too rife in this country. The stat frequently quoted is that there are now more food banks than McDonald’s outlets, and we know how many of those there are.

In “Countryfile” I was struck by the Frome community fridge. There is also an excellent one at the Edge Café in Cambridge. We did not previously have to concern ourselves with such things, because there was a presumption that policy in general would ensure that we had a plentiful supply of affordable food; that is, of course, part of the aim of the common agricultural policy. That goes to the heart of our discussion of the Bill, because for too many of our people that is not the case. Although it is wonderful that people make the effort to try to deal with this problem, in a rich country we should not be in such a situation. Food is an essential and basic human right, and it is shocking that the country is not performing better on that. It is therefore right that that aspect of reporting on food security should be included in the Bill.

The recording of household expenditure on food, as suggested in the Government’s new policy document, will not properly record the free, charitable provision of food that has become a core staple for so many people. I urge the Government to consider expanding their proposed report to include the prevalence of hunger and malnutrition among the population, and the extent and distribution of food bank demand and provision. I suspect that, not many years ago, many of us would have thought it highly unlikely that in 2020 we would have to be discussing the need to report on hunger and malnutrition. It does not reflect well on the Government’s record that we have to ask for that, but we must do so if we are to eliminate this problem.

The amendment seeks to address that by stipulating that UK food security reports include analysis of food poverty and our progress towards achieving UN sustainable development goal no. 2, which is to end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. The Government signed up to that goal, and they probably thought we would never seek to apply it here, because we had assumed that it would not be necessary. Sadly, it is, and we are signed up to it, so the Government should not have any problem including those provisions in their flagship post-Brexit Bill on their commitment to food and food production.

The themes that the food security reports will cover are remarkably similar to those of the UK food security assessment carried out by the previous Labour Government in 2009. In fact, it looks like much of that has been carried forward. In stipulating that the reports may include data about

“global food availability…supply sources for food…the resilience of the supply chain…household expenditure on food”

and “food safety”, the Bill and the recent policy document adopt every area covered by the previous Labour Government’s report on food security, except one: global resource sustainability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

Self-sufficiency has only ever been one part of food security in this country. We supplement our produce with a range of other products from around the world that are difficult to grow and rear here. Our high degree of food security is built on access to a range of sources, including robust supply chains across a wide range of countries in addition to domestic production. It is important to view the debate on food security in that light.

I begin with amendment 75. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are planning to include in the food security report a theme relating to global food security and how it affects food security in the UK. I have a summary of some of the reports that we might consider in the section on global food availability, which may reassure him. However, I do not want him to think that what I will say is conclusive or relates to other issues that will be considered in the report; this is just about global food availability, which relates to amendment 75. We would expect to look at global output per capita, cereal yield per region, commodity price analysis, country consumption data and country commodity trade proportions. In addition, I suspect many other reports and factors will be considered, many of which will be publicly available between reports.

We will include consideration of the sustainability of global resources, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that we do not intend to list in the Bill all the indicators and data sources that we intend to use in the preparation of the report, because doing so would make the Bill unwieldy—one can imagine a situation in which one of those data sources becomes unavailable between reports. That is why the clause is structured as it is. It is not that we will not look at those sources; it is just that we do not want to list them. In producing the report, we will set out our analysis of the wide range of statistics relating to food security in the UK, from global UN data to UK national statistics. I therefore ask him to withdraw amendment 75.

On amendment 76, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we already intend to address food insecurity in the report. The Government are committed to achieving the principles set out in the UN sustainable development goals. We plan, under subsection (2)(d) of clause 17, to report on how the UK is performing against those goals. As part of that theme, we intend to consider all the key indicators that will help us to understand the impact of household food insecurity, including data from the Office for National Statistics.

As I said last week, food insecurity is an issue that we should all take very seriously, and the Government are committed to having a strong safety net for those who suffer from food insecurity. I will politely say again that the £95 billion welfare budget is the first port of call for people who suffer from food insecurity. It is proper that we consider food insecurity as part of this report—we have said that we will do so—but the welfare system is the place for people with food insecurity, and that is where they should go. I do not denigrate in any way the efforts and the great achievements of food banks and food fridges around the country.

I hope that I have suitably clarified our intentions and explained why it is not necessary to include specific text in the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We will not withdraw these amendments. I hear what the Minister says about the welfare system, but the welfare system is failing. That is why people are hungry. It did not use to be the case and it does not have to be the case, but that is the case. That is why it is right that the Government set out their position and the Opposition say, “Frankly, you are wrong, and we will not accept this.”

This is a Bill about agriculture, which many of us still think is as much about food as environmental protections, although we want to ensure we do that they are of the highest standard. Those things should not be contradictory. If we are talking about food, we must talk about access to it. It was striking to see people on “Countryfile” who are on such low wages that they can barely afford to buy the food that they are producing. There is something seriously wrong here. We do not think this is a big ask, given that the Government have signed up to the sustainable and millennium development goals.

I am afraid it is, again, a question of trust. The Government want a vague framework. I am grateful to the Minister for making some points about global food production, because they are now on the record, so when we come to rehash this argument, when we do get some of these food reports, we will hold her to that. In the meantime, it is essential to press this amendment to a vote, because too many people across this country—thousands every week—use food banks. It would be a dereliction of duty on our side not to press this to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

In the health and harmony consultation, the majority of respondents suggested that Government intervention is essential in extreme circumstances, identifying market interventions in times of extreme price volatility as an area of particular concern. However, a high proportion of responses argued that farmers should self-manage risk. While the Government understand that there are events that even the most resilient of farmers cannot provide for, the agricultural industry must be sufficiently dynamic and self-reliant to survive in a free market. The clause tries to balance those two factors by creating new powers for the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to farmers in England and to run public intervention and private storage schemes during exceptional market conditions.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Before speaking on the clause, I give the Minister advance notice that I will also say a word on clause 22, on data. I draw attention to paragraph 170 of the explanatory notes to the Bill. This is potentially a big issue and goes back to our philosophical discussions last week on what the common agricultural policy had been for, to some extent. Of course, it was there to deal with extreme volatility and difficulty and so on. The Government make the fair point of questioning whether that is appropriate in a modern, more complicated world. However, I urge a slight note of caution to those who imagine that this is pretty much a carry-over of the current system.

There is a pretty clear cautionary note in paragraph 172 of the explanatory notes, where the Government say:

“Analysis suggests that public intervention and private storage aid are not required to enable farmers to manage their risks.”

That is quite a strong sentence. The notes continue:

“They can have negative effects, encouraging more risky farming practices and crowding out the development of futures markets, innovative contracts and private sector insurance products. Such market intervention schemes, if available routinely rather than in genuinely exceptional circumstances, run counter to the image of a dynamic and self-reliant agriculture industry.”

That could lead to many an academic paper, because it is a huge subject for discussion and debate. Many of us will think that it is probably fair enough that risk should be transferred on to the agriculture sector itself. During the foot and mouth crisis almost 20 years ago, many commentators made exactly that point. In particular, those from the manufacturing sector, who had seen their sector decimated by market forces, wondered why it was different for others. The reason is that food is a basic human need. This goes almost back to the discussion we were just having about food security. We may be able to live without some widgets, but we cannot live without food.

This is a really big, substantial issue, but is tucked away in a subsection. I suspect that some farmers will look at it and think not only that the future will hold no support and a much more complicated—in the view of some us—move to environmental land management systems, but that they will also have to deal with

“futures markets, innovative contracts—

I think a lot of us know what “innovative” often means—

“and private sector insurance products.”

I raise that just to sound a warning note. I am not sure that the matter has been discussed sufficiently.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s points. The Tenant Farmers Association highlighted the same matter in its written evidence, saying that the clause mentions only “‘acute’ hardship or difficulty” and would not be invoked for “‘chronic’ or long-lasting difficulties”, which, as has been mentioned, would include foot and mouth disease or epidemic diseases. In the current climate, we should look at that and make sure that agricultural producers are extremely resilient, and that they have that level of support, particularly when such crises happen, because they are expensive. There could be a big impact, particularly on the agricultural community and on consumers, especially in the face of the economic challenges of Brexit.

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is an important intervention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the evidence of the Tenant Farmers Association. There is a bigger debate to be had—the Minister is nodding—although I am sure that we can leave that for another day. The issue is important and I hope that it will be looked at more closely.

[Victoria Prentis]

By creating a new power we are moving away from the crisis measures that were designed with the EU market in mind and allowing schemes to be created that are tailored to our domestic conditions. It is important that farmers feel the Government are able to help where necessary. However, it is equally important that those financial assistance and intervention powers will not be seen as a panacea for any issue in agricultural markets. They are intended for use in exceptional situations.

The discretionary nature of the power will, I hope, reassure the sector that the Government will be able to help should extreme circumstances come to pass, by taking action and tailoring it to those exceptional circumstances. It will also ensure that intervention in the market and financial assistance will be limited to occasions when they are really necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Meaning of “agri-food supply chain”

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I apologise, Mr Stringer, for not listing the clause earlier as one on which I wanted to make an observation. I should declare—I am a bit of a data person—that I run the all-party parliamentary group on data analytics. The Minister sighs, but the data is important and has huge potential. We are in an era of precision agriculture where we seek to be able to provide, now and in the future, the correct nutrients for the individual Brussels sprout plant. That is an exciting possibility and many people in Cambridge are working on it. Agri-tech East is a powerful force for innovation and, I hope, good—but alongside all the politics with data there are one or two caveats.

The House of Commons Library briefing says—I imagine this has been deduced from the Bill:

“Data would normally be published in anonymised form”.

Evidence from elsewhere suggests that data anonymity is really hard to achieve. What we have seen with artificial intelligence and all the rest of it suggests that the power is there to trace anything back, so I urge a word of caution on that.

The reason I am cautious is that my reading of clause 22(4), dealing with people who are “closely connected”, raises a few anxieties in my mind about whether data is going to be collected on people working in agriculture. That is not always a force for good, I am afraid, and I want to make sure there are proper protections for people.

The Bill mentions vets, and there may well be good reasons for that related to animal health. However, we already have a workforce who are, in my view, often poorly paid and who face some serious and relentless challenges. I worry that further scrutinising them through a monitoring and data system would create a series of further problems, so I would welcome the Minister’s observations on that, and ask whether she shares my concerns. I am not sure there is much we can do about this issue in the Bill at the moment, but monitoring is clearly being set out as a way forward, and I hope we can make sure that we protect the people involved.

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I do not wish in any way to make light of his concerns about data. How we obtain and hold data is extremely important, and I am very happy to answer any concerns that he has on this subject.

The clause seeks to provide clarity about who might be required to provide information. A fairly broad scope has been outlined within the clause, and I think the drafters were trying to take a common-sense and down-to-earth approach to what sort of people we might need to get data from. For example, farmers, abattoirs, vets, wholesalers and retailers might well be in scope, but would not by any means always need to be in the frontline of data collection; it depends on the circumstances. It is important to note that those connected to the agri-food supply chain include people undertaking activities capable of affecting the health of creatures and plants in that food chain, or the safety of products.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I appreciate how difficult it is to frame these things, but that would include pretty much everybody who is involved, as far as I can tell. I cannot think of anybody who is not going to be caught by that definition, which is really my concern. Obviously, we all hope these powers will be used for the right purposes, but it is easy to see how they could become a new tyranny if every tractor had a camera in its cab and people were being monitored.

[Victoria Prentis]

That is not at all the intention. The intention is that where it is necessary to collect data from those in the food chain, the clause gives us the ability to do so. That is not at all to say that we will routinely connect data from all these actors, only that the power is there to enable us to do so when required. For example, with the coronavirus outbreak, it is possible—although I very much hope this is not the case—that further down the food chain, we will need to know who is touching the food that we eat or is responsible for various areas of it. I can foresee a situation in which it might be possible to ask people who seem far away from the farm gate to provide their data, although I very much hope that does not happen.

Before any data requirements are imposed, a draft proposal must first be sent to all relevant parties. If a supply chain member believes that such a request is not appropriate, they will be provided with at least four weeks to notify the Secretary of State of their reasoning.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Will the Minister confirm whether those interested parties include the relevant trade union?

[Victoria Prentis]

I am not sure that under the drafting of the clause trade unions would be included; in fact, I think they would not. However, it is open to members of a trade union to consult that union as necessary, and I would not seek to stop them doing so.

The idea is that an actor will receive the draft proposal. One example is that if a small-scale blackberry grower does not think it appropriate for them to provide data on productivity, which it may well not be, they will be able to submit that in response to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will then review whether it is necessary to carry out the initial requirement for data collection.

It has been difficult to draft this clause. The hon. Member for Cambridge understands that the need for public safety and food security along the supply chain has to be balanced with the need to protect people’s privacy and not to overburden them with regulation. I hope he feels we have broadly got the balance right.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 23 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)

Agriculture Bill (Tenth sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Public Bill Committees

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

What a pleasure it is to have you back with us, Sir David! I thank the hon. Lady for the amendments, which reflect an obvious desire to ensure that all farmers and producers are spared from unfair trading practices. We absolutely share that goal; our only disagreement is the means proposed to achieve it.

Essentially, we believe in the principle of a targeted solution for a specific problem, and we are keen to take the time to get the solution right. No two agricultural sectors are the same, and neither are the contractual issues that they face. Certain sectors, such as the poultry and grain sectors, may, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby reminded us, be so well integrated that contractual problems do not often arise.

We should have targeted solutions where they are needed, but we need to avoid burdensome new requirements where they are not. To ensure that, the specific detail of each code will be developed in consultation with industry and set out in secondary legislation. Enforcing a time limit on the creation of fair-dealing obligations would prevent regulations accounting for the complex nature of our agricultural market.

Turning to amendment 78, I assure the hon. Member for Newport West that all types of agreement to purchase agricultural products can already be protected by the clause, and the position of farmers in the supply chain will be protected under the current drafting. The clause allows us to regulate for the purposes of fair contractual dealing. That goes beyond a formal, written contract. As the hon. Lady no doubt knows, a contract constitutes any agreement of sale, whether it is formally written down or not. In the dairy sector, it is commonplace to write things down; in other sectors, there are more informal, word-of-mouth arrangements, particularly in the red meat world and parts of the arable world. However, the clause covers all agreements, written or otherwise.

On amendment 79, we deliberately designed the clause to be as flexible as possible. That is a change since the previous iteration of the Bill. Having listened to comments made at the time, we severed the link to the list of sectors in schedule 1 so that future regulations are no longer bound by it. It remains very much our belief that each sector is different and requires a tailored approach. We intend to be forensic in establishing what the needs of each sector are. That will include detailed engagement with industry.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I am thinking back to our earlier discussion on data throughout the entire system. Why do some sectors need to be treated differently here, but did not when it came to the collection of data?

[Victoria Prentis]

During our earlier conversation, it was clear that we will have to be forensic and tailored in our approach to data collection. This is very much part of the same theme. We do not want to treat all sectors the same when they raise different issues and come to us with very different current practices.

If issues that are consistent across multiple sectors are revealed, and if they could be addressed under new, comprehensive regulation, we absolutely have the power to deliver that. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtful desire to progress with these amendments, to ensure that Scottish farmers are effectively and appropriately supported. We are committed to ensuring that the provisions are applied effectively in all the nations of the United Kingdom.

Recognition as a producer organisation, association of producer organisations or inter-branch organisation automatically activates exemptions from competition law. That has been the case under the EU regime since the omnibus regulation, which amended several CAP instruments at the beginning of 2018.

That approach will continue under the new domestic PO regime. The act of granting recognition therefore relates directly to competition law, which, as I said earlier, is reserved to the UK Parliament. However, I will take this opportunity to assure both the hon. Lady and Scottish Ministers that this merely reflects the status of competition law as an area reserved to the UK Parliament. The PO regime will continue to operate as it always has. We have no intention of introducing jarring changes that will undermine its functioning. It will continue to be administered by the RPA, as is currently the case. We will consult thoroughly, both with the devolved Administrations and with farmers, in every part of the UK, during the development of our bespoke UK regime. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

A number of these amendments relate to wider devolution issues; my comments are applicable to a number of them, in particular those that we are discussing at the moment.

We are going to need clarity on how we will work together in the future, because the structures being set up are quite complicated. For some, it would be entirely reasonable for the powers to be passed to the devolved organisations, but there needs to be a detailed discussion about the merits in each case. At the moment, I am not convinced in this instance. I was actually persuaded by the Minister’s arguments about whether, as we stand, passing these matters down to the devolved nations would be the right way to go. Although I certainly would not rule out considering doing that further in future, because we want to ensure that we devolve as much power as possible, there are issues around competition law—we will come to further amendments where is some interaction with World Trade Organisation rules, general agreement on tariffs and trade rules and so on, which make it difficult to do that. While supporting the Government on this occasion, I want to put down a marker to say that in future we would want to devolve where possible.

[Deidre Brock]

I am very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Clearly, there are discussions to be had—before Report, perhaps—on this and many other issues. However, I am afraid this still comes back to the point that, in our view, these decisions are more properly reserved to Scottish Ministers, and so we will be pushing the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the issue of the red meat levy with her amendment. I recognise that there is an inequality arising from the current system of producing the red meat levy. Indeed, our Parliamentary Private Secretary has been assiduous in bringing that to our attention.

The clause is designed to provide a permanent solution to this long-standing issue. In the meantime, the three levy bodies—the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Quality Meat Scotland and the HCC, which I will not even begin to pronounce—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newport West must bear it in mind that I have a vast number of Welsh relations who would not appreciate it if I did not get my pronunciation perfect. The three levy bodies are working collaboratively, using the interim fund, to benefit the red meat industry across the whole of Great Britain. Adequate time must be allowed for the full and careful development of a redistribution scheme, allowing for due consideration and consultation in order to provide a workable solution.

The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith would provide a short timeframe in which to create a new scheme. Imposing such a deadline is not appropriate, because it is important that we consult properly on how the redistribution of the red meat levy is delivered, and the Administrations must have time to agree the scheme. The interim fund continues to be available in the meantime. I therefore apologise that I cannot give her every assurance she seeks at this point, but she knows that we have worked hard to put right this wrong, and will continue to do so. In that spirit, I ask that she withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will be brief, but the clause is something that we can all welcome. There has been a long-running difficulty and it reflects changes in the availability of local abattoirs in particular. Many of us would like to see measures elsewhere to try to redress that. In the absence of that, the world has changed and it is welcome that the Government are responding positively. If it is pressed to a vote, we will be happy to support the SNP’s position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I receive all the hon. Lady’s amendments warmly. She has again raised an important issue. Farm business tenancies are a vital part of our farming industry. They provide a flexible way for established farmers to expand their business, by renting additional parcels of land. Crucially, they also open the way for new entrants, with no family connection to the land, to get a foothold in the sector.

As I have already stated, I want a thriving tenant farming sector. That is why we have included provisions in the Bill to modernise agricultural tenancy legislation. Although I recognise concerns that the new dispute conditions do not include farm business tenancy agreements, there are very important reasons for that.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Prentis]

Shall I set out some of my reasons first? Then, if necessary, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. First, evidence from the public consultation on this issue in England does not support extending the provision to include farm business tenancies. That is because, as the hon. Member for Newport West said, they are more modern, commercial agreements, negotiated more recently than agreements under the 1986 Act. They are shorter term and reviewed more regularly, so that tenants have the opportunity to renegotiate and vary the terms to fit changing commercial conditions, and ensure that they can access future financial assistance schemes.

Secondly, the legal framework governing farm business tenancies already provides for enabling the parties to agree terms, so that the tenant can continue to deliver diversified activities, such as environmental schemes, alongside farming. Thirdly, extending the provisions to include farm business tenancies risks undermining landlord confidence in tenancy agreements that had been freely and relatively recently entered into by both parties. That could lead to landlords withdrawing from the let sector in favour of contracting or farming in hand, which would reduce opportunity for tenant farmers.

The aim of the provisions is to provide a dispute mechanism specifically for tenants of 1986 Act agreements, because those are lifetime agreements that were negotiated 30 to 40 years ago in a very different world. They often contain outdated restrictions that could act as a barrier to tenants meeting modern statutory requirements and, in England, accessing future farming schemes that we are setting out.

[Daniel Zeichner]

This is a complicated set of issues, and I seek clarification. Some lack of clarity about post-1995 holdings has been raised with me. The question is, going back to the financial assistance schemes, who would make the decision to de-link? Who would get the lump sum? Is it the tenant in post-1995 cases?

[Victoria Prentis]

The hon. Gentleman and I have undertaken to have a specific conversation later about de-linking and lump sum payments. I tried to set out the position this morning. Once a decision has been made to de-link payments, they may continue to be paid to the tenant. Indeed, the person farming the land—so the tenant—would apply for any lump sum. However, the two are separate, as I set out this morning. I hope that answers his question.

The provisions in schedule 3 had broad support in the public consultations in England and Wales. They have been shaped to ensure that the interests of tenants and landlords are considered. We will continue to consult industry widely, including members of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, as we develop future regulations. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw her amendment.

[Ruth Jones]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to a thriving tenancy sector—that is great news. I thank her for the explanation and for her commitment to have an ongoing dialogue with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. I look forward to the outcome of those discussions. We still have reservations about this important area, but we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35

Marketing standards

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 35, page 31, line 38, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would make it a duty for the Secretary of State to make regulations as to labelling as to method of production.

We welcome the fact that subsection (2)(g) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations on marketing standards regarding farming methods. We believe that it opens the door to looking properly at the labelling of farmed products. Under the clause, however, the Secretary of State once again has a power rather than a duty and so has no actual obligation to take the matter forward. That bothers us.

We therefore believe that the Bill should be strengthened to require the Secretary of State to make labelling regulations requiring meat, milk and dairy products, including those produced intensively, to be labelled as to farming method. That would be an important development and helpful to consumers. A great step forward for consumers would be to know what they are purchasing across the board in terms of animal products. Consumers could then make decisions based on those higher animal welfare and environmental considerations.

I am reaching back to find my favourite document, or this week’s favourite document—never to hand when I want it, of course—[Interruption.] I am delighted—the Minister obviously loves the document too.

[Victoria Prentis]

I love it too.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Of course. Last week, we had an interesting discussion about labelling. I take Members back to that because on page 16 of the document is a theoretical discussion of the effect of labelling. The Government tell us:

“Tapping into the consumer willingness to pay begins with understanding the value-action gap”—

which I am sure is being discussed on every omnibus around the country—and that

“it is possible for someone to derive positive value from the fact that animals are being well cared for as a result of another’s purchasing decision. Those not buying animal products should be included in any assessment of public value, one person’s holding of this value does not detract from another’s.”

I find that a puzzling suggestion. I tried it out on my partner—I will not say what she said, but she was not convinced that, basically, other people buying poorly produced food somehow does not detract from the wider public good. That is a theoretical discussion the Government may want to go back to. The following page states:

“Addressing consumer understanding, and understanding how purchasing decisions are made in practice in the retail environment and online, are also key elements…It is important to note that improved transparency alone can only address information asymmetry, and does not capture the public value held by non-consumers.”

I am not sure what any of that means, and I am sure that the public have little idea of what it means. I think it shows that labelling is not simple; there is a big discussion to be had. Is it enough to use labelling? The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby and I had an exchange on that last week; there are sincerely held differences of opinion about it.

Back in the simpler, empirical world, we have seen the positive impact that labelling can have on eggs. Since 2004, when EU law began to require eggs and egg packs to be labelled to highlight production method, there has been a considerable move in the market towards free-range eggs and away from caged egg sales. I am told that around 52% of all UK eggs come from cage-free systems, which is welcome.

It is not the same in other sectors. Consumers are still very much in the dark about the production of meat and milk. It is hard to find meat or dairy products that have a labelled method of production. For meat, there is some labelling of free range and organic, but not much else. There is even less information about the farming methods of milk. Most milk is pooled together, making it difficult to distinguish between pasture-based and intensively produced milk. From personal experience perusing the supermarket shelves, it seems the world is becoming more complicated these days; there is a greater range, but we need to go further. I find it confusing. It is confusing for consumers and it does a disservice to farmers who are already producing to higher standards but do not have any means of distinguishing their products because of labelling ambiguities.

A lot of marketing and packaging borders on the misleading. Intensively produced meat and dairy products, where animals may have seen very little of the outside world, are packaged in pretty green packets featuring rolling hills and what looks like a welfare-friendly world. That does not help consumers make informed choices, and it does not help producers extract the higher value that they deserve from their products. Proper labelling would work in everyone’s interests.

The production methods highlighted would differ for different products, but mandatory labelling could be used to indicate on the packet whether the product has been produced intensively indoors or extensively outdoors, with the full range of production methods in between, so that consumers can make a decision in the shop about what they want. That is something that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended twice to the Government in 2018, and it makes a lot of sense.

At the moment, any consumer demand for less intensively produced meat and dairy is impeded by the lack of clear information at the point of sale about how the products have been produced. Informing consumers about methods of production allows them to make that choice. We could see important shifts in the market towards the production of food that is less intensive, more environmentally sustainable and based on higher animal welfare.

A good labelling system could also play an important role in further incentivising farmers to take up environmental land management schemes and deliver the public goods that we discussed last week under clause 1, particularly those who seek to promote higher animal welfare measures, by giving them the recognition they deserve for using less intensive production methods. If the consumer has no idea what farmers are doing, it stands to reason that farmers will see the benefits of making positive changes only in the direct payments they receive, rather than in any changes in consumer demand. There needs to be a way for farmers to demonstrate that they are delivering food in a way that consumers may choose to pay for.

International debate is moving quickly in this area. We heard evidence of the number of schemes that are being looked into across Europe. The Government have talked big talk about using the new opportunity post Brexit to improve our animal welfare standards and modernise our farming processes. It is important that we do not miss key opportunities to adopt mechanisms that can help support that. A relatively simple change of wording would give this clause the strength it needs to deliver the Government’s aim of achieving an impact we all support.

[Mr Goodwill]

I note that the amendment would substitute “must” for “may” in subsection (1), but all the other subsections contain the word “may” too. Has not the hon. Gentleman made an omission by not seeking to insert “must” in all the others? Surely having “must” in subsection (1) would be completely counteracted by all the “may”s in the rest of the clause.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who unfortunately was out of the room this morning during one of my earlier attempts to bait him. He never fails to please. His deft and diligent examination of the wording may well have identified a minor drafting error from our point of view, but I am sure he gets the thrust of the argument. On that basis, I very much hope he supports us on this occasion.

[Victoria Prentis]

Again, we broadly share the same values and principles, but—I am sorry to be tedious about the law and the drafting, not that I would ever accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby of being tedious—it is important that we look at what the amendment would actually do.

I welcome this opportunity to further clarify the purpose of the clause. The proposed amendment seeks to change the wording of the clause to include “must” instead of “may”. We have been through this many times in the past week and I do not propose to do so again. There is no need to add a duty here, as regulations concerning the marketing standards already exist in EU law. Using powers in the withdrawal Act, we will retain the current EU marketing standards and roll them over into UK law, ensuring continuity for farmers and the farming industry.

The power in subsection (1) will provide an opportunity for the current standards to be amended when it is appropriate to do so, to ensure that they deliver domestic standards. It will also allow us to introduce new standards should that be deemed necessary. We anticipate that the power will be used to respond to developments in production. The amendment could create a situation in which new marketing standards regulations must be made, regardless of whether they were needed.

I should add that marketing standards do not apply to all food products and so would not be the appropriate vehicle for any general changes to food labelling rules, such as those about stating allergens on labels. That is already covered by existing food information and food safety laws.

I hope I have given some explanation of why the clause is drafted in the way it is. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is so disappointing. The Government should have more ambition to do these things. That is why we are pressing and encouraging them. This is such an opportunity; to us, it seems like a win-win.

I fully accept that there may be some points of drafting or direction—I do not blame the people who drafted the amendment—on which we could improve, but it would be wonderful if the Government accepted the thrust of the argument. This is a bit like hustings events during a general election campaign: by the time we come to the end, we all know one another’s lines. What the Minister said was not a surprise to me, and it will be no surprise to her to hear me say the same thing again.

This is partly a question of trust, I am afraid. It is also a question of wanting to move quickly to take up these opportunities. I think there is real desire out there among consumers to make informed choices, despite the slight difference of opinion expressed by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby last week about the role of labelling in making the changes we want. If we are going to go down the labelling route as the driver for change, for goodness’ sake push on with it. Do it soon. The Government should tie themselves to it. If they accepted our amendment, they would be bound to do it and there would be no backsliding. My guess is that we will be discussing this in many months’ time and we will find it has not moved as quickly as many of us would have hoped. On that basis, I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment; we will press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Agriculture Bill (Seventh sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 27th February 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind hon. Members to switch electronic devices to silent mode and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. We shall now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room. Before we begin, I should tell the Committee that Sir David Amess and I have used our discretion to select amendments 63 and 64 and new clauses 23 and 24 for debate today, even though the usual notice was not given. We have done that because the circumstances were exceptional. A relevant policy paper was published by the Department on Tuesday, and we took the view that it was in the Committee’s interest to have the opportunity to debate amendments arising from that policy paper today. I am assured by the Clerks that our decision is well precedented.

Clause 2

Financial assistance: forms, conditions, delegation and publication of information

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 2, page 3, line 25, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for establishing any financial assistance scheme and setting out how it will be designed and how it will operate.

(1B) No motion may be made in either House of Parliament for the approval of any regulations under subsection (1A) unless—

(a) a draft of those regulations has been submitted for scrutiny by any select committee of either House of Parliament which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, has a remit which includes responsibility for scrutiny of financial assistance under section 1, and

(b) any such committee has expressed a view on the draft regulations.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 64, in clause 2, page 4, line 3, after “subsection” insert “(1A) or subsection”.

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is a pleasure to continue under you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank you and Sir David for exercising your discretion. I will make some points about that matter in a moment, but I shall start with amendment 63; amendment 64 is consequent to it.

The reason why we want to make this amendment and think it important is that we believe that the design and implementation of the environmental land management scheme that the Government have suggested should be subjected to proper scrutiny. Amendment 63, with amendment 64, would ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny by requiring the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations for establishing any financial assistance scheme and setting out how it will be designed and will operate. Under our amendment, those regulations must be considered and reported on by an appropriate Select Committee, of the Secretary of State’s choosing—we are very generous—before being brought to the House. Amendment 64 would ensure that a proper debate on the regulations could be held by subjecting them to the affirmative resolution procedure.

I apologise to you, Mr Stringer, and to the Committee for warning that I will speak at some length on this amendment to demonstrate why it matters. This goes back to our debate on Tuesday about the Government’s behaviour in relation to publication of the “Environmental Land Management: Policy discussion document”. I am sure that everyone has carefully read it and I advise everyone to have it to hand for the next hour or so, because I shall be referring in detail to various elements of it.

Just in case anyone thinks that this is somehow a diversion or distraction, the document itself says on page 7:

“The new ELM scheme, founded on the principle of ‘public money for public goods’, will be the cornerstone of our agricultural policy now we have left the EU.”

It would be very strange if the Committee were discussing that complicated new future and we did not have a chance to discuss what will be, in the Government’s own words, its cornerstone.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that it is a shame that we got the ELM document—as he says, the cornerstone—too late to make meaningful progress on it on Tuesday? It is also a shame that the Prime Minister decided to take it to the National Farmers Union, rather than bringing it here first.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I will say more about that, as she can imagine.

This discussion is hugely important, and I hope that we will be able to give it the attention it deserves. As my hon. Friend said, the document was delayed until half an hour after the Committee had started our sitting, although I am grateful to Ministers for having the grace to look a little sheepish and to be apologetic—not their fault, I suspect. Frankly, however, it was a poor way to behave, although ironically the desired outcome was not achieved—for reasons that I am not entirely au fait with, the Secretary of State went to the NFU the day after anyway, and I understand that he had a fairly traditional welcome. It is not unusual for Ministers to go to industry events and get a bit of a roasting. I am opposed to all forms of cruelty—we will come to that later—but he clearly had a tough day.

More importantly, I fear that this has skewed the way in which we are discussing the Bill. Had we had the document in advance, we would have framed a different set of amendments to the key clause 1. I am grateful to you, Mr Stringer, and to Sir David for exercising discretion, which allowed us to table amendments to clause 2. That would not normally have been possible within the timescale. I put on record my thanks to the hard-working staff in our offices, who were up until late at night working on that, and to the Clerks, who were also up late working on potential amendments. People were under considerable pressure, and I hope to do justice to their work this morning.

I have to say that something made me cross and, when I came to read the environmental land management policy discussion document that we are talking about, at times it made me even crosser. It is a mixed bag. Some of it is excellent, and we will be supportive, but my overriding impression was that, despite detecting some extremely hard work and thought put in by officials, they had been hampered by some basic contradictions in the Government’s thinking. That is a political failing—not a policy failing—which I suspect partly reflects changes in personnel and thinking over time. The original architects—the unrepentant sinners to whom I referred on Tuesday—have moved on, and others have been left to figure out how to make a complicated set of ambitions work.

The thing that made me cross—we do not have to read far—is virtually in the opening line, although I understand that the prefaces to such documents are often bolted on at the end, possibly by eager-to-please special advisers. I will read the opening sentence:

“For more than forty years, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy…has dictated how we farm our land”.

“Dictated”—think about that sentence. We were members of the European Union of our own free will—[Interruption.] I do not want to go over old ground, but I invite people to think about how that reads to those who might not share in support for the current situation, which is possibly half the country. It is a poor way to start the document.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

As a farmer, I can only describe the three-crop rule as dictating what I can grow on my farm. I cannot see any other interpretation.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure we will have a to and fro this morning. We will come to the three-crop rule later. I have a suggestion for a more conciliatory word: “framed” is a more accurate term, frankly. “Dictated” is highly contentious and in some ways designed to rile, and I can say to whomever did that, it succeeded. Some of us take exception to the idea that the Government of our country seems to have become a Vote Leave franchise operation.

To add evidence, I have a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs press release from 2013, when the then Farming Minister—different context, different time, obviously—who is now the Secretary of State, told us:

“The UK ensured that we have choices in how we implement the Common Agricultural Policy, rather than having to work with a one-size-fits-all approach from the European Commission…This gives us the flexibility to target funding in ways that will deliver real benefits to the environment, boost the competitiveness of our farming industry and grow the rural economy.”

I actually agree with him, but it does not sound like the policy has been “dictated” to us. I make a gentle plea to the Minister to change that one word, which might help people to be brought together.

Now that I have got that off my chest, we can move on to the substance of my argument. To be fair, there is something much more welcome a few lines later in the document, although it is not entirely reflected in the body of the document. It talks about the new system making it

“possible to meet the objectives of protecting the environment and producing food.”

That is a significant discussion within the document, and I will come back to that point. I appreciate that this is a framework Bill—as the Government constantly tell us—but there needs to be scrutiny as the framework is fleshed out. That is what we seek to do with our amendments.

As I will show in the next few minutes, these are complicated, interesting and important issues, which need scrutiny. I hope the Government will see sense and merit in our proposal. I hope the excellent Government Whip might consider allowing his side a little leeway, as we have considerable expertise present on the Government Benches today. Although he was gloriously successful in ensuring that people did not make contributions earlier in the process, it would be helpful if a little leeway could be shown at this point in our discussions on the Bill, because we are now getting into the real meat of it.

Some Members will have attended Second Reading of the Environment Bill yesterday. The interaction between these various Bills is really important, as was mentioned by the Chair of Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I think many of us have come to the same conclusion. As so often happens, the debate yesterday strayed into the Agriculture Bill by mistake at one or two points. That is no surprise, because the Bill is important.

There are number of puzzles and contradictions in the policy discussion document that are worthy of discussion. I will come to some of the positive aspects, but one or two sentences jumped out at me. On page 6 —I suspect this is by the same author who wrote the opening remarks to which I referred—there is a sort of eulogy to our wonderful system at the moment. The document quite rightly praises our farmers for the wonderful things they do. However, one of them is

“supporting our supply of clean water”.

I think that will jar slightly, particularly with some of the water companies, which know that one of the unintended consequences of our current agricultural system is that they, and as a consequence all our constituents, have to pay considerable costs to clean up some of the water. Obviously, the hope is that our new system will have ways to deal with that.

Later in the document there are some very positive proposals, but there are also some big unanswered questions about the interaction between the documents. Again, that point was raised yesterday in the discussion on the Environment Bill. This is a particularly pressing issue, given our current situation with flooding in this country. Some things look in danger of falling between the cracks, particularly overall land use policy. Our amendment is designed to allow proper scrutiny of how the proposals will be developed. Given that this is a very long-term set of pilots in development, things will change and lessons will be learned. Having proper parliamentary scrutiny seems to be well worth while.

The document—as I said, I suspect it had various authors—is littered with problems and quite a few internal contradictions. On page 7, there is a hopeful claim that environmental land management schemes will

“help us maintain our food security.”

That feels as though it is a bolted-on, pious hope, given the tension between environmental goods, which we all support, and food production. Indeed, in the list of public goods on page 7 there is no mention of food. There are some non-sequiturs here, although if I were to be generous, the fact that some of these problems have not been entirely reconciled may explain some of the delay in producing the document.

It actually gets worse. On page 7, at the end of the introduction, it says that the goal is to “improve” existing standards, but later in the same sentence it says it is to possibly maintain them. This is one of the key conundrums of the legislation—what are we actually supporting? The document goes on to say a bit more about that, which I will come to later.

The key issue is whether we should support people who have already made improvements to get to a high standard or target resources on lifting others. That is an important and difficult point—we could call it additionality, if we want to get into jargon—but it is a profound issue. Page 8 defines two strategic aims. I do not have any issue with them, but there is no strategic aim for food production, so this running internal contradiction continues.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. I understand that this is not a completely satisfactory way for the Committee to proceed with what would normally have been a starred amendment. However, the wording of amendment 63 relates primarily to

“establishing any financial assistance scheme”.

I understand that the hon. Member is trying to relate that to the whole paper. I will be grateful if he could not turn this into a debate on the paper, but relate the paper to the amendment and the design of the financial assistance schemes.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful, Mr Stringer, but I am slightly perplexed as to how to proceed because the case I am making is about the need for proper scrutiny. I am trying to explain why we think that is so important, and to do that I have to delve into the detail of the paper, which we were not given sight of before. I will do the best I can and I will keep trying to refer back to the point about the need for scrutiny overall, if that is acceptable to you.

[The Chair]

I thank the hon. Member for that. It is not a satisfactory situation that the Committee has arrived in, so I am trying to be as flexible as possible while abiding by the correct rules of debate.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Thank you, Mr Stringer. I will try to take heed of that. I will not refer so closely to the paper and I will try to put my comments into the framework you suggest.

People would always want a more simplified financial assistance scheme. Looking back at parts of the common agricultural policy, I suggest that that has been an aim for a long time. From debates about the statutory instruments this week, some of us have had the opportunity to read closely regulation (EU) 1307/2013, in which paragraph 2 states:

“One of the core objectives, and one of the key requirements, of the CAP reform is the reduction of the administrative burden.”

So, in designing any financial assistance scheme, we are all trying to do that. The suggestions coming forward from the Government face exactly the same kind of problems we faced within the CAP now that we are without it.

As I have made clear, designing such assistance schemes and getting them right is a complex task. Any design will take time; to give the Government credit, they started on this path some 18 months ago. From our understanding, and from the National Audit Office report, it has not been an easy task. The suggestions about how financial assistance schemes should be developed make sense to me.

Referring back to the policy discussion document, there is a suggestion of a three-tiered approach that sounds remarkably similar to the system we already have. Looking at the suggestions for a financial assistance scheme set out under tier 1, many farmers—if they get that far in the document—would be encouraged because for those who do not want to see change, the scheme looks remarkably like the old basic payment scheme. Given that a three-tiered approach is suggested, what do the Government envisage to be the split between the three tiers? That is a reasonable question. It is similar to a pillar 1 or pillar 2 issue—12% or 15%—in that a lot could be put into either tier 3 or tier 1. It would help if we knew how that would be done.

It is correct that we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the CAP, but in designing any financial assistance scheme it is important to know what was the intention when the scheme was designed in the first place. The CAP was not designed as an environmental scheme but effectively as a food and rural support scheme, so we are undertaking a different task.

Clearly, the Government based those designs for a financial assistance scheme to some extent on the experience of the tests and trials. Of course, numbers are relatively low in tests and trials, but the National Audit Office—in a way, its report advises those of us who are trying to scrutinise the design of financial assistance schemes—was not particularly complimentary about progress so far. According to the NAO’s commentary on the numbers that DEFRA hoped would be signed up by different stages of the process, the Department initially wanted 5,000 to be signed up by the end of 2022, but that dropped to 1,250. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm what the numbers are now.

My contention is that such a system is not easy to create; it is hard. The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby made the important point that, sadly, under the three-crop rule, parts of the country are now underwater, and farmers are rightly arguing for a derogation. On the design of financial assistance schemes, it has been suggested that payments should be based on outcomes. Many of us would welcome that, but I wonder how difficult that might be in a time of floods. There are outcomes over which we have some control and outcomes over which, sadly, it appears we have much less control. I think that is worthy of discussion in the context of how we design financial assistance schemes.

There is a kind of irony on page 22 of the environmental land management document, where the authors, in asking themselves how to design financial assistance schemes, rightly ask how we should define what it is we want. Lo and behold: up turns our old friend the good agricultural and environmental condition—GAEC—standards from the CAP years. Again, that seems in effect to be the CAP coming back—I suspect the Vote Leave checker had lost the will to live by that stage and did not scrutinise that paragraph—through the back door. I do not criticise that. Anyone would struggle with that, because however they tried to design a financial assistance scheme, they would have to design some definition of how public money was to be allocated. I am sure we can change the acronym, but the same conundrums will arise.

The paper also contains—this is absolutely relevant to the design of the schemes—innovative, interesting suggestions about how payments may be calculated, including some market-based price-setting mechanisms using tendering or auctioning. I am not convinced that that is addressed elsewhere in the Bill. There is not much detail about it, and it is important that we tease out the Government’s thinking. Of course, they conclude that it would not necessarily be appropriate in tier 1. I can see why. If we are talking about thousands and thousands of agreements—this goes back to my question about distribution across the tiers—that would look like a very bureaucratic mechanism indeed. It may make more sense for the higher level, but any financial assistance scheme will have to deal with some of these points.

I return briefly to how the advice under these schemes will be funded. I have to say that tier 3 looks good. It has some similarities with the pillar two LEADER schemes. It is also the first appearance I can see in the Bill of the idea of devolving down a bit and involving local communities in designing financial assistance schemes. That is a really important point, which I will return to. However, bringing people together, which is really important, requires resource. In the past local councils played that role, but I am no longer convinced that many of them have that capacity.

If that is to work, we must answer the key question about any financial assistance scheme: where are the resources going to go? One assumption is that it will be derived from the savings that result from not making direct payments, or reducing them bit by bit, but that question needs a light shone on it. At what pace will this be done, and how will we do it? Unless those things are specified somewhere within a financial assistance scheme, it will be unclear who will have the resources to lead it. There is a potential danger that those who know how to make these systems work for them, and have the resources and wherewithal to do so, will be the ones who will take up the scheme. Its resources may not necessarily go where they are most needed, or where they will produce the best environmental benefit—as, to be fair, the Government have referenced.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Stringer. While dealing with some of the points that the hon. Member for Cambridge has raised, I will try to stick closely to the wording of the amendments.

However, I will start by saying that although this is a cornerstone document, as the hon. Gentleman was keen to point out, we are still at the beginning of this scheme’s development. We are planning a major change in the way that farmers receive money from the state. We have done a great deal of work, as he was kind enough to acknowledge, but we are currently running a programme of tests and trials. The priorities of that programme will become the building blocks for the national pilot, which does not start until the end of next year and will not conclude until 2024. At this point, we simply cannot answer many of the more detailed questions he asks, nor would it be right for us to fetter the development of policy by doing so. The national pilot will provide a real, living opportunity to test and refine the scheme design before we roll it out properly at the end of 2024. That is a careful, sensible way to make policy.

However, I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said. I know he thinks deeply about these issues, and it is important that, wherever possible, we work together on the development of these major changes. In that spirit, I thank him for the amendment he has moved, and agree that we must be transparent while establishing our future financial assistance schemes and make sure that Parliament can scrutinise the use of public money. We have introduced new duties into the Bill that do exactly that. As we said on Tuesday, these include the multi-annual financial assistance plans, which are a major change and, to my mind, an improvement—many thanks, once again, to those who sat on the Committee of the previous Agriculture Bill. We have agreed to provide an annual report setting out the financial assistance given under clause 1 and, importantly, reports on the impact and effectiveness of the schemes.

Those plans and reports give Parliament the ability to scrutinise the Government’s plans, to check that future funding decisions under the Bill powers are aligned with the Government’s strategic priorities as those develop, and to hold the Government to account on how much they are spending. Flexibility and collaboration are essential and we hope they will be embedded in future schemes. We do not intend to impose policy from the top down, but rather to work with farmers and land managers to develop schemes that can deliver achievable outcomes. The word the Secretary of State likes to use is “iterative”.

I fear that the amendment may unintentionally undermine that approach. Under the ELM scheme, we are planning a pilot that will enable us to learn and prepare for the full implementation of the scheme, once we have seen what works and what does not. Once the scheme is launched, we want to continue to have flexibility to improve the scheme and be responsive.

For example, our current thinking is that for tier 2 of ELMS, payments could initially be based on actions, potentially offering top-up payments when results are delivered. However, over time we might well want to move away from payments for actions and start giving results-based payments. We would want the scheme to be able to adapt to that as we see whether it is really achievable.

We also want the ability to improve the scheme as our understanding of the environment and technology develops. For example, we might wish to adapt how we monitor the delivery of environmental outcomes, taking advantage of new technologies such as remote sensing and geospatial data. Who knows where we will be going in the future? It is impossible for us to plan for everything at the moment.

The amendment as drafted would limit our ability to respond to what is effective and to what farmers and land managers tell us is working. It would put us back into CAP-type inefficiencies, where there was no opportunity to review or change things if they were not working. I am keen that we do not mirror that deficiency within our domestic policy.

When discussing these schemes, it is important to remind ourselves that farmers and land managers will be the people most affected by these changes. I would not wish them to be adversely affected by hold-ups in the parliamentary timetable. Looking at clause 1 as a whole, we are discussing the potential for a great number of financial assistance schemes.

If we were to pass the amendment, an appropriate Select Committee might need to consider a vast number of schemes in different areas, and then we would need to debate each one, no matter how broad or narrow they might be, which would place significant demands on parliamentary time. Should there not be enough time, I am concerned that farmers would ultimately suffer, as payments would not be made in a timely way. We will launch our pilot in 2021, as well as productivity grants and animal welfare grants. We do not want confusion, or farmers left in limbo for longer than necessary, because of problems with the availability of parliamentary time.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must allow Parliament the chance to scrutinise our plans for providing financial assistance under clause 1. I hope I have set out where the Bill already provides for that. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the Minister for her response and I fully appreciate that it is difficult to respond to a series of questions that are only loosely related to the amendment. I listened closely to what she said, but I still think there is a potential problem. I do not think our intention is that every single local scheme would be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny; it is the overall financial assistance scheme that we are concerned about. I fully appreciate the notion of iterative and learning processes, but the difficulty in which we find ourselves is that for farmers, the change effectively starts next year—we have seen the Government’s announcement about the 5% and so on—so real people will start losing real money quite quickly. Although it is wonderful to have theoretical discussions about how best to develop policy, people out there need some certainty, as the Government keep saying, which may partly be why the Secretary of State ran into problems with the NFU yesterday. In the 40 minutes of this debate so far, we have seen that, far from there being any certainty, there are a huge number of uncertainties.

Obviously, if one is trying to make change and be ambitious in moving to a different system, uncertainty is almost inevitable, but the Labour party feel that there needs to be a little more clarity on some of those points to give people better opportunities to plan ahead, which is a point that many people in this room, who know far more about practical farming than I do, have made. The timeframes are not always easy for people, because they have to plan and will make decisions fairly soon, so not knowing even the most basic point about a financial assistance scheme and whether the Government expect it to apply to 5% or 95% of those who have been in receipt in the past, is disappointing, to put it mildly. I very much hope that we will get more clarity at some point in the future, in discussion, correspondence or written answers.

The discussion has demonstrated a weakness in our processes; I am not sure that many of the questions that I have asked this morning have been answered. It would be much more helpful if the Government had been able to have an open discussion—perhaps not in Committee, but at some point—that would have been facilitated by the existence of the Bill.

The amendment is a long, probing one, and it has largely achieved what I wanted it to by establishing that there is no clarity on the schemes. I will not press the amendment to a Division, but I ask for an assurance from the Minister that we will get answers to our questions through one means or another. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 2, page 3, line 27, at end insert—

“(2A) Financial assistance may not be given to any person who is not compliant with standards set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].”

This amendment and NC9 provide a duty for the Secretary of State to set baseline regulatory standards governing agricultural and horticultural activity, which must be met by any recipient of financial assistance.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 9—Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity—

(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework relating to agricultural and horticultural activity for or in connection with the following purposes—

(a) the management of land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment;

(b) public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland or woodland and better understanding of the environment;

(c) the management of land or water in a way that maintains, restores or enhances cultural or natural heritage;

(d) the management of land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;

(e) the management of land or water in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;

(f) the protection or improvement of the health or welfare of livestock;

(g) the conservation of native livestock, native equines or genetic resources relating to any such animal;

(h) the protection or improvement of the health of plants;

(i) the conservation of plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives or genetic resources relating to any such plant; and

(j) the protection or improvement of the quality of soil.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision about the standards to which activity for or in connection with all of the purposes in subsection (1) must conform.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision about enforcement, which may (among other things) include provision—

(a) about the provision of information;

(b) conferring powers of entry;

(c) conferring powers of inspection, search and seizure;

(d) about the keeping of records;

(e) imposing monetary penalties;

(f) creating summary offences punishable with a fine (or a fine not exceeding an amount specified in the regulations, which must not exceed level 4 on the standard scale);

(g) about appeals;

(h) conferring functions (including functions involving the exercise of a discretion) on a person.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

New clause 22—Consultation on regulatory framework: enforcement—

(1) The Secretary of State must, within one calendar month of this Act being given Royal Assent, open a consultation on what body should regulate and enforce the regulatory framework under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].

(2) The consultation shall seek views on whether an existing body should carry out the regulation and enforcement under subsection (1) or whether a new body should be created for that purpose.

(3) The Secretary of State must, in any consultation under subsection (1), consult with persons or bodies representing persons who he or she considers are affected by the functions of the proposed body.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament—

(a) in summary form, the views expressed in the consultation held under subsection (1), and

(b) a statement of how the Secretary of State intends to proceed, with his or her reasons for doing so.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We are moving on to a complex set of issues on baseline environmental standards. Amendment 36 reads:

“(2A) Financial assistance may not be given to any person who is not compliant with standards set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].”

New clause 9 reads:

“(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework relating to agricultural and horticultural activity for or in connection with the following purposes—

(a) the management of land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment;

(b) public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland or woodland and better understanding of the environment;

(c) the management of land or water in a way that maintains, restores or enhances cultural or natural heritage;

(d) the management of land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;

(e) the management of land or water in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;

(f) the protection or improvement of the health or welfare of livestock;

(g) the conservation of native livestock, native equines or genetic resources relating to any such animal;

(h) the protection or improvement of the health of plants;

(i) the conservation of plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives or genetic resources relating to any such plant; and

(j) the protection or improvement of the quality of soil.”

Some will have noted that that reflects the wording elsewhere in the Bill.

“(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision about the standards to which activity for or in connection with all of the purposes in subsection (1) must conform.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision about enforcement, which may (among other things) include provision—

(a) about the provision of information;

(b) conferring powers of entry;

(c) conferring powers of inspection, search and seizure;

(d) about the keeping of records;

(e) imposing monetary penalties;

(f) creating summary offences punishable with a fine (or a fine not exceeding an amount specified in the regulations, which must not exceed level 4 on the standard scale);

(g) about appeals;

(h) conferring functions (including functions involving the exercise of a discretion) on a person.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”

[The Chair]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reading out the whole of new clause 9, but all members of the Committee have the new clause before them, so it is unnecessary. I would prefer it if hon. Members did not take up the Committee’s time by reading out new clauses and amendments.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My apologies, Mr Stringer. I quite appreciate your direction.

The purpose of new clause 9 is to set baseline environmental standards across all farmed land, regardless of whether the land manager has chosen to receive financial assistance for any of the clause 1 purposes. To some extent, that follows on from the discussion about the previous amendment. There is a genuine concern about the systems—it was referenced in the document about the design of the schemes, to which I referred. Uptake is a key issue, as we saw in relation to stewardship. The worry is that if the systems are too complicated, difficult and onerous, there will not be the levels of uptake that we hope for. I asked the Minister about the numbers that the Government anticipate will take up under tier 1 because that is absolutely vital to our discussion. I do not want to press the point, but I cannot believe that there has not been some discussion in the Department about where we hope to get to. There must have been some discussion; there must be some idea of the scale that is expected. I would welcome a response on that point.

As part of the common agricultural policy, our farmers had to meet cross-compliance standards on EU environmental management, animal welfare and traceability to qualify for payments. Its onerousness and the fact that, to many, it seemed a bureaucratic system was the cause of justified complaint, but it is actually quite difficult to design compliance systems that do not end up in that situation. That is not to say that we cannot do better. Again, had we had the opportunity to discuss the ELMS policy paper in detail, we would have seen that there were some innovative suggestions in it. I will have to continue to try to refer to them tangentially.

We have left the European Union, and our worry is that there is a gap. We might well find that the Bill has unintended consequences that will leave much more of our countryside relatively unprotected. A point that I had hoped to make in the debate on the previous amendment, but which I will make now, is that there was an astonishing statement in that document about whether tier 1 payments should be dependent on regulatory compliance. I cannot think of any other sector in which there would be an issue about regulatory compliance. I may be missing something here—the Minister is a learned lawyer, so I shall be careful—but it seems pretty odd to be paying people to obey the rules. In any other sphere of life, I think people would find that surprising.

In the slightly odd world of the common agricultural policy, the payment was an accepted part of the way we did things, but it is certainly worth raising the question now, when looking at potential compliance issues, and debating it. All members of the Committee, depending on their point of view, either enjoyed or winced at George Monbiot’s evidence last week. He put it pretty forcefully. I think many of our fellow citizens and constituents would want to ask the question, too. It is a reasonable point.

The Bill includes provisions to move away from cross-compliance, with clause 14 giving Ministers the scope to simplify and amend the horizontal legislation that facilitated the operation of the CAP, including farmers’ compliance with EU laws on environmental and animal welfare standards—I apologise for diverting into eurojargon, but I am afraid the debate is constantly beset by it. I do not think that we have yet seen any long-term plan from the Government to replace that system, flawed though it may be, with the robust regulatory baseline that we believe we will need to ensure that environmental and animal welfare standards are met across the board in land management.

There is an irony in that. The Committee on Climate Change issued a report in January titled, “Land use: Policies for a Net Zero UK”, which is a useful document to inform our discussion. It includes a handy chart on page 80 that outlines the current proposals for the replacement of the common agricultural policy. If people want a one-pager, it is pretty good. The only problem is that its opening line says that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposes:

“The development of a new regulatory baseline reflecting the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”

I am not sure that that is, strictly speaking, accurate. We are looking for it, but we do not think that it exists, without our amendment.

The concern is that farmers may decide not to participate. When I first looked at this brief, one question that struck me was what percentage of people currently do. Most do, of course, because public money is on offer; it would be foolish not to. However, it was a simpler system—a direct payment system—and people were happy to take the money. If they are asked to do more to get the money, it will be a different decision. I suspect that some will decide that it all looks a bit difficult and complicated, going back to my point about uncertainty, and will operate outside it.

Returning to my point about numbers, a few farmers operating outside the system may not be a problem, but many doing so certainly would be. We would have to rely—this goes back to my point about the interrelationship between this Bill and the Environment Bill—on having some pretty strong legislation. Again, it is difficult for the Committee, because many would argue that the Bills are being considered in the wrong order. It might have been better to pass the environmental legislation first. We do not know what it will include. On the basis of what we have seen so far, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), the shadow Secretary of State, said last night on Second Reading, we support much of it. We did not vote against it, but we think it needs to be greatly strengthened. Not knowing whether it will be leaves us in a difficult position.

Some of a cynical disposition might say that the Government are left in almost a win-win position. They have burnished their green credentials, setting up a fantastic new environmental scheme, and have even got the money for it, which is quite unusual in politics; but the scheme is such that most people will not take it up. Far from being a greener, pro-environment Bill, it will therefore have the unintended—or possibly intended—consequence of saving the Government a lot of money and making them look good, but doing nothing to improve the environment. That is a really serious issue, which is why the amendment is so important.

Part of the solution relates to the points I raised about take-up in the ELMS document. If there is mass take-up, which is the suggestion, everything is possibly fine. If not, as I said, the downside is direct payments through the back door, and not getting the environmental lift we are looking for. I know the Government will not agree with that, but it is a risk. If we do not go that route and instead go the tougher route, there is also a danger of damaging the environment.

I do not deny that it is a difficult conundrum; it is one that I would love to be dealing with as a Minister, rather than as shadow Minister. I suspect that if I were in that position, the Opposition would be making exactly the same tough, robust points, because these are real-life conundrums. It is my job in the interim to make the points on behalf of our environment and our farmers.

We need to make sure that across all our agricultural land, the baseline is land management that recognises the huge challenge of climate change, protects our soils, guards against flooding, encourages resilience in biodiversity and prioritises high animal welfare. We believe that we have to set minimum standards across the board, so that the Bill—this goes back to a point I was making earlier—genuinely incentivises those that go above and beyond. I still think that that is probably what the Government want to do, but the contradictions and difficulties are being glossed over at the moment.

The Institute for European Environmental Policy, in its report, commissioned by a number of the witnesses that we heard from in the evidence sessions, said that there are a number of gaps in legislation, which will have real consequences, particularly for wildlife on our agricultural land. The interaction between EU retained law and our current legislation is tricky. The assumption that all these plans will necessarily work as we think they will could well be open to challenge. We will return to that wider point, but on this particular point we believe, and the institute believes, that there may be some gaps in legislation that will result in there no longer being protections for hedgehogs, nesting birds and hedgerow habitats, partly due to some of the potential changes in the 2 metre wide buffer strip rules. Given that we have already lost 97% of our hedgehog population since the 1950s—a point that was made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) in the Second Reading debate on the Environment Bill—there is genuine concern. That is why we need to make sure that we are covered.

There is also the point—I certainly would not say this about the current Ministers—that in future some of the financial assistance that is being redirected could be moving towards productivity rather than environmental protection, and that, too, could compromise our environmental safeguards. That goes to the heart of what the Bill is really all about. The “Health and Harmony” DEFRA consultation paper for the Bill outlined that the Government wanted to embed the “polluter pays” principle throughout. As I have said, the danger is that we could end up, as George Monbiot explained, paying the polluter not to pollute, which is the other side of the coin. We do not want that to be the outcome, and we have heard from a number of key witnesses how important that is.

In conclusion, new clause 9 outlines that it should be a duty for the Secretary of State to establish a baseline regulatory framework “for or in connection” with the listed purposes. It outlines that the regulations “may include” provisions about enforcement and would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure to ensure that we continue to have robust debate and scrutiny of the most appropriate baseline regulatory framework.

Amendment 36 would ensure that those who receive financial assistance under clause 1 public goods are meeting those baseline environmental standards as well, and will be rewarded for going above and beyond.

[Victoria Prentis]

The amendments would enshrine in the Bill a legal duty to make regulations that govern agricultural and horticultural activity and to restrict financial assistance to those who are compliant with those regulations. In our view, the amendments are unnecessary, because we already have a regulatory framework that manages agricultural and horticultural activity and protects the environment.

In our view, the amendments are unnecessary, because we already have a regulatory framework that manages agricultural and horticultural activity and protects the environment. With this Bill, we will enshrine in law our commitment to the environmental purposes that matter so much to us all.

--- Later in debate ---

We want an effective regulatory system with a strong suite of requirements, and of course we want to be able to enforce it. We should not, however, consult on an isolated aspect of the system at the expense of considering the wider vision of what we are trying to achieve. There is no need to rush to produce what would be a hurried, potentially ineffective and partial consultation, creating a false sense of urgency when we already have a regulatory baseline.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the reasons why she does not believe we need the baseline. I neglected to make any comments about new clause 22 in my opening statement, so I shall weave those in to what I say at this point.

Of course we all agree that enforcement is critical. One of the things that has struck me in my relatively few years in this place is how often we pass legislation and then struggle with enforcing it. That does not do our reputation any good, and it certainly does not do our constituents any good. I have in the past reflected on the fact that all it does is to make good, law-abiding people cross. It does little to dissuade non-law-abiding people from their actions. As the Minister says, it is a conundrum.

I was impressed by Dame Glenys’s report on the farm inspection and regulation review and I echo many of the points that the Minister made. I am sure she did not need to know that Dame Glenys is her constituent to reach the conclusion she did. I will just point out one or two observations from the report that reflect what I have said. I think that she said that current enforcement is nowhere near effective, and I am told that of the 10,600 staff at the Environment Agency only 40 do farm inspections. That seems extraordinary to me. There is thus only a one in 200 chance of being inspected by the Environment Agency. Quite clearly it is pretty busy at the moment, so that is not a criticism of the agency, but it shows the scale of capacity that is needed. I gently go back to my earlier observations: it is great to be ambitious but the Government have to think through the enforcement mechanisms that go along with that, and ask themselves whether they are prepared to bear the costs.

Of course, there is quite a range of DEFRA-related bodies that deliver compliance with farm regulations, such as Natural England, the Forestry Commission, the Animal and Plant Health Agency and, sometimes, local authorities. It is not unfair to say that the Rural Payments Agency has not always covered itself in glory in the past. We congratulate it on its improvements in recent times, but we know the historical difficulties that it has had with, frankly, just doing the administration. I appreciate that it is assisted by others in that, and my understanding is that Natural England has a lot of the expertise behind it. Given some of the well documented pressures on that agency as well, however, the question arises of where the resource to make everything work will come from. Maybe it will come from the money that would have been going to farmers out of the direct payments scheme, but we do not know.

That is the problem with the entire debate. There is potentially £3 billion to spend: how will it be used? We need some clarity from the Government. Our suggestion was that the Secretary of State should, within a month of the Bill’s receiving Royal Assent, hold a proper consultation on the most appropriate body to enforce important baseline environmental regulations. We would then want to require the Secretary of State to bring before Parliament the decision on the consultation and tell us how it is intended to proceed.

We know from the Stacey report that the current punitive compliance measures often do not have the effect that we seek. We want not to punish people but to help them to do the right thing. One of the positive things in the paper “Environmental Land Management” was about finding a way in which help can be given. A common complaint about the previous system was that it was pernickety and that a minor transgression could cause a disproportionate response. Those are things we all agree on, and would all like to get changed.

The one thing I am nervous about is that a better system may require more people—or more technology, or whatever. The question is how it will be resourced. That is why we think we need a more comprehensive framework to deal with it. I appreciate what the Government have said about trying to implement the Stacey review’s recommendations, but we remain nervous that, without the resources needed, we may not be able to achieve what we are trying to do. We think that is key not only to supporting rural communities and people who work in producing food, but to achieving the environmental gains that we wish to see.

Our worry is that without a comprehensive compliance regulatory system behind it, this move could lead to unintended consequences and possible environmental degradation rather than improvement. We think that that is so important that we will press the amendment to a vote.

Division 9

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 11

---

Conservative: 11

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 48, in clause 2, page 3, line 30, at end insert—

“(3A) Financial assistance allocated to a scheme in a particular year but not spent within that year may be carried over to a future year for spending on one or more schemes.”

This amendment would enable Ministers to “carry over” any monies left unspent at the end of a particular budget year for spending in subsequent years.

This is a more probing amendment and one that we do not intend to put to a vote, so hon. Members can be at ease. Mr Stringer, you will be pleased to hear that I will not read out the amendment.

I may have misunderstood how DEFRA’s economics works, and I am ready to stand corrected. The Government have not put it in legislation but have indicated that the money will be available for the remainder of the Parliament. If not all that money is used in one year, what happens to it? All I am looking for is some explanation, as the amendment suggests, that it would be possible to carry over money into subsequent years. That point has been raised on a number of occasions by a number of people, and there may be a simple explanation.

When debating the statutory instrument on Monday and looking back at our old friend regulation 1307/2013, it struck me that the current system has quite complicated reserves that the CAP specifies for dealing with some issues around fines, compliance and so on. It goes into considerable detail about how that should work. A similar system may be envisaged for us. I asked some questions about the issue during the debate on the statutory instrument, so perhaps when there is a reply there will be some clarity.

Again, it has been said that this is a framework Bill. That is fine—we get that. But this is the opportunity for Parliament to ask these questions. The headline figure of money is a concern to some in rural communities, and it may not be available if is not within the right timeframe. I suppose I have a simple question.

[Mr Goodwill]

Is the hon. Gentleman talking about money allocated to a scheme in general that is then not used, or money allocated to a farm that is not used due to some situation on that farm? Is he talking about the specifics of money allocated to farms or the generality of money allocated to a scheme?

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is a good point. Some of this discussion has conflated the two things, which may not be helpful for people. Actually, no money is allocated nationally. It is a political promise; it is not in legislation. Of course, no Parliament can bind future spending allocations. We will watch with interest what happens in the coming weeks, but the political promise has been given.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Is that issue not covered by clause 8, which allows for the extension of the scheme? When I come to discuss my amendment 9, we can explore the matter. One could possibly freeze the switch from the basic payment scheme to ELM schemes. I guess that the hon. Gentleman is discussing the situation in which the uptake of ELMS is not very high, because we are fairly sure that the uptake of the BPS will be pretty much 100%. Is this not already covered in that clause of the Bill?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but I am not sure that the issue is covered; that is why I am seeking clarification. I am afraid these points are about a lack of certainty. We are looking ahead a long way—seven years, potentially—for the transition. We have some clarity on the 5% plus, capping and so on for the next year, but beyond that —I hate to go back to the ELMS document, but there are timelines in there—some of it looks a touch optimistic, frankly.

Given that the process was begun 18 months ago, I hope that it will become clearer through the trials and tests, but we would like to pin down the finances. That is what we are trying to achieve through the amendment. I understand why Government Ministers cannot concede, but I suspect that, as people look more closely, quite a lot of them would agree with this position; if we are going to embark on these ambitious environmental schemes, as we want to, we want as much money as possible to be drawn from the Treasury. It is a very unusual situation, politically, to have a pot of money that looks like it has been allocated before. Where does it go in the future? That is what we are trying to pin down.

[Victoria Prentis]

As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, I suspect that many people in this room agree with a great deal of what he told us. On this side of the House, we are determined that UK farming should not see a reduction in Government support at this important and exciting time in British agriculture. That is why we have pledged to guarantee the current annual budget in every year of this Parliament.

As I said on Tuesday and again this morning, in response to the previous feedback from the Committee’s last sitting, we have now included clause 4 in the Bill. It requires us to prepare a multi-annual financial assistance plan covering the seven-year transition period. That shows our commitment to planning our future expenditure, part of which will include minimising the likelihood of any underspend from our financial assistance schemes. I am more optimistic than the hon. Gentleman: I expect very high take-up of our new scheme—that is definitely the aim. However, I recognise that underspends can happen despite the very best financial planning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am sorry to press the Minister on this point, but will she define “very high”? I would say it has to be more than 50%; maybe it has to be more than 75% to be “very high”.

[Victoria Prentis]

For all the reasons I mentioned earlier, I cannot possibly give the hon. Gentleman any more detail than is in his favourite document, but I look forward to working with him over the next seven years or more while we develop this marvellous scheme. I thank him, because he is broadly supportive of many of the aims and objectives of the scheme, and he has been moderately polite about it. I agree with him: underspends can happen.

The concept that the hon. Gentleman describes in his amendment is, in principle, something beneficial that we would support. He has been kind enough to talk about my legal experience; I am not sure that this is a matter for primary legislation. I would rather discuss the matter first with the Treasury as part of the spending review process, which is the correct way to deal with it. I hope I have assured him of our interest in exploring the ability to retain financial spend across different financial years, and I therefore ask him not to push the amendment to a vote.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)

Agriculture Bill (Eighth sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 27th February 2020 Public Bill Committees

The amendment amends Clause 2(4), which permits the Secretary of State to give financial assistance to a third party scheme, to spell out that the assistance may relate to the costs of setting up or running the scheme or providing financial support under the scheme.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end insert—

“(4A) Financial assistance under subsection (1)(1)(f) for protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock shall only be given to a person who satisfies the Secretary of State that they—

(a) achieve, or have undertaken to achieve, standards of animal welfare which exceed the minimum requirements laid down by legislation governing welfare of livestock,

(b) raise animals in such a way that enables them to carry out their natural behaviours,

(c) do not subject livestock to any prohibited procedure (within the meaning of section 5 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006),

(d) do not kill livestock in any place other than in a slaughterhouse unless—

(i) a veterinary surgeon has certified that this is necessary due to the animal’s poor health, and

(ii) the method of killing is humane, and

(e) do not, after IP completion day, export animals for slaughter or fattening unless—

(i) the livestock is exported from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, and

(ii) it is made a requirement of sale that the livestock shall not be re-exported by the buyer.”

This amendment would set minimum baseline welfare standards for the receipt of financial assistance for protecting or improving the welfare of livestock.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 42, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end insert—

“(4A) Financial assistance may only be given under section 1(1)(f) for the purpose of protecting or improving the health of livestock if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State or of any person to whom functions relating to the giving of financial assistance are delegated under section 2(6), the protection or improvement effects a standard which is significantly higher than that required by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].”

This amendment would require a recipient of financial assistance for protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock to demonstrate that the protection or improvement would be of a significantly higher standard than the baseline required under NC9.

Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 4, line 5, after “section” insert—

“‘fattening’ means the keeping of livestock for the purpose of the livestock gaining weight in preparation for slaughter,

‘humane’ shall be interpreted in accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015,

‘livestock’ has the meaning given in section 1(5) of this Act,

‘IP completion day’ has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2020, and”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Welcome back, everybody. Our aim with this group of amendments is to highlight the need for financial assistance in clause 1 to be provided for the purpose of protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock only if farmers go above and beyond current animal welfare standards.

I have already touched on this issue. We believe it is important to avoid a situation where public money is paid for current welfare standards being met. I think the public would find that curious, but it is a risk given the systems we have inherited. The nod of enthusiasm from the Minister confirms that the authors of the Bill rather agree, although we say that it is still not entirely clear. I think it is agreed that the taxpayer’s principal role should be to provide funding for public goods that the market cannot deliver or can deliver only partially, such as high environmental and animal welfare standards. The funds available should be used not for marginal welfare gains but to support best practice and farmers who are willing to go substantially beyond the legal minimum requirements.

Of course, there is a whole series of potential issues associated with that. How much improvement? Do we want to set standards to which we want people to move quickly? I am struck when I talk to people about this that I think the industry will do what it is asked to do. Clearly, however, if it is not directed and just responds to the market, people will produce to different price points. Again, that is an issue for the politicians to think about. We had a discussion the other day with the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby about whether labelling gets us there. There are different views, and this is our view.

There are clear ways of identifying significant steps up in welfare for different species of farm animals, and it is extremely important that we tailor our welfare standards appropriately to what would achieve those outcomes for each species. Let me make a few suggestions for the high standards we would like ultimately to be achieved across each sector.

For pigs, funding could be made available to farmers who achieve intact—neither docked nor bitten—tails. There are schemes along those lines in other countries. Getting pigs to slaughter with intact tails is recognised by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee as a good outcome-based indicator of high welfare. This morning, in our discussion of the environmental land management document—I am pleased to see it is now on the table for all to enjoy—we touched on whether payments should be for what is done or what is achieved. I think the debate about that is moving; many of us would like to see outcome-based payments. At least in this area, we can discuss the outcomes we are looking for, and I suggest they are more easily measured. I am told—we heard this from witnesses, too—that such schemes already exist in Germany.

As we outlined in a previous amendment, which sadly was not taken up by the Government, we believe that the Government should encourage a move to free farrowing systems. However, we acknowledge that there is extra cost involved and we believe some payments could be made to cover a proportion of the capital costs involved in making that change. It is a decision for us as a country, as well as for consumers, as to where we want to get to on these standards. This is a clear opportunity.

For laying hens, we would like to see funding made available for farmers who use the best free range systems, such as low stocking density, low flock size, mobile housing and provision of trees and bushes. Outcome measures that one could look at are not trimming hens’ beaks, achieving low mortality and good plumage scores. Such outcomes can be measured; that is a decision we could make. This Committee is a good place to have such discussions, which, over time, could attempt to lift welfare standards in this country.

For broiler chickens, the key issue is often substantial overcrowding. Many UK broilers are stocked at 38 kg per square metre. As chickens in the UK often weigh around 2.2 kg at slaughter, that means approximately 17 chickens are kept per square metre. Without going into the wider points, we know the British public want to see higher welfare standards and many would probably be shocked to see those conditions. As Government Members have pointed out, people want food at affordable prices. We agree with that, so there is a tension and a balance in this, but if one has £3 billion to spend, to some extent one has choices.

At such high densities, sadly broilers can have high levels of infectious pathogens, leg disorders, foot-pad dermatitis and mortality. We believe that to be granted financial assistance, the maximum permitted broiler stocking density could be reduced to a specific number. We have talked today about the long transition period, but on another day we will come to the more show-stopping amendment on standards elsewhere in the world. We have to make decisions about where we want to get to, and then make sure we do not disadvantage our producers.

Funding could support the use of slow-growing breeds and low stocking densities, as scientific research shows that these bring welfare benefits. As an outcome measure, receipt of funding could be contingent on achieving low foot-pad dermatitis scores, which could be measured at slaughter.

Moving to dairy cows, a key issue is those that are kept indoors. Around 20% of UK dairy cows are zero grazed—that is, they are kept indoors for all or nearly all of the year. Again, funding could be made available for farmers who keep their cows in pasture during the grass-growing season, except when the weather is too wet. Such schemes already exist in Sweden. Research shows that pasture-based cows have lower levels of lameness, hoof pathologies, hock lesions, mastitis and mortality than zero-grazed cows. A potential outcome-based funding opportunity could be made contingent on pasture-based farmers achieving low levels of lameness and mastitis. We believe grass-based beef and sheep farmers could receive support for achieving low levels of lameness and disease.

Different research projects sometimes produce different outcomes. It is vital to have effective research into the impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestock farming. We need that to contribute to a better understanding of what can improve animal welfare above the baseline and what better welfare practices can be promoted within the public goods element of the Bill. Therefore, we will be tabling an amendment to include a requirement for the Secretary of State to promote the conduct of research into the impact of highly intensive livestock farming practices on animal welfare, which, I believe, would be welcomed by many constituents and citizens.

Labour has argued in the past—and we continue to make the case—for an independent animal welfare commissioner, who would keep track of the most up-to-date and evidence-based science on animal welfare, in order to inform and update policy. We think that would be beneficial. We have proposed it in the past and I hope it is something the Government might consider. I am not aware that the Government have indicated thus far that they might do that, but let us see.

We back the great sections of the British public who call for an end to the use of cages on our farms once and for all. The Bill represents a real opportunity for the Government to get behind that call, if they can put in place the financial support needed for farmers to move away from high-intensity farming methods towards those that are significantly more supportive of animal freedoms and welfare. The Bill lacks detail on how financial assistance for improved animal welfare should be used. I hope the Minister has given due consideration to the careful planning needed to ensure that those receiving money for the clause 1(1)(f) public good are truly rewarded for achieving significant evidence-based improvements in animal welfare above the norm. Amendment 42 provides that financial assistance for the purpose of protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock would be given only if the recipient had exceeded a set of baseline regulatory standards, as established in new clause 9.

Amendment 4 provides an expanded alternative. We have a slight sense that the previous amendment may not be carried, so it is good to have a second string. It would put in place a provision that financial assistance would be provided for the public good of improving animal welfare and health only if the Secretary of State was satisfied that the recipient had gone beyond minimum requirements and followed a number of important measures to guarantee animal welfare, as set out in paragraphs (b) to (e). They include that the recipient has raised animals

“in such a way that enables them to carry out their natural behaviours”.

I suspect there would be considerable support for that among the wider public.

High animal welfare means taking into account scientific research that increasingly indicates that good animal welfare helps not only the prevention of suffering but the opportunity for animals to have positive experiences and exhibit their natural behaviours.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. Would he consider, as some animal welfare campaigners do, that natural behaviour would be to allow a cow to keep her calf with her for perhaps the first six months? It is quite difficult to be specific about what natural behaviour might be.

[Daniel Zeichner]

As ever, the right hon. Gentleman asks a probing question. I made the point earlier that there are many levels of welfare to which we can aspire. Some are even contentious, in the sense that not everything natural is necessarily something that we want to happen.

Responding to consumer demand is complicated. If consumers want the kind of standard of welfare that the right hon. Gentleman suggests, I would suggest that, in the business world, it is a good idea to give them what they want—normally the argument made by the other side—but that is costly. There is a dilemma, again, for this mythical £3 billion pot we are all busily spending—[Interruption.] Well, it may not be £3 billion, we will see. There is a dilemma about which sectors to support, which we will come back to, and what level of welfare is reasonable.

Beyond that, there is a further question. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, there may be things that lift to a very high standard, but who makes that decision? I suspect that, as ever, there will be a spectrum. There can be very high standards, which we see with the plant-based milk alternatives people are choosing. I choose them in my office, because my colleague does not drink dairy milk. We pay a premium, but we are happy to pay that. Consumers should be given the choice. That would be the answer to his intervention.

Pigs need space; they need a quantity of bedding and materials to fill a range of species-specific behaviours, such as rooting, foraging, nesting and exploring. Providing fibrous materials, including straw, brown wood, mushroom compost or natural vegetation, assists with comfort and can reduce aggression. Similarly, systems for laying hens should allow for species-specific behaviours such as nesting, foraging, dust bathing, perching and exercise, including walking, running and brief bursts of flying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the reason we can discuss this practice is because we have left the European Union and have the freedom not to comply with single market rules?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, as he well knows. At the very least, it seems evident that those involved in the live export trade should not be receiving public subsidy for good animal welfare. There is probably widespread agreement on that. Having said all that, there need to be exceptions for genuine cross-border movements from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, provided that the animals involved are not re-exported from the Republic. We provide such an exemption in amendment 4.

Other requirements for receiving money for higher standards should include that livestock are not subjected to prohibited procedures such as mutilations, as defined in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and that livestock are killed only in the controlled environment of a slaughterhouse unless a veterinary surgeon certifies it necessary due to the animal’s poor health, and the method of killing is humane. Amendment 5 provides definitions for the practices outlined in amendment 4.

[Mr Goodwill]

I will be brief. Under clause 1, which we discussed earlier in the week, the list of objectives for which financial assistance can be given includes, under subsection (1)(f),

“protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock”.

Therefore, much of what the hon. Gentleman talks about is already covered in the Bill. While I can understand his wish to incentivise less tail docking and castration of pigs, reduce the density of broiler chickens and phase out farrowing crates, the intensive pig and poultry sectors have not received funding through the common agricultural policy system. My worry is that he is looking at ways of switching support from the farms that have relied on it —particularly extensive farms in the uplands, those farms that are producing the habitats and environmental public goods that we want to protect—to the intensive sector, which already manages very nicely. Switching to some of these more welfare-friendly methods on a large scale could mop up quite large amounts of the money available.

My second concern is about amendment 4’s proposed new subsection (4A)(d) to clause 2 of the Bill, which talks about killing livestock

“in any place other than in a slaughterhouse”.

I am a little worried about the practicalities of how that relates to sick and injured animals on farms. The amendment states that a veterinary surgeon must have certified that the animal should be put out of its misery because of poor health, and that

“the method of killing is humane”.

I read that to mean that on every occasion when a farmer wishes to humanely put an animal out of its pain or misery, they must be observed by a vet. In our village, I have a neighbour whose farm has 16,000 laying hens. It is an extensive system; they go outside. They are barn-raised hens produced under the very best welfare standards, but from time to time a hen will be injured or, in some cases, attacked by other hens and my neighbour will need to euthanise it. I do not think it is realistic or practical to expect that the farmer will call a veterinary surgeon on every occasion that happens and incur a fee of maybe £40 or £50.

Similarly, on my own farm, until last Saturday we had four hens. Unfortunately, a pet dog got into our field on Saturday afternoon and killed two of them, and when I went on Sunday morning to let the two remaining hens out of the shed, one of them was obviously in a very bad way. The tail feathers that we thought had been pulled out by the dog were hiding quite a nasty injury, and I had to kill that hen myself. It would not have been realistic for me to take that hen to the vet, or to call a vet out. There are many instances in which an animal is in great distress, maybe because it has a broken leg, and waiting for a vet to come would not be practical, even if it were economically feasible.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not support his amendment, because I do not think he has looked into the practicalities of animal welfare on a farm when animals are sick. I think back to when we used to keep a load of sheep. Sometimes sheep were in a very bad way; perhaps they had had difficult lambing and were haemorrhaging. This might be taking place at 2 o’clock in the morning, so the most humane thing to do was to put them out of their misery straightaway, without any delay and certainly without waiting for a vet to come, even if that were practical. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come back with similar amendments on Report, I hope he will look at paragraph (d) again, because most practising farmers would look at it and say, “This is not going to help animal welfare. This is going to mean animals dying in suffering, particularly if by breaking these rules I lose all my subsidies.” I think many farmers would be very worried about that, so I hope the hon. Gentleman understands the practicalities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

That was an interesting and illuminating discussion that, as ever, probably raised as many questions as it answered, sadly.

I will start with the points made by the sharp-eyed right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. I am sorry to hear about his unfortunate incident with the dog at the weekend.

[Mr Goodwill]

It was our favourite.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am sorry to hear that. The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I fully concede that this was not a drafting error; I am not sure we guided those doing the drafting in quite the right way. I accept that we could improve on that. What we are trying to tease out, however, relates to the questions and points that I have already raised about what the public want from the Bill. He implied that he was tempted to support one of the amendments. I would like to tempt him to support the other one, which does not have those objections attached to it, but I fear that I shall be disappointed.

We are pushing for a commitment to much higher standards. The Minister made a series of important points. On live animal export, we absolutely support using the opportunities available and we hope that the Government will get on with it. We would all like that to happen.

The point relates to some of the earlier tensions. I think the Minister said that there is no intention to pay for basic welfare standards, which I understand. Page 20 of the policy discussion document—I hate to keep referring to it, but it makes the point and has illuminated the discussion—asks what tier 1 could pay for and gives a wide range of examples. There is a tension between what she said and some of those examples, not least because what it could pay for depends on exactly what is being paid for on what unit. Farms are not all the same; some are mixed farms.

The cross-compliance regulations that we had under the European Union made it incumbent on the whole enterprise to conform to rules and regulations, but we do not know, frankly, how that will work in this new set-up and whether one part doing one thing disqualifies or qualifies. Those are exactly the reasons why we wanted a more detailed discussion, because we do not know the answers.

I understand the Minister’s predicament, but it is all very well for her to say, “Ah well, these things are difficult. It’s going to take time. The world’s going to change,” and all the rest of it, but it ain’t going to change for the people who are farming next year. They will have to deal with this, alongside the reductions that are coming, like the sword of Damocles over them, at an unspecified pace. I am afraid that I do not think that is good enough. We need to sort out some of the thinking behind it.

I hear the Minister’s point about the potential unintended consequences when one is trying to apply a measure to entire herds, but I am not convinced that it is impossible to frame it in such a way that we could do that and still insist on high welfare standards for public money. This is a matter of huge public interest, which is reflected in the amount of correspondence that most MPs get on the issue. If the Government want popular support for these policies, this is exactly the kind of amendment that they would do well to look at. On that basis, I will press the amendment to a vote.

[The Chair]

Would you like to press amendment 4 or amendment 42?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I would like to press amendment 42 and withdraw amendment 4. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 42, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end insert—

“(4A) Financial assistance may only be given under section 1(1)(f) for the purpose of protecting or improving the health of livestock if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State or of any person to whom functions relating to the giving of financial assistance are delegated under section 2(6), the protection or improvement effects a standard which is significantly higher than that required by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This amendment would require a recipient of financial assistance for protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock to demonstrate that the protection or improvement would be of a significantly higher standard than the baseline required under NC9.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 10

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 6

Noes: 11

---

Conservative: 11

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end insert—

“(4A) No more than 5% of the financial assistance given through a financial assistance scheme in any particular financial year shall be spent on administration or consultancy.

(4B) The Secretary of State may by regulations vary the proportion of financial assistance specified in subsection (4A).”

This amendment, along with Amendments 45,46 and 47 would place a 5% limit on the amount of financial assistance which can be spent in any year on administration or consultancy.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 45, in clause 2, page 4, line 3, after “subsection” insert “(4B) or subsection”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

Amendment 46, in clause 2, page 4, line 4, at end insert—

“(10A) For the purposes of this Act, “administration or consultancy” includes money spent on “administration or consultancy other than in connection with the purposes in section [Financial assistance: duty to provide advice].”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

Amendment 47, in clause 5, page 6, line 13, after “year”, insert

“, and (c) the amount of money spent on administration or consultancy, within the meaning of subsection (10A) of section 2”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Amendment 44 is another probing amendment. We are seeking to establish what protections there are against the financial assistance schemes’ administration costs being able to swallow large swathes of the budget. This is slightly difficult, since we still do not fully understand how they work; we are in a tricky position, but we think it is important that this issue be addressed.

We have talked already about the importance of having comprehensive enforcement measures in place that work to support compliance with the financial assistance schemes. However, I suggest that it is just as important to ensure that the bureaucracy associated with that does not take over the schemes at the expense of money going to farmers to deliver environmental public goods. The issue is clouded by the fact that we still do not know where the money is coming from—we can make assumptions, but it is not clear: how much will it cost and whose budget is it coming from?

There are plenty of unknowns, and we are trying to encourage the Government to share their thinking with us. We would not necessarily disagree with them, but knowing that would mean that we could query how everything should work. There is a worry that, given the ambition and complexity of some of the schemes, it could all end up costing a considerable amount of money.

If the system is not properly regulated and controlled, there could be opportunities for people for whom environmental goals may not be the chief concern. Even if that is not the case, employing people to carry out these complicated works could consume a lot of legal time and effort—many of those people do not work on the wages that farm workers do, so it would probably be quite expensive.

Of course, there is a delicate irony to all this: one of the chief complaints about the current system is the bureaucracy associated with it. I think we all probably share that frustration. The question is whether the bureaucracy has grown for reasons of its own, or whether there is actually a good reason for it. The Opposition think there is often a good reason for regulation and oversight, and we think there has been too much deregulation over the years. There will probably be a slight difference of opinion on this issue. I suspect that the world is changing a bit now that we have seen the dangers of just dismissing bureaucracy as somehow being a problem; many of us who have worked in bureaucracies think there is quite a good reason for enlargement in some cases.

The Opposition are looking particularly at the clause 3 measures on checking, enforcing and monitoring financial assistance. The Government want the Bill to be simple, but they also want a comprehensive system for checking that it is working. I suggest there is a tension there, which we would like to know a bit about. We are left with a lot of unanswered questions about how any of this will work. Again, it goes back to the detail in the environmental land management document. As I said earlier, it is laced with good intentions but also many questions.

The Minister will doubtless say, “Well, we’ve got seven years to sort it out and it’s an iterative process,” and so forth. I suspect that, among hon. Members who are still in Parliament in seven years’ time, some might well look back and say, “Maybe people should have asked a few more questions.” To cover my back against that possibility—not that I necessarily assume that I will be here in seven years’ time—I am trying to shed some light on this issue.

Looking at the complex web of organisations involved in all these processes—the Environment Agency, Natural England, DEFRA itself and so on—it is fair to ask whose budget any financial assistance will come from. I imagine that argument is going on behind closed doors. Everyone can see there is a pot of money, and presumably everyone thinks they will be given the resources needed. As I have already hinted, there is a real danger that the pot of money will diminish if everyone gets the budget necessary to do what they want. It could be the poor old farmer, or the local rural area, that finds the money has gone somewhere else.

The Government need to tell us a bit more about their estimates of how much all this will cost. We have suggested a 5% cut, which is not an informed figure—we can come up with an informed figure only if we have much more information on what the Government are thinking. Our concern is that, in the first year, it would look as though there is some headroom from the 5% cut. One would imagine that setting up some of these things will be quite expensive in the first place. We can envisage a situation in which the 5% in the first year does not go towards environmental improvements at all.

I used to be a software programmer, and I know how well most computer systems work. People are filled with confidence and enthusiasm but things do not work out in quite the way imagined, not least because the poor people designing the systems have the same problem: if it is not clear what we are trying to do, we cannot always provide a system that fits. My point is that a lot of money might need to be spent upfront. [Interruption.] I thought the Minister was about to intervene and tell me the answer, but she is not.

We certainly need clarity, which goes back to another fairly basic philosophical point: in other policy areas, we are familiar with the difficulty of targeted schemes in one way or another. The argument about universalism versus means-testing, be it for the BBC licence fee or any of the welfare payments, is well rehearsed. We know there is a considerable overhead with running these kinds of schemes. That was part of the reason for the reforms to the CAP some years ago—people had got frustrated with the costs, overheads and bureaucracy.

To return to EU regulation 1307/2013, on direct payments to farmers, we want to make the system simpler. Everybody wants to make it simpler until it comes to designing the system. These things have a habit of growing, so we want to tie it down and get a commitment from the Government. I am not wedded to 5%—I would be very happy to hear a different suggestion—but that is our starting point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we pledged to guarantee the current annual budget to farming in every year of this Parliament. I want to make it completely clear that that commitment is separate from the funding that the Government requires to administer future financial assistance schemes, which itself is determined through Government spending reviews—behind closed doors, as he puts it. To make it crystal clear, the running costs for DEFRA and the DEFRA group are considered separately from the payments made to beneficiaries. I hope that clears up one of his questions.

As we continue to develop the future schemes, we may find that we need to include some administration costs for third parties, such as those incurred to run farm clusters or other groups that bring together multiple farmers and land managers to provide some of the schemes envisaged in the hon. Gentleman’s favourite new document. At this stage, we are unwilling to lock ourselves into saying how much will be spent on administration and consultancy. It will vary enormously from scheme to scheme.

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make sure that we remain transparent about the costs of running our schemes, and I reassure him that we are dedicated to remaining open and honest about our proposals and their costs. The purpose of the ELM document that we have heard so much about today is to start the discussion and to seek input from farmers, foresters and other land managers in co-designing the policy, and to give a demonstration of the open and transparent way in which we are going to be designing the schemes.

Similarly, the new clause we introduced that commits us to publishing annual financial reports on scheme expenditure will enable the public to examine how much we are spending. Those reports could include a breakdown of administration and consultancy costs, if the Secretary of State so desires—I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions on that. The public, and Parliament acting on their behalf, have a right to expect that public funds will be used wisely and so we will, of course, be following the rules under the Treasury’s “Managing public money” guidance.

I reassure members of the Committee that we recognise and are committed to delivering value for our taxpayers. Indeed, that is partly why we wish to keep such flexibility —to ensure that financial assistance is always delivered in the most streamlined and efficient way. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Minister has given a welcome clarification. The obvious rejoinder is: where is the headroom in the DEFRA budget for these very ambitious plans? I suspect we will return to that question. I was just flicking through my favourite document, but unfortunately could not find the appropriate line. [Interruption.] I know; it is a shame. I am pretty sure that there is a suggestion somewhere in there that some of the money saved from basic payments could be used for some of this work. We can return to that point another day.

I am grateful for the Minister’s helpful response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 17, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, leave out

“or operated on behalf of”

and insert “by”.—(Victoria Prentis.)

This drafting amendment is intended to clarify the exclusion of financial assistance schemes made by the Secretary of State from the definition of a third party scheme and also to achieve consistency with other references in the Bill to things done by the Secretary of State. As a matter of legal interpretation a reference to something done by the Secretary of State will pick up things done by others acting in the name of or on behalf of the Secretary of State.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“(5A) Financial assistance shall not be given for any act or activity in pursuit of a purpose under section 1 if the land on which that act or activity is to take place is to be used by the applicant, or by a person acting with the consent of the applicant, for hunting of a wild mammal with a dog, whether or not that hunting is exempt under section 2 of the Hunting Act 2004.”.

Amendments 49 and 50 would provide that no financial assistance can be given for land which is to be, or has been, used for hunting (including exempt hunting), or on which an offence has been committed under the Hunting Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I was rather anticipating that we would have a discussion about this issue. This is public money for public goods. We are trying to reflect what we believe is the strong view of the British public that they would not want public money to be used to support hunting. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should try to reflect the will of the people?

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which answers the shadow Minister’s point very well. He has talked about the will of the people: the will of the people was expressed on 12 December last year, when they elected a majority Conservative Government.

I conducted an extensive survey of my constituents prior to my election. We got about 20,000 replies to that questionnaire, which asked lots of questions, including one about hunting. The Whitby part of my constituency was about 60/40 in favour of hunting; in the Scarborough part, it was about 60/40 the other way. I went to a primary school not long before the election, and as we all do when we visit schools, I talked about the issues that the children wanted to talk about. Hunting did come up, and one child who came from a farming family made it very clear that she took a dim view of foxes, and the fact that they had been in her family’s hen coop and were taking newborn lambs. She underlined the need to control foxes.

We are not revisiting the hunting legislation in this Committee; rather, we are looking at what the practical implications would be if this amendment were on the face of the Bill, with its provisions being retrospective and applicable to exempt activities such as one dog killing one rat or two dogs being used to flush a rabbit to be shot. If those exemptions were removed, almost every farm in the country would be covered by that retrospective application.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I fully accept that we can always improve the drafting. What I am trying to get at is whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that public money—taxpayers’ money—should be supporting hunting, in whatever form. We are trying to get at that to build on the landmark legislation that has been so popular. As we know, the Government are fairly reluctant to get back into this debate.

[Mr Goodwill]

My first point is that if the hon. Member for Newport West had drafted the amendment herself, she might have looked in a bit more detail at what schedule 1 of the Hunting Act 2004 actually says and what exemptions should be referred to, rather than making a general reference to exempt practices. We all rely on pressure groups and lobby groups to help with our work, but taking things at face value is not always the best way forward. Secondly, the objective of the Bill is not to support people killing rats with terriers, or people conducting legal activity within the context of the Hunting Act; it is to support our agricultural industry in a way that also achieves the green environmental objectives that we all want to meet.

The hon. Member for Cambridge will not be surprised to hear that I will not be supporting these amendments. Whether or not Members agree with hunting is almost beside the point, because the amendments are drafted in such a way as to destroy the objective of the Bill, which is to give support to farmers, particularly in some of the most challenging parts of our country—those areas where farming is most difficult to make economically attractive, where predation from foxes and rats are problems, and where other types of pest control need to be carried out. The exemptions within the Hunting Act exist to allow those legal activities to take place, and my guess is that using the amendments to take them out of that Act and make those farms exempt from support would take out nearly 100% of the farmland in the United Kingdom. Even farmers farming National Trust land where hunting is not allowed by the landlord will be carrying out rabbit and rat control, which is one of the exemptions that the hon. Member for Newport West is seeking to bring back in.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I have not had any notice that the Opposition want to press amendments 50, 45, 64, 46 and 5. Is that correct?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I think that is correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

Clause 2 establishes certain aspects of how financial assistance provided under chapter 1 may be administered. It provides for funding to be subject to conditions and makes it clear that funding may include conditions under which it can be recovered. We recognise that the expertise of individuals outside Government can play an important role in delivery. For that reason, the clause allows financial assistance to be given to those who operate their own schemes and enables the Secretary of State to delegate functions in relation to giving financial assistance. To ensure transparency, the clause also creates a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to require the publication of information about payments.

Turning to new clause 18, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the types of support that we will look to offer those in receipt of financial assistance under clause 1. This is an important topic.

We recognise that there must be an effective advisory service to support ELM and other schemes established under clause 1. In the discussion document, about which we have heard so much, we have invited contributions on key topics, including on advice and guidance, and some of our tests and trials are focused on this area. For ELM, the tier that farmers, foresters or other land managers take part in could affect the type of advice that they need. For example, some may need advice at the scheme application stage; others may need help and support in planning their interventions. How much advice and guidance they require may change, depending on their level of experience. Therefore, the advice and guidance framework for ELM will be flexible and able to adapt to the specific requirements of the participants and the outcomes that they are seeking to deliver. The new clause would restrict that necessary flexibility.

We are considering a range of approaches for delivering the advice—for example, one-to-one advice and support direct to land managers. That could include, as we have discussed, agronomists visiting farms to give specialist advice. We are also considering group training, telephone and online support, and peer-to-peer learning.

We are still exploring different mechanisms for providing advice for all our schemes, but we would not want to lock ourselves into providing advice that may become out of date in the future and we are keen to retain sufficient flexibility to adapt how we provide advice as we continue to learn. We want to break away from the common agricultural policy’s rigid and inflexible approach. We are firmly committed to offering a range of supportive measures to ensure that our farmers and land managers will have access to good-quality advice, guidance and training.

I come now to new clause 23. We recognise the importance of engaging with farmers, foresters and other land managers as we start to implement our reforms. Consultation and co-design are at the heart of what we will do. We have extensive plans for, and a track record of, working with industry, experts and other interested parties.

The Department published our consultation on proposed reforms to farming in February 2018 and received more than 40,000 responses, each of which was read and considered. We can see the effects of that consultation throughout the policy document that we produced earlier this week. We will also consult on the detailed ELM scheme design after the pilot has started. That consultation will build on what we have learned from the tests and trials, as well as the national pilot, and will help us to refine and finalise our scheme design before the launch of the full scheme in 2024. These activities, I hope, will do exactly what new clause 23 seeks to achieve. We will also seek additional views and opinions from farmers, foresters, land managers and other interested parties through various special events and roundtables held throughout the country.

New clause 24 would require us to consult in an inflexible manner before giving financial assistance. Requiring the Government to consult neighbouring landowners and local authorities before any payment is made could prove problematic and introduce significant extra administration and delay into the system. For example, in the case of our animal health schemes, there are around 67,000 registered livestock holdings alone. While we would not make payments to all these, consulting on every payment to a small proportion could make the delivery of the scheme burdensome and possibly unworkable.

[Daniel Zeichner]

This goes to the heart of the problem. We do not know how many of these schemes will be administered. Until we know, it is very hard for us to comment.

[Victoria Prentis]

The hon. Gentleman and I have had this discussion several times today already. Having new duties to consult, such as this, could result in unintended consequences, which I am keen to avoid. For example, if we need to respond to an emerging environmental issue, such as a novel disease or tree pest blight, having to consult widely on a new financial assistance scheme would make the grant less useful and effective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

This is both interesting and important. It again goes to the intended relationship between the tiers. Tier 3 schemes, at the catchment-area level, could have a big effect on the local landscape. Even if the Minister does not like our suggestion for tier 1—I see her point, if it would apply to large numbers—surely there is a case for tier 3.

[Victoria Prentis]

There will certainly be a case, with the wider tier 3 schemes, to involve more people, because the aim is to cross farm boundaries in order to provide a public good over a wider area. However, we do not want to tie ourselves to an inflexible consultation. Believe you me, I have been involved in DEFRA for under two weeks and I am amazed by the level of consultation with which DEFRA is prepared to engage. I really think that we do not want to tie ourselves to inflexible amounts of consultation, or consultations of the type that do not enable us to react quickly when needed. Responding in a timely manner may be important, such as when dealing with a disease or blight to a particular plant. I am concerned that the new clause is too inflexible.

I agree that the new clauses raise important issues, but I think we should take a flexible but reasonable and proportionate approach to consultation, in line with the Cabinet Office consultation principles. Requiring engagement in legislation is not necessary or, indeed, appropriate, and could result in our going back to the difficult days of delays in payments, which we all worked so hard to get over.

The Government have proven our commitment to joint working and consultation repeatedly, and we intend to continue that. I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for Cambridge and the Committee that we will be taking appropriate action on engagement to ensure that financial assistance schemes are delivered in the best way possible. As such, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Today’s discussions have been most illuminating and interesting and have shown the benefit of giving the proposals detailed scrutiny. To refer to my earlier comments, it would be so much easier with the detail before us. I think we are genuinely having a dialogue that explores some of the tensions and issues.

I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that there is a case for wider involvement. Earlier, she acknowledged that maybe tier 2 and certainly tier 3 had some similarities with some of the previous pillar 2 schemes. Those of us who have been involved in rural development over many years will be familiar with the European Union LEADER schemes. My understanding and recollection from when I was involved is that there was local authority involvement, and that is the bit I am worried is missing.

It does not seem to have come up in discussion much, but we are talking about public money being spent in rural, semi-rural and sometimes urban areas—my city of Cambridge has a farm—yet the bit that seems to be missing is the public voice, or even the voice of individual members of the local community. I get what the Minister is saying. I was a parish councillor. I started my glorious ascent many years ago on Dickleburgh parish council. As a district councillor, like many others, I used to regularly attend parish councils. In fact, my partner seemed to think that, as far as she was concerned, there was a parish council meeting for every night of the week. There are pros and cons for our parish councils.

My strong sense is that local councils are not party political, by and large. People there are absolutely motivated to ensure the best for their local communities. They are not always as representative as they should be, in my view—I do not think the farming community have to worry about that; in many cases they are well represented on those bodies—but they know their patch inside-out. I remember many discussions about gullies and culverts going long into the night. Sometimes it was hard to keep up. They know their local patch. If we are using public money for transformative schemes for local areas, I think these people have something to add.

I understand the tension with wanting to respond swiftly, but it is important that local communities are taken along in that, and I think there are dangers if they are not, frankly. It is not something that is easily resolved, but I hope that people will go away and think about some of that. To some extent, local councillors are an unused asset and an unused store of local knowledge. There are difficulties, because some of them might have conflicts of interest. In the end, the Minister’s suggestion that consultation is a bit slow and tedious—perhaps I am being unfair—is something we all struggle with, but that is what democracy is like. We are the country we are because we are prepared to spend that time having that discussion with people. I hope I have not misrepresented her.

[Victoria Prentis]

Yes, you have.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Oh, I have. In which case, I withdraw that suggestion. I understand what the Minister is saying. She is trying to find a balance between an appropriate level of involvement without squandering the opportunity to act. I also have to say that a lot of the environmental goods we are talking about are not tackling an immediate crisis. In some cases, they are making long-term transformations, and it is important that local communities have their voice.

Going back to where I was going to start, I made it clear in my comments on a previous amendment that we are strongly committed to the advice-giving role. In fact, I just do not think that any of these things can be done without that offer of advice and help. On Tuesday, I did suggest that with slightly naive optimism. I am a naive optimist and perfectly up for that, some of this will be a bit more difficult than some of the policy papers suggest. We are asking people to change the way that many of them have operated for a very long time. The incentive we are giving them is basically a stick, by saying, “You are going to lose your money.” Some people respond positively to that, which is great—I am sure those are the farms that we are generally shown around.

3.30 pm

My recollection from my days as a district councillor in a very rural area is that there were also plenty of other farmers, and I am not sure that all of them will be quite so easy to work with. It will need advisers who have a whole range of skills, not just farming-related skills. In moving people from where they are now to where want them to be—this goes back to my earlier narrative, and we will probably pick this up when we debate the clause on delinking—there is a risk that a lot of people will just decide, “It’s not for me.” In fact, I have already heard people say that. That is another big decision we have to take and it could be the way we go, but is that we want to do? I am not convinced that it is.

We need to ensure that we have the resources now that the Minister has finally conceded that the budget will not come out of the moneys from direct payments. On one level, that is very welcome. Given that it is not particularly easy, however, it prompts questions about how much it will cost, where the money will come from, and whether we will have the skilled people to do it. I worry about smaller farms. Big farms, which have the resources and are used to dealing with the system, will probably be able to make the transformation. They might not all be enthusiastic, but they will be able to have a dialogue. I worry about smaller farmers, and I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that—going back to my earlier point—there might be a bigger plan. I wonder whether that plan includes smaller farmers in many parts of the country, because there is potentially a big social impact.

Looking back at the previous environmental schemes—which is one of the good bits of the document—the evidence clearly shows that having access to an adviser makes a big difference to their success. It is well worth providing advice to farmers on how they can meet environmental outcomes, navigate the often difficult paperwork—I suspect it is probably now done on a computer—and request money from these schemes, because such advice can help to address gaps in the skills, knowledge and motivation of farmers and land managers. It can help to build confidence, ultimately leading to better outcomes than for people who are not supported by advice. That is something we have heard from stakeholders and from witnesses in Committee.

We finally learnt from the aforementioned document—I think the Minister referred to it—that the Government are thankfully considering a range of different models for the provision of advice, including one-to-one support provided directly to land managers, group advice and training, telephone and online support, and facilitation of peer-to-peer learning. All of those are welcome, and we would strongly support them. It is also very welcome to read in the document that it is anticipated that there will be provision of extensive written information—I am sure we are delighted to hear that—both online and offline.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am sure the hon. Member will enjoy that.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will read it; I promise.

Guidance will be provided to everyone who participates in ELMS, including guidance on how to deliver the environmental outcomes that they will pay for. Having looked at the 139-page document on how to apply for the basic payment scheme, including the delightful colourful drawings of buffer strips and what a field looks like, I do not underestimate how complicated the previous system was. The challenge is to see whether it can be trimmed down. Based on previous experience in this country, it may be an ambitious hope, but I am sure that is where we all want to get to. As I said earlier, the difficulty is that we still do not really know how it will be paid for.

I want to pick up on an observation from the earlier discussion. A huge number of people would have been made ineligible by one of our previous amendments. There is nothing in the documents or the Bill to stop the entire budget going to one project, which it could do. It could be argued that that might be the most environmentally sustainable thing to do, but there lies the problem. The system being replaced is one under which people basically had almost an entitlement to public support by virtue of owning land—we were very critical of it, although if it had been applied properly and was subject to proper environmental improvement, there was a possibility to make it work—but we have no idea about the distribution of resources under the new framework. We do not even really know what the Government think would be a good outcome. Part of my worry about all this is that there is too much that we do not know.

Advice will need to be made available to farmers about a broad range of areas to incentivise take-up, which we hope to see, and to support them in delivering these environmental public goods. We will need really good information and explanations about why particular practices that people have perhaps been doing for a while are not approved of. We will need really good targeted help for people, with proposed innovations towards better animal welfare practices or alternative methods of pest, disease and weed control. We need clear guidelines on how the various financial assistance schemes work, and support with business management plans, to make the transition to ELMS work for each farming unit. I am still not clear about how we will make sure it is properly resourced and funded, or that we have sufficient people with the capacity to do this. To go back to the question of how many will be in tier 1, if advice is offered to all those people, that will be a big job. We will probably be pursuing the matter of how much that is likely to cost on another occasion through written questions.

If it is the Government’s intention to do all this, it would have been helpful to have a bit more detail in the Bill, rather than an ambitious but rather vague list of plans. That goes back to one of my themes: if we are trying to offer certainty to people in a time of change, we need a bit more than this.

With new clause 18, we propose including a requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide training guidance and advice to those receiving financial assistance to help to enable them to deliver the clause 1 public goods. I think we have outlined a decent range of activities. There are no restrictions on suggestions. The Minister says that it is too prescriptive, but she is free to add as many extra suggestions as she likes. That would be helpful. Given that the Government are clearly moving in this direction in general, I am sure the Minister would recognise the importance of sending a strong signal to farmers that the Government really are going to be there to support them. I hope that, on that basis, they will consider supporting that amendment.

New clause 23 says that, prior to framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on its design and consult the relevant authorities. I have already spoken about the potential role of parish councils. It does not have to be parishes, because there are areas that are not parished, but we want it to be the lowest tier of local government in order to ensure that the local community has a role. I have hinted that that must be the case for tier 3 and possibly for tier 2. Much depends upon how broad tier 1 actually is. On that basis, I support these new clauses, which I understand will be voted on later, Mr Stringer.

--- Later in debate ---

We listened to and reflected on feedback from the previous Agriculture Bill Committee, and as a result this version of the Bill provides much more opportunity for the Government’s plans to be scrutinised, including by the EFRA Committee. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I welcome much of what the Minister says, but our concern and our reason for tabling the amendments is that, positive though her comments are, this is such a big change that we think it right and proper that there is more regular analysis of it, informed by the OEP. I fully understand why she does not want to rehearse the OEP discussion.

As I have said, our view is that the Bills have been introduced in the wrong order, which puts us at something of a disadvantage. However, if the prime, driving purpose of this legislation is to tackle the environmental crisis, as we think it should be, we do not think that the proposed structure—welcome though it is, and it is an improvement—quite matches that sense of urgency. I perhaps should have said more on this earlier. Seven years is a long time for a transition. While we understand why that is beneficial from the industry’s point of view, from my constituents’ point of view, some want it next week, frankly. People are pushing very hard. At the general election, my party committed to a much earlier net zero date, and we know that the NFU is pushing for a much earlier date than the Government’s. However, there is not that sense of urgency, which our amendments would help to bring forward.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West said, it is not only us saying this; many conservation organisations share our concerns and worries. Their worry is partly that a considerable sum of public money is available and, as I have alluded to before, we want to know how the prioritisation will work. Will it be done at a local or national level? The document that we have been referring to throughout the sitting hints at an issue about prioritisation.

I somewhat mischievously suggested that the money could all go to one scheme, but that is not actually impossible, which is why we want a structure where the Office for Environmental Protection could say, “This is where your big gains are going to come from. This is where you’re going to get the difference.” There is a tension, however, between what would get the best environmental gain, what is most effective, and what will, out there in the world, be perceived as fair in a transition phase from the current system to a new one. That is why we think our amendments would provide a better structure.

We understand that there is tension because the Department wants flexibility; I am sure that if we were running the Department, we would want the same. It is our job as the Opposition, however, to remind the Government that they voted to acknowledge the climate crisis and to try to hit net zero in 2050. In every piece of legislation that is brought forward, we want to see a real commitment to making that happen. We think the amendment would contribute to that.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for her honesty about the current funding uncertainties and the issues. I appreciate that she has a massive job on. I am glad to be on this side of the room.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman has far more technical knowledge than I do on the subject. I will not give a figure for fear of its being wrong. I accept that he has a lot more information. All I would say is that we were actually at the table and were part of discussions. We were not excluded; we were very much included. Even Margaret Thatcher agreed that we were part of those discussions, so I accept that.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, but I cannot resist joining battle with the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who refers to an old canard about the European Union. Of course we all wanted the auditing to work better, but are we so sure that it works so well here? If he is confident that it does, he would support the amendment, which is an opportunity for us to show that we can do it so much better. I invite him to join us today.

[The Chair]

Order. We are straying some way from clause 5 and new clause 2, so I ask the hon. Lady to come back to them.

[Ruth Jones]

Thank you for your valuable advice, Mr Stringer. I intend to get back to the subject, without the sparring, which would be very interesting.

Our farmers deserve a funding and reporting system that they can understand and is fit for purpose. In fact, they deserve to have a system in place, full stop. Farmers across Wales, Northern Ireland, England and Scotland are very worried indeed. They have let us know in no uncertain terms exactly how concerned they are, and I share their worries. If a mechanism for reporting annually is not in place, a future Government of whatever colour or persuasion could in effect just say, “Well, there isn’t enough money, so we are making large cuts, including to all those wonderful schemes we talked about and told you we would keep.”

I say this to the Minister. This is a time not for empty words or—dare I say it?—hot air, but for common sense and for the Government to recognise that they have a responsibility to farmers and farm workers across our country. That is why new clause 2 should form part of the Bill, and I hope Members from across the House will reflect, consider and give their support to it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My apologies, Mr Stringer, for straying slightly from the detail of the amendment. This is an important amendment, because it says that the public should be able to go through the list of extremely good aspirations in clause 1, on which there has been no disagreement, and see how much money has been allocated to each of those categories, including managing land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment—I will not go through the whole list. That begins to make it real for people. It is fair to say that it was pretty hard to see how the money that they were putting into the European Union was being spent.

This is a great opportunity for the Government. Imagine the Secretary of State or the Minister being able to stand up next year and say, “For each of these categories, this amount has been spent.” The Opposition will be able to do the opposite: we will be able to point to subsection (1)(f) and say, “Actually, it appears that no money at all has been allocated to protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock.” The goal is to make it simpler and more immediate, like the excellent moves made some years ago by, I think, Lord Whitty to get some transparency about how the money was spent through the CAP in the first place. That transparency allows any of us to look through the statistics on the DEFRA website and see just how much money is being allocated locally and to which organisations, and I am sure some of us have done so.

David Cameron always said that sunshine was the way to throw light on something—to open it up and make it more transparent. I should have thought that the Government would be keen to do so and trumpet their achievements in that way. However, it appears that we are still lost in this slightly opaque, internal world of money effectively being allocated behind closed doors. This amendment opens that world up, gives people the opportunity to ask questions, and gives the Government the opportunity to trumpet their achievement. I cannot for the life of me understand why they do not want to do that—other than that, of course, it is never what Governments do.

[The Chair]

Minister, do you want to come back in?

[Mr Goodwill]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 8, page 8, line 5, after “extending” insert

“or pausing the transition process and”.

It is my pleasure to move this amendment, although I am hopeful that the Minister will be able to satisfy me that it is superfluous. As we have already heard, the Government’s plan is to switch over from the basic payment scheme, which pays farmers for being farmers, to a system of environmental land management that pays farmers for delivering public goods. That will be a seven-year graduated transition, which I hope will be smooth and go according to plan.

However, clause 8(3) allows a degree of flexibility if things do not go entirely according to plan. There are a number of reasons why that might happen—some within the Government’s control and some beyond their control. We have heard that the environmental land management pilots will be concluded by 2024. We have been slow getting started with those—partly because of the parliamentary inertia over the past three and a half years; I will not suggest who might be to blame for some of that—but we are now in a position where we can move forward. The British people have given us a majority and our marching orders, which are for a quick march towards the ambition of delivering these objectives for our farmers.

We may not have all the evidence we need to fully develop and deliver every aspect of environmental land management at the time we hope to start doing so. Therefore, this amendment will allow us to not waste public money on a scheme that has not been fully proven with the evidence, including scientific advice and ecological evidence, that we need. There may be some administrative glitches in the introduction of the new system; Governments do not have a good track record of delivering big IT systems on time—or, indeed, on budget. There may also be external factors relating to weather or disease and the impact they may have on farming, so it makes sense to have the flexibility that clause 8 allows for.

I hope the Minister can give me some clarity about how this may work in practice. If the process is to be extended and the seven-year transition ends up being, for example, a nine-year transition, will that take place in nine equal steps, or will we be able to—as my amendment allows for—pause the transition and start a little bit later? Could we stop the clock on the transition from BPS to ELM, and then resume after a one-year or two-year pause? I am sure that the Minister will be able to reassure me that that is perhaps not intended but allowed within the flexibility of the clause without my amendment. However, the reassurance would be very helpful to me, because I suspect that the existence of the clause in the Bill just might have something to do with the time that I spent at DEFRA last year.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I certainly would not want to intrude on a private argument on the Government side, but our view is that this is symptomatic of the problem of just how slow the process has been in coming forward. We have before us, of course, a Bill that has been delayed. The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby made suggestions as to where the responsibility might lie, and we can all argue about that one. I suggest that there would have been a simple solution, but I am sure that he would not agree. The trouble is that a huge number of questions are left unanswered, as we have been highlighting throughout the day, and the suggestion that there might be further delay is cause for great concern.

It is worth highlighting what the National Farmers Union says:

“The NFU believes that with less than a year to go, time is rapidly running out for the government to have all of the necessary legislation and implementation decisions and process in place for this timescale. There are still many aspects of the transition and the successor future farming support policy which remain unclear and the concern is that there will be a ‘gap’ before alternative and effective schemes are in place and the start of the phasing out.”

As I think has become apparent in this Committee, we very much share those doubts: we have been talking about the reasons pretty much all day. We understand how ambitious many of the things that the Government are trying to do are. In the document to which we have been referring for much of the day, there are timelines, although I have to say that they are a bit like Mr Barnier’s account of the trade position of various countries. The timelines are not entirely clear in terms of where we are likely to be at a particular point.

We would be worried about a further pause, because as I have said we just cannot afford it. We are in a climate and ecological emergency. There is no pause button there. The Bill has already been delayed. If we are to reach net zero more quickly than 2050—my suspicion is that the Government would like to do so, although that date is what they are committed to—we will have to move more quickly, so any pause or delay to a more sustainable and environmentally supportive system of land management is disappointing.

We recognise the delicate balance, because if what we are discussing proves as difficult as I am suggesting it might be, there is then a dilemma for the Government. One of the gaps in the explanations today has been about the period, probably post 2024, as we go through the next part. It is one thing to do tests and trials and then to move to a national pilot, but to then move it on to a national scale is challenging, for many of the reasons to which I have referred.

We would want to go more quickly—[Interruption.] The Minister enjoys the fact that I am in the privileged position of being able to say that in opposition, but basically this entire institution should be bending itself, at every opportunity, to find ways of moving more quickly to challenge the climate crisis. That is what we would be doing.

The Bill needs to be stronger and quicker. We need the clearer targets. I am therefore inclined not to support the amendment. I think the message that needs to go out after today’s discussions is that we need much more clarity, and providing more clarity would actually help the Government to achieve what we all want, which is to move to a new system more quickly and more efficiently and ensure that it works for all those in rural communities.

[Victoria Prentis]

Yes, speed is important, but so are certainty and good government. I know that many people in this room will agree with me that direct payments are poor value for money and untargeted and can and have inhibited productivity and environmental improvement in the past. We have therefore been clear in our intention to phase out direct payments in England. We know that farmers need certainty. That is why we have been clear about the length of the agricultural transition. As has been rehearsed many times today, we are pressing ahead with plans for our ELM scheme.

In the meantime, a simplified countryside stewardship scheme will continue to provide funding for farmers, woodland owners, foresters and land managers.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Victoria Prentis]

I can anticipate what the hon. Gentleman will ask. It will be a domestic grant scheme with a more transparent administration process and regulation and enforcement regime, to encourage more applicants and simplify the application and payment process. It is designed to enable a smooth and efficient transition for land managers from CAP payments to ELM payments.

I also reassure hon. Members that phased reductions to direct payments during the transition period will be set in regulations under the powers in clause 11 for payments under the basic payment scheme and in clause 12 for delinked payments. There is no obligation in the Bill for reductions in every year of the transition. We have allowed for flexibility, as I have explained.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who was a great Minister in this role and has been enormously helpful to me during my speedy learning process as I have tried to get ready to take this Bill through Committee. I reassure him that if there are unforeseen exceptional conditions, such as those that he outlined earlier, that would have an adverse impact on farmers, clause 8 already contains the power to extend the transition period, if necessary. There is no need to make a decision now. There is sufficient flexibility in the Bill—we can make a decision later if necessary. But his point has been heard.

In conclusion, I hope I have demonstrated that the seven-year transition period set out in the Bill provides farmers with certainty and enough time to adapt to life without direct payments.

[Daniel Zeichner]

On this point, the Minister did not quite anticipate me. On the question of what happens when, I think I heard the Minister say that there is no guarantee that there will be further cuts to direct payments in any particular year. Surely there is a danger of our reaching a point where there will be a dramatic change. Things could be gently phased, but if this is not done in the first few years and we try to get to 100% in seven years’ time, the maths is obvious. There is a real risk here. If it is all backloaded, people will face a dramatic cliff edge at some point. Surely we want to smooth things out.

[Victoria Prentis]

That is why we are going slowly, or relatively slowly. That is why we have a seven-year transition period. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the back page of his favourite document and the policy document published on Tuesday, which gives an indication of the likely timeline. It is important that we retain some flexibility.

We have included in the Bill the ability to set reductions at an appropriate rate during the transition and, if circumstances deem it necessary, to extend the transition. I ask my right hon. Friend to withdraw amendment 9.

Agriculture Bill (Fifth sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th February 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points. Will Members switch electronic devices to silent? Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.

Today, we will begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings, which is available in the room, shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection list shows the order of debate. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I will use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following the debates on the relevant amendments.

I hope that is helpful. The process and procedures are very similar to those in the Chamber. If any Member is new to this and requires assistance, the Clerk and I will be as helpful as we can to support proceedings.

Clause 1

Secretary of State’s powers to give financial assistance

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance for the purposes listed in Clause 1.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I welcome everyone to the Committee. I suspect we will have lengthy and interesting discussions, and I am sure we are all very much looking forward to that.

To those who were here some time ago for Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill in the last Parliament, the amendment will look remarkably similar to the opening amendment then, although of course the world has moved on. This is a big issue, but I would like to preface my detailed “may”/“must” comments with some overarching observations.

I should make it clear from the start, as we did on Second Reading, that the Opposition support many of the principles underlying the Bill. Indeed, as I have pointed out before, one can find similar sentiments about improving the common agricultural policy and making it more environmentally friendly as far back as Labour’s 1998 rural White Paper. We have already said that the shift to incentivising farmers to provide greater support for the environment and deliver public goods, and to providing finance for that, is welcome.

I think there is widespread agreement about that—interestingly, not just in this country. Those who were present at yesterday’s debate on an agriculture statutory instrument will know that I spent some time then explaining how the European Union has sought to green the common agricultural policy, including by promoting measures such as environmental land management schemes. I observed that I find it slightly puzzling that a Government so enamoured with burnishing their green credentials did not fully use flexibilities such as the 15% in pillar 2 that could have been transferred to environmental schemes in England. However, a repentant sinner is always welcome—despite the nagging suspicion that some may not be entirely repentant.

The Opposition seek to work constructively to improve the Bill, but also to tease out what we see as some of the underlying contradictions, not least by pointing out that the Government are proposing a framework system for agriculture that does not see food production as a key part of its role. I quite understand why those fighting for a shift to environmental goods—they have fought the good fight for many years—may be nervous about the risk of business as usual through the back door, but we must be aware that just exporting our environmental damage somewhere else does not help. I must say that the Secretary of State’s continuing refusal to put into law the standards we need to apply to imported food does little to assuage concerns, and his comments at the weekend did little to reassure us. We will return to that at a later stage.

Members do not just have to take my word for that. They might want to look, for instance, at the powerful response to the new immigration system from the British Poultry Council last week. Its chief executive, Richard Griffiths, said the proposals

“have shown a complete disregard for British food production and will have a crippling effect on our national food security”—

a very strong statement from an industry leader. He continued, and this is the salient point for this morning:

“We cannot run the risk of creating a two-tier food system where we import food produced to lower standards and only the affluent can afford high quality British produce”.

That is the danger—some farmers paid via environmental land management schemes to do good things, with a bit of food production on the side, while the food that most people in our country eat is imported to lower standards. That is the risk, and we will not take it.

Our support is qualified on the Government coming clean on the plan. On a day when Sir Michael Marmot has laid out the consequences of the policies of the last 10 years—shameful consequences in my view—it is hardly surprising that people are worried, because the creation of a two-tier country is part of a piece, and the architects of this Bill have also been responsible in other policy areas for where we find ourselves today, in a disunited kingdom. We are not prepared to see this continue. For our purposes today, how much better if we had had the food strategy, and probably the Environment Bill, in place already, but we are where we are.

Having made trenchant criticisms of the Government, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that there have been improvements since the first version of the Bill, and we welcome them. We have noticed that the Government have been responsive to constructive criticism of their proposals and made additions to the Bill from its previous incarnation, following strong interventions by stakeholders. We hope that the Government continue to be receptive to improvements, because we believe there is certainly room for improvement.

It is precisely because changes have been made to the Bill, and because the climate and ecological crisis has become ever more pressing in the year or more since the Bill was last in Committee, that it is so important that we have returned to scrutinise this new version of the legislation. Our amendments are intended to strengthen the Bill—to give it more bite and deliver greater certainty to our farmers, to tackle the health and climate crises, and to fill in some of the gaps and missed opportunities.

I turn to “may”/”must” in amendment 1. Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to provide financial assistance for the public goods purposes listed in the clause. It stipulates that the Secretary of State may do this, but there is no requirement to do so. Our amendment would change that, so that the Secretary of State must provide financial assistance for those clause 1 purposes, which I suspect we will debate at some length.

The simple fact is that the Secretary of State is not bound to do those things; they do not have to do them. The Government have guaranteed the previous annual budget under the common agricultural policy to farmers for every year of this Parliament, but what about after this Parliament? What guarantees do we have that financial assistance will continue to be provided for these public good purposes if that is not a strong requirement in the Bill?

What guarantee can the Minister give that the promised budget will be allocated? We still do not have the long-promised broader policy statement on ELMS. I wondered whether that was what the Prime Minister was working on at Chevening last week—I can imagine him spending his week doing the detailed policy work—but I am told that it is imminent and will be available within minutes. I think it is slightly disrespectful to Parliament to introduce such an important part of the policy process half an hour after Committee proceedings have started—I am sure we will all spend our lunch time poring over it.

I understand that the Secretary of State’s need to avoid the difficulties of his predecessor earlier this year and to have something to talk about when he is at the National Farmers Union—once a pressman, always a pressman. I rather admire that; however, I think we should have seen the statement before today.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I arrived in the office just before nine this morning to discover that these documents had been produced. That makes things very difficult, because we may have missed the opportunity to table amendments to this part of the Bill if anything in those documents raises concerns. As my hon. Friend said, it is wrong that this situation has been dictated by the need for the Secretary of State to make a speech at the NFU this morning. The Committee should take precedence.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are politicians and we know how the world works, but it is a pity. This Government have a strong majority and are at the start of their term; surely they should not be running scared so soon. Frankly, it speaks volumes. I do not blame the Minister—I am sure she is doing what she has been asked to do—but this raises particular difficulties for us. Until we have seen the documents, we will not know whether we should have tabled different amendments. We probably have a fair idea of what is in there, but this is no way to proceed.

Do we know that the money will actually be allocated? This is a change to a new and complicated system. The experience of stewardship schemes in the past is that they have not always been easy. We heard very enthusiastic evidence the week before last from some who say that everything will be wonderful. That is not what I hear from others. The question in my mind is whether budget allocated will be different from budget taken up. My sense is that many farmers think they are going to get the same kind of money, minus the 10%, in the years ahead. They may not. There is no guarantee that they are going to get the same amount for doing something slightly different. The money may be allocated in very different ways, which is part of the concern that people feel.

The shift that we need to see in our agricultural systems towards producing food in a way that is less destructive to the environment and that reduces agriculture’s contribution to climate change is too important to leave to the optional discretion of Secretaries of State. Under the current wording, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position whereby current and future Secretaries of State will be under no actual obligation to provide financial assistance to address agriculture’s contribution to climate change, despite that supposedly being a key driver of the Bill.

If the Government understand just how important the environmental and climate crisis is, it really is not such a tough ask for them to back up their commitments with stronger wording in the Bill. Others had the same discussion about the previous iteration of the Bill, so I am well aware of the current Secretary of State’s arguments against the change—that by keeping this as a power and not a duty, the Government are following a legislative tradition—I am sure the Minister has been given appropriate examples to make that point. I will not re-rehearse the point, but she will note that it was not only the Opposition who expressed that concern last time. She may find that some Members on her side of Committee care and worry about this issue. I would gently point out that the circumstances are really rather different now; in fact, the case has been strengthened since the previous discussion, given the climate emergency that we are facing. We hardly need look very far around the country to see the evidence of that.

Of course, we are also now leaving the European Union and embarking on a journey of considerable financial uncertainty for farmers and the wider rural community. That is why we need strong legislative commitments that guarantee long-term support for the environment and the climate, and financial certainty for our farmers. All that the amendment would do is make it a requirement to provide the financial assistance.

Other measures in the Bill are worded as requirements. Clause 4 makes the preparation of multi-annual financial assistance plans a requirement, while clause 17 obligates the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on UK food security. There are other provisions in the Bill where the power is a duty. The amendment would ensure that clause 1, which is pretty much at the heart of what we are talking about, has equal standing to other clauses. Shifting the power to a duty would rightly open the Secretary of State’s actions up to proper parliamentary scrutiny. If it is the law that the Secretary of State must provide finance for those essential activities, and they do not, they can be held duly accountable.

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, at this very exciting time for agriculture. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his broadly kind words this morning and for his acceptance that we have a great deal in common across the House, as we move forward in planning the next stages of food production, farming and other systems that we want to implement to make sure the environment is better protected. We have much in common in this area at the moment.

As a newbie to this Committee, I also welcome those who served before and who, as the hon. Gentleman said, did a great deal to improve the Bill, which appears before us today in a new, streamlined form. Clause 1(4) includes an important mention of the role of food production as part of what we do in our countryside. It makes it clear that encouraging the production of food in an environmentally sustainable way is necessary. That is one of the most important changes made to the Bill, and I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to standards. I am sure we will return to this discussion, probably next week, when we discuss imports and how that issue will be taken forward. I ask him to accept that my predecessor and I—and, indeed, many Government Members who are interested in agriculture—have always been clear that it is important that we are committed to the highest possible standards of food production. We want reasonably priced food, but produced to a standard of high ecological and animal welfare.

--- Later in debate ---

There is no doubt that the Government intend to use the financial assistance powers in clause 1. The new duties in clauses 4 to 6 will ensure ample opportunity for scrutiny. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying some of those points. She said that the Government aim to create as much certainty as possible. That is sadly not how it feels to many in the sector. Part of the reason for people’s concerns is that they wonder why some of this was not in the original Bill. That is why I keep returning to the underlying philosophical principles driving this. That is my concern and what has fed people’s worries.

Of course, we welcome the changes and improvements to the Bill. However, as I said earlier, Government Members raised questions 14 or 15 months ago. I suspect they will not necessarily be reassured by this. They would like to see something stronger, as we would. That is why—as this part of the Bill is so important—we will press the amendment to a Division.

I noticed—although I am not surprised—that the Minister did not feel able to respond to the observation from the British Poultry Council. Those are very strong statements coming from some sectors. I am of an age that I can remember the debates about manufacturing in the 1990s. I recall a visit that I made to one of the shoe factories in Norwich with the late, great Robin Cook. We were stunned to hear from that business that they had had a visit from a very enthusiastic Minister in the then Conservative Government to tell them, essentially, that they were not needed any more; the future was going to be different.

My concern, which is reflected by others, is that extraordinarily, in our great country, with its wonderful rural traditions, there is in some quarters a school of thought that sees the same outcome as a possibility for agriculture and farming. That is why we are so concerned and why we believe the powers should be strengthened.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned that the inclusion of the word “must” could open up the Government to judicial review from farmers who could make a sensible argument that not all the objectives are being fully funded? They could then revert to the courts to try to get that through. That is not what I believe the Government should be doing with the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I always listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, because he knows of what he speaks, but I wonder whether that is a slight red herring in this case. What he warns of could come about, but on balance I would say that that is a risk worth taking to strengthen the Bill. To me, the risks that I have just outlined are greater.

I have huge confidence in the future of the sector, but some ideologues in the world have strange ideas. I do not think that is unique to one party or another. I would just caution Government Members to be aware that they, too, have people with some interesting thoughts on their side. In my view, the country needs such people to be seen off. I suspect that there is, if not unanimity, then considerable cross-party support for that point. We want our agricultural sector to continue to thrive and prosper. Food production is a key part of that, and we want that strengthened in this legislation. On that basis, I will press the amendment to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert—

“(aa) supporting agriculture and horticulture businesses in enabling public access to healthy food that is farmed in an environmentally sustainable way, including food produced through whole farm agroecological systems”.

This amendment would add to the purposes for which financial assistance can be given, that of ensuring access to healthy food produced sustainably including through whole farm agroecological systems.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—

“(k) establishing, maintaining and expanding agroecological farming systems, including organic farming.”

Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 3, line 6, at end insert—

“‘environmentally sustainable way’ means in a way which employs factors and practices that contribute to the quality of environment on a long-term basis and avoids the depletion of natural resources”.

This amendment defines “environmentally sustainable way” for the purposes of clause 1(4) and Amendment 2.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Amendment 2 seeks to address two issues: what we consider to be a lack of proper emphasis on access to healthy food, and the missed opportunity to support whole-farm agroecological systems more explicitly. As I have intimated, for a Bill on food production, there is very little about public access to food and how the Government could support moving the sector towards producing healthy and sustainable food for our citizens. There is a nod to the broader issue of food security in clause 17, which we believe can be improved, and to which I will return.

This is a Bill about agriculture and public goods, and it is important to recognise that access to healthy, sustainable food is a public good, and one that should be eligible for financial support. I suspect that economists would go into technical detail about what public goods may or may not be. We believe there is a market failure in this country. We need to provide people of all income levels with access to fresh, nutritious food, no matter where they live. Last year, a study by the Social Market Foundation think-tank suggested that more than 1 million people in the UK live in so-called food deserts—neighbourhoods where poverty, poor public transport and a lack of shops and supermarkets are seriously limiting access to affordable fresh fruit and vegetables. That has clear public health implications.

We all know that we have rising levels of obesity, and we know about the strain that puts on the NHS. Only yesterday, we heard that record numbers of people are developing type 2 diabetes. I have already referred to today’s report by Sir Michael Marmot, which we should all feel anxious about. We also know that with rising food poverty, we are in the upsetting position of having more food banks than we have branches of McDonald’s restaurants—over 2,000. That statistic is frequently cited. There is an obvious opportunity here for provisions in the Bill to enable the Government to support the core production of food and food distribution in a way that facilitates access to healthy and locally produced foods at an affordable price. There is a clear need to boost our supply of fruit and vegetables, so that people can access food that is closer to home, more affordable, fresh, and sustainably produced. Provisions could facilitate community-supported agriculture and encourage local public food procurement. The Government could also be enabled to give farmers the support they need to reduce UK reliance on imported food. We will come back to the issue of the balance of locally produced and imported food.

If the Government are not convinced that some of this can be done, I invite them to visit my Cambridge constituency to see the innovative work led by Labour Cambridge city councillors Katie Thornburrow and Alex Collis, including community gardens in some of the new developments in Trumpington, on the edge of the city. These innovative pioneering schemes show that it can be done: they are a real opportunity to work with food producers, but are currently outside the scope of funding as a public good. This is not about returning to the common agricultural policy and simply paying farmers to produce food; it is about supporting public access to food that is healthy and local, and recognising that it is a public good in itself—with all the potential public health implications.

Amendment 2 explicitly allows for the provision of financial assistance to support food produced through whole-farm agroecological systems. The Government have made a move towards recognising the importance of agroecology clause 1(5) of the Bill by clarifying that financial assistance that farmers can receive under clause 1(b) for supporting a better understanding of the environment among the public includes a “better understanding” of agroecology. A “better understanding” is about education. It does not financially support the adoption of agroecological principles by farmers. In their written evidence to this Committee, the Sustainable Food Trust said that

“without adequately supporting the implementation of agroecology, it is merely rhetoric.”

In putting the maintenance of natural ecological processes at the heart of agricultural production, we know that taking that agroecological approach can deliver many of the public goods throughout the farming process identified in the Bill in an integrated way, not just in separated or reserved areas or only at the margins. These systems are geared towards using natural processes across the board to reduce the use of agrochemicals; encourage biodiversity; improve soil health; recycle nutrients, energy and waste; and generally create more diverse, resilient and productive agroecosystems, which we know we need. Sustain’s written evidence to the Committee highlighted that by adopting an integrated approach in this way, agroecological systems can deliver a “higher level of benefits”, with organic farms

“supporting 50% more wildlife than on conventionally farmed land, and healthier soils with 44% higher capacity to store long-term soil carbon.”

The report “Our Future in the Land”, produced last year by the RSA Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, recommended the design of a 10-year transition plan for sustainable agroecological farming by 2030, and the establishment of a national agroecology development bank to accelerate a fair, sustainable transition. Reports on sustainable agriculture produced by the UN high-level panel of experts on food security and nutrition in 2019 state that Governments should

“promote agroecological and other innovative approaches in an integrated way to foster transformation of food systems.”

The Bill is an obvious place for the promotion of that approach, which is now widely recognised. It should provide specific funding for farmers wishing to switch from conventional production to agroecological production. The support could be directed towards training farmers and providing capital grants for the infrastructure investments required to transition to agroecological farming systems, as well as significantly increased research into agroecological farming systems. It would create a funding mechanism for farmers currently locked into an industrialised production system through no fault of their own. We can help them adopt an agroecological approach that would speed the much-needed transition towards more sustainable methods.

Such funding could be made available at whole-farm level, to avoid the piecemeal approach of greening only the edges of fields, which risks creating isolated areas of biodiversity and retaining the deserts of intensive agriculture that we still too often see. It seems clear that a whole-farm approach should be at the heart of the new environmental land management schemes, some of the detail of which we will all enjoy over our lunch break.

--- Later in debate ---

When framing a financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State will consider the need to encourage food production in a sustainable way. That could include production in ways that minimise harm to the environment and reduce the exploitation of capital resources. However, it could also include production that protects natural assets and restores degraded natural capital. I ask hon. Members not to press these amendments.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We have had a good discussion pointing out some of the interesting trade-offs and tensions that we face as we look ahead. I was struck by the point made by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, because it seems there are potentially many unintended consequences of the changes that we are about to make. I absolutely understand his point about oversupply. All I would say is that if we are trying to tackle the climate crisis, we will have to manage the transition. That is one of the great challenges of the Bill.

A long time ago, I was a student of early modern economic history. The terrible crisis that faced farmers and communities was the constant problem of how people deal with dearth and plenty. Year after year, we saw populations across Europe struggling with that. I gently suggest that the post-war settlement, and the development of a system to try to manage that problem, was what the common agricultural policy was originally about. That is one of the reasons that we now have to change it and reform it. It was never set up to deal with the environmental challenges, although there have been attempts to reform it. The basic question of how we ensure that we have sufficient food for our population, and a decent return for those producing it and living in rural communities, does not go away just because it has not been a problem for a while.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible and considered point. My concern was that, in the same way as we strove to reduce our carbon footprint in the metallurgical industries by offshoring some of the production of steel and aluminium outside our country, we might see a risk. For example, it is virtually impossible to produce oilseed rape in an organic way; the weed pressure is such that it is almost impossible. We might find that we export production of oilseed rape to countries where that production is less sustainable, resulting in more carbon being burned and possible deforestation.

[The Chair]

Order. May I take this opportunity to remind Members that interventions should be short and to the point? There is plenty of time to make speeches in the debate.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful, Mr Stringer. I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. One difficulty we have in discussing the Bill is that the philosophical underpinning is somewhat absent. These big questions of what agriculture is for, and whether we are going to have a future, sustainable agricultural system, trouble many of us. As I said earlier, those issues do not go away. He made a very strong point, which many Opposition Members will return to, about the danger of effectively moving the environmental harm elsewhere. That is a key sticking point, which I suspect will be returned to on many occasions.

We want to ensure that we can manage a transition. I would like to see us get to a much more sustainable system. I hope that the discussions we are having provide a structure to allow people to make that transition. The danger is that it becomes more expensive, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out.

We may move to lower levels of food production in this country. That is a matter to be debated. Provided the standards elsewhere are good enough, from our point of view, it would not necessarily be the case that we would want to maintain the current levels. We will come to that when we discuss food security, no doubt. It is always tempting to say that we should continue as we are, because that happens to be where we are now. Looking ahead, do we think the world is safer than it was or not? Those are the questions worth asking.

Returning to discussion of the amendment, many of us would like to see much more local, sustainable production. People worry about food miles involved. Having rehearsed these debates in the past, I am sure there are transport experts in the room who will point out that it is not simple. Not being far away geographically does not necessarily produce a lower carbon footprint.

Those are matters that people rightly want to discuss and challenge. There is no better person to challenge those than my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, who displays a passionate knowledge. She has been bending my ear on this issue for the best part of two decades. [Interruption.] Sorry. That was when my hon. Friend was a very young person.

As is often the case, people are proved to be right. I am not sure that when my hon. Friend was embarking on those points two decades ago, everyone would necessarily have agreed or given her the space to make those points. She has been proved right. It is important to pursue the matter in the amendment. I take the Minister’s point that it might be possible to secure some support through the environmental land management schemes. Without wanting to sound like a broken record, it would have been a lot easier if we had had further detail on that earlier. That is why I think it is reasonable for us to keep pressing.

I understand that the Government did not have entire control over the political agenda in the past couple of years, but this has been done in the wrong order. The food strategy is really important, and we welcome it, but it just seems to be the wrong way round. The food strategy should be set first, followed by discussion on how to achieve it. We are in the curious position of trying to second-guess what is going to happen. Given that it may well be set in stone, as this is a key moment in agricultural policy, and may have to stand the test of time for 40 years, it is difficult to approach the matter in this order.

I fully appreciate what the Minister said about tackling poverty. From our side, every opportunity to tackle poverty is worth pursuing. It is a striking feature of too many parts of our country that the opportunity for people to eat healthily has been withdrawn from local communities. Sometimes, it is all very well to point the finger at individuals, but individuals can only choose from the choices that are offered to them. Ironically, it is not only in cities—in many villages and rural communities we have seen the absence of local shops. Of course, the market will do what the market will do unless we intervene.

Labour strongly believes in intervention. Where there are market failures, we want to respond to our constituents’ rightly held view that if there is no fresh fruit and veg in the local shop—as is too often the case—they are left with unpalatable choices because, as demand falls, it is hard for shopkeepers. What should we do? The amendments would give us the opportunity to provide support. I know that would not be welcome to market fundamentalists, and it might not be the most hyper-efficient way of producing food goods, but it produces something bigger, which is a public good—our people having access to the food that they deserve.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as I am here in my capacity as a Whip today. Does he agree that the time will come when people will look back on the Bill as a lost opportunity? We have not grasped this—the point of agriculture, as many farmers, including Members opposite know, is to grow food. Is this not the time to tackle food poverty?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is considerable enthusiasm in many communities to grasp that opportunity, if it is given. Many communities do not have the resources necessary to do it themselves, without some external help and support. This is exactly the opportunity to do that.

I will touch on the Minister’s initial discussion of how Environmental Land Management schemes may operate. We are all enthusiastic and want them to work well. I have rather enjoyed the images that the Secretary of State has occasionally conjured up of a cosy chat around the farmhouse table. I caution the Conservative party—I think country suppers got it into trouble in the past. Members opposite may want to reflect that not all farms are the same. I have often noticed over the years that the kind of farms I have been invited to are wonderful, astonishing places—the crème de la crème of our system. Not all farms, in my experience—I go back to my days as a rural district councillor in Norfolk—are like that. For many farmers, it is tough. As we know from the statistics, they are barely eking out a living in some places. I have never been entirely convinced that all those farms would be quite so welcoming to the agri-economist turning up to have a discussion. From their perspective, it may feel a touch intrusive, if they are told to make changes that they will find very difficult.

My cautionary note is that this may work well for some. I was challenged by the NFU to visit a farm in Cambridge, which my team originally thought would be a challenge. It turned out that we have a wonderful farm on the edge of Cambridge doing some fantastic work through many of the existing agri-environmental schemes. I am sure it will do very well under the new system. My worry is what happens to farms in other places that will find this much tougher.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 2

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 6

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert—

‘(ca) improving public health;’.

This amendment would add ‘improving public health’ to the list of purposes for financial assistance given under clause 1, with ‘improving public health’ defined in Amendment 35.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 35, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—

‘“improving public health” includes—

(a) increasing the availability, affordability, diversity, quality and marketing of fruit, vegetables and pulses,

(b) reducing farm antibiotic and related veterinary product use, and antibiotic resistance in harmful micro-organisms, through improved animal health and welfare,

(c) providing support for farmers to diversify out of domestic production of foods where there may be reduced demand due to public concerns over issues such as health, environment, and animal welfare, and

(d) reducing harm from use of chemicals on farms, and reducing pesticide residues in food;’.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 34.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The amendments cover a huge number of areas that could occupy us for many hours, no doubt. I promise I shall spare the Committee that. Greatly missing from the Bill, however, is the understanding that how we manage our agricultural systems not only has implications for the environment but for public health. What we grow and the support we provide for that affects the availability of healthy food, as we have already discussed. The current overuse of antibiotics to counter high stocking densities in livestock continues to be linked to worrying trends in levels of antibiotic-resistant diseases. Pesticide use can also have impacts beyond biodiversity on human health.

The Government’s White Paper “Health and Harmony: the future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit”, which prefigured the Bill, highlighted the key links between our agricultural and food supply systems and public health outcomes. Yet, as my predecessor pointed out, where has health gone in the Bill? It does not seem to be there, and we think it should be.

Amendment 34 would therefore include “improving public health” in the list of public goods for which farmers would be eligible to receive financial assistance. Amendment 35 outlines specific priority areas we believe should receive funding, including the key areas of reducing antibiotic use; reducing harm from the use of chemicals and pesticides, particularly pesticide residue on food; and increasing the availability and affordability of healthy produce such as fruits, vegetables and pulses to encourage healthier diets.

Reducing antibiotic use in particular is a clear global public good. We know that antimicrobial resistance is increasing across the world and that the United Nations has identified the overuse of antibiotics in farming as one of the biggest emerging threats to human health. In particular, routine preventive dosing of healthy animals with antibiotics has implications for the rise of potentially fatal viruses, and we have already seen outbreaks of viral diseases that have spread to people, such as bird flu and swine flu, which have been directly linked to intensive farming.

Over the last few years, our farmers have rightly cut back on using antibiotics. We appreciate that, but we believe that more needs to be done. We also think that moving outside the European Union and its rules has put a question mark over our position on that. At the moment, we have our UK voluntary standard produced by RUMA—the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture alliance—which requires farmers to avoid routine use of antibiotics, but we still do not have legislation banning the routine use of preventive antibiotics on groups of healthy animals in the UK.

The European Union has seen the light and has agreed to end the use of all routine antibiotic use, including group preventive treatments, by January 2022. So far as I am aware, however, we have heard nothing from the Government on whether we will follow suit. I would appreciate the Minister’s observations.

We believe that we need concrete incentives in the Bill to reduce antibiotic use now. I am well aware that farmers operate in a marketplace and need to produce food at affordable prices, and indeed at various price points. That is why we believe that help for people is legitimate when we want to make that change. Finance should be made available to support farmers to make those changes.

Surprisingly, as far as we can see, the Bill makes little mention of pesticides. We will discuss the need to monitor pesticide use in relation to the environment with a later amendment, but we all know that those chemicals can have an effect on human health. Last year, Soil Association research showed that reliance on modern intensive farming methods means that every day we are exposed to traces of potentially carcinogenic compounds left on fruit and veg. I suspect that we will return to such contentious points later, but some foodstuff tested by the Soil Association was contaminated with up to 14 different chemicals.

In the evidence sessions, we heard some of the difficult questions about the science of such issues, and I fully admit that it is contested. None the less, it is important. When we used to work under the precautionary principle, we were cautious about such things. According to the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food, pesticide traces were found in 45% of thousands of tested samples of food and drink bought in the UK in 2018, so it is a significant issue.

The potential implications of repeated spraying of pesticides in rural areas on the health of rural communities has also been well documented in the past, although I fully acknowledge that all farmers are cautious and careful, not least because of the costs involved—people do not do this willy-nilly—but, sadly, not always in ways that necessarily protect the adjoining rural communities.

[Mr Goodwill]

I understand that pesticide residues must be minimised, but is it not the case that the current generation that is living to ever-increasing ages, with more people than ever before at 100 years of age, is the first generation not to be brought up entirely on organic food?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to go back to the Marmot report. Sadly, not everyone is living to 100—not everyone necessarily wants to live to 110 or 120, of course—and the worry is that the increase in life expectancy appears to have stalled. However, he makes an important point. I am not one of those who thinks that life was so much better in the past. Most of us can recognise plenty to celebrate in the modern world and in the technological advances we have made, but alongside those advances we have learnt some of the downsides and unintended consequences of some of the things that we can now do. Perhaps we are at a point in time—to go back to this being a key moment in developing our policy for the future—to look at the decisions made 40 years ago to tackle scarcity and shortage. Now, we might be tackling a different set of problems. That is why the debate is so important, but the right hon. Gentleman makes an important contribution.

Going back to the potential issues with pesticides, in March 2017 the report of the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food highlighted the fact that chronic exposure to agricultural pesticides has been associated with several diseases and conditions, including cancer, developmental disorders and sterility, and that those living near crop fields are particularly vulnerable to exposure to those chemicals.

Again, I acknowledge that some of that is contested, but it would be unwise to suggest that there is no potential problem here. If we can find ways of reducing the risk, that is surely something to be sought. It is also the case that, while those who are administering the pesticides should use protective equipment when using agricultural pesticides and there are clear guidelines and rules on that, adjacent rural residents and communities do not necessarily have anything like the same protection—most do not have any protection at all—and there are still no mandatory measures in the UK specifically for the protection of those rural systems.

Alongside that, boosting our supply of fruit and veg is particularly important for public health, as we have just discussed, so that people can have access to fresh, sustainably produced fruit and vegetables closer to home. We know that low intake of fruit and veg is among the most important dietary risk factors for chronic disease, including heart disease and stroke. I am told that, sadly, only 31% of British adults and 8% of children currently achieve the Government’s recommendation of five portions of fruit and vegetables per day.

We are using far less of our agricultural land to produce fruit and vegetables than we could—only 1.4% in England, when the Public Health Policy Evaluation Unit estimates that we could be using up to 19% of land to cultivate crops of fruit and vegetables. Looking back, we had a very different mix in past times. This is part of the wider discussion about the extent to which we are part of a global trading system and want to import things that we could very well produce here. Again, it is part of the economic trade-offs.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was pleased to see mention of pulses in amendment 35. People often talk about fruit and veg, but pulses are not only good for the soil, in terms of fixing nitrogen, but an important part of a healthy diet. In certain parts of the country, including East Anglia, which my hon. Friend is very familiar with, they are a booming part of the agricultural sector. For example, for people who cannot handle gluten, there are pea-based pizza bases and things like that. I have spoken to producers about them. Does he agree that we ought to be pushing that as well?

[Daniel Zeichner]

As ever, I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. I am still chastened by one of the hon. Members opposite chiding me about my comments on eastern England at the evidence session, because I am very proud of eastern England, but I do reflect occasionally that the landscape has changed over the decades. We are very efficient food producers, but—there is always a but—there have been some costs to that in terms of environmental degradation. There is an opportunity, through these changes, to move some of that production to the kind that my hon. Friend is suggesting.

My guess, although I do not know for sure, is that many farmers would be quite happy to do that, because we know that farmers tend to operate within the rules that this place sets. That is why we have a responsibility to make that more attractive and to incentivise it, and not necessarily to make it attractive to carry on as we have done in the past. There is a real opportunity there, and I am sure we will talk further about diversification opportunities, but I must say that I worry sometimes about imagining that everyone wants to be diversified. Some people went into farming because that is what they want to do and they do it very well, and we should recognise that.

Going back to fruit and veg, the Public Health Policy Evaluation Unit’s written evidence to the Committee estimates that, if there were a gradual increase in land use for fruit and vegetable production to 10% of suitable land, fruit and vegetable intake could increase by around 3.7% and 7.8% respectively. That could prevent or postpone around 3,890 cardiovascular disease deaths between 2021 and 2030. My guess is that the science is not exact, but the drift of the argument is clear. There is an opportunity here, and I very much hope that, as we discuss the environmental land management schemes in more detail, we will be reassured by the possibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his considered amendments—I am enjoying his philosophical approach. I was brought up by a farmer who studied philosophy at university—he has joined us to watch—so the hon. Gentleman’s approach is one with which I am very at home. My first job for that farmer was selling plums at the side of the road, and the hon. Gentleman may have noticed that my Christian name is that of the best-selling plum variety.

I heard and agreed with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman said about fruit, vegetables and pulses. It is crucial that we recognise the many connections between agriculture and public health. DEFRA is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and others to ensure that we put the improvement of public health at the heart of everything that we do.

I spoke earlier about Henry Dimbleby’s independent review to develop a national food strategy, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for it. We hope that it will ensure that safe, healthy and affordable food is available to everyone, regardless of where they live or how much they earn. We are also investing significantly in schools, to promote physical activity and healthy eating, through various programmes, including the healthy start, the school fruit and vegetable and the nursery milk schemes.

Turning to the amendments and to support for fruit and vegetables and—as the request of the hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned—pulses, the UK enjoys a high degree of food security, which is built on access to a range of different sources, including domestic production and imports. Our climate means that, try as we might, we cannot grow everything here, so access to a range of food sources is important. Having said that, I love buying British fruit and vegetables, and I encourage others to do so.

The Bill will enable us to continue enhancing food security by supporting the adoption of new technologies to help producers and to extend our domestic growing seasons. Such an increase in domestic production could help to increase the availability of different foods throughout the year, reducing imports and leading to a reduction in prices for the consumer. Of course Victoria plums are the best, but many other plum varieties come to fruition earlier and later in the season. We may need to support such native species when considering financial assistance given under the scheme.

A joined-up and practical approach across Departments is required to tackle public health and food issues properly. That is beyond the scope of the Bill alone, but I reassure the Committee that we are committed to increase demand for and access to healthy food. One example is the school fruit and vegetable scheme, which provides 2.3 million children in key stage 1 with fruit or vegetables every day.

Subsection (1)(f) allows the Government to give financial assistance to protect or improve the

“health or welfare of livestock”.

We will use the power to develop schemes to tackle endemic diseases, which will support a responsible reduction in antimicrobials and other veterinary medicines and, through that, better public health. More needs to be done on antimicrobials, and the Bill provides the ability to give financial assistance to encourage good practice, but I also refer the hon. Member for Cambridge to the UK five-year action plan for tackling antimicrobial resistance. The Bill provides carrots—if I may use that term—but we also have regulatory sticks, as not everything can be provided for within that context.

The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of ensuring that farmers can make a choice to diversify and respond quickly and flexibly to market demand. Our intention through the Bill is to enable farmers and growers to improve productivity, better tap into market demand and provide new protections to first producers from unfair trading practices. That is particularly important for growers of high-value fruit and vegetables, who too often see produce returned by retailers and processors for no good reason—I was brought up hearing all about that at the farm table. The Bill gives farmers and growers the ability to challenge such practices.

On the use of farming chemicals and pesticides, we are already committed to protecting people and the environment from the risks that such products can create. Strict regulation already permits the sale and use of pesticides only where thorough scientific assessment shows that they will not harm people or pose unacceptable risks to the environment. The Department is carrying out a review of the national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides, which will focus on introducing integrated pest management and alternatives to pesticides. Some of that will come within the practices that we are trying to encourage in the Bill, but some will remain a matter for strict regulation.

We are already working hard across Government to tackle the issues raised in the amendment. I am confident that the Bill already provides broad powers to support further activity in these key areas, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I have listened closely to the Minister. In some ways, this goes to the heart of the problem in our discussion: the Opposition are raising a series of things that we think should have funding and support through the new system, and although £3 billion is small compared with the DWP budget, it is a considerable amount of public money, which in the past went directly to farmers. For many of them, the question is: how will the new system work? As I suggested—this point has been made not just by the Opposition but by senior Government Members—the idea is that the money will transfer over almost seamlessly, provided that farmers do a bit of this or that, but that is not necessarily how it cranks out.

While I absolutely trust what the Minister says about the Government’s abilities through the environmental land management schemes, I am sure she understands why there is concern. That is why we want this detail in the Bill. Again, the point has been made before by Government Members that, in future, there may be less rural-friendly Ministers, who may be tempted to look at the budget line and think, “Well, given that the local school is struggling and the local health service is struggling”—the Minister knows entirely what I am talking about. This needs to be nailed down in the Bill.

I appreciate the difficulty the Minister has, because I suspect she probably agrees, but that is why we think it is necessary to set out these various public goods to protect them. It has been said to me by farmers that, actually, farmers do quite well under Labour Governments, so I do not suggest that there will be any problem down the line. However, not everyone necessarily will always be as sympathetic, so it would be very much in the interests of communities—particularly those that many Government Members represent—to take a safety-first approach and tie down these public goods.

This is our opportunity to make it easier for farmers, as they go through this difficult transition, to access the money that the Government have promised will be available during this Parliament. My concern is that some of them will find that money not very easy to access, so why not widen the scope so that, where they can see things they could do with some help and support for—transferring production to pulses, fruit and vegetables, for example, or tackling some of the difficult issues around pesticide use—they are enabled to do them? This goes back to economics. Essentially, we want farmers to be able to survive, but if they are disadvantaged in any way, they will struggle. Why not use the resource that is available in a way that farmers can understand and that will help them?

We urge the Committee to support amendment 34 for that reason, but also because it would send the right message about these public health issues. I represent an area with a strong life sciences sector, and antimicrobial resistance has been brought to my attention constantly since the moment I was elected four and a half years ago. It is difficult. I lose track of Prime Ministers, but the Prime Minister before the one before the current one—David Cameron—had Jim O’Neill do a lot of work on this issue. I think there is cross-party agreement about it; it is not a party political issue. It is a real concern and a real worry, and I am in no doubt that farmers also worry about it. However, market pressures—I keep returning to the same point—dictate that people do certain things. We must therefore act to mitigate those pressures and to provide help and support. We are in the slightly unusual position of having a £3 billion budget. Normally, one has to make the argument, but the money is there; the question is how it will be accessed and used. What better use could there be than tackling some of these big public health issues?

I probably should have intervened on the Minister to ask about schools support, but I was still ruminating over what she was saying—I think I was stuck on Victoria plums. It is not entirely clear to me that the Bill will allow some of that money to be utilised in that way. I guess we will not know until we get down to the detail of the environmental land management schemes, but we would like to make it clearer, as we seek to do throughout this process, not least because that would give farmers the certainty that the Government rightly say they want to give them.

On that basis, I am afraid that I would like, yet again, to press the amendment to a Division. We think it is of considerable importance.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I do not necessarily agree that all burning should be banned outright. Some low-level burning is not necessarily as harmful to the environment as the hon. Lady suggests. We can agree on the importance of peatland as a place to store carbon, and the importance of working together to ensure that peatland is restored and improved.

I move on to our £90 million industrial strategy challenge fund—the transforming food production initiative. Through this fund, we support industry-driven research and development to move agricultural systems towards net zero emissions. It has some relevance to the point made by the hon. Member for Newport West. It is important for us always to be open-minded and able to look at evidence. Everything we do must be evidence-based in this important area. This investment will support the development and adoption of advanced precision technologies and solutions to boost the efficiency of our agriculture. It will help to ensure that we produce high-value food in a way that maximises productivity and environmental performance.

The original drafting of the clause enabled the Secretary of State to give financial assistance for the purpose of

“managing land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change.”

We envisage that these objectives will be delivered by a broad spectrum of activities, and therefore all agricultural or horticultural activities that contribute to this purpose would already be within scope of funding support under clause 1(1)(d), as drafted. I hope that I have demonstrated that we already have the powers in the Bill to cover the proposed content.

[Daniel Zeichner]

On that point, the concern shared by many of us since the previous Agriculture Bill is that the climate emergency seized all of us and yet there is no net zero target. The National Farmers Union say 2040. What is the Government’s view?

[Victoria Prentis]

The Government legislated for net zero emissions, and in doing so we decided not to make sector-specific targets, but we absolutely support the NFU’s ambitions. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman watched “Countryfile” at the weekend, but there was an interesting piece on agricultural emissions that mentioned both livestock practices and the keeping of nitrogen within soil. This debate, as he says, is not really partisan; we do not have different passions for this. We need to work carefully together, always looking at all the evidence, with improved support for research and development, which the Bill absolutely provides for. I hope that we will be able to meet the NFU’s exacting targets.

Agriculture Bill (Sixth sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th February 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Sir David. First, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. My point of order is straightforward. We are happy with the Government’s response to our concerns about the publication this morning of the “Environmental Land Management” policy discussion document, which I am sure we all read over lunch. We were concerned that we would not have been able to table further amendments, but my understanding is that the Committee will adjourn once we finish debating clause 1 and we have been advised that it will be possible for us to table amendments for consideration on Thursday. I am grateful for that sensible solution to the delay.

[The Chair]

That is the most sensible point of order I have heard for a long time. I understand that the policy paper relevant to the Bill was published earlier today, and I have it in front of me. It is helpful that that document has been made available to the Committee as it considers the Bill, and I hope that Members will be better informed as a result.

The hon. Member has answered his own question, but he asked whether fresh amendments, on points arising from the policy paper, may be tabled for debate on Thursday, even though the usual notice period will not have been observed. I have spoken to Mr Stringer, and we are prepared to use our discretion to consider any such amendments for selection for debate in the Thursday morning sitting, which Mr Stringer will chair. However, we will consider selecting amendments only if they meet three criteria—namely, that they arise from the policy paper; that they apply to a part of the Bill that the Committee has not yet considered; and, most importantly, that they are tabled before the rise of the House today. There is no wavering on those criteria.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Thank you, Sir David. I am grateful for the good sense that has prevailed.

[The Chair]

There will be a Division in the House at 4 o’clock. If there is only one vote, as I suspect will be the case, we will adjourn for 15 minutes and return at 4.15 pm.

Clause 1

Secretary of State’s powers to give financial assistance

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 1, page 2, line 17, at end insert

“, including measures to improve the standard of accommodation for farrowing sows”.

See explanatory statement for NC12.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 41, in clause 53, page 43, line 35, at end insert—

“(ca) section [Sow farrowing stalls],”.

See explanatory statement for NC12.

New clause 12—Sow farrowing stalls—

“Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 of the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 shall be omitted.”

This new clause and Amendments 40 and 41 would end the use of sow farrowing crates (subject to a delayed commencement) and add improving the standard of accommodation for farrowing sows to the purposes for financial assistance in Clause 1.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Amendment 40 relates to clause 1(1)(f), on

“protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock”,

and would ensure that farmers receive financial assistance to improve the standard of accommodation for farrowing sows. New clause 12 and amendment 41 would end the use of sow farrowing crates, subject to delayed commencement at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The provision in clause 53 means that the ban outlined in new clause 12 would not come into effect immediately when the Bill becomes an Act, but on such day that the Secretary of State makes a statutory instrument to that effect.

That is all totally incomprehensible to most people, but, taken together, the amendments and the new clause would allow for a phasing out of farrowing stalls and make available resources and finance to support farmers with the capital costs of that process, as well as those who take interim measures to improve the conditions of farrowing sows. I suspect there will be widespread support for that aim, but I fully appreciate that this is a contentious subject that has been well rehearsed on other occasions. The public take the issue seriously and we would all like it to be achieved over time. As I have said on many occasions, it is a question of ensuring that the resource is available for people to make changes and to not be disadvantaged by competition elsewhere.

To give some background, although sow stalls that kept pigs caged for the entirety of their pregnancy were banned by Labour in 1999, it is still permitted for female pigs to be kept in farrowing stalls for seven days before they give birth and until the piglets are weaned. That can result in sows being caged for up to five weeks at a time. If they farrow twice a year, that means that they spend up to three months a year in an extremely restricted space. It may be called a crate or a stall, but it is effectively a cage. The crate length is such that the sow is only able to lie down or stand up. The standards state that the space should not allow excessive free movement. Before anyone jumps in, I will come to the reasons for that in a moment.

The sow is often completely unable to turn around. She can scarcely take a step forwards or backwards, and she cannot reach the piglets placed next to her for suckling. I am told that 60% of the 350,000 to 400,000 sows in Britain are kept in such crates to give birth. We know that keeping pigs caged in that way causes distress and leads to repeated bar biting, and it limits the pig’s ability to exhibit important natural behaviours, such as nest building.

Trapping the animal in that way also creates a breeding ground for diseases. E. coli in newly born piglets often presents in conditions where the mothers have been moved into farrowing crates to give birth and suckle their young. We know that is not done out of cruelty; it is done because keeping a mother restrained prevents the death of piglets by accidental crushing. We would argue that that in itself is a direct consequence of high-intensity farming techniques. In normal conditions, in the wild, the mother pigs would make effective nests and have the space to keep the piglets safe.

As with so much in this area, the research is contested, but robust studies suggest that there is clear evidence of a significant difference between the mortality rates of piglets reared in crated systems and those reared in loose housed systems. There are also other systems, which I shall come on to. The individual farrowing arks or huts used in the outdoor systems of organic farming are deep bedded with straw. There are many examples across eastern England.

Although piglet morality rates can increase in extremely cold and wet weather, UK figures show that outdoor systems can rear largely the same number of piglets as farrowing crates. Good production figures have also been attained from the so-called Swedish group system, where each sow has her own box to farrow in and can leave her piglets and carry out normal activity.

We contend that there are alternatives, though we fully appreciate that they are more expensive. The industry rightly points out that consumers buy at different price points and that producers respond to that demand. We understand the economics but, as I said earlier, this is an opportunity to use public money for public good.

This issue has been debated many times in this place over the past 20 years. We rightly pride ourselves on pursuing higher animal welfare standards, but other countries are already ahead of us and have moved on to alternative systems. I am told that Norway, Sweden and Switzerland have already banned farrowing crates and that free farrowing systems are being developed in other European countries, particularly Denmark and the Netherlands.

In response to animal welfare concerns, the Soil Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals already prohibit the use of farrowing crates under their labelling systems. This is another example of this country’s multi-tiered system of food production, with food being produced at different prices for the consumer. The question is how we can lift standards while protecting the interests of farmers by making it economically viable.

Back in 2015, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee’s report on free farrowing systems recommended taking action to encourage the replacement of farrowing crates, and called for the adoption of free farrowing systems to be reviewed in five years. Well, 2015 plus five is 2020—it is five years later. We contend that the Bill is the perfect opportunity for the Minister to make it clear that financial support for higher animal welfare includes specific provisions for farrowing sows in relation to such crates.

We recognise that it would be a challenge for the industry. As I have said, a ban would need to be phased in with financial support, which is what the amendment would provide for. Back in 1999, when sow stalls were rightly banned by the Labour Government, it is undeniable that that had an impact on the domestic pig industry. We contend that Government support for alternative systems is vital to encourage a switch, while protecting the UK pig sector.

The flipside, of course—this will be a repeated refrain—is that we have to ensure that any home production of pigmeat to higher welfare standards is not simply replaced by imports produced in other countries that continue to use such stalls. It is important that we protect all our animal welfare standards, and that in upcoming trade deals we do not sell out our farmers by allowing lower-standard imports. We will insist on provisions being added to the Bill to guarantee that, and will seek to amend it later to guarantee against that danger. In the meantime, we urge the Minister to consider this important clarification to the Bill to allow financial support to improve pig welfare, specifically in relation to such restrictive crates.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I would not argue with anything the hon. Member has said. We all wish to have the very best welfare standards for pigs in this country. Indeed, the Red Tractor label assures customers that very high standards are being met. My only slight caution is that history might repeat itself, and the law of unintended consequences may come into play. Members may well recall that when veal crates were banned in the UK, the result was that calves were flown to Holland and elsewhere to be turned into veal under the very systems that we wanted to ban. Owing to single market rules, we could not ban that movement.

Similarly, when dry sow stalls were banned in 1999, there was an erosion of the British pig market, particularly by such countries as Denmark and Holland where dry sow stalls were still being used. Indeed, most of the EU still allows dry sow stalls from up to four weeks after service to birth, when in some cases they may be put into farrowing crates as well.

My concern is that, were we to act unilaterally through legislation, we could end up having more pigs coming into the country as imports. It is all very well saying, “Let’s ban the importation of pig products not produced to our high standards.” It would be very difficult to ban imports from the European Union given the degree of reliance on that market and the cross-border trade in pig products. The different parts of the carcase that are consumed in the UK and in Europe mean that there is a vibrant market in different cuts of meat, to meet those particular markets. Were that to be destroyed or undermined, it would cause great problems for the British pig industry.

Of course, if we had more pigs coming into the country from abroad, that would mean more castrated pigs. In the UK, only 2% of pigs are castrated. In Sweden, the figure is 94%, in Denmark 95%, the Netherlands 20%, Germany 80%, and Spain 20%. It could, in effect, result in more pigs coming on to our supermarket shelves and into our restaurants and cafés produced under systems that we do not wish to see in this country. Surely the answer is not legislation, but better consumer awareness of those production methods, better labelling, and better understanding of the labelling systems, so that supermarkets and customers, who would be enlightened, can do what we did regarding battery cages, which was to get people on to free-range eggs not through banning batteries but by consumers understanding that it is right to make choices based on animal welfare.

Although I agree with what the hon. Member for Cambridge said about trying to improve standards, I note that he made the slight caveat that at certain times of the year, particularly at the moment, some of our outdoor farrowing systems result in quite high piglet mortality. I have seen piglets trampled into the mud in the quagmires in outdoor systems. That aside, we should look at how we can move the industry into a better place, particularly in terms of farrowing crates, but without allowing our market to be eroded by other countries, particularly in the European Union, that do not have the same high welfare standards as us. I would not like to see history repeating itself in terms of what happened with veal crates and dry sow stalls in 1999.

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

It is particularly good, Sir David, to be discussing animal welfare provisions with you in the Chair. A certain amount of consensus has broken out again in Committee. The Government are a world leader in animal welfare and we are absolutely committed to retaining that status by strengthening our standards. However, we would say that this amendment does not make any legal change to the powers set out in this Bill and is therefore not a necessary addition. Financial assistance can already be given and is provided for under section 1(1)(f) in order to protect or improve the health and welfare of livestock. That includes schemes for improving the accommodation of livestock, including farrowing sows.

The Government’s aim is for farrowing crates no longer to be necessary, but it would not be right to end the use of such crates without examining all the evidence around their use and considering all the options. It is important to recognise how they protect piglets, for example. The hon. Member for Cambridge talked about that. Alternative farrowing systems in indoor production are being developed all the time—I have heard about some high-tech solutions with moving floors—which need to be investigated fully. They will be expensive to install, but that may well be a price worth paying. As the hon. Gentleman said, the public is broadly with us on that. It may well be the sort of public good for which the public is keen to pay, assuming we have sufficient transparency in our systems to ensure that they understand that that is what is happening.

The UK has led the way in improving the welfare of pigs. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the banning of close confinement stalls in 1999. While approximately 60% of UK sows farrow indoors, it is not always the case that they spend the full length of time that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in such crates. We hope that farmers would be able to work to much shorter periods of time. The remaining 40% of sows are housed outside and able to farrow in much more natural conditions. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has funded recent research into alternative farrowing systems and the Farm Animal Welfare Committee has provided expert advice on this issue.

As part of our ongoing commitment to animal welfare, we are developing a scheme that aims to improve farm animal welfare in England. We are exploring a one-off grants scheme that will help farmers to improve welfare on farms, for example, by installing new equipment. We are also exploring a payment by results scheme whereby farmers could receive ongoing payments for developing specific animal welfare enhancements. The Animal Welfare Committee, industry and non-governmental organisations will have their say on the welfare outcomes that are financially supported. For pigs, this could easily relate to improved enrichment opportunities to root; improved housing; and tail docking, which has not been discussed today.

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I have kept extremely free-range pigs at home in the past. They are so free range that they have, on occasion, wandered off around the village. While the Bill aims to support native breeds, it may well be that the pigs kept exhibit such behaviours. Our most difficult experience was with iron age pigs, which are one-quarter wild boar and do not seem to view fields as any sort of captivity.

We are constantly reviewing our legal standards as part of our commitment to animal welfare. A new welfare code for pigs, which includes guidance on farrowing has been produced, is available online and comes into force on 1 March. I think the Committee will broadly welcome paragraph 158, which says:

“The aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets. Where the sow is confined in a farrowing crate, it should be large enough to accommodate her and to allow her to rise and lie down without difficulty and should be easily accessed in an emergency.”

It goes on to give further specific details.

To my mind, that is an excellent way forward, and the owners and keepers of pigs will have to be aware of and abide by it from 1 March. That is one example of how we continually update and review secondary legislation under the animal welfare legislation introduced in 2006. The Government share the public’s high regard for animal welfare and intend to use the powers in the Bill to reward farmers for improving a number of animal welfare issues. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I will not withdraw the amendment.

In a way, the Minister conceded something important—that clause 1(1)(f) shows that resources can be used, which I am sure will be welcome to some. However, the clause also points to some of the general difficulties in the Bill. The pig sector benefits only indirectly from support under the current system. The clause rather suggests that money will be moved around the system, and I wonder whether everyone is aware that there will be winners and losers as a result. As we all know, one generally hears from the losers, not the winners, but that is a problem for the Government, not me. I am pleased about that concession, but I do not quite see why the Government could not actually do themselves some extra good by making the positive benefits specific, as we suggest. I encourage them to do that.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. I was chided by one or two of my colleagues for agreeing with him too much earlier, but I disagree with him robustly now, in a civilised way. He makes an important point about where responsibility for these decisions should lie. We have been trying with labelling over many years, and he is right that it has proven more successful in some areas than others.

However—this is probably a fundamental philosophical division between us—I think that putting the onus of responsibility on individual consumers is problematic, not least because, as we heard the evidence sessions and in written evidence, it is pretty clear that many people subscribe to notions of higher standards until they get into a supermarket and are confronted with price differences. I suspect that many of us in this room are now in the fortunate position of being able to make an informed choice and not worry so much about the price, but for vast numbers of our fellow citizens, price is still a key driver. For many people who would probably like to support higher standards, if the price is too high, they have no choice.

We want not to take that responsibility away from people, but as with so many other things, to make it easier for them to make the right choice; in other words, to exclude the low-cost alternatives. I am not an economist—it was suggested earlier that I might be, about which I am partly flattered and partly not flattered—but there is clear evidence that, if standards are lifted, industries respond and prices begin to settle. This is a case of needing leadership. We have done it before. There are consequences, but we have public money to spend, and it could well be that the public would actually be very happy that we offered this kind of support, which would to some extent get them out of that price dilemma.

It is a bit like the dilemma around the smoking ban. I lost track of the number of smokers who told me that they were delighted that, basically, the ban made it easier for them to give up smoking, because the Government had intervened. That was during the last Labour Government, and I remember Tony Blair being very nervous about suggestions that he had offloaded responsibility on to local councils, which did not go down well. In the end, it needed cross-party leadership—it has to be something supported across the House—to make it easier for people to make the right choice. It is a judgment call.

[Mr Goodwill]

In many ways, the hon. Gentleman is enlarging on my argument, given that when we banned dry sow stalls consumers chose to buy the cheaper pork and bacon produced in Holland and Denmark, where a was not in place. It made the problem worse in many ways because those consumers made those choices.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The right hon. Gentleman is making my life much more difficult and I am going to have to be horrid to him again. Yes, in one sense, he is correct, but that is the challenge. Throughout this, if we do not find ways, whether in trade agreements or whatever, to protect—and it is protect—our higher standards against lower standards, we are lost entirely. That will be a recurring theme throughout this debate. I do not think it is beyond the wit of hon. Members to find a way of doing that. The right hon. Gentleman may disagree with me, and that will probably be a fundamental point of difference.

I have two final points to make: first, I do not think it is fair to offload the responsibility entirely on to consumers. We should take the lead. Secondly, we need to take the lead on making sure that we can protect our higher standards. That would attract considerable support across the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I think the hon. Lady and I are dancing around the same issue, which is that the ambitions do not need to be mutually exclusive. We absolutely believe that producing food and managing a sustainable environment can and should go hand in hand. Improving productivity is normally about improving efficiency by using less energy and fewer pesticides to produce the food that we eat. Greater efficiency can also mean using less land, so that other land can be freed up for other purposes such as tree planting. I share the hon. Lady’s concerns, however I feel that her amendment would restrict our ability to offer financial assistance in the most effective way.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East has raised a very important point. The lunchtime reading of the ELMS policy discussion document prefigures further discussion on this. It is a shame that we were not able to have our earlier discussion in the light of some of these points. To a number of us, on first reading, tier 1 does not look sufficiently ambitious, in many cases, and it feeds exactly into my hon. Friend’s point that there is a worry that we will not get the environmental gains that we thought we would. That will be of concern to many. I wonder if the Minister could clarify that point.

[Victoria Prentis]

At the moment, I cannot set out how the ELM scheme will work. That will be worked on, probably by all the people in this room, very carefully over several years, before we come up with the final scheme, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman absolute assurances as to what will happen.

I can say, however, that we added clause 1(4) because we wanted a clear requirement—partly because of the work of the previous Agriculture Bill Committee—on the Secretary of State, in framing any financial assistance scheme, to have regard to the need to encourage food production in an environmentally sustainable way. I hope that I have provided some reassurance about how we intend to use the powers in clause 1 so that productivity is improved in a sustainable way that does not undermine the other purposes in the clause. I cannot go further than that at the moment. I ask the hon. Member for Bristol East to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I appreciate why trying to get the balance correct is a difficult dilemma, but it is crucial that we do so. We are not satisfied, frankly, that we are getting the clarity that is required. We understand that this is a framework Bill, but much more detail is required to give certainty, so—I may be speaking on behalf of my colleagues here—we would like to push the amendment to the vote.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am afraid I am not satisfied with the Minister’s reassurances and would like to push the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 1, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

‘(4) In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to—

(a) the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and its production by them in an environmentally sustainable way; and

(b) the need to ensure that all farms and horticulture units, including those smaller than five hectares, can access financial assistance.”

The key point in the amendment is paragraph (b), which deals with the need to ensure that all farms and horticultural units—including those smaller than 5 hectares —can access this financial assistance. In 2014, the then Secretary of State ruled that a farm needed to be more than 5 hectares to receive direct payments. The decision to increase the limit from 1 to 5 hectares excluded one in six English farmers during the transition from single to basic payments.

During the oral evidence sessions we heard evidence from Jyoti Fernandes at the Landworkers Alliance that the threshold resulted in smallholders being at a serious disadvantage. In designing any new scheme, the threshold should be scrapped. Every farm, no matter what its size, has the ability to deliver the public goods listed in clause 1. The farms and horticultural units showcased in the latest Landworkers Alliance report, “Agroecology in Action”, illustrate what they can achieve in terms of encouraging biodiversity, building soil health, replacing agrochemicals, mitigating climate change, integrating communities and enhancing economic resilience. Earlier we discussed the need to bring food production closer to communities. Often, it is the smallholdings that do that. They also tend to have higher levels of employment than conventional farms. A 2017 study of agroecological farms smaller than 20 hectares found that they employed 26 times more workers than the UK per hectare average. It would be a huge mistake to exclude them from financial assistance.

It was good to see from DEFRA’s press release today that

“anyone from any farm or land type”

can participate. Will the Minister confirm that “any farm or land type” means farms smaller than 5 hectares?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I echo my hon. Friend’s comments. It is important that small farms are not left out of this legislation. As she said, in the evidence sessions we heard compelling evidence from the Landworkers Alliance that farmers on smaller holdings have been much disadvantaged to date by the current payments system due to the 5 hectare threshold, which cuts those with less than 5 hectares out of the system for getting payments. I was surprised to hear that 85% of its membership had never been able to get support for their work. We know why: back in the previous iteration of discussions, there was concern that small firms would not be subject to cross-compliance. That is my understanding. That was possibly a reasonable position to take, although I suggest that the answer to that is that there should be proper and appropriate checking and verification.

Precisely for the reasons that my hon. Friend has explained, we will support the amendment. We need to include many more people in the system and to make it far more likely that they will be able to benefit from it.

[Victoria Prentis]

It should have been obvious from my previous comments that I am a passionate smallholder, so I listened to what Members had to say with considerable interest. As I have said, I cannot promise exactly how the ELM scheme will work going forward, but I hope I can provide sufficient assurance in the rest of what I say. Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to design agricultural, horticultural and forestry schemes in a way that best reflects our circumstances and allows us to deliver the best possible outcomes.

As my predecessor said, we are determined to work with industry to co-design the new schemes and ensure we get them right. In determining whether there should be a minimum size threshold for eligibility, we will need to weigh up the benefits that can be delivered by small land holdings—benefits that I recognise—against the administrative costs associated with managing agreements, as the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned. We need to ensure that the different schemes provided under ELMS provide value for public money.

Detailed eligibility criteria will be established for ELMS as soon as the schemes are developed, working with stakeholders. I can only apologise, because I do not have all the answers at the moment. This will be a very complicated, new set of schemes, which will take many years to develop.

I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Bristol East to clause 1(2), which is reflected in the press release she mentioned. It provides a power for financial assistance to be provided in connection with

“starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity”.

The power clearly does not put any restrictions on the size of holding for which financial assistance can be provided. We will be designing our future schemes alongside industry in a way that delivers the best possible outcomes. I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 1, page 3, line 13, after “kept” insert “or managed”.

In clause 1(1)(d), reference is made to

“managing land, water or livestock”.

The amendment would change a reference later in the same clause to keeping, not managing, creatures. My worry is that relying on the word “kept” may exclude some of the most environmentally beneficial land uses, where birds or mammals are to a greater or lesser extent wild and thus, by definition, not kept.

I have a number of examples, such as the Chillingham wild cattle in Northumberland. The herd, of about 100, has not been touched by human hand or been seen by a vet for more than a century. They are certainly not kept, but the environment at Chillingham Castle is managed for the benefit of the many species and birds that thrive there.

Wild ponies also carry out important land management tasks. I have had ponies on my own farm from the Yorkshire Exmoor Pony Trust for a while; they carry out a great role in managing the land. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I have done in previous sittings—I am a family farmer myself.

Most importantly, we should recognise the importance of game as an integral part of many rural economies and ecosystems. Some species, such as pheasant, may well be kept for part of their life, when they are reared in captivity, but once released, they become free to range far and wide. Many shoots—I would suggest the more enlightened ones—do not artificially rear birds and strive to create the conditions for wild birds to breed. Those birds are never kept, but the management of the necessary ecosystem and environment would certainly not be in conflict with the wider public goods we seek to create, using this Bill as a tool.

The same argument must certainly apply to grouse, which cannot be reared in captivity. Managing moorland for the benefit of grouse not only favours other ground-nesting birds, such as golden plover and lapwing, but also the sustainability of sheep farming on our grouse uplands. They can only go hand in hand together if the moor is managed correctly.

According to the BBC “Countryfile” website, the UK’s deer population is at its highest level for 1,000 years, at around 2 million deer of the various species. Numbers have doubled since 1999. That has an impact on crops, wildlife and, in particular, forestry. The Forestry Commission estimates that the damage to plantations and commercial woodlands in Scotland amounts to £4.5 million per annum. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals estimates that around 350,000 deer are culled each year. In the absence of natural predators such as lynx and wolves, culling has to be carried out to maintain a stable population and prevent damage. In the main, those deer are not kept, but managed, and they may range over more than one landowner’s property. Deer management is vital to meeting our objectives.

There was some confusion during the evidence sessions about whether game was within the scope of the Bill. I would argue that it is vital that the definition of livestock in the Bill must include game species, which produce some of the most sustainable and healthy food available to consumers. The amendment would clarify that, to encompass not only creatures that are “kept” in the strict definition of controlling virtually every aspect of an animal or bird’s existence, but the production of healthy and sustainable game products in an environment that is managed to produce many of the public goods that we wish to reward, and sustained economically by the income from that game.

Of course, I strongly criticise the situation that we have read about in the press where game is dumped and not eaten. In some cases, I understand that game had been breasted, so the breast meat had been removed, but from an environmental perspective and from a food waste perspective that is not an acceptable practice, and I would criticise it. We need more promotion of the healthy game produced in our country, and we need more websites, such as the one that my son went on recently—I think the wives of the people on small shoots got sick of plucking and drawing pheasants, and made the game available free of charge locally. That is just the sort of website that we want. I also pay tribute to YouTube, which has some excellent opportunities for people to learn how to skin rabbits and prepare game in their own kitchens.

I hope that the Minister will recognise what I have said, and reassure me that the amendment may be withdrawn. I look forward to hearing that game is food and should be within the scope of the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I was intrigued to discover the direction in which the amendment would take us; I probably should have known in advance. It gives me an opportunity to have a genuine disagreement with the right hon. Member, because I think many of our constituents would be astonished at the idea of sporting shooting being considered a public good, in terms of putting public money in, although I recognise that for some Members that would be legitimate.

Again, it points to the whole new world that has been opened up by taking the pot of money that used to go directly to farmers based on area. We are now facing up to some really quite hard decisions about the kind of world in which we want to live. I have to say to the right hon. Member that for many constituents, I suspect in my seat and many others, it would not seem an appropriate use of public money. Although that may cause disagreement, that is what we are here to resolve. I do not think that the Opposition will be able to support the amendment.

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank my predecessor and right hon. Friend for his amendment. I believe that he wishes to ensure that we are being comprehensive in our coverage of the word “livestock” in clause 1. I, too, am keen to ensure that we cover everything that we need to in the Bill.

Good management of livestock is a key part of delivering the public goods that we want to support in our future agricultural policy. That, of course, is reflected by the purposes listed in clause 1. Under subsection 1(f), the Secretary of State will be able to support action to improve animal health and welfare, reduce endemic disease and keep livestock well maintained and healthy. The plan is that not only will that deliver better animal health and welfare, which itself can be considered a public good, but through addressing endemic disease we can also deliver other public goods, such as lower antibiotic use and lower greenhouse gases, due to less intensive livestock production.

Subsection 1(g) will enable us to provide financial assistance for measures to support the conservation and maintenance of UK native genetic resources relating to both rare breed livestock and equines, into which category I suspect Chillingham cattle very firmly fall, and indeed Exmoor ponies, whether or not they are to be found in Yorkshire—that confused me somewhat, but there we are. The measures could be used to incentivise farmers to rear rare and native breeds and species. That is undoubtedly, to my mind, a public good and the sort of thing that we are trying to achieve.

Game such as wild pheasants and partridges, while kept in captivity, would come within the definition of livestock and could be eligible for support, where they are kept for one of the purposes mentioned in clause 1 and its definitions of livestock. As my right hon. Friend said, grouse are not reared in captivity, so I cannot see how they would be covered. However, once the birds are no longer in captivity, following their release into the wild, they are classed as game. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to class them as farm poultry or livestock.

That legal position is supported by the definitions used in animal disease control legislation and the Game Acts. Farmers, after all, cannot be considered responsible for birds that have been released into the wild.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank the hon. Lady for drawing attention to the importance of peatland and the peatland habitats that we are lucky enough to have in this country. The protection and improvement of all soil is key to a sustainable agricultural industry that helps in our commitment to tackle climate change and deliver on multiple public goods.

Peatlands have an important role in this commitment. That is why the Government have committed to publishing an England peat strategy and announced the creation of the lowland agricultural peat taskforce. These will focus on the protection and improvement of England’s peatlands. In addition, we are currently funding £10 million worth of peatland restoration in England between 2018 and 2021.

The current drafting of clause 1(1)(j) enables the Secretary of State to give financial assistance for “protecting and enhancing the quality of soils”. The clause is not restrictive and will enable all soil types to be included, not just peatland. Ample provisions in clause 1 will allow us to protect peatlands. For example, clause 1(1)(d) includes,

“managing land or water in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change”.

That could certainly allow support for peatland restoration. Such provisions would allow for the management of land to restore peatland habitats by more than just the soil if it is within the Government’s strategic priority to do so. This could be achieved through the new ELM scheme or research into other sustainable practices.

By specifying a habitat, rather than a soil type in the definition, the amendment extends the scope of clause 1(1)(j) beyond that of soil quality. Healthy peatland habitats are reliant on factors beyond soil, such as biodiversity and water. Therefore, DEFRA believes the inclusion of this definition is inappropriate and unnecessary. As I have just mentioned, promoting the health of these habitats as a whole is within the scope of an earlier section of clause 1.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I understand why the Department wants maximum flexibility, but we want some action, because we have been waiting a long time for these promises. In fact, I think on the last day of the last Parliament, at DEFRA questions, the Minister in the Lords promised action, so when are we going to get some action on banning peat burning?

[Victoria Prentis]

The hon. Gentleman is definitely getting action. I set out earlier what is being done to preserve peatland at the moment: £10 million of peatland restoration is definitely action, in my book. What I do not want to do is clog up—that is not a technical term; I am trying to find a soil-appropriate word—a definition of “soil” with something that happens in part above the soil, which is why I am resisting this amendment. The Government are committed to the importance of preserving peatland, but we need to ensure that all our soil types are protected by the part of the clause that is concerned with soil.

I hope I have reassured Opposition Members that we recognise the vital role peatlands play in helping to deliver on our agricultural and environmental commitments, and that there is no requirement to single out peatland in the soil provision of the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020 Financing, Management and Monitoring of Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. It is also a pleasure to welcome the Minister to her place. I am sure we will spend many happy hours together discussing these points in the coming weeks. She is well placed to do so as a farmer and an experienced lawyer, and I am sure that she enjoyed as much as I did spending the recess reading EU regulations 1307/2013, 639/2014 and so on. For those hon. Members who are hoping that our sitting will be quick, I am afraid I did read those regulations, and I would not want all that time to be wasted. It struck me that things do not seem entirely oven-ready or “got done” at this point; it will take a little time. However, I must pay tribute to those who drafted the regulations before us, who, quite frankly, must have the patience of saints.

I was also struck by some rather understated humour that emerged at some points, particularly in the explanatory memorandum that accompanies these regulations. If you do not mind, Ms Nokes, I intend to go through points raised in it before going into the detail of the regulations. Those who have read the explanatory memorandum will notice how it quickly becomes a complicated explanation, particularly of how this legislation interacts with EU retained law. By the time one gets to paragraph 2.5, one reads:

“As a result, existing law would either be unclear or would not function effectively.”

That it could be unclear is potentially an understatement, but we will try to develop clarity, as that is why we are here.

The memorandum goes on to talk about the danger of potentially “inoperable provisions”. In paragraph 2.9 it describes the regulations as the “appropriate legislative ‘fixes’”, which

“will maintain a status quo position”.

Of course, on Second Reading of the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, the Opposition pointed out exactly that: the first act after exit day was to keep the status quo. We understand why that was necessary—because of the unfortunate delays in bringing forward legislation—but all of these measures would be unnecessary if we already had the Agriculture Bill in place.

We do not have to go much further through the explanatory memorandum to find yet more problems. In paragraph 6.3 the dreaded concept of equivalence pops up, when we are made aware that we need to maintain equivalence to continue to benefit from state aid exemption rules. I suspect we will talk much further about that in the coming weeks.

We learn in paragraph 6.6 that the regulations are laid under powers in the 2020 Act, which basically provided for the Secretary of State to do what is necessary to make this stuff work. One wonders how many more measures will be needed to sort out what is a considerably complicated set of proposals.

If one was beginning to think it could not get any worse, paragraph 6.8 points out the further difficulty—I will return to this in my detailed account—that different rules apply for January. Until exit day, EU law applied, but retained EU law relates to the whole of the claim year, including January. This may not be for today, but at some point it may be helpful for the Minister to explain how anybody is going to be able to work out exactly how this works. A potential infringement on 31 January may well be treated differently on 1 or 2 February. That could well be quite complicated; all I observe is that it would be good times for lawyers. This was supposed to be about giving certainty, but as Labour warned on Second Reading, some of this may be difficult to sort out quickly, and by the middle of this year farmers will be wanting to make decisions for next year. As we have said, we worry that far from giving certainty, this process will carry on for some time yet. In paragraph 7.8 of the explanatory memorandum, there is a glorious phrase:

“The Government remains committed to beginning ambitious agricultural reforms”.

I am sure that will reassure lots of people. “Remaining committed to beginning” is hardly encouraging.

Turning to annex 2 of that memorandum and looking at the detail of the SIs and the pieces of EU law that they amend, further concerns arise—again, some of this will be discussed in detail later. The Minister made this point tangentially in her introduction, but basically, we will withdraw a level of scrutiny from the whole process by taking out the EU level. Many people, of course, will be delighted by that—they will be cheering—but huge sums of public money are involved here, and we need to be sure that appropriate mechanisms are in place to replicate some of that scrutiny, although not necessarily the bits we do not like. The Minister may be confident that those mechanisms are in place, but not everyone has total confidence in the Rural Payments Agency, or feels it has the necessary resources in place to do this extra job. I seek some reassurance regarding that.

It is also striking that we are now outside the EU crisis reserve. To laypeople, that would look remarkably like moving out of an insurance system and into an uninsured position. Of course, we may well think that that is fine because we have the full weight of the Treasury behind us, but the basic point is that if we are part of something bigger, we are pooling the risk. Obviously, we hope that reserve is not needed, and some of the money is on the way to coming back to us, which is fine. However, we should at least be aware of what we are doing.

I will now move on to the detail, beginning by looking at Regulation (EU) No. 1307/2013—I apologise to Members who do not have the full details at their fingertips, because this will possibly be a little tricky, but that regulation is the legislation that SI 91 amends. I have to say, I have had a crash course in learning how the CAP works; in a previous life, I used to do local government finance, and would joke that the only thing that was more complicated was the CAP. I have come to regret that particular line now.

What struck me about Regulation (EU) No. 1307/2013, which was the EU’s attempt to improve the CAP last time around, was just how much of what the EU was trying to do was the same as what we are now trying to do. The preamble talks about the absolute necessity of reducing administrative burdens, and about tackling abuse. Interestingly, it also talks about the ability to transfer funds between what, in EU jargon, are described as

“the first and second pillars”.

Broadly speaking, that means the opportunity to put more money into environmental goods, which is exactly what we want to do. It is striking that in England, when the Government had the opportunity to exercise their full discretion to move to 15%, they chose not to do so. Without reopening past debates, it is worth noting in passing that we have not exercised the full flexibilities that were available to us.

As the Minister has said, many of the changes made by the SIs are simply changes to wording. I am sure it would be wonderful to do a replace all, changing “member state” to “relevant authority” and so on, but alas, it is never that simple. In the more pernickety points that I will get to in a moment, I will point out some areas that do not make sense to me, where those changes have not been made. Those may, of course, be minor drafting errors, or there may be reasons for them. It would be useful to tease out why those decisions have been made.

I suspect that we will come back to the active farmer debate another day, possibly even tomorrow. However, I ask today why we are deleting the reference to granting payments to airports, rail, water services and sports areas in article 9.2 of Regulation (EU) No. 1307/2013, and replacing it with a much more general provision. I believe it has been discussed in the past, but some clarification would be helpful. I do not expect the Minister to know the answer to all my questions instantly. If she is unable to reply today, I would be perfectly happy with a written reply later.

I do not understand why the article 28 provision on windfall profit has been deleted. There are many paragraphs on the regional and national reserves. The term “regional reserves” is not to be understood in the way that many of us would understand it. I ask the Minister for some details on the reserves and how they will be used in the future. It does not seem entirely clear. The point I am making throughout my remarks is that, although the top-level message is that nothing changes, as we dig down into the detail we begin to find that it is not quite as straightforward as it seems.

In article 43, which is an important set of paragraphs, the EU sets out something not dissimilar from the work that we will do going forward. The EU tries to define the agricultural practices that are beneficial for the environment and the climate, with a series of details in annex IX. I return to my point about who will check all of that. It seems that we are potentially now checking our own homework.

Turning to the second instrument, which amends Regulation (EU) No. 639/2014, it is not entirely clear to me why articles 62, 63 and 72 have been left in, and there are one or two articles where the “Member States” amendment does not seem to have been made: articles 16.2 and 33. In article 45, I do not see the logic in detailing the list of pollen and nectar-rich species when land is lying fallow. There may be a reason, but it is not clear to me. Perhaps more significantly, article 45.5 changes—I would say weakens—the rules on governing the sizes of buffer strips. There is no reason to believe that there is any desire to weaken them, but as I read the legislation it potentially will do so.

Moving on to Regulation (EU) No. 1306/2013, article 9 talks about certification bodies. I think that this matter has been controversial in the past. Again, I seek clarification from the Minister on where the Government think that we are going. It looks to me like a potential change. Articles 12 to 15 on farm advisory systems are effectively deleted, which seems significant. I would welcome some reflections on the impact of that. Article 29 is a detailed account of how the exchange rate issues would have been dealt with, which are of course potentially very important for people. We do not know how the currency will go this year, but it will make a significant difference and the provisions have, obviously, been taken out.

In a number of places, I do not understand why articles have been retained: 30 to 39, 65 to 66, and 79 to 91. Within those, there are references to “Member States”. I suspect that they should have been taken out, but I may be misreading them. Article 46 includes a reference to article 42, which seems to have been deleted. Article 97 goes to the heart of the claim year issue and the complexities around January. Again, some detail would be welcome. It is not clear to me why in Regulation (EU) No. 907/2014 articles 3 and 4 have survived, nor why in Regulation (EU) No. 908/2014 articles 16 to 24 and 45 to 57 have survived.

We are told that nothing has changed, and that this is the status quo. I think I have demonstrated that that is not entirely the case because, as we look into the detail, we find tweaks and changes. I am not sure that we understand what the exact impact will be on the way in which the schemes will work, but it is our duty to at least ask. I hope that we get clarification on some of that. Who knows? We may at some point get the long-awaited policy paper on how the new systems will work, which I think was promised for the Second Reading and Committee stages. If it turns up in the middle of the night it will be no help to many of us, but we look forward to it with relish.

Agriculture Bill (Third sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 13th February 2020 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

Q What about the so-called greening rules? When those were introduced, environmental non-governmental organisations said that that was greenwashing and farmers said that it was green taping. Perhaps both were right, in that it has not delivered much, if anything, for the environment and it is responsible for about 50% of all the guidance that we have to issue. Do you take the view that it is better just switched off altogether, so that we do not have the crop diversity rule and do not have the ecological focus area rules, either?

John Davies: I would say that it is very difficult to farm in a prescriptive way. We have a real challenge this year with the weather, which will cause real issues around the three-crop rule, so we need to be flexible in our approach there, because it is simply not practical in some areas at some times. We need more flexibility.

Dr Fenwick: We agree entirely. Something that is aimed at certain types of farms has actually had an impact on the types of farms that it was not aimed at—I am talking about the impacts of greening. Indeed, that has been recognised across the EU. The European Commission is undertaking the same process of looking at greening and how it should be improved, and has taken steps in that direction. I think it is universally recognised as completely disproportionate.

Tim Render: We would be happy to look at that in the light of the consultation responses we get.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Q Good morning, Mr Stringer, and good wishes to those on the Government side who may have a nervous day ahead—we wish you well. My question is one that we have put to other witnesses before. We are obviously very concerned about the potential threat to farmers if food is imported that was produced to lower health and welfare standards. What is your view on that and what do you think could be done about it in the Welsh context?

John Davies: We have a very clear vision and ambition to lead the world in producing the most climate-friendly food, and that is to be realised with proper policy and proper support going forward. Obviously, it would be a disaster if that were then undercut by food production systems that are illegal in the United Kingdom, so we would be deeply concerned about the opportunity there and we would like to see that much more strongly identified in the Bill and ruled on.

We welcome the comments that a number of you made during the Second Reading debate. Also, Liz Truss, International Trade Secretary, said last week:

“In addition, nothing in any agreement will undermine the Government’s commitment to tackling climate change.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 15WS.]

We lead the world with our commitment to net zero by 2040, so we look to that being honoured. That is an absolutely key statement to us going forward.

Dr Fenwick: In clause 36, which relates to organic products, subsection (5) makes it clear that it is possible to restrict or prohibit the import of organic products. That will be legislated for once the Bill becomes an Act. We would have expected an equivalent paragraph or provision relating to other production standards to have been incorporated in the Bill. It is there for organic, yet it is not there for all these other issues and in particular the key issue that John raised—our environmental and climate change obligations.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

Q On that last point, I would be interested to know whether any of you have had discussions with farmers’ unions or equivalent bodies, or Governments in other countries, in anticipation of the new trade arrangements that might be put in place. Do you detect any appetite to break into the UK market and in particular any willingness to adapt farming practices abroad in order to access our market? We represent a very big market for these countries. Do you think those which currently produce food at standards we would not accept might be prepared to develop better practices so that they can access our market?

John Davies: If we take America to start with, there is real hunger to access the UK market, but they are pretty adamant that their standards are the standards and that they work on equivalence. Obviously, we would have deep concerns about that for a number of specific aspects. Other countries are more flexible and will look to change, I guess, but I think it needs to be written in absolutely, in black and white.

Dr Fenwick: It is clear from the leaked trade talks document that came out in November—which we assume are valid—that there is that appetite. It seems to provide evidence that that appetite is there. We also know that from the defensive position taken by scores of countries when the UK and the EU first agreed how certain issues would be balanced—in those few areas where agreement was reached—in terms of the splitting of our quotas as regards New Zealand lamb and Australian products. The objections submitted then to the World Trade Organisation by these countries make it clear how important we are as an existing trading destination for them and as a potential destination.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Q If we tried to return to a general principle of more sustainable farming practices and husbandry, but recognising that the majority of farmers will probably want to stop short of becoming fully organic, could certain things be borrowed from organic production—traditional approaches to farm husbandry that could be deployed in more conventional farms? Or is it your view that nothing works unless you go the whole way to be fully organic?

Gareth Morgan: No, I would not say that. That is why there is increasing use of the term “agroecology”, to suggest that there is a more inclusive approach to sustainable farming. Organic is a great codified way of doing that and guaranteeing to the farmer and the consumer that the farmer is following a particular practice, but agroecology is wider in the sense that it incorporates practices such as mixed farming, where there is a mixture, or ruminant livestock and arable so there is a natural fertility cycle. It incorporates a focus on reducing pesticides—it would be fantastic in the Agriculture Bill to have some target for the reduction of pesticides as an aspiration—and a focus on leguminous plants, to increase nitrogen naturally, to avoid the use of artificial nitrogen. We are going to have to wean ourselves off artificial nitrogen at some point if we are to meet our carbon targets, because we have not found an alternative way to make it. All those practices can be incorporated into conventional farming systems.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Since the earlier iteration of the Agriculture Bill, there has been wide acknowledgment that we face a climate crisis. As part of that, although clearly different in different parts of the country, there is a crisis around our soil, is there not? Could you say a little about how intense that is?

Gareth Morgan: There is a soils crisis, which is expressed in a number of different ways. It is probably slightly alarmist to talk about a certain number of years of soils left, which is quite graphic and gets people engaged in the topic, but that will be different in different places. Soil can regenerate, so we should not look at it as a one-way trajectory of decline; we know ways in which soil can be recovered. The decline in organic matter in soil is a key dimension of that crisis.

The other big element of soil health that has been neglected by the environmental side as much as by the farming side, is biodiversity in soil. I assume that is as simple as the fact that it is below the ground, and therefore you do not see it. I heard an interesting statistic the other day: in a typical sheep field, the weight of creatures underneath the field far exceeds that of the animals on the surface, whether as simple as worms or down to bacterial and fungi. The problem is that, because we do not see it, it is not that immediately obvious to us. It becomes obvious through things such as feeding birds in the winter—the number of lapwings on the fields. If there are no invertebrates in the fields, there will not be birds above them. Getting back to a sense of the biodiversity of soil will be a good way to re-engage with it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I guess many of us would say that there is a need for urgency, but farmers find themselves caught in the middle, don’t they? There is pressure to change—the Bill is part of that change—but is there not a danger that if we have food imported to lower standards, that will put farmers under even more economic pressure?

Gareth Morgan: I absolutely agree with the latter point. We may come on to the issue of trade equality later in the discussion, I imagine. There is simply no point in us exporting our production by forcing up standards here when we are importing products that are produced to low environmental and climate-change standards from other places. We urgently need to find a way to address that, because the tsunami of change that is about to hit farming in this country will not be able to withstand that, so we have to find a way of addressing that issue.

I do not think that should be used as an excuse for not starting to tackle some of these big crises, such as the soil crisis. It would be useful in the Bill, for example, for the food security provision to talk about things such as soil as part of food security. At the minute, it is very focused on economic factors. If we do not sustain the simple biological and physical nature of farming over this period, we will not have food security. That is one place where it would be useful to put this in the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q What would you like to see put into the Bill, in terms of the imported food standards issue?

Gareth Morgan: I do not think anyone has found a simple solution to this, other than a protectionist model, which is what we are trying to get away from. The most interesting example I have heard is talk from Dieter Helm at the Natural Capital Committee about some kind of carbon border adjustment. It would seem ridiculous for us to import products from countries that are not signed up to the Paris treaty and may be subsidising fossil fuels for their farmers in order that they can produce cheaply, and for those products to be on the market in this country, going against products that properly factor in the carbon price. It is not going to be easy to get around, but we cannot duck it. A number of groups have put forward potential amendments to the Bill to try to address some of that, and that also needs to be reflected in the trade Bills. Just ignoring it, as is being done at the minute, is not satisfactory for our farmers or our environment.

[Danny Kruger]

Q I represent the waterlogged Wiltshire farms that you passed today. Given your point about different soils in different places, are you confident that, in the emerging policy about public good payments, we are getting the balance right between farming practices and outcomes? The detail is not all there yet, but are you concerned about getting that balance right?

Gareth Morgan: I think the Bill is a good step, in terms of providing the toolkit to give farmers the financial assistance to provide some of those public goods. The environmental land management scheme seems to have got quite bogged down over the past couple of years because it has been trying to get round this issue of working to more outcome-focused schemes, rather than just prescriptions for farmers, but there is a reason why we ended up doing prescriptions, although they are very frustrating for farmers to work to, because it is a list of rules that you have to follow and that is not a very creative way of doing things. The reason we do that is that you can audit them and specify them, even if it is a bit rough and ready, whereas saying to a farmer, “We would like to see 10 pairs of skylarks on your land. You decide how you do it,” is quite open-ended and not that helpful to the farmer. Hopefully, ELMS is the place where we will find a way of reconciling those two conflicting priorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Q There was another area of the Bill that I wanted to ask your view on. It is further on—there is the clause relating to organic, principally marketing, standards. That is, in essence, the primary powers that we would need to amend the organics regime that we have inherited from the EU and that itself is about to change.

Are you content with the revised organics regime that we are about to inherit from the EU, as it stands, or would you be interested in us using these powers to make specific changes that might make the future UK organics regime work better?

Gareth Morgan: That is a little bit off my area, so I will not speculate too much. The Soil Association is only one part of a very broad organic movement, so there are a number of players who, I think, will want to come back. I think the general feeling was that the provisions in the Bill provide the right enabling starting point for creating a domestic structure around organic regulation.

The one concern that I have heard expressed is that, given we have quite a collaborative model for developing organic standards and lots of players in this country, building that level of engagement with the various players and consultation into that process will be important. At the European level, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, or IFOAM, has been involved in the ongoing development of organic regulation. We will clearly need to have something similar at a domestic level to ensure that everyone, from the farmers to the certifiers to consumers, has a stake in the development of the regime.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Two questions: first, in some of your evidence you have suggested that there should be a public health aim within the Bill, and I wondered whether you could tell us a little more about how you think that might work. Secondly— you have touched on this a bit in some of your contribution—who do you think is best-placed and qualified to negotiate and administer the new environmental land management schemes? Are there any potential conflicts of interest in that set-up?

Gareth Morgan: Taking the first point, it does feel that there is still a gap in the policy and legislative architecture in agriculture. We have “Health and Harmony”, which sets out a good, new, broad trajectory for agriculture, and we have quite a technical, nitty-gritty enabling Bill here in terms of saying, “Here are the tools that can be deployed to achieve things.” At the moment there is not anything knitting all that together to say, “What are food and farming for? Do we have any sense of what the right model might be?” I suspect that is perhaps a bit of a legacy from having had the CAP, which was a prescriptive and sometimes flawed model of European farming. We have almost moved away from that to being afraid to say we have any preferences at all. We have a series of tools and a broad aspiration that farming should be good for the environment, and then the market does the rest.

The reason for putting down a marker on public health was to say that food and farming are not just about a commercial transaction; it is of huge national importance whether people have secure and healthy food supplies and access to the right sort of food and whether the farmer is able to get a just return from the market. Some of those things are touched on in the Bill, but it almost feels like there needs to be something right at the front of the Bill to say what all this is for, as opposed to, “What should we pay farmers for and how?” It feels a bit too fast. That does not necessarily have to come in the Bill, but it has to come somewhere, to our mind. Again, that is where we would say that a presumption in favour of a move to a more agroecological way of thinking about farming probably would sit. Equally, it is the place where the national food strategy would fit in to say that food is more than just a market transaction for consumers.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q You said a little about the environmental land management schemes, but who is best placed to administer and deliver those?

Gareth Morgan: I would tread very warily in that minefield.

[Daniel Zeichner]

You do not have to answer if you do not want to, but the fact that you are treading warily tells us what we need to know. Thank you.

[George Eustice]

Q On that point, you made a reference earlier to the need for advisers. You will be aware that the concept behind the future policy is that there will be an individual agronomist—possibly from the private sector, possibly from groups, perhaps even from your group or the Wildlife Trusts—who would be accredited by the Government to help farmers put schemes together and to walk to the farm and sit down around the kitchen table to do that. I think I am right in saying that the Soil Association already accredits organic producers and growers, probably under a similar model. I wondered if you might explain how that process works. How many clients—for want of a better term—can an accredited Soil Association adviser look after in a typical year?

Gareth Morgan: I should first say that other certifiers are available—for example, our colleagues in Organic Farmers and Growers. It is a competitive market. I am not from the certification side of the organisation and so I will follow up with written evidence on that point, if that is acceptable.

Agriculture Bill (Fourth sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 13th February 2020 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

Q We have set out in this Bill a seven-year transition for England, from 2021 to 2028. I suppose it is possible that the Scottish Government might say, “We will keep the current system with a few minor simplifications until 2024”, but then ditch it overnight and go straight in one leap to a new system. Do you envisage a sharper transition than seven years, or have the Scottish Government made clear that they will definitely not do things faster than seven years?

George Burgess: No, I do not think so. The Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill, which implements the stability and simplicity approach for the period between now and 2024, is currently before the Scottish Parliament. I have mentioned the future policy group, which aims to bring forward proposals by the summer of this year. That is the point when we will begin looking at the transition—things that may be piloted between now and 2024—so we are definitely not looking at a sharp cliff-edge transition in 2024.

Hopefully within that time period, we will gain a clearer understanding of our trading regime with Europe and the rest of the world. At the moment, it is frankly quite hard to work out what we should be doing with sectors such as sheepmeat, given that we do not know what the situation with our largest export markets will be.

Jonnie Hall: A number of interests in Scotland have suggested that there should be a sunset clause in the piece of legislation that Mr Burgess has referred to, so that it comes to a definitive end in 2024. However, we would not agree with that, because it would potentially create a cliff edge where we would go off the stability elements that we have talked about and into the unknown. We want to avoid that; we need to be able to adjust to and reflect on the circumstances of the time, and it is right that the Scottish Government have the ability to do so under the legislation that is going through the Scottish Parliament.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Q Good afternoon. I think Mr Clarke alluded to this point briefly earlier, but I will ask all of you, as I have asked most of the witnesses: what effect do you think allowing imports of food produced to lower environmental welfare and health standards will have on Scottish consumers and producers and, most of all, on the Scottish environment?

Alan Clarke: It would be a disaster for the Scottish red meat industry. The Scots were pioneers of quality assurance. Scotland was the first country in the world to set up whole of life, whole of supply chain quality assurance, and that gives a unique selling point to our world-class products of Scotch beef PGI, Scotch lamb PGI and specially selected pork. For any diluted product to come to market and be able to compete directly—as far as I am concerned, that has no place on the supermarket shelves.

George Burgess: I suspect you will find a very large measure of agreement at this table. The Scottish Government are very concerned at the prospect that future trade agreements could allow for a dilution of standards.

Jonnie Hall: It is also worth adding that the produce of Scotland—commodities is the wrong word—is not about, “Stack it high, sell it low.” We are not going to compete on world markets. We are not a volume producer. We are based on the authenticity and the provenance of our product, and the welfare standards and environmental standards behind that. If we expose Scottish agriculture to cheaper imports of substandard production methods and so on, we will blow large sections of Scottish agriculture out of the water. That will have significant impacts on the agricultural industry itself, but also, more importantly, on the wider issues around rural communities and the environment and habitats that Scottish agriculture underpins with its extensive grazing systems and so on.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Paragraph 21 of the written evidence from NFU Scotland touches on the complicated question of the governance of common frameworks. We had the same discussion with representatives from Wales this morning. How do you see a way forward on that? It seems that divergence is inevitable at some point, and yet it needs to be managed.

Jonnie Hall: It is quite clear, in many ways, in the sense that the development and delivery of agricultural schemes and policy, in terms of what outcomes we want to achieve from managing our land in an agricultural sense, should absolutely be devolved, and is today. However, when you are looking at the operation of the internal UK market, we need to be able to operate to the same rules in a very transparent and open way across the United Kingdom.

Our worry and concern is that a lot of the discussions from outside of the Government appear to be about common frameworks, but we are unsighted on that. We are not seeing what common frameworks might look like. More important to me is the governance of those common frameworks going forward. Like or loathe the European Commission, at least it acted as some sort of referee when it came to compliance with regulation, standards and so on across member states and within the UK. If we are going to preserve the internal UK market, as Alan Clarke has pointed out is so important to Scottish agriculture, we need to ensure that we are all playing to the same rulebook on a whole range of issues. We are unsighted on an awful lot of that. We are still trying to flush out of Governments—plural—the actions and discussions that are going on.

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Q I do not know whether I need to restate my interests— I once worked for the UK farming unions, including NFU Scotland—but I will do so, to be on the safe side.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Morris]

Q What do you think about the public good provisions in the Bill, and to what extent do you think they are correctly defined? Is there further scope for the definition of public good?

George Monbiot: I think it really important to tighten the definition and to stick with, basically, the classical definition of non-rivalrous and non-excludable. There is potential for slippage within the wording of the Bill, for example into food production that does not fit the definition. We should basically also be funding public goods that are additional and which are not going to be delivered anyway.

We should be very careful not to use subsidies as a substitute for regulation. There is a real danger in saying, “We will put all this on a voluntary basis and we will pay people to do the right thing,” rather than saying, “You may not do the wrong thing.” I feel that there have already been a lot of failures in monitoring and enforcement of cross-compliance under the current subsidy regime. If we are not careful, we could see those failures become a lot worse.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good afternoon. Since the Bill was introduced a couple of years ago, the world has moved on in some ways. There is greater awareness of the challenge that we face, and the Government have conceded that there is a climate emergency. Do you think that the Bill is up to the task and, if you started with a blank sheet of paper, what would you do?

George Monbiot: One of my aims would be to reduce the area of land used for agriculture. All agriculture is a radical simplification of ecosystems, until you get to the point at which it is so extensive that it is not really agriculture. The Knepp Castle Estate, for example, is a wonderful example of rewilding, but I worked out that if we were to universalise that across much of the UK, we would need to cut our meat consumption by about 99.5%—that is not a great example of agriculture. Until you get to that level of extensification, you are really removing huge numbers of species and a huge amount of potential carbon storage that would otherwise be there.

In this country, we suffer grievously from what I call “agricultural sprawl”—large areas of land used to produce small amounts of food. It gets to the point at which, for instance, sheep farming in the uplands, according to my estimates, occupies roughly 4 million hectares—almost as much land as all our arable and horticultural production put together—yet produces roughly 1% of our food by calories and roughly 2% by protein. That is a remarkably wasteful use of land, which could be much better used for carbon storage through regeneration and rewilding, and for the great resuscitation of ecosystems and the recovery of our very put-upon wild species.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I have one additional question that has not come up very much. We talk about public goods and public money, but should there be some public voice in all this, for any decisions about what goes on locally? Where are the people in all this?

George Monbiot: That is a very good question. The Bill discusses both natural heritage and cultural heritage. Both are very important values and neither should be dismissed, but there is an assumption in a great deal of rural thinking in Britain that they are one and the same. We have to acknowledge that they are often in direct conflict. Maintaining sheep on the land is highly damaging to ecosystems, but getting rid of sheep farmers can be highly damaging to local cultures and languages. We have to see that a balance should be struck.

We have so often fudged the issue, the classic example being the world heritage bid in the Lake district, where they were assumed to be one and the same. It is always resolved in favour of farming, because farming is assumed to be good for ecosystems, but in the great majority of cases it is not—the best thing to do for an ecosystem is to withdraw farming from it. But because we do not acknowledge that there is a conflict, we do not produce a balance that ever favours wildlife.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Mr Monbiot, you are on record as saying that

“farming is no longer essential to human survival”.

In contradiction to what the Soil Association told us this morning—that we should have more mixed farming and more livestock, allowing soils to be improved by the use of natural manures—you suggest that we should abandon livestock production, particularly on the uplands, and plant trees and rewild large areas of our country. Is that a correct appraisal?

George Monbiot: That is broadly correct. One thing to say is that in the uplands there is almost no mixed farming. In fact, it would be very hard for mixed farming to be established in the uplands, which are very unsuitable on the whole for arable. In the lowlands, if we were to reintroduce mixed farming, at the microlevel that could be a very good thing by comparison to the arable deserts of East Anglia, but we would see a major decline in total yield. There is very little research on what that decline would be, but everyone can more or less accept that we will see that decline.

The global conundrum we are in is that roughly half the global population is dependent on NPK, to put it crudely, and certainly on nitrogen and other artificial fertilisers. If we were to take those out of the system, we would have mass starvation—huge numbers of people would die. However, we are aware that applications of N, P and K and others are causing global disaster: they contribute significantly to climate breakdown, soil loss, downstream pollution, air pollution and a whole load of other issues. We cannot live with it and cannot live without it. We are in an astonishing and very difficult conundrum. If we were to switch—as the Soil Association recommends and as my instincts would tell us to do—to mixed rotation or organic farming, we would not be able to produce enough food. It is as simple as that.

How do we get out of that conundrum? I see some hope in factory-produced food—microbial protein and cultured meat. That could be the only way of reconciling environmental needs of future generations and the rest of life on Earth with the need to feed people alive today and in future. We need to find ways of feeding the planet without devouring it. That could be the way.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Morris]

Q The Bill makes provision for Ministers to report periodically on food security. What do you think about that? What other food security measures might you want to see?

Professor Keevil: To my mind, food security is the supply of wholesome, nutritious, safe food. Within that the key issue is safety. There has been a lot of discussion this afternoon about whether the UK can provide its own food. If it does not, we have to rely on imports. What is the veracity of checking the safety of those imports?

We made a short written submission to the national food survey—it may have been circulated to you—in which we talked about the microbiological safety of food, particularly from the processing point of view. It deals in particular with the chlorination of food, which has become a very contentious issue in how the UK sees its future trading relationship with countries that use that practice. Currently, the UK follows EU law, with the standing position being that they dislike chlorinating food. Their perspective is not that chlorination poses a toxic chemical risk if you ingest the food; they are more concerned about animal husbandry. As a microbiologist, I would go further and ask the question that most people have ignored until now: does chlorine actually work? Our published research shows that, in fact, it does not.

For more than 100 years, we have relied on the gold standard of examining a sample from patients, the environment or food by culturing it and growing samples in a Petri dish on a nutritious agar medium. If anything grows, something is still alive; if nothing grows, by that definition, everything must be dead. Our research and that of other groups around the world shows that that is not true; it tells us that the current methods of analysis, which help us set the standards, are not rigorous enough. We have to use modern molecular and biochemical methods, which are available, but which, by and large, have not been adopted so far.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good afternoon, Professor Keevil. When I came to this debate a few weeks ago and started reading about it, I found the apparently contradictory claims about the safety of the various systems confusing. I was struck by your evidence, and I wondered if you could take us through it. You say at one point that it is difficult to make comparisons, but I must say that in most of our debates people make comparisons with huge amounts of confidence, depending on which side of the debate they are on. You also say that the USA reports that 14.7% of its population contracts a food-borne illness annually, while in the UK the figure is 1.5%. Could you amplify that?

Professor Keevil: As you rightly say, when we look at the data, depending on the source, it can be difficult to interpret because of the way it is recovered. For example, in the USA, they report on infections, some of which are assumed from the evidence they have available. If you look at the reporting of the numbers of pathogens in American produce, such as poultry, they report it in terms of the answer to the question, “Does the food contain more than”—for example—“400 counts of a pathogen per gram of food?” In the UK, the Food Standards Agency reports in terms of “low”, “medium” or “high”. National surveys such as sampling from supermarkets, for example, show that 50% of poultry have very low numbers of pathogens such as a salmonella; only about 5% or 6% have food samples with over 1,000 counts of a pathogen. By those criteria, UK foods appear to be safer—but, I must stress, according to those criteria.

As I say in the written evidence, we now have this vexed question of viable but non-culturable—VBNC—bacteria. When looking at some of the published data, it is very difficult to take that into account, but the work that we and other labs have done is now telling us that we cannot ignore it. We have published our work on chlorine treatment, but we have also looked at what happens when you stress a pathogen such as listeria by depriving it of nutrients. For example, in a factory where you are washing down with tap water, the listeria can still survive, and in those conditions it can become this VBNC form. If all you are doing is regular swabbing and then reporting, you could say, “Our factory is clear of listeria.” In fact, if we used the more modern methods, that might be found to be not true.

We are really talking not just about standards now, but the standards we should adopt in the future, both in the UK and in what we would expect other countries to adopt if we are going to import food from them.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q We occasionally hear of outbreaks of food poisoning, but this is the Agriculture Bill, which relates to food only once it passes the farm gate. To what extent is the problem within agriculture and to what extent is it in the transportation, processing, storage or preparation of food?

Professor Keevil: As you rightly to point out, it is very complex. We have to talk about the food chain, but let us look at the route which is the primary source of pathogen ingress into the food chain. To take the case of poultry, one of the issues is that some countries, including America, they have intensive rearing of poultry; they also have cattle feed lots, where animals are raised and fed in a dense community. In the UK and Europe, our husbandry standards appear to be better, poultry are reared in less intensive conditions and we do not have cattle in feed lots like the Americans do, so the animals have more space, they appear to be healthier and, from what we have seen so far, they have reduced numbers of pathogens at that stage.

Of course, you are quite correct that every step in the food chain is a potential source of contamination. If we use lorries, provided that those lorries are properly cleaned and decontaminated, that should not be an issue. When food is produced for restaurants, if the staff adopt good hygiene, they should not transmit pathogens to the customers—that has been well documented. The supermarkets are very responsible; they have a reputation to maintain—they do not want to be seen as the supermarket that poisons their customers—so they maintain very high standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Morris]

Q Diana Holland, in your submission you say that you think the Bill should have measures about pay conditions for agricultural workers. What do you think those measures should be, and why would the Bill, as drafted, be the most appropriate vehicle for them?

Diana Holland: The measures we were thinking about have previously been raised in a number of submissions: first, looking at the impact of the Bill on workers in agriculture, and secondly, looking specifically at the reinstatement of the protections of the Agricultural Wages Board, which currently exists, in some form, in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but not in England.

Why do we think that is important? We do not think that agricultural workers are like every other worker; we think that they are different and their experiences are different. As a union with an incredibly long history of representing them, we speak from experience. They have a special place in the union, and we think that they should have a special place in the Agriculture Bill, too.

Right this moment, the director of labour market enforcement has a session going on to look specifically at the problems of wage theft and employment law non-compliance in agriculture. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority has had a licensing system in agriculture for 15 years, but it is still recognised as an area with a high level of exploitation and threat of exploitation. That is the background to this.

When the Agricultural Wages Board covered everywhere, there was a level of protection and information that is no longer available to us. Increasingly, you will find that statistics relating to agriculture have little stars by them and a note at the bottom saying, “The sample figures are too small.” That does not mean that there are no other workers to record; it means that they are not hitting any of the official ways of recording people. Increasingly, we find that people are employed in different ways, meaning that they are not recognised in the official statistics in the way they used to be. The Agricultural Wages Board provided a way of ensuring that all that information came to the forefront.

Finally, we have always argued that safe, healthy food and high-quality jobs go hand in hand. There is lots of evidence that where workers are badly treated, there is also an undercutting of food quality standards across the board. We see this as part of ensuring and protecting food standards, food security, supply chains and all the other issues in the Bill. They all have workers associated with them, and we think they should be included and recognised.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good afternoon to you both. We have heard from a lot of witnesses, but this is possibly the first time we have actually heard about the people who work on the land, which is why it is very important that you are here. How could the things that you are looking for be incorporated into the Bill?

Diana Holland: There are a couple of ways. One would obviously be an additional clause that covered the impact on workers of those developments in agriculture and how the protections that exist in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland could also be applied to agricultural workers in England. On top of that, in the rules for agri-food imports, where we will be looking at future developments, we are extremely concerned, first, that there is a lessening of all standards and, secondly, that where food is concerned, while there may be some recognition of protections for food standards, and even of animal welfare, workers may be left out. It should all go together—food, environment, labour protections for everybody.

As I said, when we wrote to our rural and agricultural representatives to ask for examples of issues—I am aware it is anecdotal, but it is important—we found that there are still pressures to hide problems that agricultural workers face, because in small isolated communities personal relationships often extend over other areas and the employer may have other roles in the community that people feel could have an impact on their lives. There is pressure all the time not to speak out about problems that arise. Your accommodation is often tied to your job in some shape or form, whether that is on the horticultural or agricultural side of things. It is those kinds of pressures and those sorts of experiences that we think need to be included; otherwise there is a real danger that, as well as being wrong for the people concerned, they will undermine some of the other things that the Bill is trying to achieve.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Will you explain some of the reasons why you feel that agriculture is different from other sectors? When the Agricultural Wages Board was abolished in England, the coalition Government claimed that the minimum wage would pick up the issues. What has the experience been in England since, and what is the difference in the other countries where similar arrangements have persisted?

Diana Holland: First, there is a bit of a dearth of information. We have been constantly asking for that to be specifically looked at. We have done some research ourselves, however. Not long after the board was abolished, within the first year or two years, we surveyed all our members who had been covered by it. We were really shocked, although perhaps not surprised, to find that a huge proportion had had no pay rise since the Agricultural Wages Board had been abolished. Those who had had a pay rise, the vast majority, had had no say or discussion over that pay rise—it had just been introduced.

The employers we have talked to in the sector have said that they would find it helpful to have a process that could be relied on and about which everybody has said, “We’ve come to a conclusion,” rather than the pressure of having to negotiate individually or to find that the pressure is on and to think about what is fair in the circumstances. There is also exploitation in the sector—I will not run away from that—but I am not saying that every single person is deliberately trying to exploit. Sometimes there are other pressures.

There was also some survey work done in 2017 that compared Wales with England. There was a suggestion that protections in Wales meant that there was a 6% higher rate of pay overall. As I say, again, these are often small samples and figures, and we need to look more. We have had a chance, however, to talk to the employers in Wales. Some of the evidence from the employer representatives has made us concerned that there are employers in the sector—who previously followed a system that has been abolished—who are not aware of their responsibilities and who saw the national minimum wage as a voluntary mechanism rather than an absolute requirement. That might seem impossible, but it is a reality that came out in the discussions and the evidence. We feel that where the Bill talks about public money for public goods, that should also include ensuring that the workers are treated decently.

The minimum wage does not cover all the additional things. Career progression was provided, relating it to the jobs and roles that people have, allowances for having a dog, overtime and sick pay rates. All those details were included, but they are not in the national minimum wage, which does not take into account the particular considerations that the Agricultural Wages Board does. But that does exist elsewhere. That has been a massive loss to those people, without any demonstrable gain to anybody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theo Clarke]

Q I want to pick up the point about agricultural workers. My constituency in Stafford has a lot of rural areas. Farmers have mentioned to me that the pilot scheme is great, and it has now been extended to 10,000. Are your members saying that we need to have an increase in seasonal workers, because there will be fruit left unpicked later in the year if more do not come in? What are your views on that?

Jyoti Fernandes: We believe in smaller units, where you do not need to bring in loads of seasonal workers. With smaller-scale market gardens and horticultural units that pay well, you can attract British workers and will not need to bring in so many people from other countries in order to pick those crops. We see a flourishing, home-grown fruit industry, where you can bring in more people to do that kind of work.

That needs investment, access to land, grants for people to get into that kind of small-scale market gardening and horticultural units and to plant fruit trees into mixed farms, and training. It needs routes to market, which means processing facilities, so that you can make apple juices and that type of thing, and so that you can store those things, add value to them and get better value back on them. It needs distribution facilities within local market economies. That might be market facilities in town, online distribution services or co-operatives that try to process those fruits and get them to market, so that you get a good price for them. It needs all those sorts of investment in our national infrastructure in fruit, fruit processing and distribution.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I would like to pursue the labour supply issues, because my understanding is that there are very large numbers of people working in something like the poultry sector who are not originally from the UK. Is there anything you think the Bill should look at to make sure that some of those issues are addressed—I am looking particularly at Diana on that one—and am I right to be concerned about it?

Diana Holland: You are definitely right to be concerned about it. The important thing is that, where decent standards are protected and reinstated, they should apply to everybody. The original seasonal agricultural workers scheme was part of an educational opportunity for students. We worked very hard and gave evidence over many years to make sure that that was what it was. It should not be about workers coming in from other countries—because the sector cannot get people in this country to work for the terms and conditions and pay that it is offering—and then treating them extremely badly when they are here. As you say, it will not provide the security, the quality needed or the stability in the sector. It is very important. We want opportunities that are properly worked out. How fantastic it would be if we could make this sector one that people want to work in and one that they look for, rather than thinking it is somewhere they will be exploited.

[Daniel Zeichner]

There is a danger that, if we do not address those labour supply issues, the industry will struggle, and we will then inevitably be back to importing food from outside again.

Diana Holland: Exactly.

Jyoti Fernandes: I was going to bring up something really important to this whole scenario, which is the impact of trade. Basically, we are never going to get the conditions here where small and family farms can survive as independent businesses, or keep decent work opportunities on larger units, if you are undercut by cheaper produce from elsewhere. It just is not a possibility. The global marketplace can source cheap labour—slave labour—from all over the planet, and really exploit places with really low conditions. It is not just the trade standards: it is also the competition from very large multinational corporations in other countries—the huge farms in California or South America, which have loads of exploited labour, much higher levels of pesticide usage and multinational advertising campaigns that will blow any of our homegrown industries out of the water, unless we can get some control over that and have something in the Bill that allows for tariffs that stop that imported stuff, and standards and rules that do not allow our homegrown industries to be undercut.

This is a very exciting Agriculture Bill. Everything about it that is moving towards environmentally friendly farming, agroecological farming and all of that is tremendously exciting. We could have one of the best homegrown food supplies in Europe, and we could really pioneer something very special and really support small and family farms, independent businesses and workers being treated decently, but not if we are undercut by cheap imports. That must be looked at very carefully, otherwise all the good work and the good will of this Bill will be undone.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Morris]

Q This is a question probably for all three witnesses. In your submissions, you refer to some of the public good provisions in the Bill as being positive. I just wondered what aspects of the Bill you thought needed to be improved.

Dr Palmer: The Bill is a good basis, but it is a missed opportunity in the sense that it provides the basis for a variety of things that the Secretary of State may do, but it does not specify what the Secretary of State will do. In the current situation in particular, after Brexit, the farmers and everyone dealing with the industry need more certainty. This would really be an opportunity to pin down what we are prepared to do and what we are not prepared to do in terms of trade, support for the farming industry and a long-term strategy to ensure that we have a viable farming industry stretching into the future.

James West: I would add that it is important that the Bill is joined-up in its thinking, in as far as protection from potentially being undercut—as I am sure you have heard lots of times—as a result of trade agreements. That is fairly critical. That is not in the Bill. Added to that would be that you are then providing farmers with subsidies and grants to help them move to higher standards of production. We should also be looking at things such as method of production labelling—as Nick said, that it is a “may” in the Bill, rather than a “must”—so that consumers know what they are purchasing. We should also look at Government procurement policy, so that in addition to protecting farmers from what is coming into the country, you are also rewarding farmers for delivering higher standards and for protecting our animal welfare standards. Just on Government procurement, McDonald’s has better animal welfare procurement policies than the UK Government, which should not be the case, and the Bill could address that.

Vicki Hird: We were very pleased to see some of the changes in the Agriculture Bill. Overall, we are very positive about the public money for public goods approach and the financial support being listed. We were very pleased to see soil being included in that. We would like to see a stronger reference to agroecological whole-farm systems, because we think that is the way to ensure that you get the in-field changes, as well as the edge of field, wildlife and other nature outcomes that you see. We need the whole of the UK farming system to go towards an agroecological approach in whatever way they can. Those steps should be available through financial support.

We would also like to see, as Nick said, a lot of these things as duties, rather than powers. It seems incredible how much effort—I know, because I have been involved—DEFRA has put into the environmental land management scheme, when it could stop it all in a couple of years and pay a smaller amount of money and not follow through. As MPs, you should have that accountability for you on delivering ELMS.

Finally, I agree with Diana on the protection for workers. We are also pleased with clause 27, which concerns fair dealing. It has been enhanced to really protect farmers. We are grateful to DEFRA for making those changes and to George Eustice, who we welcome as our new Secretary of State. We would like to see that as a duty, because it is so important. It is absolutely vital that we get the protection for farmers in the supply chain. They do have that from retailers, but most farmers do not sell direct to retailers. They need good codes of conduct developed with the industry for every sector, probably starting with dairy.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good afternoon. I have different questions for Vicki and for Compassion. Vicki, in your written evidence, you make a very strong case for a public health function. Can you elaborate on that a little? To Compassion, you make some quite strong suggestions about the pre-conditions for receiving public money. Can you amplify that for the benefit of the Committee?

Vicki Hird: Thank you for reminding me about the public health purpose. We think it would be very easy to insert it into the Bill. There are so many ways it is already designed to help, for instance with air pollution and with reducing exposure to plant protection products, which can be harmful. We think that saying that there is a public health purpose for agriculture would recognise what an important thing farmers do in providing us with healthy, safe food. It could help by showing that having animal health and welfare measures that help farmers to manage their stock and change their stocking patterns can reduce the reliance on antibiotics, which we know is an absolute global public good, in order to protect our medicinal antibiotics.

The other area is the huge need to boost our supply of fruit and veg, so that people can have access to closer-to-home, more affordable, fresh, sustainably produced fruit and vegetables. That is absolutely central to a healthier diet for the nation. To be able to say that we were doing that would be a benefit. As James was saying about procurement, we could be saying something about procurement and investing in healthier diets for our children in schools.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Before we turn to Compassion, on the antibiotics point, do you think there should be stronger, more directive provisions in the Bill?

Vicki Hird: I think that would be very helpful. We designed a clause for the previous version of this Bill that mentioned that, along with exposure to pesticides for consumers, workers and the community, and other aspects of public health. There therefore is a clause available, if anybody wants to table it.

Antibiotic reduction is important. I know that the industry has already gone some way. It is doing a good job, but it needs to be supported in that, through animal health and welfare financial support, and through training, advice and demonstration. The Budget should definitely be strong enough and big enough to provide farmers with that kind of support, to take things in the direction of lower antibiotic use.

James West: The question was about subsidies, and bars on subsidies. We support the use of subsidies for delivering the public goods that are in the Bill. Again, we would like that to be a requirement rather than a “may”. Essentially, public money should deliver genuinely higher standards of welfare; it should not be for meeting the regulatory baseline or going marginally beyond it. If you are looking at the top line, you might consider such things as allowing animals to express their natural behaviour, access to pasture for dairy cows, and the provision of enrichment materials for pigs. Obviously, depending on which species you look at, there will be different requirements, but broadly speaking, they will be lower stocking densities, slower-growing breeds, if we are talking about meat chickens, and access to pasture outdoors.

You might also look at things that would disqualify someone from receiving an animal welfare payment. One of the things that Compassion works on is ending the live export of animals. From our point of view, if you are involved in the live export trade, you should probably not receive the public subsidy for good animal welfare. In the area of mutilations, going back to pigs, you have enrichment. In Germany, they provide a premium for pigs at slaughter when the pig gets to the slaughterhouse with an intact tail, because that means that you have almost certainly run a very good system. The amount of space, enrichment and so on that you will have given the pigs during the rearing process will have been such that you will not have needed to tail-dock the pig, as you might in more intensive systems. We have fairly detailed documents with what may or may not qualify you for a subsidy, but broadly speaking it is natural behaviours and space.

Dr Palmer: The absence of a clear percentage commitment regarding the amount of support that will be given for animal welfare purposes means that a degree of uncertainty remains, which is bad for the whole agricultural industry. A farmer needs to know that what amount of money is potentially available, so that they can try to work for it. With respect to the new Chancellor, we are unlikely to get an infinite amount of subsidy in the Budget, so it makes sense that the available money is used to help farmers to become among the best in the world, rather than to move marginally from a fairly low base to a slightly higher one.

In the long term, the future of British farming has to be at the top of the scale. If we try to race to the bottom, we will fail. The British farming industry will not succeed on that basis, so we should consider the areas where we can help farmers to move towards higher welfare—for instance, ending the use of farrowing crates. There is a one-off cost, which it is reasonable to help them with. Once they have moved away from that, there should not be an additional cost. They will then, in association with the better labelling scheme, be able to tell consumers that British farming has produced higher welfare, higher quality meat.

[Mr Goodwill]

Q To follow smoothly on from that, British farmers pride themselves on having the highest welfare standards in the world. Indeed, in some ways we were held back by the European Union, because we tried to ban things like dry sow stalls, but we could not stop their pork coming in.

However, I noticed that the Compassion in World Farming website talks about ending “the horror” of factory farming. I just wondered if you felt that there were any farms in this country that that definition would apply to. You talked about housed livestock—for example, dairy cattle that are housed in winter. Do you think that is acceptable? Where do you set the bar in describing what British farmers are doing, perfectly legally, as “horror”?

Dr Palmer: When we are talking about horrific factory farming, we are talking about the caging of egg-laying hens, which is still one third of the total in Britain; we are talking about the use of farrowing crates, which keep the sow unable even to turn round for up to five weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Q There is an animal health provision there, which opens the prospect of healthy livestock accredited schemes that farmers could sign up to, which might be all about reduced antibiotic use or different stocking densities in poultry. That is all possible under the existing powers, so I am trying to get my head around what additional powers you feel are needed over and above the objectives that we have.

Sue Davies: It is certainly really positive that that is in there, but if there are specific measures where the main goal is focused on human health, rather than animal health, that should be included in the Bill. Ultimately, the Bill will determine the types of food choices we have as consumers and the sorts of standards to which our food is produced. Obviously, a lot of other policies will have an impact on that, but we think this is a real opportunity to shape our food system in a positive way that works for consumers as well as farmers. We should not miss these really good opportunities to include that in the Bill at this point.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q Good afternoon. May I add my congratulations to the new Secretary of State? We obviously do not want to be too nice about him and set him off to a bad start, but he is clearly a popular choice.

Ms Davies, I am bound to ask you the question that I have asked virtually every other witness: from a consumer’s point of view, what would be the impact of allowing imports produced to lower standards? I think I can probably guess the answer, because it has been very consistent across all our witnesses. At the end of the whole chain, particularly with ready meals and so on, do you feel that consumers know enough in the current system? Could we not do more through the Bill to lift standards, particularly on antibiotics and so on?

Sue Davies: I think your food standards question is really important and shows why we need to make sure that we have a joined-up policy. This will have a big impact on the sorts of choices that consumers can make, but if we do not address other policies, particularly trade policy, it could completely undermine all the positive things that we are trying to achieve with the Bill.

As I mentioned, we know from our consumer research that people have really high expectations on food standards. Some 93% of people said they expect that food standards will be maintained, and ideally people think they should be enhanced now that we have left the EU. People do not expect cheaper imports to come in and undercut our producers. People want to support UK producers, particularly of products such as meat and dairy, so the tariff schedule that has come out is interesting. All of that has to be joined up to make sure that we are not trading away our standards and potentially bringing in safety issues, or allowing production methods that we know consumers do not find acceptable.

We saw with the horsemeat scare that food has many different aspects. Some are about safety, and others are cultural—people just do not want to eat food that is produced in certain ways. We have been doing a lot of survey work and we know that around eight in 10 people have concerns about eating hormone-treated beef. A similar number have concerns about food produced using antibiotic growth promoters. Those practices are used in some of the countries with which we will seek to reach trade deals—hormones in the case of the US, Australia and New Zealand. We absolutely have to ensure that trade policy builds on our current standards. If anything, we are looking to improve our standards rather than allow them to deteriorate or accept lower quality imports that will make it very difficult for UK producers to produce to the standards that consumers expect.

We have also asked about labelling issues, because sometimes it is suggested that people can decide if you just label everything. People feel strongly about it and do not think that labelling is the solution. That applies to people across all socioeconomic groups; it is not just better-off customers who can make this sort of choice. We think it is really important that there is something in the Bill that makes it clear that we should maintain and build on our food standards.

We have asked people what they think about labelling, and they generally tell us that they think the labelling information is about right, but when you ask people about where improvements might be made, they talk about things such as helping people to make more sustainable choices and improved animal welfare labelling. There is scope to look at how we can improve that by building on the labelling information that we have already. One area that we know people feel strongly about is the traffic light nutritional labelling system, which we would like to be made mandatory when we have the opportunity to legislate to do so.

[Fay Jones]

Q I have a question on food production standards and imports. The Agriculture Bill applies largely to England only, although there are bits and pieces that pertain to the devolved nations. Would food production standards and imports not be covered by international trade? Is the Agriculture Bill the right place for it?

Sue Davies: We can put it in this Bill and in the trade Bill. This is about agriculture and how we incentivise food production, and a vision for agriculture in the UK. The approach that we take to trade will have a huge impact on how we are able to deliver that, and it will have huge implications for the support that needs to be provided to farmers and how we incentivise standards. There is a strong link between the two.

We think there should definitely be something in the Bill recognising, at a principled level, that this is what UK food production is about. It should also recognise that, on the one hand, we need to ensure that we maintain high standards that meet consumers’ expectations at a national level and, on the other hand, that we will take a strong stance to ensure we are not trading away those food standards to get the many other benefits we might get through trade deals. It should not be about losing food standards to get those benefits.

Agriculture Bill (First sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th February 2020 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

Q I want to start by asking what you consider to have been the main failures and limitations of the existing direct payment scheme, the common agricultural policy. Also, what are the main opportunities for your own particular interests, based on a new policy that rewards farmers for the delivery of public goods?

ffinlo Costain: One of the key challenges with the common agricultural policy is that it has largely rewarded farmers for owning land, and it has presided over an enormous disconnect between farmers, other people in the countryside, and customers, and often the supply chain as well. The huge advantage of the new legislation is that, in changing the funding system to public funds for public goods, we will be able to deliver the changes that we need—the farm animal welfare improvements, the sustainability improvements, the climate mitigation, and the biodiversity restoration, which has been so degraded under the common agricultural policy.

Make no bones about it: we are facing a climate and nature emergency that is upon us now, not tomorrow. It is critical that we get this right. For me, getting land use right is the golden ticket. Having the opportunity at this time to reform land use—so that we can continue producing good food and good nutrition, delivering national security in that way, which is critically important, as well as delivering climate mitigation, land adaption to help with climate change, and biodiversity restoration—is absolutely critical. The Bill comes at the perfect time, and it is well set up. There are some challenges within it, and some issues that I think we will address, but in general terms it is very positive.

Martin Lines: As a farm owner and a tenant, under the current system, with the single farm payment, I am encouraged to farm to the very edge of fields. Biodiversity and other bits of the landscape are not rewarded. As a tenant, my landlord takes away most if not all of my single farm payment on top of the rent. If we move to a public goods model, I actually get rewarded for the delivery of services as a land manager—as a farmer—so we would move into a system that better supports actual farmers, rather than the ownership and management of the landscape.

Caroline Drummond: One of the real challenges of the past system was the capability to drive ambition for farmers. It was a “Tell me what I’m doing” type of approach, so going forward, we have a real opportunity to demonstrate leadership, vision and ambition for our farming sector. Ensuring that we get the right governance is going to be really important. There needs to be partnership and development of trust between Governments, from voluntary approaches that are externally, independently verified such as farm assurance schemes, right through to building on some of the success stories of capability and innovation that we have seen among some of the farmers who are already thriving and doing very well in this country.

Jack Ward: The fresh produce industry has not benefited that greatly from the CAP. We are about 170,000 hectares; we have an output of about £2 billion from that area, and the contribution from the basic payment scheme is about £40 million. However, the contribution from the producer organisation scheme, which is broadly equivalent, has been incredibly important. I think we would like to see that continue in some shape or form.

In terms of opportunities, there is a terrific opportunity to increase the amount of fruit and veg that we currently produce. In some sectors, such as tomatoes, we are very dependent on imports. We import eight out of 10 tomatoes that we consume in the UK; we must be able to do better than that.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Q Good morning to you; it is very nice to see a farmer from Cambridgeshire here. The opening comments from the witnesses have been very positive and helpful, and I think we all welcome the notion of public money being spent on environmental gain. However, a number of us are concerned about the lack of detail in the Bill about environmental land management schemes. I think we had expected a policy paper from the Government, but I am not sure we have seen that yet. Do you share that concern?

ffinlo Costain: It is really important for Government to set a framework, but if there is a criticism of the way that Europe and the common agricultural policy have worked in the past, it is that it has been way too prescriptive. That has meant that, to a large extent, farmers have learned to do what they are told, rather than to properly understand and integrate what they are doing on their land.

My own view is that Government should become more goal-centred. They need to set the right metrics and to understand what outcomes they are trying to achieve, but then they need to take a step back and allow farmers to farm. Farmers understand their land, and if they have a funding model that supports environmental excellence and other public goods—restoration of soil health and so on—they can work out ways to do that. I would hate to see a situation where there is a continuing prescriptive approach, but it is focused on the environment rather than on how to produce cattle, and we end up with farmers still not really understanding what they are doing and simply farming the subsidy.

We need ownership of change, and farmers can do that. Farmers understand their land; they know their land, and if we give them the freedom to work within that public goods model, they will deliver the outcomes. They will step up. They are a standing army out there, ready to do this, and they will step up and do it.

Martin Lines: I have concerns about what the ELM for England would look like, the transition period, and how the funding is going to work. We need more detail about what the future will be, so that the farmers can start changing and adapting now to the model of what is coming. There is some concern, particularly about the transition period. As we go into the new system and payments under the current system tail off, what is going to bridge the lull in the middle, and how do we get farmers to step across to the new system at speed?

Caroline Drummond: I agree. There needs to be the policy documentation, so we can identify what this is going to look like and how the knitting all joins up—there are lots of balls of wool, but what are we trying to knit at the end of the day? Not much has been left out of the Bill, which is really key, but we need to know how it will be interpreted and how the ELMS projects will be carried out. There are a lot of them going on, and we need to know how they will be brought together to demonstrate the delivery against metrics, outcomes and, ultimately, impact. Ultimately, the Government have to deliver against the global and national targets around the sustainable development goals, the Paris agreement, and so on, but the farming sector has the opportunity to support us in demonstrating that we are helping on issues around climate change, biodiversity, soil improvement and those matters.

[The Chair]

Before bringing in Danny Kruger, I should have told new Members that, when they start questioning—they do not have to do it every time—they should declare any financial interest they have in these areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

Q I refer Members to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for my interest as a very small farmer. I have a question for Mr Lines. You mentioned that tenants should get the payment. Can I ask you two things? Are you advocating a change in business farm tenancy arrangements and land tenure? Or are you really saying that money from the Government should go to the person who physically farms, rather than the landowner, or a mixture of both? Would you please clarify?

Martin Lines: It would be a mixture of both. Many of the tenancies that are currently written are too short, with many of three to five years, because of the uncertainty ahead. They would be rewritten and reframed. The person doing the job— the work, the delivery of those public goods—should receive the income.

If it is about land, natural capital and something infrastructure-wise of trees, the landowner may get some of that. If it is about the delivery of habitat and flood mitigation, so that you are losing crop yield or change of land use, the tenant can manage some of that. It will be a redefining, but I think the industry will cope with it. We just need the timeframe for how we deliver it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I would like to return to the vexed issue of imports to potentially lower standards. ffinlo, you mentioned some of the potential impacts. I would like everyone to comment on the potential environmental impact, given that people are so positive about the potential here. If we do find ourselves being undercut by lower-standard imports, what would be the effect on the environmental aims in the Bill?

Caroline Drummond: I think potentially farmers will walk away from supporting them ultimately, if the marketplace is not delivering against the requirements expected of the imported produce and farmers are increasingly required to deliver against goods that are costing them from a business perspective. That is one of the big dangers. A bigger issue is offshoring, and the fact that we have nine years to deliver against the sustainable development goals. We have the Paris agreements. We have a fantastic opportunity with the conference of the parties talks on climate change being held in this country later this year to herald our ambitions for delivering and demonstrating leadership in environmental delivery and in climate change mitigation delivery.

We might think we can compete on a global level in terms of a huge productivity market, but actually we are just small producers on a global scale. Our real opportunity lies in being the best at what we do. We already have such a good background: despite all the criticism that farmers get for delivering or not delivering against the environment, they have been hugely committed since 2001, after foot and mouth, through entry level stewardship and higher level stewardship agreements, to deliver vast changes and improvements, with strong ownership in how farmers are farming in this country. It would be a real shame to lose that. The Bill is an opportunity to build on that backbone and to place our farmers in a position whereby we continue to be world leading, but with more focused ambition and strong clarity on what we deliver from an environmental perspective.

Jack Ward: In terms of delivering environmental outcomes, we are looking at a balance between a farmer or grower’s own investment and public money. If you start to cut away at the farmer’s ability to invest as an individual, you lose an important part of the funding that will deliver the overall environmental improvements that you are looking for.

ffinlo Costain: I think the future for UK farmers has to be in quality. Volume production will increasingly become a mug’s game. I would not advise farmers to go into it. It should be about environmental excellence, animal welfare excellence and sustainability excellence. The danger is that if it comes into the country, some customers—perhaps quite a lot of customers—will buy it. That is where the undermining happens: it undermines our ability to develop that comprehensive basis for environmental excellence, and it will challenge emerging supply chains in particular. Part of our big challenge over the next 10 years is to shorten supply chains and to make sure that farmers are better able to claim decent farm-gate prices by selling direct or through many fewer cogs before they reach the customer. I worry about those smaller and emerging supply chains being undermined.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

How do you assess that the security of food supply will be improved by the Bill? What do you see as the UK’s greatest threat to food security?

Martin Lines: Food security can only come from healthy soil and a healthy environment. If we over-produce from our soils, we degrade them and there will be no food security for future generations. We need a balance of how we manage our landscape and how much we can produce from that balanced landscape. We can then consider what products we need to import, and whether we need to do other things or change diets or change tjhe system. There needs to be an assessment of how our landscape looks, with a joined-up approach to landscape productivity.

ffinlo Costain: Traditionally, food security has been about volume and about being able to feed everybody. That has led us to the challenges we now face, which Martin just referred to. Food security comes from being able to produce good, nutritious, diverse and seasonally available food. That means we need to restore soil, have good water management, and good community dynamics, with complexity returned to our swards and landscapes where nature works with farmers to produce that food.

Looking forward 40 years to how society could break down as a result of climate change and biodiversity loss, food is the critical factor. If you look around the world at conflicts, including Syria, food is the critical factor that creates conflict. The way that we deliver national security is not by producing volume, but by ensuring that every hectare of our land can produce really good food, and by maintaining the rural economies and the ability of farmers to farm that land. That is why it is critical that we do not go down the route of sequestration here, wilding there, and food here. We need to be able to build broad diversity so that we have national food security in the future.

Caroline Drummond: There is often a lot of confusion around food security. There is the issue of our capability to grow, and having the infrastructure to support farmers with seed, fertiliser, tractor tyres, and investment in that area. There is the issue of what we actually mean by self-sufficiency, how we build our targets, and whether we are ambitious enough. There is food safety. We have some concerns about imported produce in terms of food safety challenges. That has been well heralded. There is also the issue of food defence—our capability to trade confidently, and to have the opportunity to receive food where we do not have self-sufficiency or sufficient produce.

It is a highly complex area. I think it is one area in the Bill where we would report every five years. Perhaps that could be amended to reporting every year, because it is so important.

Jack Ward: In the fresh produce industry, we are very dependent on imports to meet our needs. Arguably, it is the one area of food production where we want to increase consumption. Ultimately, the ability to increase our food security is down to grower confidence, and a willingness by growers to keep investing, and the returns that they can generate from that activity. The last six months have not done great things for grower confidence.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I would like to go back to the question of food security, and to some of the points that people have made. I am very concerned by some of what I am hearing, because it seems to me that there is a danger of a two-tier system emerging. A very high-quality, high-value system is, to ffinlo’s point, not about chasing volume. Is there not a potential problem ahead for us if we are not careful, in that we will not produce nearly as much of our own food as we would like? Going back to my earlier question, that also has environmental consequences. It goes back to a point that I think Jack made at the beginning: the sector needs to be profitable to keep people working. Is there a real danger here?

Martin Lines: If I am producing wheat, I can increase my yield by putting more products on, but that has a higher environmental risk, because a lot of those nitrates and products will leave the soil, because the crop has not used them in some years. If we hit the sweet spot with the productivity of our landscape, we can produce what the landscape can cope with, and push it some years, when needed, as well as ease off. It is about finding the balance point. We know from many livestock farmers that reducing livestock numbers actually makes them healthier, better animals, and they produce quicker because there are fewer there and the grass is better.

We have focused for so long just on yield and output, not profitability. Reducing my overall output gives me more profit at the end of the day. It is a funny way to look at how it works, but you end up spending more than you get in return. You chase the extra yield by spending more money. We need to find the place where we deliver as much as we can. Sometimes we can push that if we need to—if there are weather challenges, or other issues—but we should not be out there just to push it, doing environmental damage as a consequence of my farming operations.

ffinlo Costain: The most intensive food systems are environmentally damaging. They are damaging in terms of farm animal welfare, and often just in terms of the jobs that are provided for people, which are not pleasant. The death knell needs to be rung for those sorts of farms.

There is an assumption that with environmental excellence, because of our association with going from mainstream to organic, comes a reduction in yield. There does not need to be a reduction. There are so many examples, here and around the world—Martin being one—of regenerative agriculture, which is giving environmental excellence and social excellence. Farm animal welfare is not an issue on his farm, but elsewhere there are regenerative beef and cattle systems where yield is being maintained in terms of mainstream amounts, and even increased.

There is an assumption that high environmental standards mean a reduction in yield; that is not necessarily the case. It is not just about looking at volume; it is about looking at a whole range of different changes. We need a dietary shift in Britain. That does not mean no meat and dairy, but it probably does mean a bit less meat and dairy as we go forward, and a bit more fruit and vegetables. We can deliver that, with agroforestry approaches and regenerative approaches. We can more than sufficiently provide food for the people of this country—I have no doubt about that—but it will mean changes in diet, and a little bit of change in the way that we farm, at the same time as focusing on multiple outcomes, rather than simply the outcome of producing lots of food. It is food, climate and biodiversity.

Caroline Drummond: We have a tremendous amount of evidence and case studies to demonstrate the importance of integrated farm management practices and how farmers have increasingly adopted them, in terms of economic viability, good performance and optimising the capability of the land. That is a really strong driver. One of the big keys will be how we link the Agriculture Bill with the Environment Bill and the national food strategy—this is such an opportunity for really trying to work out what it is that we want to develop and to balance and to build in what we grow, how we grow it and how we improve the health of our nation as well.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

Q My question relates to employment numbers in the farming sector. Will we see people entering the sector that otherwise would not, as a result of the Bill? What will we see in terms of demographics, and what will we see in terms of the skillset of people working in the sector?

ffinlo Costain: My hope is that we would see growth in all of those areas. In order to have farming excellence we need to have working farms. In the future, there may be fewer farmers spending their days on tractors, but there will be more farmers doing more high-value jobs and more marketing within the countryside. If we look at cattle and shortening supply chains, we ought to be supporting—we can through the Bill—new infrastructure, such as local abattoirs and co-operatively owned abattoirs. That creates new jobs and infrastructure within the countryside, which can then be sold with the marketing and branding jobs that go along with that. I want to see good-quality jobs, not just jobs, and there is the opportunity here, if we get it right, to create good-quality jobs, and more of them.

Caroline Drummond: Maybe I missed it, but I do not know whether the Bill itself would be the driver for more people to say, “Yay, I want to go into agriculture.” There is an opportunity to go into agriculture, with exciting innovations and technology, and the fact that we touch each of the five senses, which no other industry does. We do a lot of education programmes at LEAF. We run Open Farm Sunday. From that point of view, it is about getting more people more connected with their food. Some of the supporting information around things like the national food strategy and the 25-year environment plan have to help to support and drive enthusiasm—have to help to inspire a younger generation to recognise that the food sector, the farming sector and its associated industries are really fantastic. We have fewer young people coming through and we just have to compete a little bit harder than every other industry.

Jack Ward: There will be more competition for labour, and trying to attract people into the industry will be more difficult. Certainly, within our sector there will be a big drive towards automation to take labour out of the equation, because it will be harder to come by. As earlier speakers have alluded to, as a consequence we will see higher-value jobs. We will see more technologists and more people designing and managing systems, rather than doing some of the manual work that we have seen them do over the past 25 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Q I have just a couple of further points. Mr Bowles, you are right, this is the first time that a country has put as much ambition into rewarding high animal welfare outcomes as we do in the Bill. Your organisation runs the RSPCA Assured scheme. What lessons can we learn from that about having a payment-for-public-goods model for farmers who go above and beyond the regulatory baseline? Also, if I may, a question for Mr Hall: in terms of livestock traceability, are there market opportunities for us in having that higher health and higher welfare supply chain, which can be demonstrated through the project that you are working on?

David Bowles: There are huge opportunities. We have only ever had one scheme in the UK, but we have had something like 52 schemes over the 28 EU member states. The RSPCA Assured scheme is very successful in certain areas, such as laying hens, where we probably have 55% of production, but it is very unsuccessful in other areas, such as sheep, beef, dairy and even chickens, which are all sectors where we have under 5% and in some areas under 1%. The market is therefore not delivering the higher welfare assurance schemes that we want in that particular market.

That is the exciting thing about the Bill, because it will provide the opportunity to give farmers a leg up through, for example, one-off capital grants, and then provide them with payments to ensure that, where the market does not deliver, they can deliver those higher welfare schemes. The RSPCA is very happy that the Bill provides for that two-step process. We think there are very exciting times here for farmers, particularly in those areas where we have not traditionally gone into higher welfare schemes. For instance, at the moment, 0% of ducks in the UK have access to full-body water. The expression “taking a duck to water” does not exist for UK duck farming. That is a tragedy, not just for ducks, but for UK farming.

Simon Hall: There are undoubtedly opportunities in the marketplace if we can evidence welfare standards, provenance, and so on. The Livestock Information programme will put in place a new multi-species traceability service that brings together data based on animals, keepership—the people who have been responsible for the animal throughout its life—and location, the farm where it is based. The whole proposition of the programme that we are delivering is about using that data not only to better inform Government responses to animal disease control and ensuring food safety, but to enable the industry to take advantage of that data to evidence its standards and demonstrate to its consumers, domestically or internationally, the standards to that livestock is produced, the provenance of the animals and so on in real data. Working in partnership with Government and industry, there is an opportunity to set out our stall in a world-leading manner.

Christopher Price: To build on what has been said, an important aspect of the Livestock Information service—if it goes as far as I hope it does—is that it will give greater recognition to individual breeds. It will make it clear that what you are buying is a saddleback or whatever. At the moment, it is very difficult for the consumer to know that what he or she is buying is what the butcher or supermarket purports it to be, or to know when they use nebulous language to imply that it has a particular provenance. If we can get to a system whereby people are promoting particular breeds associated with a particular area, we will do well to create a much stronger sense of place and local identity, which will help with creating new markets.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I think at least three of the witnesses are part of organisations that were signatories to the letter to the Prime Minister at the end of last month warning about the potential risks of lower standards for imported food. Will those three witnesses, and perhaps others, comment briefly on what you think will be the effect of allowing imports of food produced to lower environmental welfare and health standards on consumers, producers and the environment?

David Bowles: For the RSPCA, this is probably the biggest omission in the Bill. The Government have resisted putting anything in the Bill that says that we will not import produce or food to lower standards than those of the UK. I cannot see why they have resisted that. The Secretary of State said, “Trust me, because it’s in the manifesto.” Frankly, I do not think that is good enough. Last year the Government tabled their own amendment to the Trade Bill that said exactly that. I hope they do the same here, because if they do not, they will leave British farmers who are producing to those higher welfare standards open to US imports.

For instance, 55% of the pork meat and bacon that we eat is imported. Virtually all that comes from the EU. If you start importing that from the USA, where they still have sow stalls, where they still give their pigs ractopamine, which is an illegal drug in UK pig farming, you are opening up to cheaper imports coming in, particularly if you do not have consumer information and labelling. I am pleased that labelling is in the Agriculture Bill, but this needs to be part of a matrix. You need to have the same standards for food coming in. The RSPCA is not afraid of higher welfare food coming in. What we are afraid of is food coming in that is illegal to produce in the UK.

Christopher Price: I agree with everything that has been said, but I think we need to be careful about putting too much trust in labelling. I cannot see that people are going to make many purchasing decisions on the basis of labelling. Something like less than 5% of decisions nowadays are based on labelling, which includes all the various organic and assurance schemes. This has to be dealt with by legislation and regulation. You cannot leave it to consumer good will in the supermarket.

Thomas Lancaster: I agree with all that. We worked very closely with the NFU to co-ordinate that letter. We view assurance around import standards as a foundational element of the whole future farming policy and as really important to farmers’ ability to invest in public goods schemes with confidence.

The letter not only touched on a defensive ask, but pushed a more aspirational agenda around a role for the UK to set out a world-leading trade policy that takes account of societal demands such as climate change, biodiversity and all those sorts of issues, which are not reflected in modern international trade policy, and certainly not at the World Trade Organisation.

This is often reported as: “We want protection.” Actually, as David said, we want to be able to compete on common standards. No UK farmers are calling for protectionism for its own sake, but there is an opportunity to call for a more sustainable trade policy that has a bit more imagination regarding how we can fight the climate and environment emergency, while embarking upon a new international trade policy, as we now will.

John Cross: It has been very well addressed already, but briefly, if society is sincere about animal welfare and is aspirational—which it should be—then it should not look for one set of standards domestically and, to a certain extent, export its conscience and accept lower standards from elsewhere. You should be consistent in your attitude to animals.

[Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)]

Q Should some financial assistance be provided for animal welfare activities that go beyond, for example, the legal minimal requirements and normal good practice? If so, what types of activities could that include?

David Bowles: Yes; the RSPCA, as I said earlier, is delighted that for the first time we have the opportunity to provide financial assistance to farmers. One of the things that is missing from the Bill—it says it in the explanatory notes, but it is not explicit—is that financial assistance should be given only to those above baseline standards. We had a system where farmers could have been paid even if they were doing things that were illegal. I do not want to replicate that in the new farm support system.

There are a lot of things that we would like the Government to introduce to give farmers a leg up—for instance, providing brushes for cattle, hoof-trimming for cattle to reduce lameness, rubber matting for cattle to give farmers a leg up to farm at higher welfare standards, and then giving them the opportunity to get money that is not provided by the marketplace, which is the difference between farming at higher welfare and what the marketplace delivers.

There is a whole range and suite of issues that could be gathered. The RSPCA is delighted that the Government are looking at them seriously, and we hope that some can be trialled in the next year.

Christopher Price: There are two aspects to your question. The first is whether we have got the regulations right in the first place. Although we might have the right standards, I think that most people on our side of the table would hope that Dame Glenys Stacey’s report is implemented, if not in full, then to a large extent. It might be useful to expand a bit on that in a moment.

In terms of paying for meeting regulatory standards per se, I think this is something that applies throughout. Farming will go through the most immense structural change over the next four or five years, as we move to an unsubsidised, more market-facing world. There will be an incredible variety of costs for people as a result. I do not think that there is anything untoward about the Government helping people to make that transition over the short term. I am talking about significant short-term capital expenditure on the Government’s part, to get the industry match-fit—not only in terms of welfare, but in terms of having the right business processes and practices in place. After that, you can say, “Now you’re on your own. We’ve helped you to get up to the standard that we expected of you. Now it’s for the market to support you going forward.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

I thought you might, but you never know.

Christopher Price: We should do it, first, for economic reasons. These breeds were bred to be in a British landscape. They can survive in parts of the country that other breeds cannot, or cannot without significant inputs. In many parts of the country, people are farming the wrong animals and are doing so expensively, because they are using certain inputs to support them. We need some help in getting farmers to transition away from the old way of doing things into going back to native breeds.

Native breeds can also provide a wider range of products than many other breeds. I mentioned wools, skins, horns and so on, which all have markets, if people think about it, or are incentivised to start thinking about it rather more. There is a role for Government in that.

Then there is the environmental side of things. The grassland habitats that we so cherish are there because they were grazed by certain animals over generations. If we are going to restore those habitats, the easiest, most straightforward way to do it is by using the animals that created them in the first place.

Lastly, there is the social side. Many of these breeds are part of our history. White Park cows came over Dogger island from mainland Europe before Stonehenge was built. They were part of the Cistercian monks’ currency. Some of the earliest Welsh laws are about how you regulate and use those animals. Herdwick sheep were bred to live on top of hills in the Lake district. Swaledales were bred to be a bit further down the fells. They are an immense part of our culture.

Those are all reasons for supporting them. In terms of how you support them, I would be reluctant for us to go down a simple headage route; I think that would just create the wrong sort of incentives. If a farmer chooses to use native breeds to graze for particular conservation purposes that do not bring him or her a direct financial benefit, that is about the public benefit, which should be rewarded, but it is more about making sure that we have the right infrastructure in place.

There is a lot to do with promoting local produce. We have talked a bit about creating local markets. Some of the more savvy farmers I was talking about are doing an excellent job of that, and part of their brand is selling local breeds and local products from those breeds within a fairly narrow radius—30-odd miles. That is where the premium comes from. It is not for everyone, but people are starting to do it, which is interesting.

Perhaps the single most important thing—we touched on this a bit in the earlier session—is abattoirs. For many of the people that I work for and represent, abattoirs are at least as important an issue as support going forward. We have huge numbers of people who are producing the right animals to the right standards in a very environmentally friendly way. You hear people talking about how their motivation in life is to ensure that their animals have a life worth living and then only one bad day—the day they go to the abattoir—and you have people who want to buy the products, but the whole thing is being stymied in significant parts of the country because there is no abattoir that can cope. If there is an abattoir, it generally will not be able to take the small numbers of non-standard animals and give you back the by-products—the horns, the skins and so on. In many cases, there is no abattoir at all.

If we are talking about short-term Government capital investments, it seems to me that there is a desperate need to invest in pop-up abattoirs or mobile abattoirs. There are practical problems with all of that, but if I could get anything across to the Committee, it would be the need to make sure that we have an abattoir network that is fit for purpose over the next few years, and for the Government to invest in creating that. It does not need to be a long-term investment; once it is there, the market can function and support it, but it is getting us there that matters.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q I should like to take you up a level, in the sense that since the initial iteration of this Bill, we have become very aware of the climate crisis and Parliament has declared a climate emergency. Do you think there is enough in this Bill to reflect that need for urgent action, particularly given the recommendations from the Committee on Climate Change on policies for net zero referred to earlier? If the NFU can look for a target for 2040, should there not be something in this Bill referencing that?

Thomas Lancaster: We have supported in the past, and would still support, a sector-specific target for net zero by 2040, to reflect the ambition of the NFU and others. We would support an amendment to that effect in Committee and beyond. As a statement of intent and clarity on the role that the sector could play in that climate emergency, it is still a really useful thing to look at. We would also stress that, although this is the Agriculture Bill, in the climate change world there is a lot of talk about nature-based solutions such as peatland restoration, coastal habitats and woodland creation, and the Agriculture Bill, particularly through the land management schemes that flow from it, will be the central mechanism for delivering those nature-based solutions and the aims of the Environment Bill.

Thinking about how public money for public goods can support more sustainable food production that is also carbon and climate friendly, it has an important role to play in building soil carbon, potentially supporting minimum tillage systems, cover crops and other land management interventions that build resilience to climate change in the future. We see climate change running through public money for public goods, from farmed and non-farmed landscapes, and the Agriculture Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have had in the past decade or probably will have for decades to come in helping to meet the climate emergency that we all face.

Christopher Price: I would support—

[The Chair]

I am going to interrupt, because there are two colleagues who have been asking to put questions very quickly, Robert Goodwill and then Virginia Crosbie. Please put your questions to everyone.