Daniel Zeichner
MP for Cambridge · Labour · United Kingdom
“I recall, as a shadow Minister, visiting a major institution in the country and sending the management into panic when I asked them where the bus stop was to get back to the station.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the location of bus stops. I am so frustrated when I have taken the train to Cambridge, arrive at the station, see the bus, but have to walk 200 yards around the platform, come out of the station and walk 200 yards back to the bus stop, to find the bus has gone.”
“Devolution and local government reorganisation are different things. To be honest, they should probably be considered separately, but they have become so interlinked and intertwined in this debate that it is impossible to do so. If we are to have a stronger devolution settlement, it is right to spend more time getting it right.”
“I commend the Secretary of State and his team for their determination and resolve in the transfer to renewables. In the extraordinary and unprecedented weather that we are having at the moment I can assure the House that some shade would be really welcome in parts of the east of England.”
“I commend all the hard work that has gone into both the road map and the profitability review by the civil servants, the ministerial team and so many people across the sector, including Baroness Batters.”
“On that point about speculative building, I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is probably not a fan of big, bold projects of this kind, but does he agree that there is a very good example just down the road in Cambridge?”
The complete record
Every one of 5,991 lines we hold for Daniel Zeichner, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 26 of 120.
“I am terribly sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend: I do not know everything about everything. I would not pretend to do so, and must go away to seek advice on that question. I suspect that the Pacific oyster is plentiful, and there is plenty of opportunity to make more of it. I do not suggest that he needs to give up.”
“I am grateful for the intervention. Finally, I return to a familiar theme, which we discussed at length in the Chamber with the previous Secretary of State: trade with the European Union. Since Brexit, we have lost our main market for live bivalves, as it is now much harder to sell them from class B sites. As I recall, it was such a difficulty initially that the Government offered short-term help, while, as we have heard today, blaming it on the European Union.”
“The reality was much more bureaucracy, much more cost and, in some cases, the end of business. One of my first visits as a shadow Minister was to King’s Lynn, where I met a processor who told me just how much extra work had to be done, contrasting the single form they used to fill in with the pile of manuals detailing how they need to proceed today. I have to admit that he cheerily told me it would all be worth it. I admired his pluck and optimism, but whatever one’s view on the issue today, I hope the Minister can explain what he and his Department are doing to reduce that bureaucratic burden, so that our fishermen can do what they do best, which is feed people, rather than fill in forms.”
“Well, it seems to me that there were some who lost their businesses at that time. I do not think we should shy away from that. I would like to hear from the Minister what has happened over the past couple of years, and what is being done to secure a negotiated solution, to reinstate that trade, which had been possible over many years. In conclusion, the aquaculture sector is one with considerable potential. Labour will sell, make and buy more food here. That is good for food security, for jobs and, I would argue, for the local environment. More will be produced locally, and we will expect the public sector to source at least 50% of food locally. It is hard to disagree that the fishing sector more widely felt let down after the many promises that were made to them about Brexit.”
“I, too, had many representations over the weekend from early stage tech companies in and around Cambridge, and they will be much relieved by the news today. To echo the point made by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the reason they banked with SVB was its close understanding of their particular needs. What guarantee can we have that HSBC will be able to replicate that?”
“Horizon is about collaboration, not just money. May I urge the Secretary of State to impress that on the Prime Minister? She will also be aware that confidence in the life sciences sector is fragile at present, whether it be in relation to R&D tax credits, the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access, or Horizon, and that we have fallen from fourth to 10th among the best countries in which to conduct late-place clinical trials. What is she going to do about that?”
“As always, it is a pleasure to follow the Minister, who is, by my accounting, the fourth Minister at the Dispatch Box on this Bill. We had two in two days during the Committee stage, but I am still here, as is his colleague on the Treasury Bench, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). I thank her for the inclusive way in which she introduced the Bill at the beginning. It is a complicated Bill and she gave us access to officials, which was very helpful. I take this opportunity, in case the Minister missed it, to remind him of the mantra that has guided the Opposition’s view on the Bill. Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation, but we also know that to secure both public and investor confidence, a strong and robust regulatory framework is required. Disappointingly, that is the part the Government have failed to provide.”
“There is significant opportunity for good here, but there are also risks—risks we may not fully understand. It is also worth bearing in mind that one mistake could tarnish the entire technology. As so often, the Government have gone for the short-term quick fix—the sticking plaster. How much better it would have been to have set up the robust long-term framework that could have established the UK as the setter of the standard that others will follow. That is unfinished business, and it is for another day.”
“I appreciate that this is difficult territory and hard to define, and almost any sentence fails to capture the complexity, but we were promised at the outset that GM is excluded, and it would be helpful to have the Minister confirm that clearly again today. l am conscious that you do not want lengthy speeches, Mr Deputy Speaker, so let me conclude. The learned and lengthy discussions in the other place showed just how complicated this subject is. Sadly, the Government have made only limited changes in the light of those discussions. Those changes are welcome, so we will not oppose them, but we think that this is a missed opportunity to set out the strong regulatory framework that would have reassured the public, and given investors the confidence that the sector needs.”
“I fear that the Government have struggled with this, and I am not sure the new wording takes us much further forward. In general, the Government have sought to define a new category, “precision breeding” which many expert witnesses doubt has much meaning. The particular concern is whether the definitions accurately describe gene editing, without allowing gene modification in through the back door, with one of the key issues being whether exogenous material is included. The amendment before us introduces yet another term—modern biotechnology. This is also ill-defined, and, as argued by Lord Krebs in the other place, may not stand the test of time, or, more importantly, as we heard in expert evidence, legal scrutiny and challenge.”
“The promise at the outset was that nothing would be done on animals until the science was further advanced; it has been described as a “step-by-step approach”. Will the Minister reconfirm that commitment today and tell us what timeframe is actually envisaged? As for companion animals or primates, can he give any reassurances on that today? Many people will be keen to hear what he has to say on it. As I have already indicated, the most significant amendment is to clause 1, as the Government seek once again to explain what they consider to be a natural process. We had an interesting and extensive discussion in Committee on this point, both with those giving evidence and between members, and it was discussed at length in the other place.”
“As I have said, on a number of issues the Government have bowed to informed argument in the other place and agreed that regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure: on the release or marketing of genetically edited organisms; on information that must be included in the register; on the animal welfare declaration that has to be made; and on the body to be designated as the animal welfare advisory body. That is all welcome. But one of the most powerful and consistent criticisms has been the vagueness of the Bill on many issues and the lack of detail, particularly relating to the proposals regarding animals and when regulations might take effect. I am afraid that these amendments do not seem to help us on this, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on it.”
“Although the techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 may be similar, this is of course a different issue from those under consideration today. However, I would argue that many of the ethical issues around animals are not dissimilar. That is why the Government’s refusal to adopt our suggestion of an overseeing authority to look at these very complicated and challenging issues is so disappointing. We have a great chance to be genuinely world-leading in this area. We have brilliant people such as those at the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, yet the Government are, apparently, not interested. That is a wasted opportunity. Let us look at these amendments in more detail.”
“A number of the amendments move regulations to the affirmative procedure, as the Minister explained, and that allows some, if limited, further scrutiny, which is welcome. Amendment 1 to clause 1 is the Government’s further attempt to codify a particular knotty problem that we discussed at length in Committee. So the Minister will be pleased to know that we will not be opposing their amendments tonight. We will merely pointing be out how much more improved the Bill could have been had they had the confidence to embrace our positive suggestions. I say that not least, Mr Deputy Speaker, because if you had the chance to peruse the Sunday newspapers, as I hope you had the time to do and enjoy, you would have seen comment on today’s gathering of international experts on human gene editing.”
“I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for that. We have had this discussion before and I have to disappoint him slightly, in the sense that of course the EU is moving as well on this. I suspect we will probably end up in a similar place at a similar time. However, he is absolutely right to point out the potential advantages. The amendments before us are all Government amendments, because, despite the excellent learned and erudite arguments put by my colleagues in the other place—I pay tribute to Baroness Hayman, Baroness Jones and Lords Winston, Krebs, Trees and Cameron, among others—not much has changed, and that is genuinely disappointing. However, some improvements have been made.”
“Let me pick up the point about NHS dentistry, the commissioning of which, I am told, is about to be transferred to the ICBs. We probably all have a pretty grim constituency experience of people trying to access NHS dentistry. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it might have been a good idea to hand that power back to local areas quite a long time ago?”
“Why not, and why have the Government been so parsimonious when it comes to the suppliers of school meals, which face endlessly rising costs but have to try to provide nutritious meals with only a few extra pence? Much more could be said, but I am conscious that this is a short debate. Disgracefully, we now live in a country where food poverty has become endemic. It is a record of which the Conservatives should be ashamed.”
“What has gone so wrong over the last 13 years to cause such a surge in food bank use? When does he think we will no longer need food banks—or are they a permanent feature for the Conservatives? There are some practical things the Government could do. Just why did they pull the funding for FareShare after its successful trial to tackle food waste? That scheme helped to cover the extra costs to small-scale farmers, growers and producers of redistributing their good-to-eat waste food rather than letting it go to waste. The trial resulted in 85% more fruit and vegetables reaching frontline charities and community groups. The Government funding ended in 2020 and, despite widespread calls, has not been continued.”
“It just goes on: the latest ONS figures, released just two weeks ago, showed inflation of food and non-alcoholic drink prices—up 16.8% in the year to January 2023. The consequences are severe. In January and February, more than four in 10 adults said they had to spend more than usual in the previous two weeks to get what they normally buy when food shopping. In November and December, about one in seven adults said that in the previous two weeks they had been worried about running out of food before they had money to buy more. That rose to one in four adults with dependent children, and 29% for adults living in the most deprived area in England. I am afraid that everything is going in the wrong direction and I ask the Minister to reflect on why that is the case.”
“In January 2023, 21.6% of households with children reported that their children had directly experienced food insecurity in the past month—an estimated 3.7 million children—compared with 11.6% the previous January. Another clear indicator that people are suffering food poverty is the rising number of people who are turning to food banks. In 2021-22, the Trussell Trust supplied 2.2 million three-day emergency food parcels to food bank users. It is expected that the next annual figures will show a marked increase. That is a view supported by November’s data from the Trussell Trust, which shows that 1.3 million emergency food parcels had been provided to people in the six months between April and September 2022, a third more than during the same period in 2021.”
“Up and down the country, too many of our constituents are suffering constant anxiety about how they will make ends meet. We heard this week that energy bills will continue to rise in the coming year, which combined with wages failing to keep up with inflation means that people will be poorer. That means less for essentials, including food. The figures from the Food Foundation make grim reading. In April 2022, 7.3 million people, including 2.6 million children, were in food poverty across the UK. Data out today, again from the Food Foundation, shows that the number of households where children are experiencing food insecurity has nearly doubled in the past year.”
“Let us be clear: although there are unwelcome shortages on supermarket shelves, the issue with food poverty is a money problem, not a food problem. There is enough food in our communities, but not everyone has enough money to access it. That is the problem that needs to be resolved. I would like to hear from the Minister just what discussions he has had with colleagues on how they intend to tackle this problem. We have had some powerful contributions to the debate, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson. We should indeed be angry about how our country has got to this state. It increasingly feels like a country drowning in a worsening cost of living crisis, high inflation, rising food prices and stagnating growth.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this debate. I am also grateful, as ever, for briefings from Sustain and the National Farmers’ Union, among others. The rise in food poverty and the emergence of food banks is one of the most shameful and baleful consequences of 13 years of Conservative Government. In 2010-11, the Trussell Trust was operating 35 food banks; last year, it was 1,400. While we all applaud its work and we are extraordinarily grateful to our local food banks—I pay tribute to the volunteers and supporters in my city of Cambridge—our goal must be to put food banks out of business by ensuring that they are no longer needed.”
“Will the Minister address the pressures on school meal providers, which have faced hugely increased costs and have had little extra help to provide nutritious food?”
“That sounds reasonable, but can the Minister confirm which schemes it applies to and how many cases are likely to fall into that category? On regulations 7 and 8, the publication of data is an important principle, but the publication of sensitive data can sometimes cause difficulties, so we understand why what is being done is being done. These SIs are the next stage in the transition to a “public money for public goods” approach to agricultural support. We support that transition and we want it to work—we need to move to a more environmentally friendly and nature-positive food production system—but we remain concerned that the complexity of the schemes currently proposed will hamper take-up. In terms of both food supply and environmental gain, that is something we simply cannot afford.”
“There is a wider, completely unanswered question on impact: what assessment has been made of the environmental benefits, or not, from reducing area-based payments and redirecting, or not, that resource to environmental schemes? Can the Minister tell us? I have to say that I do not expect an answer, and I will take his likely silence as confirmation that no such assessment has been made. That is hardly surprising, given that it is actually quite a hard thing to do without the proper baseline assessment we called for at the beginning. The second SI is more straightforward and has to do with checking the financial assistance schemes replacing area-based payments. Regulation 5(c) seems to say that, where data is not required to be provided annually, an annual declaration can be made instead.”
“The real question for the Minister to answer—even roughly—is, how many are getting less income than before under this new process? I put that to him now, just as I did in a slightly different form at DEFRA questions on Thursday. I once again ask him where in the DEFRA accounts the reduction set out in this SI is offset by money being taken up, or not, in other schemes. Will he tell us? Will he explain how any underspend will be dealt with and for how many years it will be rolled forward? I am advised that underspends in the EU schemes could be carried forward for up to three years. Will DEFRA mirror that arrangement?”
“I would be interested to know how many people the Minister thinks will be affected by that. Has any estimate or assessment been made? I fear that there are some unanswered questions. If I was slightly irked by paragraph 7.2, that is as nothing compared with paragraph 12, headed “Impact”, on page 4 of the explanatory memorandum. The SI reduces payments to farmers by between 35% and 55%, yet paragraph 12.1 says there is “no, or no significant, impact on business”. Can the Minister square those two points? Of course there is an impact. If half the support is taken away, there is bound to be an impact. We have been probing that at every opportunity, and in response to written questions the Minister pointed to the assessment published at the end of October, which tells us not a lot about the impact on individual farmers.”
“I have referred to the point, at paragraph 7.6 of the explanatory memorandum, on de-linking. Given that it is not entirely clear whether we will have further discussion about that, I will ask a couple of questions. Many of us, I think, are still slightly puzzled as to why farmers will get paid for the next few years whether they farm or not. I would welcome a comment from the Minister on the reasoning behind that. Will he also clarify what happens to those who are restructuring businesses, ending arrangements or starting new arrangements in these key years—the so-called reference years? Is there not a danger that some will unintentionally miss out on support and, perhaps more seriously, that decisions will potentially be skewed, distorted or delayed to ensure that they qualify for the right reference year?”
“With food shortages being highly topical, there could hardly be a more sensitive moment to reflect on whether the special circumstances the farming sector faces—in particular, unpredictable weather—merit special treatment. I ask the Minister to reflect on whether it is laziness, complacency or an ideological aversion to intervention that explains the offending account of how basic payments worked. Given that we have had a couple of years of these reductions, it should be possible now for the Minister to stand up the assertions at paragraph 7.2, so perhaps he could tell us what impact the reduction in basic payment so far has had on land prices and on new entrants. He mentioned new entrants in his introduction, but as far as I am aware we have not yet had the details of the new entrant scheme. Could he tell us where that has got to?”
“I have said this before: the explanatory memorandums should be statements of fact, not conjecture. I am normally at pains to praise civil servants for their work in dealing with the complexities of secondary legislation, but given that this was pointed out last year and the year before, there is only a certain number of conclusions I can come to. I suspect that this is a cut-and-paste job that has been carried forward from year to year and that no one listens to these proceedings—I can possibly understand why that might be, but I think it is wrong. More worryingly, this may be what the Department actually thinks. Given that this point touches on the most basic issue of whether public support for our food system is needed, it is not inconsequential.”
“It would be helpful to understand the Department’s thinking on why we are repetitively discussing the same ground. I note that this is proposed to be the last year. Paragraph 7.6 of the explanatory memorandum suggests moving to a de-linked payment. Will the Minister clarify whether that process will require a further SI or whether this is effectively it? I will also refer, as I have on both previous occasions, to paragraph 7.2, which the Minister referenced in his opening speech. It states: “Direct Payments are untargeted, can inflate land rent prices and can stand in the way of new entrants to the farming industry.” That is possibly true, but it is conjecture. It is also true that basic payments can provide stability and keep many people afloat.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I was uncharacteristically cheerful last week—I enjoyed the NFU conference—but I can assure the Minister that normal service will now be resumed. The statutory instrument on direct payments is short, and the Minister will be pleased to know that we will not oppose it, although we have reservations about how the agricultural transition is being managed. We are keen to see environmental land management schemes succeed, but we have questions. Here we are again, for the third year running, going through the same process. Why have we had three separate annual phases, given that the plan was set out in a timetable at the beginning? There might be good reasons, but I am not sure they have ever been made explicit.”
“The Minister sometimes characterises my line of questioning as a touch gloomy, so I will try to cheer him up this morning by saying how pleased I was to hear his announcement at the NFU conference that the £2.4 billion per annum of agricultural support would be ring-fenced and that, if there was underspend in one year, it would be carried forward into future years. I am sure we are delighted that the Treasury has become such a kind, benevolent, caring organisation, but will he just repeat that promise in the House this morning, and maybe get one of his officials to write to me to point to where in his Department’s accounts that money is, so we can all keep an eye on it?”
“The Minister references the life sciences sector, which is so important for future prosperity, particularly in and around Cambridge. We are in danger of falling behind in the race for international investment, as evidenced by the fact that since 2018 we have fallen from fourth to 10th in hosting late-phase clinical trials. What are the Government doing to address that issue?”
“International students are of huge benefit to every constituency in this country, not just to university cities such as Cambridge, but different parts of the Government seem to be sending out very different messages as to how welcome they are. Will the Minister tell us what his Department is doing to secure this important trade benefit for the UK?”
“The concern is that this additional non-trade barrier to access the UK market will result in additional costs for consumers—and less wine for us, possibly—and some producers, particularly smaller ones, may just decide not to import to our market at all. What discussions is the Minister having with the industry about these concerns, and what solutions are being discussed? Will we get to hear about appropriate changes before the end of the year to ensure that businesses have enough time to comply with any new rules?”
“As we are on the topic of the labelling for alcoholic beverages, I would like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister about labelling requirements next year. I am told by the industry that the changes made in this SI are not actually the biggest concern at the moment—rather what will happen at the end of the year when wine and alcohol labels will be required to include a UK-based vendor or importer address. Currently we accept an EU address on labels and that is helpful because it allows non-UK and EU importers to maintain one label. It also allows for smaller producers from the EU to have the same back label, thus preventing increased costs for them and the consumer.”
“Admittedly, they are minor, but they are still different, as the European Union requires that 100% of the grape varieties are listed. Here we have an example of minor divergence, but as the Minister has said, it is likely that many in practice will continue to comply with rules set by the EU. At this point I expect Government Members to start to bridle at my comments, but just so that we can understand the significance of the changes, could the Minister tell us what proportion of wine coming into this country is likely to be affected by the changes introduced by this statutory instrument? Presumably some analysis has been done. I think he has already indicated that it is likely to be minor, but before this is trumpeted as a huge Brexit opportunity, it would be good to know the scale.”
“I am very grateful to the Wine and Spirit Trade Association for its help. It tells me that those amendments will allow producers to make minor changes to the composition of a blended wine without the need for relabelling, which is clearly helpful, and that the 0.1 decimal place is in line with many other wine-making countries. That is good for producers, because they will not have to alter their label for the UK market. While this will offer flexibility to producers looking to sell into the GB market, as the Minister has said, many may decide not to exercise the option if they export into both Great Britain and the European Union. These divergences from the EU, particularly on the listing of grape variety, introduce different standards from those of our European neighbours.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. The Minister will be delighted to hear that we will not be proceeding to a Division today as this seems a relatively straightforward piece of legislation. I noted his eulogising of the New Zealand trade deal. I wonder whether he agrees with his eminent predecessor, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who thought we gave away too much. This instrument will accommodate the terms set out in annex 7A of the UK-New Zealand free trade agreement. Principally, it will reduce the threshold at which labelling the different varieties of grapes is required from 100% to 95%. It will also allow the term “alc/vol” to be used after the alcohol figure, and for alcoholic strength, as indicated by percentage alcohol by volume, to be labelled to one decimal point.”
“Frankly, the verdict of the Office for Environmental Protection and its chair, Dame Glenys Stacey, was completely withering. As many have pointed out already this afternoon, our natural carbon stores—peatlands, trees, woodlands, salt marshes and wetlands in particular—are in decline; indeed, they are at high risk of degradation in the extreme climatic conditions that are, sadly, likely over the next 30 years. Wetlands in particular can accumulate carbon for centuries, but in some areas of the UK we have lost over 90% of our wetland habitat. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) pointed out, restored wetlands provide rich habitat, clean water naturally and reduce flood risk downstream.”
“We all know that we must halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity by 2030 for the benefit of all people and the planet. However, I am afraid that the Government’s actions often seem to take us in the opposite direction, whether it is flirting with fracking, seeking to reopen coalmines or letting off the hook oil companies profit from the misery of war. The Government are also threatening to allow 1,700 or so environmental regulations to fall under the retained EU law bulldozer. They breached the statutory deadline for setting Environment Act 2021 targets and watered down those they eventually did set. Five years into the 25-year environment plan, not one of its 23 targets was assessed as being on track by the Government’s own environmental watchdog.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on securing this important debate. I commend Back-Bench colleagues on their brevity, and I will prune my speech in a suitably nature-friendly way to fit into the time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), who praised her local organisations for seeking to green their city. I strongly commend them on their nature recovery corridor. It is almost five years ago that the House of Commons approved Labour’s motion declaring a climate and nature emergency. Sadly, the acknowledgment of that twin emergency does not seem to have galvanised the Government into the kind of response that many hoped for.”
“In conclusion, we recognise that this is a cross-Government challenge that needs focus from all of Government, so we have committed to a robust net zero and nature test for every policy, to create certainty for business and provide leadership to seize the opportunities for the UK, while protecting nature here and abroad. It is a historic challenge, one that we absolutely have to meet, and Labour is determined to do just that.”
“These communities are also twice as likely to be neighbourhoods without nature-rich spaces. We want to see a UK in which everyone has proper access to wild places and wildlife. A healthy natural world and more equitable access to nature are key priorities for Labour. We also understand the importance of doing our fair share to cut UK emissions, in order to try to keep global heating down. Our shadow Secretary of State for Climate Change and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), has been clear on this, and the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has pledged an investment of £28 billion every year until 2030 to tackle the climate and nature crisis, and to create clean, green and secure jobs for people in the UK.”
“Given the time, I will not; sorry. We do not believe that the current ambitions to halt the decline of species abundance in the UK are good enough. Frankly, the latest targets are too weak. We must be nature-positive; we should aim for a dramatic incline in species abundance. Nature fundamentally underpins human health, wellbeing and prosperity. By delivering for the planet’s nature, we also deliver for its people, and Labour has always understood the importance of viewing the environment through this twin lens. That is especially important now, as we live through the worst cost of living crisis in a generation. We need to consider those living in communities plagued by dirty air and water, and acknowledge that disadvantaged communities are disproportionately impacted.”
“The Minister mentioned 61 risks, but does she worry, like I do, that low uptake of ELM schemes could be one of those risks? Or are there actually 62 risks?”
“We should move much more quickly on adopting integrated pest-management systems. Ironically, as has been explained, that was part of the sustainable farming incentive package that the Government announced last week, and we welcome that. So I say to the Minister: be bold on that, listen to the scientists and get away from falling back on neonicotinoids, which we know do so much harm.”
“There are high hopes for varieties resistant to virus yellows and there is potential for the use of gene editing to secure that resistance. I hope that the Government follow our advice on the regulatory structures needed to make that happen. I am told that there is already a variety resistant to two virus yellow strains, but it is expensive and there is a yield penalty. I am also told that yield protection insurance is available, but again, that incurs more costs. Those are difficult decisions. There are things that we can do, some of which have been outlined by other Members. We can develop non-chemical approaches, such as boosting beneficial insects, cover crops, better rotation and maintaining good farm hygiene. There is evidence that some farms have had success by adopting such measures.”