Food Allergens
Lord Rooker Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The critical thing is the last thing that the noble Lord said: safe food. It is important that we work with industry, across government and with the different campaign groups. Natasha’s law was a very important piece of legislation. We know that Owen’s law is proposed as well. We have heard about the health tsar. We know that there are other incidents, such as the recent one in Stoke-on-Trent. It is important that we move forward together to ensure that any legislation or guidance that comes forward improves things and makes people feel safe when they go out to eat.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Is it not the case that retailers, particularly the smaller ones, would be more likely to take guidance seriously if there was a mandatory requirement to list the food hygiene scores on the premises? Why is England the only one of the four countries where this is not mandatory? It does not cost a penny in public funds. They already have the labels; they ought to be required to promote them. Those who are not doing so now would then take other guidance more seriously.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend raises a serious question. We need to ensure that the information is readily available and clear. We spent some time pulling the guidance together to address a lot of the issues that he raised while ensuring that it was accessible and flexible to businesses to ensure that they had the facilities to implement it in a way that was effective for their business. I hear the points that he made and will take them back to the department when we review the efficacy of the guidance that we have produced.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025
Lord Rooker Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, just said. I do not intend to repeat the technical aspects of it, but I hope I can deliver the lay man’s common-sense view of it—backed by the science, because that is what we are about.
Precision breeding is not genetic modification, whatever anyone might say. In 1998, I was the Food Safety Minister before the FSA existed, when the campaign was laid against GM foods. In fact, this technique was not available then; if it had been, we would probably not even have tried to go down the road of GM. The American population has been the sitting duck sample of GM food technology for 30 years and, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever died from any of the food.
I am also quite critical of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I feel really sad about this, because its report is biased and does not take a full range of evidence. I am not going into further criticism, but I think this report deserves criticism. It is a shame, because they are normally incredibly good.
It is just as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. It has been a long time since I went to Norwich to the John Innes Centre and the other laboratories and saw the amount of time spent on traditional breeding. If you look at it fully, traditional breeding is gene editing, but they did not know that they were doing it. That is the problem: it is randomised, so they are not certain about it. But the products that come out are safe; the science says they are safe and the FSA says they are safe, and that should be good enough for most of us.
I do not hide behind organics. Anyone would think that organic farmers do not use antibiotics or medicines for their animals. They do. The idea that they are completely natural, with no scientific input at all, is absolutely preposterous.
We basically had this debate when we put the legislation through in 2023. The other place probably has not spend as long on it as this House, from the experience I have in both Houses. Most people—including me, before I went into MAFF—are completely ignorant about the breeding of plants: the technology, the randomised nature of it and the hit-and-miss view of it. The time spent on it is enormous, and is happening all the while. The fact is that breeding is taking place on a regular basis, and we do not worry about it. The products are safe. They are not labelled. That is my criticism of the report: if you cannot check that it is different, how can you label it? I would be much keener on having the methods of slaughter of animals labelled, but everybody is against that. That is more practical. In this case, if you cannot tell the difference, how can you possibly label it? It is scientifically preposterous.
I do not deny that there are scientists who take an opposite view. We had this happen 20-odd years ago, when a scientist told us that something was wrong with potatoes and GM technology. He was checking raw potatoes. I think the advice is, basically, do not eat raw potatoes because the chances are they will kill you. There is a real problem here with some odd scientists. The general scientific community—I hope I am not going to be contradicted in a moment—is generally in favour of this system. It is safe, it is an advance on the science, it helps consumers and it helps the environment. I cannot see what the problem is or the need to slow it down.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the published register. I am torn on this matter. I am a scientist by background and, as such, I have welcomed progress that has been made by science, but I believe that, with the immense impact of that progress, we have a responsibility to be extremely careful and to take steps forward only when we are absolutely certain we are doing the right thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, took me back to the early days of devolution in 1999, when the question of GM products was very controversial and caused immense difficulty—not least across the England-Wales border, in north-east Wales and in Cheshire. These are matters that need to be thought through in advance, otherwise we could once again get ourselves in the same sort of mess as we did around that time.
In responding to this debate, can the Minister clarify where exactly the discussions with the devolved Governments have gone? The responsibility for these matters lies with them, in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Minister indicated that discussions were taking place, but by putting it in those terms the implication is that they have not reached a conclusion. Should we in this House be steamrollering an order like this through when that conclusion has not been reached, and many aspects of it may not have even been discussed at all? Why are the Government bringing this before the House before concluding the procedures to which they themselves have signed up—in the context of Wales—with their own Labour Government in Cardiff, who want to have the time to discuss this and come to a conclusion?
Therefore, I welcome the fact that there is a regret amendment, because I believe that we should move down this road if that is the consensus and it is agreed that it is safe, but only when we have gone through the proper procedures. If we are not going through the proper procedures with regard to the constitutional realities in these islands, how can we be sure that we are also going through the other procedures that are vital to the consideration of the substance of these regulations? Therefore, I ask Minister to think again, at least about the timescale, until further thought has been given to this matter.
Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025
Lord Rooker Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, suggested that there was broad support for his Motion, and I rise to broaden that support and offer the Green Party’s support for both these Motions. I have no personal interest to declare, but the Green Party declares its great concern about food security in the UK and the state of the countryside in what is one of the most nature- depleted corners of this battered planet.
The background to this issue is the CAP scheme area payments. The Green Party has always argued against them, saying that they were deeply flawed and that those with the broadest shoulders got the biggest shovels of cash, while smaller farmers and growers got little or, in too many cases, failed to qualify at all. Our countryside was trapped in a world in which the message delivered by a series of Governments was, “Get big or get out of farming and growing”. We had the Agriculture Bill, your Lordships’ debate on which I took a substantial part in. It aimed to focus on environmental improvements and, indeed, after the intervention of your Lordships’ House, acknowledged the importance of food production. The SFI was supposed to be the scheme delivering on the environmental side of that. As we have already heard at length—I shall not track back over that ground—it was literally slammed shut. Many different metaphors could apply, but that seems a good one to me.
Many farmers are now clearly in a profoundly unsustainable position financially. They are being pounded continually by the dominance of the supermarkets and multinational food companies and are being forced to produce commodities rather than getting a fair price for their products. My particular area of concern is horticulture, vegetables and fruit, which is crucial for food security and public health.
I am not sure whether anyone has referred to the National Audit Office, which said that delay in the rollout of new schemes had made it difficult for farmers to plan their businesses and created “widespread uncertainty and risk”. That is true of many areas of our society, but particularly our farmers: if there is no possibility of planning for the future, it is essentially impossible to farm.
I have one constructive point to make, and I hope that the Minister will be able to agree with me on this, or at least accept my suggestion. She may know that there is a fast-growing campaign for a basic income for farmers as a way of supporting small farmers and growers in particular to be agricultural producers. This aims to guarantee financial security; boost mental well-being and reduce stress; promote inclusivity, innovation and ecological stewardship of the land; and strengthen local food systems and public procurement. Will the Minister agree to have a look at the basic income for farmers campaign, and perhaps arrange to meet me and the campaigners?
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to make a brief intervention. I have absolutely no interests to declare and I have no criticism of my noble friend the Minister or the Minister in the other place, the Member for Cambridge. In fact, in 14 years in opposition, he was the only shadow Minister who ever contacted me to ask me to talk about my experience of Defra and MAFF during the new Labour years of government. He listened, and that was fine—it was good to do, and I have no complaints about that at all.
However, I am reminded of a time when, at that Dispatch Box in about early 2002, when I was on my third ministry and the first in this House, I said that, in my experience to that date, the Treasury had
“wrecked every good idea I have come across”—[Official Report, 16/4/02; col. 837.]
in government. Obviously, the Chancellor was not very happy about that. The fact is that, three ministries later, before I left government, I was thoroughly justified. We have a classic example of this tonight. I am in favour of the CAP going; I have no problem with that—I am a remainer, but that is not the issue. I am in favour of reform of the CAP but, to wreck a good idea, it takes the Treasury. I do not hold Ministers responsible for this at all.
The fact of the matter is that you go back through the memories on this issue. The Minister talked about diversification. I can remember a very senior official saying to me when I was at Defra—I left Defra in 2008, so we are going back a little bit—that they did not really pay much attention to a particular farmer in the Lake District because he was not a full-time farmer, because he diversified into writing. That was what was said to me—it was because he was not a full-time farmer. Noble Lords are obviously aware of who I am referring to.
It is only my respect for this House and our procedures that prevents me walking out, because I have not the slightest intention of voting to support these regulations. I understand the rules about fatal amendments, but the Government would have to pick it up and do it again—that is the reality. We have the power, but we do not use it; as a senior Cross-Bencher said recently, powers you do not use, you lose, so there will come a time when we do not have that. I do not intend to vote to support this, so I will do exactly what my friend from the gym, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said and I will abstain on both amendments. I will not hang around during the votes; I shall go.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I add my name to those regretting these reckless regulations. I am particularly saddened, because they are just one element of a multipronged attack on our farmers, the supply trades and the entire food chain in one of the most important industries and sectors in our economy. I declare my interest in that I am involved in farming, but more particularly in the agricultural supply trade in the fertiliser industry. I therefore know more than most the damage and the harm that the Government are doing to those people who live in the sticks.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; he said that he does not have an interest, but we all have an interest in the food industry. We have to eat every day, and food in your belly is more important than a roof over your head. The truth is that these regulations are harming a sector that needs finance in order to be sustained, to invest to grow. I do not know what rural Britain has done to deserve this metropolitan-based Government, who have turned an understandable and instinctive indifference into outright hostility. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I do not blame the Minister, because the fault lies elsewhere. She has always been most courteous and honourable and she acts with integrity in this House, which we thank her for.
The truth, however, is that this Government must be held to account because their actions are harming today’s farming profitability, which drives tomorrow’s corporation tax revenues. They are damaging the long-term capital underpinning of the industry, which harms investment, innovation and growth. This is collapsing the cash flow, that financial lifeblood that makes it all happen. I will speak to each of those three elements in turn.
On profitability, it is a shame that the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, who is meant to be leading a review for the Government, is not in her place. She would have told us, had she been here, that farmers are already under terrible, tremendous financial pressure, caught in that pincer movement between low grain prices and elevated input costs. Tighter margins are pressured by the national insurance rises, and now there are these inexplicable plans to persevere with a fertiliser tax that could add a quarter to the cost of the most expensive input, flipping even breakeven businesses over to loss.
On the balance sheet, the effect of the agricultural property relief element of the inheritance tax has been well ventilated. I will not dwell too much on that now, save to say that it is the effect on the business property relief—slightly different—that particularly harms the self-starting, innovative and entrepreneurial tenant farmers, who live by their wits because they did not have the good fortune to inherit the land, free of charge, upon which they make their living. The effect of all these in combination is to remove the long-term generational incentives to invest in the farm, develop the countryside and the landscape, protect nature and, yes, in so doing sustain wealth in our islands, particularly in the shires, where, let us not forget, 90% of businesses employ 10 people or fewer.
I have heard the argument that the IHT can take 10 years to pay, but those annual instalments over 10 years would be more than would be paid by the rent. It is just cloud-cuckoo-land.
Landed estates, for the most part, have already incorporated, in one form or another, or transferred to trusts, so once again those farmers left behind are the smaller farmers. Totally contrary to what Minister said, with these effects Labour is targeting the little guys, the sole traders, the family partnerships, particularly in the less favoured areas, while allowing those larger, more corporate farmers—the ones she says have the broadest shoulders—off the hook.
It is the summary cancellation of slurry lagoon grants that, more than anything, could help solve the problem of river pollution. It is the cancellation of those twin cabs on pickup vehicles. Let us be clear, these pickups are tools of trades. They are as good as a tractor. They are the sort of thing that a man in a factory would have as a crucial part of the plant and machinery involved in the business. It is really a spiteful misunderstanding of how investment in plant and machinery works.
All of these contribute to this £80,000 a year profit cap on aspiration, which is the number that, through EBITDA, gets you to the million quid, at which APR and BPR kick in. If we stop that aspiration, how are we going to grow an economy? This is what is happening, so, yes, I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said: this is the Treasury holding the economy down and not letting it flourish.
As for cash flow, since we have mentioned these delinked payments, I want to put a number on this; I do not know why the number is what it is, but I have it in front of me. A specimen 680 hectare farm that would have received £160,000 in 2020 will receive just £7,200 this year, over and above all those other financial headwinds that I have mentioned. A black zero is the best that many farmers can now expect. How does that help everyone? It is particularly important because, although I do not want to dwell too much and repeat the points my noble friend Lord Roborough made from the Front Bench, there was that interplay between the delinked payments and the SFI, and by taking one away the contract between the Government, Defra, farming and the food industry, as well as the supply trades, has been broken. That has a knock-on for machinery dealers, contractors, auction marts, professionals and those family businesses disproportionately affected in the countryside.
In summary, no wonder people living outside the M25 and the conurbations think they are under attack from the cumulative effects of all these proposals in a concerted war on the countryside. The effect is also, astonishingly, to undermine the Government’s environmental objectives, because the effect of all of this is that if land is put under the plough, it must be pushed as hard as possible to get a return. I suppose that leaves more land not ploughed, for other environmental schemes. In essence, it proves that Labour does not understand the countryside, but I tell you, the countryside now understands Labour. The industry that, more than any other, meets the most basic human need—food in your belly—is being made unviable, and rural communities are paying the price.