Summary of conclusions and recommendations
1.Several departments, bodies, and organisations make decisions that impact the horticultural sector, but there is a lack of cross-departmental working. This can result in delays and inefficiencies in decision-making. (Paragraph 7)
2.The Government should consider establishing a cross-departmental horticultural sector working group, to include participants from Defra, DfE, DHSC, DBT, DESNZ, and the Home Office. (Paragraph 8)
3.Short-term Government planning cycles are at odds with the certainty needed across the horticulture sector, many parts of which need to plan across a five to 20-year cycle. The Government’s failure to produce a Horticulture Strategy for England has confounded many in the horticulture sector and left them feeling forgotten by Government at their moment of greatest need. We intend that this report provide an optimistic vision of the future for the sector in England, and recommendations for what might be done to guide it into the future, but it is not a substitute for a Government strategy. (Paragraph 13)
4.The Government must look to reassure and guide the horticultural sector through longer-term planning cycles. To this end, it must publish a Horticulture Strategy for England as promised in the Government Food Strategy as a matter of highest urgency. (Paragraph 14)
5.The Government has commissioned expert reviews relevant to this area, and we thank the authors of the Automation in Horticulture Review, the Independent Review into Labour Shortages, the Consultation on the Common User Charge, and the Consultation on the Review of the R&D Tax Reliefs Review. It is not acceptable that we are still waiting for Government to respond to these reviews. (Paragraph 16)
6.The Government must publish a response to the Automation in Horticulture Review, the Independent Review of Labour Shortages, the Consultation on the Common User Charge, and the Consultation on the Review of the R&D Tax Reliefs Review as soon as possible. (Paragraph 17)
7.Horticulture, particularly ornamental horticulture, is not given enough prominence within the portfolio of the Minister for Food, Farming, and Fisheries, which leads to horticultural businesses feeling like they do not have a voice in Government. (Paragraph 21)
8.The Government must appoint a Minister with specific horticultural responsibilities to provide direction and accountability for the sector. (Paragraph 22)
9.The Environmental Land Management Schemes (ELMS) policy is a positive step towards accomplishing the Government’s goals of growing and maintaining a resilient and productive agricultural sector over the long-term, whilst achieving environmental and climate targets. The updated SFI guidance published in June 2023 shows that the scheme can change rapidly based on the needs of growers, but evidence to this inquiry shows that ELMS needs further work to be of maximum use to growers. Many growers, particularly those in intensive farming, or working on plots of less than 5ha, do not feel that ELMS meets the needs of their businesses. We are also concerned that ELMS does not offer sufficient incentives to growers in the ornamental horticulture sector, or to urban land managers. (Paragraph 29)
10.The Government must continue to provide tailored communications to the horticultural sector, particularly to growers of ornamental plants, on ELMS schemes for which they are eligible. If applications to the scheme from these growers remain low, the Government should consult on broadening the criteria to make ELMS more accessible to land managers in the ornamental horticulture sector, including to those who manage land in urban spaces such as community gardens. (Paragraph 30)
11.The Government must “test and trial” an ELMS initiative for growers in intensive horticulture and protected edibles that is delinked from farm size. (Paragraph 31)
12.Payments from the ELMS scheme should be kept under review to ensure they fully recognise the loss of income from reduction of productive land. (Paragraph 32)
13.The Government must set out how it will implement the lessons learned from the 2022 ELMS test and trial undertaken with the Landworkers Alliance. (Paragraph 33)
14.A conflation of factors such as the war in Ukraine and the longstanding impact of the pandemic on supply chains has demonstrated how vulnerable the UK is to energy price fluctuations. Exacerbated by inflationary pressures, growers in the protected horticulture sector have faced huge increases in energy costs, but it is not recognised as an energy-intensive industry. (Paragraph 43)
15.The Government must recognise horticulture as an energy intensive industry and add it to the list of sectors eligible for the ETII scheme. (Paragraph 44)
16.Recent gas price increases have led to spikes in fertiliser prices, particularly for manufactured ammonium nitrate and urea fertilisers, which take a significant amount of energy to produce. There is a pressing need to address this issue in the short term. (Paragraph 50)
17.The Committee agrees with the EFRA Committee that the Government should set out how it will ensure continued fertiliser production in the UK. The Fertiliser Industry Taskforce must make good on its promise to increase transparency in the fertiliser market to help mitigate the effects of price volatility by working closely with industry on a regular basis. In the long term, the Taskforce must take note of our recommendations on R&D with a view to reducing dependence on nitrogen and phosphorous-based fertilisers. (Paragraph 51)
18.Loss-leader strategies, price-matching to the lowest bidder and the perceived imperative to offer low prices to consumers at the expense of grower returns is squeezing the UK horticultural sector out in favour of cheaper imports. Despite the need for affordable food, particularly during a cost-of-living crisis, supermarket activity is fundamentally damaging food security in the UK by further increasing our reliance on cheap overseas imports and putting UK growers out of business. The Government’s review of fairness in the horticultural supply chain is welcome. (Paragraph 62)
19.The Government must conduct and publish its review of fairness in the horticultural supply chain as soon as possible and include ornamentals within its scope. (Paragraph 63)
20.The GCA is effective and improving compliance with the GSCOP Code. We recognise that it does the best it can with the limited resources provided to it by Government, but the GCA’s role is too limited to stand up for growers effectively. (Paragraph 72)
21.The GSCOP code must be refreshed to embed the 7 Golden Rules identified by the GCA. The CMA must review the scope and remit of the GCA to examine whether the powers the GCA has are appropriate for a wider scope and if they should be increased to address broader supply chain relationships, including processors and wholesale purchasers. Ornamentals should be included as part of the horticultural sector supplying to retailers. (Paragraph 73)
22.The UK is far from being self-sufficient in fruits and vegetables, and this has become worse in recent years. The Prime Minister has promised to boost domestic food production, but has so far failed to do so. There is considerable scope for halting and reversing the decline in food security if the Government set new policies and targets to do so. (Paragraph 89)
23.We recommend in common with the EFRA Committee’s recent recommendation that the Government should develop a suite of key food security indicators—from farm inputs and retailer outputs—to monitor and ensure food security and report annually as committed to by the Prime Minister. In addition, the Government must, as a priority, define targets for food self-sufficiency and set itself statutory reporting duties against those targets together with key food security indicators. Defra should, as a matter of urgency, reconsider its interpretation of international rules and consider barriers to promoting British food. (Paragraph 90)
24.Supermarkets should do more to promote environmentally friendly actions through encouraging consumers to buy British produce and to increase consumer awareness of seasonality. (Paragraph 99)
25.The Government should work with industry to launch a campaign to define what is unique and special about British produce and encourage consumers to buy more seasonal British produce. (Paragraph 100)
26.Biosecurity is of fundamental importance, and it is essential to assess this risk during the import and export process. However current processes are unwieldy and do not account for the huge variance in plant types captured under the same risk categories. (Paragraph 116)
27.The risk model proposed in the Border Target Operating Model should be kept under review and more clarity provided to accompany risk status updates. (Paragraph 117)
28.The Plant Healthy Certification Scheme is a positive mechanism by which to increase biosecurity and is supported by industry. Its widespread adoption should be championed by the Government. (Paragraph 118)
29.The Plant Healthy Certification Scheme should be compulsory, and support must be provided to ensure SMEs are supported to achieve accreditation. (Paragraph 119)
30.Boosting the availability of UK-grown plants will further enhance the UK horticultural sector and help to support UK biosecurity. (Paragraph 120)
31.The Government should work with industry to promote a British kitemark for UK plant products in tandem with the recommended campaign to help consumers recognise what is unique and special about British produce. (Paragraph 121)
32.The publication of the final BTOM is welcome and we are pleased that the updated timeframe offers more opportunity to allow the horticultural sector to prepare for implementation. However, the sector continues to operate amidst serious uncertainty given a lack of clarity on timelines for digitalisation and the AOS scheme. (Paragraph 143)
33.The Government should set out clear timelines for the integration of new and upgraded technologies. It should urgently set out its plans including costs and timeframes for the pilot and implementation of the AOS scheme to enable a seamless transition for businesses in the sector. The Government should keep the relationship between the Windsor Framework and the BTOM under review to ensure effectiveness. (Paragraph 144)
34.Communication on the implementation of the BTOM has been poor, which has left importers feeling unsupported. The successful implementation of the BTOM must not be jeopardised by a lack of communication with industry. (Paragraph 145)
35.The Government must communicate clearly and collaboratively with industry during implementation of the BTOM. It should make good on its promise to work with importers utilising groupage to clarify procedures and ensure complexity and cost is minimised. This should include reviewing the possibility of easements for SMEs and clearly setting out the costs associated with operating and using BCPs and CPs. (Paragraph 146)
36.The costs of the Common User Charge could be enormous for horticultural businesses, particularly for SMEs and exporters to the UK. Yet there is no clear information on the impact on businesses or consumers and no clear definition of ‘consignment’. (Paragraph 147)
37.The Government must define ‘consignment’ for the purposes of charges under the new model. The response to the consultation on the Common User Charge should be published as soon as possible. If it should go ahead, the charge should be reviewed regularly to ensure costs are not squeezing out small businesses. (Paragraph 148)
38.Ineffective CITES processes and costs are inhibiting effective imports of plant species into the UK and leading to the destruction of legitimately traded plants. (Paragraph 154)
39.CITES processes should be digitalised and import permits should be scrapped to reduce duplication of paperwork. The administrational cost of obtaining a CITES permit should be reviewed to allow SMEs to trade effectively. A more flexible mechanism must be put in place to protect legitimately traded plants being destroyed due to incorrect paperwork. In the case of no-fault destruction of consignments, the Government should consider a mechanism to reimburse growers. (Paragraph 155)
40.From the time that children enter school, the National Curriculum fails to give them a good basic knowledge of horticulture and horticultural skills. This failure to promote horticulture continues in post-primary education, when young people, many of whom are highly motivated by the prospect of working in a ‘green job’ or a highly skilled career in STEM, are not guided towards the horticultural sector as an opportunity to combine the two. (Paragraph 163)
41.Horticulture should be put on the curriculum as a stand-alone topic within the science curriculum at all Key Stages. (Paragraph 164)
42.At Key Stages 3 and 4, career guidance teachers and counsellors should be given far more information about horticultural careers including those at university and research levels and to support them in pointing students to the varied opportunities available. Qualifications should be encouraged but they should not be a barrier to entry. (Paragraph 165)
43.As a result of perceived societal barriers to entry and a perception of who is welcome in the industry, the horticulture sector is missing out on talented people from diverse backgrounds. More work is needed to make horticulture truly accessible to all, and to ensure that the breadth of roles in the sector are widely known. (Paragraph 170)
44.The Government must support The Institute for Agriculture and Horticulture to ensure that its careers programmes and schemes reach young people and new entrants from under-represented backgrounds. (Paragraph 171)
45.While the Committee welcomes the establishment of the Institute for Agriculture and Horticulture and applauds the ambition of its remit and its early successes, it is disappointed that it does not cover the ornamental sector. (Paragraph 174)
46.The Government must expand TIAH’s remit to include the ornamental sector as soon as is feasibly possible. Any such expansion must be adequately staffed, funded, and supported. (Paragraph 175)
47.We welcome the introduction of a T Level in Agriculture, Land Management, and Production, but we are concerned about its shaky start. To ensure its success, Government must learn the lessons of the Ofsted T Level thematic review and listen to industry providers about what is needed to deliver courses successfully. (Paragraph 182)
48.The Government should explain what changes they have made to the Agriculture, Land Management, and Production T Level on a “lessons learned” basis following the Ofsted thematic review of extant T Level courses. (Paragraph 183)
49.The Agriculture, Land Management and Production T Level should be reviewed after its first year with a view to allowing land-based colleges to deliver the work-experience element of T Level courses on site. (Paragraph 184)
50.The Government should support providers of the Agriculture, Land Management and Production T Level to raise awareness of the qualification amongst potential students and in the industry. (Paragraph 185)
51.Apprenticeships at all levels are a valuable way for people to find routes into horticulture, however, at present, the apprenticeship levy is too rigid and provides poor value for money: it is not meeting the training needs of the sector. The complexity of the levy, and restrictions on who can access it and when, mean that rural SMEs are missing out on valuable opportunities to hire new apprentices and to upskill existing staff. (Paragraph 191)
52.The Government must reform the apprenticeship levy to meet the needs of horticultural businesses. Flexibility should be introduced to support delivery of training in rural settings, for example a removal or lowering of minimum thresholds for attendees for training courses. There should be greater flexibility around the use of the apprenticeship levy to support the “bite-size learning” of specific skill sets to up-skill existing workforces. The Government must open up the apprenticeship levy to seasonal workers or provide an alternate training scheme for them to support SMEs who rely on this workforce. (Paragraph 192)
53.The higher education sector is not producing people with the skills needed to enable the horticultural sector to tackle the challenges of implementing the sustainable development goals and secure a sustainable supply of healthy food. (Paragraph 197)
54.We encourage universities offering courses in Plant Science, Horticulture or Botany to revise their module list considering the skills needed in the sector, to ensure that their graduates are trained to meet the challenges of the industry. The Department for Education should offer advice and support on this where possible and appropriate. (Paragraph 198)
55.We support the recommendation of the Independent Review that further and higher education funding bodies should review food supply chain-related subjects to ensure courses are well resourced and that recurrent and capital funding is enhanced and protected in the long-term. (Paragraph 199)
56.The speed of technological innovation in the horticultural sector brings with it new opportunities for innovation, and for young people to find exciting careers. However, there is a need for long-term workforce planning to ensure a skills match between those working in the industry and the pace of innovation. (Paragraph 203)
57.The Government must produce a strategy to ensure that there are sufficient skilled workers available in key areas as recommended by the Independent Review into Labour Shortages in the Food Supply Chain. (Paragraph 204)
58.The Seasonal Worker Scheme is vital for UK food security and the health of the horticultural sector. However, there is limited and conflicting information in the public domain about how well the scheme is operating. (Paragraph 212)
59.The Government must publish its review of the seasonal worker route, as promised in response to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration’s December 2022 report. It must also respond to the Migration Advisory Committee’s latest Review of the Shortage Occupation list. (Paragraph 213)
60.The Government should convene a meeting of retailers and the NFU, with representation from seasonal workers, to discuss the welfare issues raised in this report. (Paragraph 214)
61.If the Government is serious about recruiting a domestic labour force to seasonal work, it must address the barriers which stand in the way: poor pay and conditions in the sector, a lack of affordable rural housing, poor rural transport links, and perceived inflexibility in the tax and benefits system. (Paragraph 222)
62.The Government must review options to make local housing and transport more affordable to ensure that local people are not discouraged from taking up seasonal work. They must also ensure that flexibility in the tax and benefits system is being properly advertised to claimants who may wish to move into work temporarily, and to ensure that government departments are communicating with one another about these opportunities. (Paragraph 223)
63.We welcome the early announcement of the seasonal worker visa figures for 2024 but note the 33 per cent reduction in numbers. We are glad that the Government has begun to respond to industry demand for more advanced visa announcements to line-up with grower planning cycles. However, we are conscious that growers need as much certainty as possible and are concerned that the Government’s commitment to tapering the scheme may lead to delays in announcing future visa figures, thereby threatening the usefulness of the scheme to growers. (Paragraph 232)
64.The Government must commit to data collection to understand how many seasonal workers will be needed in the UK in the short, medium, and long-term. Once these figures are collected, a seasonal workers workforce plan should be published detailing how many visas are needed and how many the Government expects to make available for the next 5, 10 and 20 years. (Paragraph 233)
65.Even if there is flexibility on the exact number of visas available, the Government must guarantee the existence of the seasonal workers scheme, in principle, for five years at a time, as per the recommendation made in the Independent Review of Labour Shortages in the Food Supply Chain. The Government must communicate any changes to the scheme in good time to allow scheme operators and growers to plan ahead and to communicate with incoming seasonal workers. (Paragraph 234)
66.To lower recruitment and training costs to growers, increase efficiency, and to retain and attract talent on UK farms, the seasonal worker scheme visa should be extended to nine months, and employers should bear the consequent cost of the NHS surcharge incurred after six months. (Paragraph 235)
67.We have heard evidence to suggest that some seasonal workers are being charged extremely high illegal recruitment fees by scammers, criminals, and most troublingly by the overseas staff of scheme operators. This practice is damaging both to the lives and livelihoods of current and would-be seasonal workers and to the businesses and reputations of UK scheme operators. (Paragraph 243)
68.The GLAA must, as a priority, re-establish confidence with industry that it competently applies due diligence in the licensing of overseas labour recruiters in accordance with its own guidelines. It must define legal requirements country by country and inspect against these, ensuring that there is a sustainable operational and commercial model in place that does not involve charging recruitment fees to workers, inappropriate sub-contracting, or the use of unlicensed gangmasters. (Paragraph 244)
69.The GLAA must issue new guidance on scam adverts for UK seasonal worker schemes. (Paragraph 245)
70.Competition for seasonal workers amongst developed nations is high, and the UK must be able to secure a supply of workers. Small reforms to visa processing fees and tax codes will allow seasonal workers to retain more of the money that they earn in the UK, making it a more attractive destination: at no additional cost to growers. (Paragraph 248)
71.To encourage workers to return to the UK, and therefore cut training costs for UK growers, the Government should process the visas of returning seasonal workers at cost. (Paragraph 249)
72.Reforms should be made to how seasonal workers are taxed to allow them to retain more of their earnings. A dedicated seasonal workers’ tax code should be introduced under which no income tax is levied until the worker has reached the annual tax threshold. The pension auto-enrolment and National Insurance enrolment obligations should be removed. Employer National Insurance should be allocated to refund the costs of visa and travel for seasonal workers. (Paragraph 250)
73.Seasonal workers have the same right as anyone else to claim their right to asylum under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, this should not interfere in the lawful operation of scheme operators’ businesses, and scheme operators should not be penalised if one of their workers claims asylum. Scheme operators are not asylum caseworkers, and nor should they be expected to behave as such. (Paragraph 254)
74.To protect the lawful operation of scheme operators’ businesses, workers who claim asylum should not be included in the Home Office requirement that 97 per cent of sponsored workers leave the UK at the end of their stay. (Paragraph 255)
75.Seasonal workers work in the UK for a short time, but for the time that they are here, they are owed the full protection of existing UK employment laws and standards. For some, that protection has been lacking, leaving them open to labour abuse. Routes to redress for workers are limited, and when they do report exploitation, the effectiveness of enforcement is curtailed by the coupling of labour market with immigration enforcement, and a jumbled mix of bodies responsible for carrying out enforcement. (Paragraph 268)
76.The Government must separate labour inspectorates from immigration enforcement and make clearer the roles and responsibilities of current enforcement bodies including the Home Office. The Government must provide an official source of redress to seasonal workers that is not linked to immigration. (Paragraph 269)
77.Seasonal workers should be informed of their right to join a trade union during the recruitment process and upon their arrival to the UK and should be signposted to other sources of support. (Paragraph 270)
78.A compulsory welfare spot-check should be introduced between month three and six at farms that host seasonal workers, during which a selection of workers should be interviewed by the GLAA/Home Office to ensure that welfare standards are being upheld on the farm. This interview should be available in the first language of the workers, and it should be made clear that it has no link to their immigration status and is totally anonymous and confidential. Worker accommodation should also be inspected. Inspectors should have the power to fast-track cases of non-compliance with existing labour laws to the relevant bodies. (Paragraph 271)
79.We are concerned by reports from the Director of Labour Market Enforcement and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration that the Home Office is failing to assure itself that the seasonal worker scheme is not perpetuating poor working conditions. The role of the GLAA is to protect vulnerable workers, but it is not being adequately funded or staffed to the degree that it needs to be to fulfil its remit. (Paragraph 278)
80.The GLAA must implement a system of audits, spot-checks and systematic inspections on farms that are part of the seasonal worker scheme. There should be a clear, tiered, enforceable system of penalties for those who fail to enforce labour laws. The Home Office must increase the budget of the GLAA so that it is able to fulfil its function. Some of this budget increase should be ringfenced so the GLAA is able to hire more labour inspectors in line with the number recommended by the ILO. (Paragraph 279)
81.The Committee welcomes the announcement that all seasonal workers must be paid the National Living Wage and receive a minimum of 32 hours of paid work per week. However, given the evidence we have received about under-payment and non-payment of wages, we urge the Government to ensure that this is properly complied with. When the work at one placement comes to an end before 6 months is up, the sponsoring agency should seek to move the worker to another placement. This should not be the responsibility of the grower. (Paragraph 280)
82.The GLAA must proactively enforce the full payment of the National Living Wage to all seasonal workers for 32 hours a week. If the GLAA does not have the resources to do so, responsibility for this task should pass to HMRC. The Government should update the guidance to specify that this means 32 hours a week for the full six-month season. (Paragraph 281)
83.The Committee has heard about instances of disproportionate fees being charged for dismal accommodation on some UK farms. Under no circumstances should workers be asked to share beds with strangers, or fear for their lives in cold and wet weather. In some cases, poor living conditions appear to be exacerbated by a lack of clarity from Government on the longevity of the seasonal workers scheme and prohibitive and patchy planning rules. We were encouraged by stories of good practice and know that there are many growers who want to do right by their workers, who would benefit from more Governmental clarity on this issue. (Paragraph 290)
84.The Home Office should issue new guidance clarifying that all caravans provided for use by seasonal workers must reach BS3632. Local authorities should be given a duty to inspect and enforce both this standard, and health and safety regulations in caravans housing seasonal workers. The new advice should clarify that only caravans with shared living space and single-occupancy bedrooms which reach BS3632 should be eligible for the maximum occupancy charge, which should not exceed the accommodation offset rate. (Paragraph 291)
85.The DLUHC should report on the results of the consultation on extending the Decent Homes Standard to the private rented sector, including on how this standard would apply to the seasonal workers scheme. (Paragraph 292)
86.Rental contracts for accommodation should be provided in seasonal workers’ own languages and signed and agreed ahead of their arrival in the UK. (Paragraph 293)
87.The accommodation offset rate includes rent, utilities, and laundry, but we have heard evidence that workers are being charged additional fees for these services. (Paragraph 294)
88.The GLAA should consider how widespread this practice is, and what can be done to ensure that workers are not being charged additional fees. (Paragraph 295)
89.There is a lack of joined-up thinking between the immigration system and labour market regulation, including in the interaction between the accommodation offset rate and the NLW. (Paragraph 296)
90.We endorse the recommendation made by the Low Pay Commission that the Government work together to address the interaction between seasonal workers’ rate of pay and the accommodation offset rate. (Paragraph 297)
91.Many employers want to provide decent accommodation for their workers but some are being prohibited from doing so because of restrictive planning laws. (Paragraph 298)
92.The Government should consider what flexibility can be introduced into the planning system to enable more farms to provide a higher standard of accommodation to workers. (Paragraph 299)
93.The UK is claimed to be leading the world in horticulture automation, an innovation that provides an exciting opportunity to address labour supply issues, reduce pesticide use, and complete many of the horticulture industry’s most mundane tasks. Yet barriers exist to mass adoption, and the Government must set out its approach to co-ordinating private and public leadership and funding for R&D, whilst managing ongoing labour shortfalls. (Paragraph 315)
94.We thank Professor Pearson for his Automation in Horticulture Review, endorse its recommendations, and urge the Government to adopt them in full. The Government must publish their response to the Review, in which they outline a plan against each of Professor Pearson’s recommendations, as a matter of urgency. (Paragraph 316)
95.The horticultural sector relies on Government support to take up technological innovation through schemes like the Farming Equipment and Technology Fund, but many of these schemes are of limited use to horticulturists, particularly those in the ornamental sector. (Paragraph 317)
96.The Farming Equipment and Technology Fund should be redesigned to make 100 per cent grants available, introduce flexibility in the technology that can be purchased, ensure that all technology applicable to both edible and ornamental horticulture is clearly listed as such, and enable provision to lease or co-own equipment to support smaller growers. (Paragraph 318)
97.Given the damaging environmental impact of peat extraction, whether it occurs at home or overseas, it is right that the Government is accelerating the pace of movement towards a peat-free future for the horticulture sector. Businesses have had over a decade to prepare for this transition and, despite the best efforts of many, they have not moved far enough fast enough. However, the Government has not provided adequate support to help them make this transition, which may leave some businesses at a cliff edge in 2026. (Paragraph 361)
98.The Government must urgently bring forward legislation and detailed guidance to provide clarity and certainty for the sector on how the peat ban will work in practice, including enforcement measures. It should not implement a total ban until it undertakes a full, revised impact assessment. It should consider appointing an existing sector body or group of representative bodies to spearhead the transition. (Paragraph 362)
99.There is a significant risk that the UK’s ban on peat could jeopardise imports and lead to a shortfall of plants for the UK market. Should Defra decide not to apply the ban to imports, it could result in a flooding of the market with overseas imports and those from the devolved administrations that undercut growers in England and put them out of business. There has been little clarity on this topic to date. (Paragraph 363)
100.The Government must urgently and clearly outline whether the peat ban will apply to all imported products and set out a plan to establish how the domestic market will be safeguarded against peat-grown imports in collaboration with the Office for the Internal Market. It must work better with its international trading partners, particularly the Netherlands and the devolved administrations, to design a collaborative approach to peat-free. (Paragraph 364)
101.It is possible that the peat ban could have serious unintended consequences. There is a significant risk that by reducing the emissions from peat extraction at home, we are supplanting the loss with emissions resulting from importing alternatives such as coir, effectively exporting our carbon footprint. Less absorptive peat alternatives may require greater water and fertiliser resources and could increase the presence of microplastics in the soil. (Paragraph 365)
102.The Government must set out in its forthcoming updated impact assessment how the proposed ban could unintentionally cause environmental damage stemming from use of alternative growing media and how it intends to prevent or mitigate such damage. (Paragraph 366)
103.Some plants simply will not grow well in peat-free growing media, particularly given the variance in quality of peat-free media. (Paragraph 367)
104.The Government must work closely with the sector to establish a realistic list of exemptions to allow more time for R&D innovation into alternative growing media. It must work with the industry to set a minimum standard for quality. (Paragraph 368)
105.The Government has not done enough to foster a supportive and innovative environment to enable R&D projects to explore and establish viable alternatives to peat. Businesses cannot make the transition to peat-free without financial support for R&D and further Lifecycle Carbon Analysis of alternatives, particularly those imported from overseas. (Paragraph 369)
106.The Government must continue to provide funding to support research into viable alternatives to peat in collaboration with the industry and academics. It should establish a communications campaign tailored to the professional sector to increase awareness of the viability of alternatives to peat and communicate the findings from its research projects in collaboration with the RHS. (Paragraph 370)
107.Agri-chemicals can have a damaging impact on soil health and may present risks to human health and water quality. The sector is taking steps to move towards bio-pesticides and fertilisers; however, it requires more support to make this transition and a target to work towards. (Paragraph 403)
108.The Government should set a target for the reduction in use of those agri-chemicals that are demonstrably harmful, including certain pesticides and fertilisers in the horticulture sector. It should consult with the sector on a realistic timeframe for implementation and consider mandatory bans if voluntary action is not forthcoming. (Paragraph 404)
109.It is clear that climate change will continue to impact water availability both now and in future. If the horticultural sector is not effectively supported to transition to sustainable water management practices, ornamental horticulture and UK food security will be seriously jeopardised. The Plan for Water is welcome but water management in the horticulture sector requires a tailored approach. (Paragraph 447)
110.The proposed Horticulture Strategy must detail how it will support the sector to achieve the ambitions announced in the Plan for Water. (Paragraph 448)
111.The sector is innovating at pace. New technological and scientific developments such as breeding cultivars with better drought tolerance and genetic editing for drought resilience are promising and support through the Farming Innovation Programme is welcome, but they require effective and innovative R&D and collaboration with industry. (Paragraph 449)
112.The Government must continue to support innovative gene editing programmes in close collaboration with academia and industry and must communicate the findings of such studies to industry to translate research into practice. A biannual report on the Farming Innovation Programme should be an effective vehicle for this. (Paragraph 450)
113.While there is a clear need for water usage to be reduced across the board, current plans to restrict abstraction licences may compromise food security and the supply of ornamental plants. (Paragraph 451)
114.The Government must continue to explore how horticultural growers can access technical support to obtain an abstraction licence and take steps to reduce the length of time taken to determine applications. (Paragraph 452)
115.The last reservoir to be opened was over thirty years ago. Growers need a more supportive planning system to harvest high flows and reduce dependence on abstraction during the summer. (Paragraph 453)
116.The Government must urgently publish its call for evidence on the planning barriers to small reservoirs with a view to helping land managers with water supply. It must make good on its National Policy Statement for Water Resources Infrastructure and must streamline the planning permission process for nationally significant water infrastructure projects, enable new water supply infrastructure and provide planning guidance for applicants. (Paragraph 454)
117.While Water Management Grants are welcome, the scheme could be amended to be more flexible for a wider range of businesses. (Paragraph 455)
118.The Government should lower the investment minimum for Water Management Grants to enable small businesses to benefit and continue to work with the sector to streamline the scheme to make it more accessible to a wider range of growers. (Paragraph 456)
119.The Committee welcomes the Government’s consideration to inviting public bodies in the agriculture and horticulture sector to report under the Adaptation Reporting Power as stated in the third National Adaptation Programme. Consideration of the inclusion of canals and reservoirs as well as reporting on food supply within the Adaptation Reporting Power as set out in the Third National Adaptation Programme is also welcome. (Paragraph 457)
120.The Government must press ahead with these proposals and update the industry on its consideration in relation to horticulture in a timely fashion. (Paragraph 458)
121.Both amateur and professional growers require more support to transition to effective water management. (Paragraph 459)
122.The Government should work with the industry to support campaigns for industry to help businesses and consumers to reduce water use in professional and amateur horticultural settings. (Paragraph 460)
123.The Government has promised to develop a land use framework, however so far no such framework has materialised. It is vital this framework is published to ensure net zero and biodiversity targets are met. (Paragraph 485)
124.The Government must publish its long-awaited Land Use Framework as promised in 2023. Policy relating to horticulture must be clearly marked within this strategy. (Paragraph 486)
125.Innovative urban and vertical farms can provide a vital food source to city populations, cutting down on food miles and providing additional environmental benefits in the process. They provide innovative spaces for agri-tech and could provide jobs for local people. While their small space is part of their benefit, however it is also causing these businesses to be hampered by the inability to take advantage of farm subsidies. (Paragraph 487)
126.The Government should remove the 5ha limit on eligibility for ELMS to support urban farms. It should consult on business rates for vertical farming and amend the NPPF to reflect their status as agricultural businesses. (Paragraph 488)
127.Biodiversity Net Gain is a fundamentally positive strategy to increase biodiversity and replace or restore green space damaged due to development either onside or offsite. However, we are concerned that allotments are not considered as part of this framework, while protected horticulture developments (which are actively promoting biodiversity) may actually be hampered by the proposals. We remain concerned about enforcement related to the upkeep of BNG spaces once created. (Paragraph 489)
128.The Government should include allotments within the framework for Biodiversity Net Gain and introduce an exemption for such horticulture developments. The Government must set out how developers and local authorities will ensure the maintenance of BNG spaces. (Paragraph 490)
129.The sector recognises the need to transition to renewable energy. However, there remain barriers in making such a transition economically viable for horticultural businesses. (Paragraph 503)
130.The Government should review available incentives for energy-intensive horticultural businesses to transition to renewable energy in order to build resilience to future energy shocks and make progress towards net zero. (Paragraph 504)
131.Growers want to support the transition to net zero and reduce their environmental impact, but they cannot make this transition without first understanding their own emissions footprint. Current approaches to measuring environmental impact are not joined up or sufficiently relevant to the horticulture sector. (Paragraph 514)
132.The Government must do more to establish better Life Cycle Assessment data for the horticultural sector to support Carbon Footprinting exercises as part of an accelerated move towards a single standard for environmental measurement and reporting. It should consider how ELMS could encourage take-up of such approaches. (Paragraph 515)
133.Private gardens and amateur horticulturalists are essential to addressing the climate crisis. However, in order to make effective choices, individuals must be supported to make decisions around plants, packaging and growing media that benefit the environment. (Paragraph 529)
134.The Government should work with industry influencers such as the RHS to develop a simple messaging campaign to raise awareness amongst consumers about environmentally-friendly and climate-resilient growing in domestic settings. It should provide clear guidance on pollinator-friendly species. (Paragraph 530)
135.Domestic gardens can be a haven for pollinators that are vital to biodiversity. (Paragraph 531)
136.At the end of its term in 2024, the Government should review the effectiveness of its strategies to engage the public within the National Pollinator Strategy 2021–2024, including the reach of the ‘Bees Needs’ campaign and its work with growers to maximise the use of pollinator-friendly plant labelling. It must commit to publishing a revised strategy from 2024 onwards based on the learnings from such a review. (Paragraph 532)
137.Plastic remains widely in use in the retail horticultural sector due to a lack of research into viable packaging alternatives, while patchy processes on recycling plastic pots is hampering the efforts of the sector to transition towards greater circularity. At the same time, low-maintenance trends such as turfing over green spaces with artificial grass provide no benefit to the environment and may have a negative impact on biodiversity in the long term. (Paragraph 533)
138.The Government must ensure that local authorities have a consistent approach to permitting the kerbside collection of plastic garden waste for recycling. It should consult on banning the retail sale of artificial grass and plants for outdoor use. (Paragraph 534)
139.Historically, the UK has benefited from world-class research and development infrastructure and resources in horticulture. Whilst there are elements in our research centres that produce world leading research, it can no longer, overall, be said to be world-class. (Paragraph 540)
140.The Government must undertake a comprehensive review of the future direction of research and development in horticulture and its funding landscape. Public-private partnerships should be supported by Government in both policy and funding models to bind the fragmented landscape, emulating the Dutch ‘triple helix’ model. (Paragraph 541)
141.The R&D landscape focuses too heavily on the use of short-term competition funding. This requires significant resources from scientists who must repeatedly reapply for funds and leaves little certainty when planning the kind of long-term strategic initiatives that are needed in this space. (Paragraph 546)
142.We urge the Government to re-think its preoccupation with competitive short-term funding as the only solution and give urgent attention to the need for some R&D institutions to receive longer-term core funding for advances in edible and ornamental horticulture. (Paragraph 547)
143.We are concerned by reports that horticulture is an “orphan science”, left out of both Defra and UKRI funding pots, and about the effect that this exclusion could have on the sustainability and profitability of growers’ businesses, and on UK net zero targets. Most R&D in horticulture concerns technology development, but not enough emphasis is placed on on-farm and low-tech innovations, which would maximise impact through relatively low-cost interventions. (Paragraph 556)
144.UKRI should undertake a review of BBSRC funding criteria to ensure that ornamental horticulture projects are given equal access to opportunities to apply for funding. (Paragraph 557)
145.Future R&D strategies should consider the value of on-farm and low-tech innovations and be willing to give smaller grants to small scale projects. (Paragraph 558)
146.The closure of AHDB Horticulture is a loss to the industry, both in terms of sheer research capital and as a venue for knowledge exchange. We cautiously welcome the tenure of Horticulture Crop Protection Ltd but suspect that it will struggle to replicate the full scale of what AHDB Horticulture was able to do. (Paragraph 563)
147.The Government should keep the impact of the closure of AHDB Horticulture under review and work with the sector to address resultant challenges. (Paragraph 564)
148.We are pleased that the Government will replace the EU Fruit and Vegetables Aid Scheme, however the replacement for the scheme must be better tailored to the consolidated UK industry. (Paragraph 566)
149.The Government must ensure the EU Fruit and Vegetable Aid Scheme’s replacement is tailored to the UK horticultural landscape. It should make the process simpler for growers to be recognised, allow a more accessible funding programme for collaborative grower groups and individuals, and better provide for the variation in fresh produce crops. (Paragraph 567)
150.Horticultural businesses require funding that matches the scale and length of their planning timeframe. Where possible, grants should match the length of growing cycles. Horticulture business cannot rely on short-term funding that leaves them at a cliff edge once the funding runs out. We recognise that the risk of investing in R&D can be significant and exacerbated by already squeezed grower returns. (Paragraph 573)
151.The Government must work with UKRI to develop longer-term funding models for horticultural projects and introduce better models of follow-on funding to enable research to be translated into practice in line with horticultural growing cycles. (Paragraph 574)
152.The Government must publish its response to the consultation on the review of R&D Tax Reliefs and outline clearly how this will impact businesses including those in the horticulture sector. The Government should ensure that tax incentives and match funding opportunities are maintained. (Paragraph 575)
153.The Government must support a tailored campaign to promote the Farming Innovation Programme to ornamental growers via existing communications channels. (Paragraph 576)
154.Allotments and community gardens provide a crucial space for urban populations to grow their own food and provide habitats for nature and biodiversity. However, provision of allotments is erratic across the country due to inconsistent local planning policy. (Paragraph 597)
155.The Government should mandate that all local authorities are required to devise an allotment strategy as part of local plans, and to identify suitable land and training/mentoring partners as part of this strategy. (Paragraph 598)
156.Community growing can enable people to come together to nurture unloved and underappreciated spaces. (Paragraph 599)
157.The National Planning Policy Framework should be updated to fully recognise and reflect the role of community growing in local food security and biodiversity, as well as for its socio-economic benefits. (Paragraph 600)
158.The horticulture sector has a fundamental role to play in establishing a secure supply of healthy fruits and vegetables for the UK market. In the context of rising obesity, pressures on the NHS and a greater shift towards plant-based diets as part of the solution to tackling climate change, growers can play a vital role in supporting the nation’s health whilst also boosting the sector. (Paragraph 610)
159.The Government should recognise the role the domestic horticultural sector can play in supporting health, wellbeing and climate change agendas. It should recognise nutritional security as a public good and properly incentivise horticultural growers to deliver against its public health ambitions. (Paragraph 611)
160.Public procurement has an opportunity to provide a strong market for UK produce and to increase the provision of sustainably produced, healthy fruits and vegetables to public sector organisations. (Paragraph 612)
161.The Government must urgently publish its response to the consultation on public sector food and catering policy for England. It should re-specify the School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme to allow schools the freedom to procure healthy produce from local suppliers. (Paragraph 613)
162.The health system must respond dynamically to health challenges and fruit and vegetable prescriptions are a simple and potentially effective means of doing this. (Paragraph 614)
163.The Government must publish its plans for delivering the Community Eatwell pilot and commit to publishing the findings of the scheme. (Paragraph 615)
164.The links between health, wellbeing and horticulture and green spaces more widely are broadly appreciated but there is more scientific research to be done to ensure we are making the most of our green spaces. Social prescribing and horticultural therapy programmes could provide significant benefits for those struggling with mental and physical ill-health and may reduce the burden on the NHS, but this must be properly resourced and regulated. (Paragraph 638)
165.The Government must publish the findings from its ‘Preventing and Tackling Mental Ill Health Through Green Social Prescribing’ programme at the earliest opportunity. It must develop an action plan to mobilise social prescribing and nature-based solutions to ill-health and implement proper regulatory oversight of such systems. (Paragraph 639)
166.Farmers and growers may face specific health challenges due to the remote and physical nature of their work and some individuals may struggle to seek help, particularly with mental health challenges, due to stigma. (Paragraph 640)
167.The Government should consider how the health of those professionally engaged in the horticultural and wider agricultural sector can be supported to access mental and physical health services appropriate to the occupational risks they face. (Paragraph 641)