| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Additional full-time staff.
Baroness Barker: I trust that the composition of the additional staff will reflect the pensioner population.
I still believe that it would be helpful to have on the face of the Bill an entitlement to a benefit check. However, at this stage in the proceedings, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, before we move to the Statement, perhaps I may remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification.
Farming and Food
5.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend Margaret Beckett to a Private Notice Question in another place on the report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. The Statement is as follows:
-
"The independent Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, chaired by Sir Don Curry, delivered its report to the Government this morning. Copies of the report have been placed in the House Libraries and in the Vote Office.
"The commission was set up in August of last year in fulfilment of a manifesto commitment. I would like to offer the Government's sincere thanks to Sir
- Don and each of the commission members for the very hard work they have put in over a short but effective period of consultation. Some 1,000 organisations and individuals have offered their views. To undertake an exercise of this type in five months is indeed both a tall order and a considerable achievement.
"I very much welcome the report and the very valuable ideas it contains. The commission has delivered what we asked of it: a clear vision of a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector, playing a dynamic role in the rural economy and delivering effectively and efficiently the environmental outputs that society demands. We wholeheartedly support its broad analysis and conclusions.
"The key themes identified in the report seem to be the right ones. The year 2001 was a desperately difficult year for farming and rural communities. Foot and mouth was a catastrophe, but as the commission's report makes clear, farming's problems are wider and of longer standing. To make farming viable again, it is vital that we improve the links between farmers, their markets and their consumers, and reinforce the relationship between farming, the countryside and the environment.
"I am sure the House will understand that having just received this report I am not in a position to give a view on each of the very many specific and detailed recommendations it contains. I shall pick out key proposals.
"Reform of the CAP is, of course, our long-standing strategic aim. I am very pleased to see that the report endorses the UK Government's strategic objectives in this area.
"As the report rightly points out, we do already have some mechanisms available in the CAP which allow us to transfer CAP moneys out of production subsidies and into broader rural land management and environmental directions. Modulation is one such means, and the report makes ambitious recommendations to step up drastically the role of modulation. The Government accept that we should explore the use of such mechanisms and endorse the need to consider such shifts very seriously.
"The commission notes the vital role of farming in contributing to a healthy and attractive environment. Under the England Rural Development Programme we have many schemes in place to enhance and protect the environment and the countryside. The commission's view is that we need to go further. Its proposals for a broad and shallow agri-environment scheme are timely, as we are just embarking on a major review of such schemes.
"The report makes clear that if we are to have a profitable industry, capable of thriving without production subsidy, there is a need for industry to take action to improve its own performance—for example, by cutting costs, by adding value, and by diversification. There is a role for government as a partner in, and a facilitator of, that process. But the
- commission says that the impetus must come from the industry itself, working within the food chain as a whole. That is why I am pleased to see, therefore, that the report proposes the creation of a food chain centre to bring together all parts of the supply chain with the aim of monitoring and improving competitiveness.
"In other areas covered by the report, such as GMs, scrapie eradication, sheep national envelopes and animal disease insurance, the commission appears to have made recommendations which very much work with the grain of what we have been trying to achieve.
"The report is clear that its recommendations are not just for government, or, within government, just for my department. But we stand ready to work with the food and farming industries as they address the challenges that they face because we need farming to succeed.
"Mr Speaker, we all need time to consider how best to proceed and to assess the report's financial and other implications. But it is our firm intention that the kind of ideas put forward by the commission will make a substantial contribution towards a new strategy for sustainable, diverse, modern and adaptable farming, integrated with the rest of the food chain and taking into account the needs of the environment and rural economy.
"We intend to launch such a strategy in the summer, when the detailed policy measures have been developed and drawn up. We will engage stakeholders across the country in that process, beginning in March, when I hope to meet leaders of the farming and food industries and leaders of environmental, consumer and rural interests to discuss how best we should drive forward the agenda set out by the commission. I shall announce further details in due course".
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the Statement to the House this afternoon. I am slightly mystified because he has missed out some sections that were in my report. I hope that he will forgive me if I touch on a couple of those sections. Perhaps I may share them with the House. I also remind the House of my family's farming interests.
On the report hang the hopes of all within the farming community and of those allied businesses that supply them. As the Minister said, the past five years have been dire. Farm incomes have plummeted and on top of financial disaster came swine fever and the foot and mouth outbreak. A healthy farming industry is crucial to the well-being of our people and of our countryside. Tourism was directly affected by its demise.
I add my congratulations to Sir Don Curry and to his commission members for having produced a substantial report that comes forward with 31 pages of recommendations. I accept the Minister's comment
that it is not possible for any of us to absorb it in such a short time. That is the background against which we look at the report today. I shall touch on a few of the recommendations. Running through many of them is the central tenet that subsidies and price supports must go—and the sooner the better, in the view of the commission.Sir Donald and his colleagues are clear that CAP has to be reformed, with a move to the second pillar, and that environmental schemes are to be encouraged, but they must be standardised and their administration simplified. I am sure that the Minister is aware that some farmers are very concerned about the modulation section in the report. They are anxious for it to be phased in and for time to be given to adapt. Does the Minister agree that farmers must collaborate and co-operate in the future? Is he in a position—as he touched on briefly in his Statement—to say how the Government intend to support that?
Will DEFRA accept the recommendation to lead a study into disease insurance, which, after BSE and FMD, is both essential and likely to be impossible for individual farmers to obtain? On the subject of disease—that was the part that the Minister, by mistake I am sure, missed out—will he explain why there are so few searches for illegally imported foods? Will the Government strengthen the controls and checks as suggested in the report? The Statement said:
- "We have already stepped up checks".
How do the Government view the report's recommendations on regulation, particularly the suggested move to a whole-farm approach? There is concern that the proposals could lead to yet more regulatory burdens. Will the Government undertake a cost analysis before new regulatory burdens are brought in for the industry? Will the Government ensure that farmers and food producers in this country do not have to comply by themselves when producers abroad do not comply with the same regulatory burdens?
The report recommends that DEFRA should devise and implement a comprehensive animal health strategy. When that is taken in conjunction with DEFRA's letter of consultation on animal welfare, does the Minister intend to pursue the Animal Health Bill at this time? I have noticed the difference between the two.
In the light of the profitability of the horticulture sector, will the Government support the report's recommendation to increase the quota for the seasonal agricultural workers scheme to 50,000 people? Are the Government minded to allow the Horticultural Development Council to engage in promotional activities?
Does the Minister agree that the red tractor scheme should be developed to be the common standard for all food produced in England? Perhaps he might comment on the fact that the report refers a lot to England and does not tend to touch on the devolved countries. Does he further agree that the red tractor scheme could also cover environmental standards and
that the Government should fund the establishment of such a brand? Will the Government also agree to the recommended extra £5 million per annum for three years for processing and marketing grants? Does the Minister further agree that the rural enterprise budget should be substantially increased at the mid-term review? The big crux question is whether the Treasury will make the necessary funds available so that many of the report's suggestions and recommendations will be possible.From the foregoing, it will be obvious that the report is wide-ranging. On this side of the House we welcome the long-term strategy on renewables. We also welcome the section on labelling. In particular, we support the suggestion for compulsory country of origin labelling. We welcome the accent on local farm produce. We also welcome the suggestion on educating children so that they have a better knowledge of food and of good nutrition. Does the Minister support such ideas, pointing to a profitable future for an industry that is vital to our country's survival?
I remind the Minister of the recommendation on page 109, which says:
- "The key objective for public policy"—
- "should be to reconnect our farming and food industry: to reconnect farming with its markets and the rest of the food chain"—
- "The first question we set ourselves is how we can make farming and food production profitable again, by reconnecting it with the rest of the food chain and with consumers"
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the report. I congratulate Sir Don Curry, who had to bring together an enormous quantity of evidence and submissions in a very short time and has produced a coherent report as a result. That is very welcome.
From a quick read, the report makes many excellent points. As the Minister said at the end of his Statement, it should lead to a strategy. We hope that it will not be simply another strategy that sits on the shelf and gathers dust. I should have preferred it if he had been able to come up with a government response to the report recommendation by recommendation, saying what the Government intend to do. There are too many government strategies that are not being implemented at the moment. We do not want this area of work to be another.
Many of the recommendations are on issues that the Liberal Democrats have been advocating for some time. I shall highlight four. The section on young entrants into farming was particularly strong. Without young entrants there will be no future for farming. We were very pleased to read that section. We were also
pleased to read the many practical suggestions on the environmental side. I noticed that the Minister left out the words,
- "That position I fully support"
We also welcome the sections on labelling, although the recommendations could be further developed. I look forward to the stakeholder discussions on how that might take place. We also felt that the section on reconnecting the food chain was very strong. The report referred to processing units that could be developed by collaborative ventures and the expectation that RDAs should help in that. Farmers have lacked the ability to process what they grow.
I have some concerns about whether the commission has managed to define the balance between sustainability and competitiveness. We need to grapple further with that issue. Although the report comes up with many good suggestions on how the industry can be more sustainable, it still accepts the validity of the argument for growing food cheap and shipping it far. The report challenges that notion a little when it addresses the issue of animal transport, but it does not present a long-term view. Although it describes a 30-year plan for food and nutrition, it does not say whether, in the next 30 years, it will be sustainable to ship food over long distances, thereby consuming fuel oil. We should address that issue further.
I hope that the Government will give us a debate in their own time so that we can discuss in detail the 100 recommendations. As the Minister said again in his statement, the issues go beyond DEFRA itself. I therefore particularly welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is in the Chamber. Tomorrow, in our Liberal Democrat-initiated debate, I look forward to hearing his response to the report.
The need to change farming habits and the subsidy system are two major challenges. Moreover, as the report says, it will take a very long time to change the eating habits of a lifetime. Changing those habits may take even longer as they are not affected by a subsidy system.
We certainly accept that CAP reform is badly needed, and we have long called for it. However, the United Kingdom Government themselves could do much to address the issue before full reform is achieved. In view of all the report's good suggestions, is the Minister content with the speed with which the shift is being made from the first to the second pillar? Under the CAP rules, the United Kingdom could spend up to 20 per cent of subsidy on the second pillar; historically, we have spent far less. I hope that the Government will consider moving much closer towards that level. The report's suggestions, without the money to back them, will remain as just good ideas. We welcome the report, but we also look forward to the Government acting on it.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I very much welcome the positive response from both Front Benches to the report's general tenor and main outline. As for the Statement that I made, as opposed to that which both noble Baronesses have in their hands, I read out the Statement as it was delivered in the other place by my right honourable friend. The remaining text represents the Government's position on the report, and it would have resulted in a rather longer Statement.
I should clarify one or two matters and perhaps thereby clarify the report's aegis. It is a report on farming and food in England. Although development and pursuit of policy in Europe also is a matter for the UK Government, and is touched on in the report, we shall be consulting very closely on it with the devolved administrations as they may have marginally different views. We have to take that into account. The Government also have to consider both the process and all the detailed recommendations. Additionally, we have to consider the financial implications and the timing. Later this year, we have to engage in very substantial and difficult negotiations on the mid-term review of the CAP and on the longer-term changes to the CAP. The report refers to those changes, and it broadly concurs with the UK Government's objectives in the negotiations.
One of the reasons that we gave the commission a relatively tight timetable was to ensure that we had the clarity of its recommendations, and were able to assist it, in time for the coming spending round, which will end this summer. During that round, we wanted to be able to take into account the full conclusions on the consequent financial commitment. We are therefore saying that the final strategy for English food and farming will be produced in the summer, when we have the final results on the spending side.
Like others, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, picked up on the point that the key objectives and recommendations particularly for farming can perhaps be summarised in terms of "reconnection"—reconnection with markets and consumers; reconnection with the food chain in a positive, constructive and profitable way; reconnection with the countryside and the environment; and reconnection with the rural economy as a whole. The interconnection between farming and food was made very evident during the foot and mouth epidemic.
All those factors are part of the report and are interrelated. However, I do not think that there is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller suggested, a conflict between sustainability—which is the keynote of the report—and profitability. Profitability is part of sustainability. We shall not succeed as a food and farming industry unless profits can be made in the industry and unless the industry has a prosperous future. Environmental sustainability—which was a very important part of the report—economic sustainability and social sustainability, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford referred, are all objectives that have to be taken into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned various points of clarification. Perhaps the key issue—and the one that has proved most controversial outside this House, in contrast to the general welcome for the report—is modulation. Modulation is the mechanism that already exists in the CAP to transfer from the first to the second pillar. I appreciate that farming organisations have some concern about it and that traditional methods of subsidising farming will be reduced to the extent that we adopt the modulation proposals.
The Government have some difficulty with the modulation proposition in that, under the rules, the money can be spent on only a relatively small range of expenditure. If we are to go for the report's recommendation of 10 per cent and beyond, it will be necessary to discuss with the European Union and our colleagues the need for greater flexibility in modulation. Therefore, in principle, we support the modulation system and the type of targets outlined in the report. However, we shall need greater flexibility in order to use it effectively.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also asked how the Government would support farmers during that process. Many of the report's detailed recommendations on advice, support, marketing and processing require the Government's consideration. Broadly speaking, we accept the general direction of those recommendations.
The noble Baroness also asked about disease insurance, which is a very important and complex issue. Today and later this week, the department is discussing the issue with insurance and farming representatives.
The noble Baroness asked about imports. There is clear concern about the effectiveness of import controls. I have just three things to say on the disease implications of illegal imports, and I have said them to the House before. First, I recognise that, as the report says, more needs to be done. We are addressing the issue in both European regulations and our own enforcement.
Secondly, quite a lot has been done to increase the number of checks of commercial goods in containers and of checks at airports. However, I think that more needs to be done to inform the travelling public and on checks and enforcement. There may also have to be greater co-ordination between the various agencies. I hope to make some immediate proposals on that issue.
Thirdly, in containing the spread of disease, import controls and checks are no substitute for effective bio-security and effective restrictions and movement controls. Even countries that have very tight import checks and controls still have occasional incursions of disease. The point is that, regrettably, those countries are able to stop the spread more effectively than we were able to do in the past months.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also raised the issue of regulation. Broadly speaking, the Government are very much in favour of the commission's recommendations on moving towards whole-farm
forms of certification and a much broader basis for regulation, rather than a multiple and cumulative range of regulatory authorities that farmers have to deal with. It is a more holistic approach. Although it is difficult to get there from here, we agree with the objective and shall pursue it.The noble Baroness also asked about the Animal Health Bill. I intend, for immediate purposes, to pursue the Bill in this House because we need those powers should the disease regrettably recur for one reason or another in the coming months. Although there is the longer-term issue of animal health and animal diseases, and the parallel issue of the broader rationalisation of animal welfare procedures, the Animal Health Bill is needed now—as the noble Baroness will have heard me say on Second Reading.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller, supported some aspects of the commission's work. Certainly the recommendations on new entrants are important and need to be developed. I fully support the general direction of recommendations on the environmental side, despite the fact that I did not read them out. Labelling is an important issue. The issue of support for the industry in terms of processing grants and so forth is also important. As regards seasonal agricultural workers, the figure of 50,000 is perhaps one we would have to consider. We have already had one increase in the seasonal agricultural workers quota and we are considering a further one. That will, of course, also be the subject of an announcement by the Home Office in relation to managed migration for non-professional jobs more generally which will be made relatively soon.
There is much that is positive in the report and there is much that we need to continue to debate. My noble friend Lord Hunt will deal with some of the issues in the broad ranging debate to be initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, tomorrow. No doubt we shall return to these issues at a later stage when we have engaged with the stakeholders and during the process of coming up with our strategy for what I hope is a sustainable, prosperous, environmentally sensitive, safe and nutritionally effective policy for food and farming in general. This is a very, very good start. I again thank the commission and I thank the noble Baronesses for their broad support.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend, whose general approach I applaud, say something about the report's remarks on closer liaison between the farming industry and consumers and the role that the Government will play in that regard? Will he say something about the co-operation that is now envisaged with regard to the devolved areas, particularly in relation to subsidies and the environment? Finally, what role does he envisage—perhaps it is too early to comment on this—should be played by the Government as regards environmental payments?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page