My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, for introducing this topic for debate today. I also welcome my old friend—if I may call him that—the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. We dealt with many things together, particularly OPs, when he was at MAFF, and I have huge respect for him. I declare my interest as a partner in our small family farm. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, would support me in that.
Farming is in crisis, and I do not use the word lightly. The problems are widespread and have implications for both rural and urban communities. At a time when we have at last acknowledged the importance of countryside stewardship, the financial difficulties faced by some members of the farming industry mean that we are at risk of causing long-term damage to the environment. The appearance of our landscape is inextricably linked with the way in which it is farmed. In many upland areas, for example, bracken and gorse are beginning to dominate. In the lowlands, it is the ubiquitous ragwort that is most obvious. Despite legislation that requires ragwort to be controlled, it is visible in pony fields, on road verges and railway embankments. No one seems to care any more.
Why is this so? The answer is complex: a combination of failure by government to understand or care about rural issues and an industry with an economically unstable base. The problems associated with the Rural Payments Agency are a small part of the whole, though I hasten to add that, to the beleaguered hill farmers, they are currently dominant.
It is iniquitous that farmers who milk cows seven days a week to produce milk that is then sold to the supermarkets should receive less than the cost of production. There are many fewer dairy herds in this country than there were 10 or 20 years ago, but the number of cows remains almost stable. This means that fewer people are managing the herds. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Christopher. The pressures to improve efficiency drive people to make false economies which may include a reduction in routine, precautionary health measures which, when combined with a reduced inclination to save the life of a sick animal, mean less contact with a veterinary surgeon. They might also cut back on the amount or quality of the rations fed to their animals.
A smaller labour force means longer hours for those who remain, and the burden of constantly changing legislation makes life no easier. Both the herdsman and the cattle are now functioning under extremely stressful conditions. Serious welfare problems can arise. Is it any wonder that we hear with increasing frequency of breakdowns in both human and animal health?
The Minister knows of the effects that a herd breakdown with bovine tuberculosis has had upon one family that I know, for I have recently written to him about them. This was a massive breakdown. Since February 2005, they have lost more than 180 animals out of a herd of 260.
Another family that I know have been under TB restrictions for more than five years. A few weeks ago they finally had two successive clear tests. This meant that the restrictions were lifted. They decided that they would get out of milking while they could, sell their cattle and diversify. They reviewed their cropping programme, decided not to rent any pasture and, as a precursor to the sale, to slaughter a number of older cows. Disaster befell them when the abattoir reported that two of the cows had active TB lesions. The cows had never had a positive skin test in all the five years of repeated testing. They were not even inconclusives.
The farm is back under restriction. The family now has to return to milking. Their cropping plans are all awry and the grazing land that they formerly rented has been let to other tenants. They cannot just throw in the towel and walk away from the animals or the land, as someone might do in any other kind of business. They cannot sell the animals, except for slaughter. Both families have always co-operated fully with Defra and the State Veterinary Service. Compensation does not replace the loss of their prized animals. What do they do?
The malaise lies not just in the dairy industry, but with all our livestock industries. Our high welfare standards—as some noble Lords have mentioned—increase the cost of production in both the pig and poultry industries. Sheep farming in the hills is becoming a soul-destroying occupation simply because there seems to be no understanding within government of the role that our indigenous hill sheep play in the production of strong maternal lines for ultimate meat production in the lowlands. Nor do they seem to understand the role that these sheep play in the preservation of the British landscape. British producers’ efforts are undermined by the supermarkets and mass catering suppliers who buy cheaper meat and eggs from abroad. They have constant concerns about biosecurity, with diseases that are often the result of poor husbandry in other countries and lax biosecurity at ports of entry—a responsibility of government—threatening their livestock.
The isolation among farmers is palpable in some rural communities, and can cause long-term mental illness and even suicide. The long hours worked for very small economic return have a direct impact on the way that animals are cared for. It should be remembered that the majority of farmers have an empathy with their livestock—a fact that seems not to be readily appreciated by those sitting in Whitehall. In the aftermath of BSE and the foot and mouth epidemic, they are repulsed by the prospect of further mass killing—euphemistically called culling by Defra—of healthy livestock in the event of avian flu or some other infectious disease. They find it impossible to equate the propensity for Defra to kill healthy animals whilst diseased and sick badgers and other wildlife are allowed to continue to spread bovine TB across our countryside.
Are we going to see malaise as deep as that which occurred during the slump in world agriculture in the 1930s, with abandoned farmsteads, land left to lie fallow and families who know about tending animals and crops retreating to the cities? It is apparent that farming for food production is very low on the list of priorities for the UK Government, as other noble Lords have mentioned. I do not believe that food security features very prominently in the policies of the EU either. I know that I am not the only person who worries about the effects that a possible oil embargo might have on our food supplies. What are the contingency plans in the event that we cannot get beef from South America, lamb from New Zealand, poultry meat from Thailand or Brazil or vegetables from Africa because there is no transport?
I do not believe that you can get rid of an industry that provides the staples of life to a population on the basis that someone else will do it for much less, without understanding that, in the event of a supply crisis, there will be no home-grown fount of knowledge and experience to tap into. If we look at present day Zimbabwe, we can get some idea of what happens if novices take over agriculture. To put it baldly, the population starves.
The Government really must wake up to the effects that their policies, together with those of the EU, are having in both the long and the short term, on human and animal welfare, food security and the landscape. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Agriculture
Proceeding contribution from
Countess of Mar
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 18 May 2006.
It occurred during Debate on Agriculture.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
682 c438-41 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 00:16:19 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_323122
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_323122
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_323122