Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the application of the Farming Rules for Water on the use of
organic forms of nitrogen in (1) the autumn, and (2) the spring;
and in particular, the implications of using organic manure,
slurries and biowastes on ammonia and phosphate levels at
different points of the year.
(CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper and, at the same time, declare my interests as a
farmer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs () (Con)
My Lords, some agricultural activities can be harmful to the
water environment, which is why it is essential that farmers
follow the farming rules for water and apply only the nutrients
needed to feed their crops. Cropping patterns change from year to
year, so the amount of nutrients needed will vary. Provided
farmers follow the rules and related best practice, manures may
be used safely at any time.
(CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. However, while
his response is welcome, key areas of uncertainty remain. There
is a reluctance by the Environment Agency to discuss the
interpretation of rule 1. Farmers need to know what compliance
with rule 1 means in practice: what soil and what the crop need
is, when it can be satisfied and how pollution risk is judged.
Farmers are struggling to make sense of the Environment Agency’s
regulatory position statement. Please can the Minister either
instruct the Environment Agency to retract the RPS or provide far
greater clarity to farmers?
(Con)
I am sure the noble Lord will agree that there is a problem here,
with watercourses and rivers affected by a variety of different
pollutants, some of them from farmland. The Code of Good
Agricultural Practice, going back to 1985, was the basis of the
rule that now applies. We understand that it is challenging for
farmers and are working closely to achieve clarity. The Minister
for Agriculture, my friend , has set up a working
group with the NFU, the Environment Agency and others. It is
seeking to iron out these problems urgently so that, from next
year, farmers will be much clearer on how to apply the rule.
(Con)
Have the Government considered using a risk-based approach to the
autumn application of organic material? This would allow
continued application of such organic material in the autumn on
arable land where the risk to water is considered low, rather
than the current blanket ban. It would also assist to reduce the
requirement for artificial fertilisers and the environmental
costs associated with their manufacture.
(Con)
I will discuss my noble friend’s suggestion with the Farming
Minister. Life is quite complicated for farmers at the moment. If
we start trying to map the country in terms of how we allow
different levels of manures to be applied, there may be a further
problem—but I take his point, which is well made.
of Hardington Mandeville
(LD)
My Lords, the National Pig Association has warned that the
Environment Agency’s long-awaited statement on the farming rules
for water could have significant impacts on pig and arable
producers. Many pig producers will not be able to comply with
some of the conditions, such as preventing application on sandy
or shallow soil. Discussions have taken place between the EA and
the NPA, providing clarity that will resolve the issue for only
some producers and for only this growing season. There is concern
that the majority of producers will still not be able to use the
RPS. Would the Minister care to comment?
(Con)
I would. The noble Baroness makes an important point in relation
to some pig farmers, but we want to make sure we are cleaning up
our rivers. That means working with farmers to find a sensible
system of rules that apply long-established good farming practice
so that manures are applied only to crops that will take up those
nutrients and none will leach through into catchments or river
courses.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the advisory board
of River Action. Does my noble friend agree that we have a
serious problem in our rivers, and that pollution from farming is
part of it? You have only to look at the River Wye and what has
happened there. While we need to help farmers to comply, is there
not a real urgency about cleaning up our rivers?
(Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. We should see the fact that
only a very small percentage of our rivers are fully functioning
ecological systems as something of a national disgrace. We have
spent many hours debating the Environment Bill here and are
moving to a much better place—but we can do much more, working
with the farming community and recognising that it is only part
of the problem and that there are other polluters as well. We
want to make sure that we are abiding by our commitments to get
our rivers in good ecological state in a very short space of
time.
of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, sorting out pollution in our rivers is absolutely
critical. As the Minister said, we have talked about this time
and again on the Agriculture Act and the Environment Bill. My
understanding is that a statutory review of the regulations was
undertaken by Defra at the turn of the year and was due to report
last April, but we have not seen this yet. Can the Minister
explain the delay and when we are likely to see it? He mentioned
the working group. Is this something that the working group will
look at and report on?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is perhaps referring to the amount of money
the Government had said they would put into the transition scheme
to assist farmers in changing their system to invest in better
slurry systems. After consultation with the farmers, it has been
decided to do that in a different way. We have the incentive
fund, which is there for farmers to access, but they have said
that they want the money spent on environmental measures to be
looked at much more holistically across the whole farm, and that
is what we are doing.
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the real emergency
is giving farmers, particularly organic and livestock producers,
clear and simple rules to follow? Is it not true that we simply
do not know what the safe level of nutrients in the soil should
be, so there should be no change to the rules or the regulatory
policy statements until we have the science on which to base
them?
(Con)
We do have a lot of science on this. If we were to indulge in
many years of further scientific investigation, it would be too
late for certain rivers, which—I am using strong words here—will
be ecologically dead if we do not take action. The rules are
there and they have been set out in the code for good
agricultural practice since 1985. We are working with farmers to
make sure that we apply them proportionately and to assist them
in changing their businesses to deal with what is a very real and
present problem.
(GP)
When will the Government be as tough on water and sewerage
companies as they are on farmers? They seem to be very firm on
the rules for farmers, yet last week, in a vote in the other
place, they were quite happy to turn a blind eye to the sewage
discharges of water companies that have been going on for 30
years. When will the Government be tough on water companies and
their sewage discharges?
(Con)
If I may say so, I think the noble Baroness is being unkind to
the Environment Bill. It sets out many measures that will stop
the current releases, which have been going on for decades, even
centuries. We have probably one of the most advanced pieces of
environmental legislation anywhere in the world. Is it enough?
No, because we have to work across a great many other areas,
including dealing with the problem from farming and other
polluters.
