Agriculture

My Lords, as someone who perhaps does not quite match the description of the speakers who follow him given by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, I congratulate him very genuinely, and not as a matter of convention but because I have long hoped that there would be a debate about agriculture here. It is not a natural subject on this side of the House. I am very glad indeed to welcome my long-time noble friend to the ministerial post and assure him that whenever possible he can have some support from me. I hope that what I wish to say will be helpful, and I hope even more that I can perhaps sow a few seeds. I find myself in great sympathy with the majority of what the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, said. My first question is: do the Government have a medium-term to long-term policy in agriculture? I believe the answer is no. Have the Official Opposition got one? Frankly, I believe their view is, ““No, we don’t either””. So we almost have a blank sheet of paper with a lot of problems where we could begin to think long-term. I expect the nature of the issues to be seen very largely as cross-party, because there is much more at stake than simply the political issues. Yesterday, we had a Question on British values in education. One thing was not mentioned, and it probably never would be; that in Britain we have a splendid tradition in politics to never shut a stable door until satisfied that the horse has bolted. That is pretty clear when we look at a number of issues around us. Energy is pretty much in the news, and there are others—rural housing, roads, traffic and so on. The time is certainly overdue for us to begin to think long-term about farming. I begin with an issue which the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, touched on, which is food supply and food security. What proportion of what food is now imported? Where does it come from? Long term, which sources are secure? I have never seen any satisfactory answers to those questions. What will be the changes, for example, in volume and nature with populations who now live on cereals but who increasingly demand meat? Argentina is a very good example. At one time Argentinean meat was common in our shops; now it is not, and it is substantially consumed locally. When South America et al and China have a standard of living which matches ours, they will see a considerable change in demand for different foods from those they have now. Secondly, there is the World Trade Organisation, a matter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. How much longer can it persist with its narrow approach? The last time I mentioned this I was dismissed, not wholly politely, by someone on the Benches immediately opposite me as being anti-free trade. I am certainly not, but I do not believe that if you do not support the United States’s protectionism that you can necessarily leave things without any consideration of the changes that there should be in WTO thinking and policy. For example, on the sugar agreement, if other things had been considered, we would not have had a very damaging result for many poor countries. That case was brought by two countries that really did not need any help at all, Australia and Brazil. We should address and consider the principle whether something should be done. Thirdly, we should be looking at public education. Food is seen as something which comes in plastic bags and supermarkets. There is a lack of understanding of what farming and food are about. There are questions of health, food price, which I agree is too low, tastelessness—even the Jersey Royals I bought the other day had no flavour at all; whether it is over-production or whatever I do not know, but they did not taste very well—and of course quality. Fourthly, are a handful of supermarkets less of a monopoly than the Milk Marketing Board? I suspect the answer is no. Should they be as influential as they are—more so than any other institution in Britain—in dictating, albeit a step back, farming policy? Fifthly, I turn to the National Farmers Union. I am looking very hard in front of me at one or two faces. I wish Peter Kendall, the new president, well. I was sorry to miss him at the reception held recently. If I was talking to him, I would say, ““Yes, react when you must but, for goodness’ sake, start being proactive. Be more constructive””. Public opinion for farmers is absolutely essential. They get nowhere unless public opinion is with them but they seem, more often than not, to alienate the public. I take as a good example the renewal of live exports, especially of calves. Mr Kendall says, very helpfully, that he wants to export only to those countries—France, Belgium or wherever—which comply with the new EU regulations for raising them. Fine, but prove it—show people what is happening. Yet the politically carefree Richard Haddock, south-west regional chairman of the NFU, seeks to import calves from Spain and Italy to the UK for re-export. What on earth does that do to the public opinion on what farmers are about? Why does the NFU not condemn it now? I would like to know what needs to be done to raise UK demand for veal produce under conditions which people will accept. There is nothing wrong with veal, but we certainly do not seem to eat it here. If the NFU is right on badgers, that will be a most damaging piece of publicity for farmers. The science says that it is not wise, if not wholly wrong. I am old enough to recall when tuberculin testing first came in. Bovine TB reduced progressively and was eliminated. Are badgers alone responsible for its return? There are one or two things that we should consider in this context. First, why is the effect of inbreeding more prevalent in dairy herds than in beef herds? The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, sent me a most interesting report recently. I do not have time to read it, but it clearly talks about the effect of reducing the constitution of animals, albeit of companion animals, which is clearly relatable to farm livestock. When I see cows limping around, lame because of the size of their bags, I wonder what we are all about or what the public think we are about. Part of the cause might lie with us—the farmers—and not with badgers or any other consideration. When you create cows with short lives and yielding two or three times what they did 20 years ago, you must expect some reaction. To conclude, I seek a major NFU contribution and a long-term policy that has wider considerations than simply farmers and farming.