Agriculture Bill

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

As a relatively new MP, I have been astonished by the commitment of this Government, the ministerial team and the Parliamentary Private Secretary to put the rights of farmers and this great nation at the front of this outstanding Bill.

On my election, I became forged to representing the interests of farmers and the farming industry in my constituency. Farming comes up on a daily basis, and I would like to speak personally about that, rather than about the international scene. The farmers of Derbyshire Dales are of hardy stock. They are wedded to the rugged land and the livestock they raise. They are farmers such as Simon Frost, who picks me up in his Land Rover and takes me around the land that his family has farmed for centuries, and his wife, Suzanne, who has spent her working life in science and animal welfare. They are custodians of land, such as Sir Richard FitzHerbert at Tissington, who showed me around the dales that he and others love so much.

I am also grateful to the agricultural team at Bakewell, and to Alastair Sneddon, auctioneer, who goes out of his way patiently to brief me on the ins and outs of what is happening. Because of those constituents I stand here today to support this outstanding Bill. My constituents have also been well served by the National Farmers’ Union, represented by Andrew Critchlow in Matlock, by Jane Bassett from Hartington, and by Andrew Broadley from Derbyshire Dales.

Derbyshire farmers were understandably wary of newcomers, and I was one of them. Although I had small landowners and tenant farmers in my family, it took them a while to accept me, and to understand that I had their interests at heart. Once elected, I made it my mission to badger the poor ministerial team—they know what I mean—and I sat on the Bill Committee, and worked jolly hard for my constituents whenever I could. I know and am confident that this Government have the interests of farmers and the rest of the population at their heart, and that includes local issues in constituencies such as mine. I think about Hartington Stilton, Dovedale blue cheese, Peakland White, and Peakland Blue, and I know that Ministers have the backs of my constituents who work in those small businesses, and who possibly wish to go global.

We were elected on a manifesto of commitment and of not compromising our standards, and we will not do so—the passage of the Bill has proved that. We have maintained existing protections in law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and the Bill contains many safety and reviewing features. I am so proud of what we have achieved. This is a listening Government. The jewel in the crown has to be the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and I am delighted by the expertise of those who contribute to that. I therefore support the Bill.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

I shall keep my remarks brief, out of courtesy for those further down the call list, but also because there is little left to say about the Bill and the Government’s ambitions therein. I support amendment 16B and its provisions on equivalence for agrifood standards in relation to future trade. The amendment places a benign requirement on the Government to have, as a negotiating objective in trade deal negotiations, the ambition of achieving equivalence of standards. While noting that, I would point out the Secretary of State’s insistence that proponents of protecting food standards, environmental protections and animal welfare standards are seeking to mandate precisely the same standards as we produce here in the UK. That is a tendentious misrepresentation of the pursuit of equivalence, encompassing as it does the same or higher standards.

Amendment 16B does not tie the Government’s hands when negotiating or bind them to any requirements and outcomes, meaning that the Government would still be free to prioritise other negotiating objectives above the duty to seek appropriate equivalence thereby representing the wateriest of all provisions, which if the Government oppose it—as they will—should leave us all very concerned.

I have to say that the Minister has been very generous with her time in discussing these matters with me and listening to my deeply held concerns about the Bill. She debates in such a conciliatory and kind way that I come away believing that she has agreed with me when in fact she has done no such thing in any given instance. [Laughter.]

If this is the last thing I say on this subject, I will observe that I believe the Government have wilfully lost sight of the fundamental importance of the material we are legislating for. We are transacting frameworks for the import of production domestically, not of timber or textiles or televisions, but of the foods that we will eat, and that is what is at risk when the Bill passes unamended, as it inevitably will. The food we prepare and feed to our children has not received the protection it deserves, and nor has its intrinsic worth been recognised—a theme which is manifest in the Agriculture Bill, but also in the Government’s Trade Bill and, of course, the detestable smash-and-grab United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. Everything I have done and said in the passage of this Bill has been in the interests of those working in farming and food production in Angus, in Scotland and across the whole of the UK. The people of these islands deserve better than this, whichever nation they call home. Scotland will have better than this, as the dawning of independence supports.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her incredible work on the Bill, and may I thank the Conservative party—every other Member has thanked their party—because we put this in our manifesto and we have delivered. We promised high standards on animal welfare, and we have kept that promise. We promised that our farmers would be protected, and we have done that. We have fulfilled and honoured what we said we would do. We have taken the EU commitments that we had, and we have brought them into statute.

I thank the Government for listening to farmers, and I am proud that our party is the voice for the British farmer. I welcome the new partnership with the Department for International Trade, but I hope that we will look not only at how we can protect ourselves, but at how we can promote the British farmer; how we can package ourselves; how we can put our delicious cheeses, apples and wines on the lips and in the stomachs of our North American colleagues so that they long for the delicious food quality standards that only we can provide.

Look at the success of Yorkshire Tea, which increased its consumer value in the US by 950% this year alone. That shows what can be done with a strategic plan to market our amazing agricultural products abroad. I welcome the Bill—

Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on an excellent speech. She spoke on behalf of not just her constituency but fishermen across Northern Ireland. She put her case and their case across very well in the House tonight. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) said. It is a pleasure and a privilege to be in the Chamber tonight, as we debate such an important piece of legislation for our own constituencies, the communities we represent, the whole of Scotland and the United Kingdom. They are looking to this Parliament to finally take back control over our fishing industry. It has for too long been dominated by decisions in Brussels, rather than here in our Parliament in the United Kingdom.

This is very much a framework Bill. It is supported by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and it allows us to do far more back here in the House of Commons or in the devolved Administrations. This legislation and the proposals put forward by this UK Conservative Government respect devolution. It looks for and enhances the sustainability in our seas, but also the sustainability in our fishing communities. For so long—decades—fishing communities in Moray such as Cullen, Findochty, Buckie and Burghead have suffered from a reduction in fishing right across the country through the straitjacket of the common fisheries policy. It has done so much harm to our industries, which were crucial to towns and villages right across the country. Many of those areas have been decimated, but now we can start to build back again: build back our fishing industry, our fleet, our crews and our catches, and what they mean to individual communities, what they meant decades ago, and what we can do to revitalise those areas when this industry gets back up and running because of the legislation that this UK Government and this Parliament are looking at, debating and taking through now.

Positive as I am about the Bill, I have to pause for a moment and stop that positivity to discuss the contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). [Interruption.] She laughs about her contribution. I wish I could laugh at it. I really wish I could find it funny. I watched part of her speech on the screens outwith the Chamber and, when I was able to come in, I listened to it further. Watching it on television I thought it was bad enough, and then I looked in. Sometimes we say things in the Chamber and we reflect, because we are not reading a pre-prepared, scripted speech, that maybe we could have said something different and put it a better way. I watched the end of the hon. Lady’s speech and she was reading it out. I thought, “What kind of individual sits at a computer and types such a bitter, twisted and misleading statement, reviews it”—I presume she writes it herself, but I cannot guarantee that—“and stands up in the Chamber of the House of Commons and reads out such a poorly crafted argument that does not represent what Scotland is looking for from this Bill and does not represent what fishing communities right around the country are looking for from this Bill?”

I do not believe the hon. Lady’s speech represents the Scottish National party position on this. If you listen to her, there is nothing good in the Bill being brought forward by this Government, but her own party in the Scottish Parliament has given a legislative consent motion for it. So just once I would ask her to look beyond her blinkered vision of separatism, assuming everything done in this UK Parliament is bad, and consider for a moment that the 1 million people in Scotland who backed Brexit and the almost 50% of voters in my Moray constituency who backed Brexit, might actually look at this as an opportunity—an opportunity for this UK Government to take control back from the European Union over fishing and devolve further to our devolved Administrations right across the country. She would do herself, her party and Scottish politics in general a service if she looked at that and that argument from a more positive angle just once—to look at the positivity, rather than always the negativity.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

I think I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly when he said that there was almost 50% support for Brexit in his constituency, so he lost the Brexit argument in his constituency. Is that right?

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

The coastal communities on the coastline of Moray provide great opportunities for fishing in my constituency and, indeed, right around Scotland and the United Kingdom. In case I have potentially misled the House, I think there is some coastline in the hon. Lady’s constituency, so before the tweet goes out, I have corrected the record and I apologise for that. We all come to this House to represent our constituents and the areas for which we are elected in order put forward their views. I think it is right that the representative for Moray is able to outline how important this Bill is, and how important it is that the Lords amendments, which could cause some difficulties and troubles for the Bill, are not taken forward, because they would be wrong for the industry both in Moray and right across Scotland.

We have left the European Union. When we leave the transition period at the end of this year, we come out of the straitjacket of the common fisheries policy—the hated CFP that has done so much to damage our industry over the past 40 years. Our fishing communities have decided to leave the European Union and have voted to come out of the common fisheries policy. Why would the Scottish nationalists ever say that, having taken the decision to leave, we should go back into a policy that has done so much damage to our communities and to our industry? I relish the bright future that is ahead of us now with this Bill and look forward to developing it further with communities in Moray, right across Scotland, and across the UK. This is a positive time to be in the fishing industry. This is a positive Bill from the UK Government—one that will deliver right across the country and one that I am pleased to support.

[Dave Doogan]

I am very happy to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross).

I am extremely fortunate to represent Angus, the garden of Scotland. Our bounty extends well beyond our exceptional farmland, over our cliffs, and into our abundant seas—the North sea. After all, we have in Arbroath the home of the Arbroath smokie—a taste sensation that I know for a fact the Minister regularly enjoys. Not only that, but in Ferryden and Arbroath harbours we have a thriving inshore fleet fishing creel for crab and lobsters primarily for the EU market. This is where my concern lies. The shellfish trade in Angus is an outstanding success story supporting many jobs and underpinning the thriving buzz in Arbroath and Ferryden harbours. These boats have little to gain from Brexit in their fishing operations, but much to lose if the Government will not or cannot secure a deal for unfettered and tariff- free access to their EU markets.

I remind Ministers that livelihoods and jobs depend on these last-minute negotiations, and fishing businesses, like any other, need clarity over future trading conditions. Even with a deal, fishermen from Angus exporting into the EU will be subject to a regime from 1 January that threatens cost and delay for their businesses. These burdens include the requirements for an export health certificate, a validated catch certificate sent to the importer hours before the lorry arrives, a storage document if the catch was stored, and a processing statement if the product has been treated. They must import their product through an EU border control post and the importer must be notified in advance of the arrival. Notification periods vary so they will need to check with the border control post in question to find out how much notice they can give.

This is a far cry from the seamless process undertaken currently by crews and hauliers supplying markets in the EU today. I seek the Minister’s assurance that due consideration will be given to those lorries loaded up with live catch from multiple vessels in respect of the effect of this new bureaucracy on my constituents in Angus.

There exists a seemingly simpler process for UK vessels landing directly into UK ports. They must land into a North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission-designated port with a prior notification form, a catch certificate and a pre-landing declaration. That is onerous, but not insurmountable. Direct landings into the EU should be seen as a sub-optimal opportunity. It seems clear that we need to secure as much value add in the commodification of marine product in Scotland, and the rest of the UK of course, as possible, thereby exporting a higher value product to market rather than exporting the unprocessed product to have the value added abroad. National landings will deliver that, and to that extent I have some sympathy with amendment 1 tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock). However, as she will be aware, it is England-only so I will be unable to support it. I encourage the Minister, if not in this iteration of the Bill then in future policy, to consider the ambition of a national landing requirement. I know that that is an important element that all devolved Administrations will be taking forward.

We heard the hon. Member for Moray speak at length about the importance of coastal communities and reversing the attrition that was wrought on them in recent decades. This is an element that we may seek to exploit to achieve that. Ridding our fishing fleets of the thoroughly discredited CFP will of course have an upside for crews and skippers, but we need to ensure that we are more ambitious than that. We need to maximise and disaggregate the dividend as far and as wide onshore as possible. To do so will benefit precisely those coastal communities that we have heard discussed earlier this evening, with consequential benefits to local services, driving greater investment through higher populations in rural schools, and increased use of transport and connectivity.

A new future based on zonal attachment holds much promise for our fleets and for the gross value of the industry going forward. This will do much to correct the basic fairness of access to marine harvest. We should feel duty bound to attach any new prosperity widely to coastal communities and exploit every opportunity to secure marketing, processing, fuel supplies, services, installation, plant sales and haulage jobs on these shores and in our coastal communities rather than elsewhere. This is not protectionism, it is pragmatism.

I understand very well the need to ensure the most profitable and expedient routes to market for crews, but let us be clear that the damage that Brexit will do to our broader economy and economic prosperity outside fishing will be severe and in so far as fishing will benefit from Brexit, the industry should maintain an obligation to support the onshore economy as much as possible in management, processing and the wider supply chain.

[Douglas Ross]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He just said that fishing would benefit from Brexit—those are the words that came out of his mouth, and I absolutely agree with that. Can he explain how fishing would benefit from the SNP policy, which is to go straight back into the European Union and the common fisheries policy?

[Dave Doogan]

I am happy that the hon. Member for Moray is so quick to tell me what SNP policy is. Perhaps he will yield to my knowledge of such matters. I think I am probably on fairly solid ground as an SNP politician in saying what our policy is. I will be taking no lectures from a Conservative politician on how to access the EU in the interests of fishing. We have seen how badly it was done by the Conservatives in the early 1970s. We will not be making any similar mistakes with Scotland’s reaccession to the EU after independence, but I do not want to fall foul of Madam Deputy Speaker. 



Home landings have their limits, such as with the pelagic catch, which can be so vast and so rapid as to overwhelm the local capacity to process, and there can be no argument with that reality. However, the principle of shared benefit remains intact if domestic capacity is by default exhausted first. I am confident that my colleagues in the Scottish Government are sighted on the national landings priority. The best interests of our Scottish fleet in coastal communities will be served by that devolved Administration, but we should in all four nations work in support of this ambition as maritime neighbours, where we remain subject to the same jurisdiction.

Agriculture Bill

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

In following the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I will try not to resort to impolite comments such as that which he directed at the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). He could not see the embarrassment on his colleagues’ faces when he made that comment.

I rise to speak in favour of amendment 16. The clarion voice of the people is at issue here and it is our responsibility as MPs to convey the horror with which our constituents view the Bill and its in-built opposition to their ambitions for food safety that respects the environment and safeguards the welfare of our animals.

The people of Scotland have spoken clearly in rejecting the Bill and its aims, and Ministers would do well to listen. If the Minister is listening for the voice of Scotland, I can assure her that she will find it over here on the SNP Benches, not over there on the Tory Benches. Scottish Tory MPs do not even speak for Scottish Tory voters, 95% of whom backed calls for food standards to be maintained, according to Which? People are asking why the Tory Government and the majority of their Back Benchers do not listen to the people—[Interruption.] That includes those who are chuntering from a sedentary position right now. Perhaps if the risk was of chlorine-washed chanterelle mushrooms or hormone-injected foie gras, Tory Ministers would have less of a deaf ear than the one they have turned to those of us who are happier dining on chicken fried rice and mince and tatties.

So much for taking back control, the newly independent, yet strangely impotent UK cannot specify the standard of food we will import going forward: John Bull under the heel of Uncle Sam right enough. That pitiful transatlantic asymmetry rings truer now than at any stage in Anglo-US history. The Tory Government have demonstrated in the most humiliating and unedifying way possible that nothing will get in the way of a US trade deal—in and of itself a highly questionable negotiating position.

The Government have betrayed civil society across these islands and ignored valid evidence and well-documented concerns about the Bill and its shoddy back door, leading to a food standards horror show. The will of the people of these islands is ignored by a Government who have purposely allowed the DIT tail to wag the DEFRA dog on food standards.

That highlights a betrayal that will take some beating—all in the name of breathing life into the Brexit myth of no global trade without Brexit. Meanwhile, Mercedes, Zara, Airbus, Heineken, Volvo and L’Oréal all sell big from within the EU to the US without the need for European Governments to betray their populations and farmers through the food that they produce and feed to their children.

The Government are capable of listening to industry as we saw during covid, when they listened intently to the supermarkets about food supply and to the private supply chains about food distribution. So why will they not listen to farmers on this issue? Farmers have been very clear on matters of provenance, the risk to their business of an any-price trade deal, and the supply of seasonal labour.

Why do the Tory Government seem to hold our farmers in such contempt? The question is rhetorical. We all know that it is because of the twin Tory totems of Brexit and immigration, which, for the hard of thinking, are one and the same thing. On a post-Brexit trade deal, the DIT speaks for Government. The Home Office speaks for Government on immigration, specifically their disastrous approach thus far to access to seasonal labour from abroad. No wonder many are beginning to ask what exactly DEFRA speaks for.

If the Government persist in proscribing the most basic protections for our food supply from the Bill, no amount of watery, weasel words will hide the simple fact that a Government that cannot act as guarantor for the food we eat cannot act as guarantor for anything. Scotland is taking a different route.

[Bill Wiggin]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), just as I did after his maiden speech. May I say that he needs to allow a little more of his Scottish charm to seep into his speeches? I need to declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly as a breeder of Hereford cattle. Some 88% of Herefordshire is farmland, and 10,200 people work on our 2,812 farms.

On amendments 12 and 16, let me say that farming is not a religion; it is a business. We need to increase farm incomes, cut NHS expenditure on obesity, lose the need for food banks, and ensure that we behave towards our livestock in the way that we behave towards one another: with respect, kindness and, most of all, understanding of the huge challenge all this presents. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Green party, Extinction Rebellion and many others have their own agendas on how to run the landscape, so their contribution is not surprising, but the NFU’s is surprising, because it has gone far too far in trying to wrongly frighten people. We must remember that the Agriculture Bill is primarily a continuation Bill. The amendments would put strict conditions in place when the EU negotiates a free trade deal, whereas when we, as part of the EU, negotiated free trade deals with other countries, none of those restrictions were in place. If we impose strict food requirements, America will challenge and win at the WTO. Opposition Members may rejoice at that, but the EU will not be able to accept those terms either.

Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution & 2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

This Bill is exceptionally important for Scotland, and yet, not for the first time, a Scottish industry and its people find themselves subject to the rule of this place and the will of a Tory majority of MPs, which Scotland again rejected. We do still have some Tory MPs in Scotland, but as we saw with the Agriculture Bill and the Trade Bill, they vote with the Tory Whips rather than the people of Scotland, even if they find that impossible to defend afterwards, as the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross)—who I see is no longer in his place—the latest in a line of new Scottish Tory leaders, found out to his cost yesterday.

While I am on that, I will be taking no lessons from the new leader of the Scottish Tories, the hon. Member for Moray, or his chief cheerleader, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), when it comes to representing my constituents. They should remember that their constituents, like mine and those in every other constituency in Scotland, voted to remain in the EU.

I look forward to the scrutiny to which the Bill will be subject in Committee, but let me be very clear on one point: this is profoundly more important for Scotland than anywhere else on these islands, with 62% of UK waters in Scotland’s hands and 64% of the UK’s catch being landed in Scotland. In making that point, I pay tribute to the six Cornish MPs, four of whom have made contributions this evening, and in particular my colleagues on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) and the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray)—very few in this Chamber speak with such passion and knowledge about fishing. I know that we have the same interest for our constituents; we just have a different ambition about how to get there. The same can be said of great ports such as Grimsby and Whitby, which have also been represented.

Let me be really clear on one thing. My colleagues in the SNP are being accused, despite never having said it, of being defenders of the common fisheries policy. We are no such thing. The SNP is no defender of the common fisheries policy, largely because it is indefensible in many respects. When Scotland re-enters the EU as an independent sovereign coastal state, we will be seeking to do so on our terms, as an independent country.

I read through the Bill, and I found myself asking, “What’s in it for the fleets operating out of Scotland, and in particular constituents in Angus?” I was challenged to represent the people of Angus—well, here it is. The catch in Angus, where, like the whole of Scotland, we voted to remain in the EU, is harvested by inshore fleets, predominantly fishing creels for crab and lobster. My constituents are unencumbered by foreign boats and need contend with neither quota nor tariff, as they access lucrative and very well-established markets in the EU for almost their entire customer base. I would like to thank the Minister for meeting me to discuss that priority for Angus fishermen.

The Brexit prospectus was very clear: foreign fleets are to be excluded from UK waters—simple. The Bill refers to that with details of the actions to be taken against infringement by errant skippers and owners and the nature of those penalties—all seemingly straightforward, except it is not straightforward, as complex international negotiations never are. They defy soundbite, which is problematic for a Government and Prime Minister whose stock-in-trade is soundbite.

In concluding, may I invite the Minister to advise my constituents what statecraft she and her ministerial colleagues will deploy to ensure that where EU boats are excluded in whole or in part, they do not take access to their markets with them when they are banished from UK waters? Can she also expand on the European maritime and fisheries fund? Scotland receives €108 million of the total UK quantum, and Ministers have been totally unclear about what will replace that.

Agriculture Bill

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) [V]]

I am happy to be able to make my observations on the Bill, its process and the material considerations at stake. As an MP representing a Scottish seat, I will necessarily keep my references confined to the narrow, yet vital, provisions that affect constituents in Angus and more widely in Scotland.

The Bill and its passage through Parliament afford us another example of the straining construct that the UK Parliament increasingly reveals itself to be. This is principally a Bill to provide legislative guidance, a regulatory framework and sector-specific support for English agriculture, yet here we are—MPs from all four nations of the United Kingdom—invested in its passage through this place. A far better proposition in recognising and respecting the devolved nature of agriculture would have been for the Government to table an English agriculture Bill under the EVEL—English votes for English laws—procedures so valued by Government Members, and a further agricultural co-operation Bill, which could have been agreed by consent with the devolved Administrations, with competencies over budgets, food standards, the single market in the UK, animal welfare, environmental protections, and crucially of course, trade, but that ship has well and truly sailed.

That being the case, I must turn to the provisions of the Bill, or in fact, the absence of a key provision that most concerns stakeholders in the agricultural sector: the standard of imported agricultural produce to the UK. Representatives of farming, consumer, environmental and animal welfare organisations across the United Kingdom have been crystal clear on this point. Parliament must take this opportunity to ensure that the Bill introduces vital safeguards for the maintenance of high standards of production on food imports, founded in statute, mandated by law and applying no more than that which is applied to producers of food in the domestic market.

During this period of unprecedented turmoil in our history, farmers and food producers have ensured that the cycle of food production has continued no matter what. That is the calibre of this industry and the people who work within it. We owe it to them in this context, and referencing the generations of food production before it, to ensure that our farmers are not undercut by lower standards of imports that result from some future trade policy.

This import standards issue is a matter of unparalleled concern within the industry, and moreover, it enjoys political support from across all parties in this House—a rare thing indeed. It is not a new issue either and it has been prevalent throughout the course of the Bill. Ministers have been asked many times by Members to consider it. What is concerning is that when I and other right hon. and hon. Members ask this question about standards of imports, we receive the same response from the Secretary of State as we did from his predecessor in the role, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers): that the Government are committed to high standards of production within the UK. That is a hollow and unconvincing yet very telling response to a question that nobody is asking, and it speaks to tension between the Department for International Trade and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that Members must circumvent today.

An early casualty, if we fail to act, will be the outstanding egg producers of these islands. It is a success story within food production that an industry that receives no subsidies provides countless farms with their egg cheque every month—so vital to the cashflow of seasonal enterprises such as farming. Yet, if the Bill fails to uphold their high standards of production on imports, they will face unparalleled if not insurmountable challenges in competing with foreign imports of egg products, dried and liquid, that could be produced to horrifically low animal welfare standards before ending up in unwitting consumers’ food products here. Scottish and UK farmers and producers are not asking for any special deal or to be protected from cheaper products of the same or higher standards. The industry in Scotland and across these islands is well able to compete on the world stage. All they are asking for is that the competition is fair and on a level playing field. For this reason, I will be voting to introduce this most basic of provisions to the Bill in the interests of consumers, environmental protection and animal welfare.

[Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]]

The Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape the future of agriculture in the United Kingdom, including how we farm, how we feed people and how we make farming sustainable for this generation and the next. It also comes at a time when we are fundamentally reassessing our trading relationships across the world, and at a moment of crisis when expansion of our international trade is essential to our recovery and future prosperity. The Bill, as it stands, opens the door for our farmers to the opportunities for growth that international trade brings, and with that it goes some way to addressing the regional imbalance of opportunity and wealth that this Government and I want to focus on.

Farmers in my constituency and across the country already sell exports to Europe worth about £24 billion, and the Bill sets a template for expansion into other regions, which will mean that members of our farming community will be able to compete abroad as never before. They will sell more of what they already sell, and enter new markets so that they can sell more of the same products and new products too. To bring the narrative back to how extending British farming into global markets will directly boost growth, it is just simple maths that growth leads to more jobs, and with that, better jobs. Growth in trade will create new opportunities in places that may have been left behind. It will help to keep local talent at home and attract new talent from afar, and the levelling up of society in every region of Britain will take one more step forward.

I support the aspirations of farmers in Hertford and Stortford who want to sell into foreign markets, and I want farmers and consumers to be clear that I support their desire for the highest food and animal welfare standards, as do the Government. We are leaving the European Union and the CAP, and we must be able to negotiate and sign meaningful trade agreements. We must resist calls for the protectionism that will squander opportunity, and not try to force dynamic alignment from others with us in the UK. Apart from anything else, it was those rigid rules that played a large part in our vote—my vote—to leave the EU, so what message would we be sending if we tried to enforce them ourselves now?

Concerns around the safety and standards of food in the UK have been addressed in the Bill. The same stringent standards that we are all used to and wish to see upheld will still apply to meat sold here, including those that exclude chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef. I want to reassure farmers and consumers in Hertford and Stortford that I will always support the highest environmental standards and celebrate the fact that farmers are the custodians of our wonderful countryside. I support the highest standards of food production and animal welfare here and around the world. I also support a principle of clarity in food labelling, to enable consumers to make informed choices about what products they buy.

I will always champion our wonderful UK farmers, producers and products. I will support the Bill, as I am satisfied that our food standards and safety are protected, and I want to see farmers in my constituency benefit from different markets, more product opportunities and a greater distribution of wealth and opportunity across the country. This is an opportunity to renew British farming and add vigour to our global aspirations. It is an opportunity to secure more resilient food supply chains and set global standards for sustainability through international co-operation and leadership.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

As I said in response to an earlier question, the Government recognise that a significant number of staff working throughout the supply chain, both retailers and food processors, have children of school age; we estimate that the figure is between 25% and 33%. We therefore recognise that many of them will need to be defined as key workers, but further information on that will be published by the Government later today.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

The standards of agriculture produce and animal welfare in Angus and elsewhere in these islands is among the best in the world. Is it not the case that the standards of imports are not always up to the standards of UK production? Is it not important that we follow the simple premise that, if something cannot lawfully meet the UK standards of production, it should not lawfully be imported to the UK? Will the Secretary of State enshrine that in the Government’s legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

1. To ask the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what recent assessment the Commission has made of the potential merits of introducing electronic voting.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)]

2. To ask the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what recent assessment the Commission has made of the potential merits of introducing electronic voting.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire)]

The commission has had no recent formal discussions on the potential merits of electronic voting. Colleagues on the Procedure Committee have examined what practical and procedural changes to Divisions might be necessary in the context of the covid-19 outbreak and I thank them for their work on that. I know that they will continue to keep the situation under review. Any decision to implement electronic voting would need to be agreed by the whole House. The commission’s responsibility for this matter would be limited to the financial and staffing implications of such a decision.

[Dave Doogan]

The SNP has long advocated modernising this place so that votes do not take hours. As a still relatively new Member, I am shocked by the archaic practices that we, as Members, have to undergo in order to vote. Does the hon. Member representing the House of Commons Commission ever see this House leaving the late 19th century?

[Pete Wishart]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. In my almost 20 years in this House I have probably spent the best part of a week traipsing around the Division Lobbies, exercising my democratic obligations as a Member of the House. It is a week that I am certain I will never get back. Last July, the Procedure Committee began an inquiry into the merits of electronic voting, which was interrupted by the general election in December. So far, no decision has been made to reopen that inquiry, but I encourage my hon. Friend to beat a path towards the Procedure Committee to encourage it to take up the inquiry again. Knowing of his determination, I am pretty certain that he will do so.

Flooding

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for moving this motion and for helping hon. Members on both sides of the House highlight the devastating impact of recent storms on communities across these islands. I support the motion and its ambition to establish an independent review of flooding, which seems to me to be an uncontentious, non-political and constructive approach to a serious issue that affects all our communities.

As many of us in this Chamber will know from first- hand experience of supporting flood victims, flooding has many effects from the horrific effect of sewage backflow to the ever-present anxiety of wondering when the next episode will happen. This affects my constituents in Angus, and we are right across the spectrum in having successful flood mitigation measures installed but also having communities that are still exposed to the full force of the weather. Scoping, funding and delivering flood defence schemes is, of course, a challenging process, as they are, after all, complex civil engineering projects.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as the Secretary of State was unable to do so.

We have funding for a flood defence scheme in my constituency, but one of the barriers is that the Environment Agency does not have enough staff to bring the scheme forward or to offer support. Should this not just be about physical infrastructure but about the Environment Agency having more funding to expand its team?

[Dave Doogan]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand if I hesitate to comment on the Environment Agency, as my part of these islands is much more dependent on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which I am happy to talk up. I am aware of the genuine concern among colleagues about the lag between the establishment of a requirement and the delivery of a system on the ground, which is something a review would wish to consider.

These complex civil engineering projects are usually towards the top end of cost and capital investment in local communities, and any assessment of return on that capital investment should, of course, be robust and realistic. Having said that, there is a risk that, in assessing the value for money of any proposed scheme, we use the narrowest definition of value such as property prices or other one-dimensional and binary judgments.

Planners and government, both local and national, must increasingly consider broader priorities such as employment, cultural and community value, and the value of agricultural land in deciding whether to protect them. Moreover, any assessment that builds a business case for defence schemes on residential property prices and that seeks to use those property prices as the principal determinant will necessarily favour more affluent areas of these islands for investment, rather than considering all areas equally and on their merits.

A much more preventive approach to sustainable flood management and mitigation needs to be pursued, and pursued at pace, if we are to stand a realistic chance of managing weather events that, hitherto, would have been classified as once-in-100-years events but are now apparently much more common. This dynamic endeavour requires government, local and national, to get a grip, provide investment and transact innovation.

Every SNP Member wishes to pay tribute to the first-class response to the recent severe weather in our part of these islands by local authorities, emergency responders, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and, of course, the public who, in all our constituencies, went above and beyond what is reasonably expected of individuals to help protect themselves and their neighbours.

In February, the First Minister of Scotland visited Hawick and the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment visited Newcastleton, two of the most badly affected areas in Scotland. That is in stark contrast to the Prime Minister, who spent the same period of flooding relaxing at Chequers. At such times of crisis, a key role for a leader is to provide confidence to the public and show them that their Government are responding. Boris Johnson has utterly failed that simplest test of leadership.

In Scotland, the SNP Scottish Government will continue to work to support local authorities to deliver the actions that protect our communities and businesses. Again, we come back to planning. Planning work is expected to start on the 42 prioritised schemes. It is recognised that those schemes might not be delivered, but it is important for residents and constituents to understand that they are planned for.

Regardless of where we live, work or legislate, innovation has to take centre stage. A principal element of that has to be upstream aggradation and the retention of run-off, with more appropriate land management strategies that, as a public good, landowners may be rewarded for and that will hold back deluge events from entering our main rivers and tributaries all at once.

Simultaneously, we need to consider planning legislation in all the different elements of the United Kingdom to make sure that, with the increasing pattern of people having smaller gardens or no garden, there are corresponding mitigation measures that will assist in the attenuation of deluges and flood waters.

Tenants and residents need to be protected and, as other hon. Members have mentioned, there needs to be far greater investment in maintenance of the disaggregation of risk in insurance. Quite apart from the physical, tangible elements, anxiety is a cruel master when it comes to flooding, and insurance is directly connected to that. I accept what hon. Members have said about the progress that has been made, but it needs to be built upon and expanded.

Finally, any review must work with all UK environment agencies, including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, to establish best practice and to foster the innovation we so desperately need.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

UK Chemical Industry: Regulatory Divergence

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

I am very happy to sum up for the Scottish National party in this important debate, whose importance belies its attendance. In the first instance, I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who secured the debate, by pointing out that little or no manufacturing takes place without almost total dependence on the chemical manufacturing sector and the regulation that underpins that—both domestically in the United Kingdom and, just as importantly, around the world.

Across all manufacturing sectors, we see the clearest indications from stakeholders, whether commercial, trade union or in processing, that we live in a world of very integrated international supply chains, and we have done for some time. They are dependent on regulatory alignment. It is also worth pointing out the amount of research and development money that goes into the chemical industry, much of it private—how that interacts with our higher education sector, the role the United Kingdom plays in that and how we discharge that role with our international partners, many of whom are in the European Union.

[Alex Cunningham]

The hon. Member mentions research and development, and we are of course dealing with multinational companies with plants all over the world. If they are going to do research and development, surely they will do that in areas where they have common regulations such as REACH, rather than in a future British chemical industry, which could be a backwater.

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Member is right, and the risk that the United Kingdom runs in seeking to pursue some alternate regulatory framework is exactly as he sets out: industry will produce its products to be compliant with the regulation consistent with the size of the market opportunity—it is not a blanket approach. If a market is subject to a particular regulatory framework, but that market is not big enough for the industry to comply with the framework, they simply will not comply and those products will not be available in a post-Brexit, post-REACH-regulation United Kingdom.

As we roll the dice on this issue, it is important to understand the slightly rarefied position occupied by the chemical industry in the United Kingdom. It has a turnover of £56.6 billion, but a very enviable gross value added of £19.2 billion. The Government must tread carefully and pay close attention to the members within trade organisations, such as the Chemical Industries Association and others, who are very clear with their call for regulatory alignment.

We have heard an awful lot about the cost of the re-creation of some successor to EU REACH, which is as yet unspecified, but I genuinely, thoroughly believe that the point is moot. As Members have said, the industry will offshore the UK manufacturing of chemicals. Other industries within the UK that rely on the products of the chemical industry will be subject to buying from another market. That will in all likelihood be the European Union, so we will then face the farcical situation of having dispensed with REACH regulations here—which will have cost us our industry, or a large part of it—and of then being in possession of the very same standard of product purchased from the EU, just without the £56.6 billion of turnover, or a large part thereof, and the jobs that went with it. The stakes are no lower than that! Having said that, were the UK to press ahead with some parallel regulatory framework for chemicals, the resultant animal testing, as others have mentioned, would be held in contempt by society, and rightly so. It is important to bear that in mind.

The regulation and supply of chemicals is yet another area of huge complexity in that Brexit ambition. Brexit will have an impact on the chemical industry driven by changing regulatory requirements, as others have mentioned, and by other trade barriers, potentially including tariffs and quotas. The REACH chemicals regulations are but one example of directly applicable EU legislation that is not straightforward to copy across into UK law. The principal objective remains, however, to ensure that those regulations still have priority in a post-Brexit United Kingdom dynamic. That is because the regulations rely on the European Chemicals Agency and are closely tied to the needs of the single market. The UK and EU chemical industries both want trade deals to ensure frictionless trade and regulatory consistency between the UK and the EU. That points to the complex supply chains that exist for the manufacturing sector.

I am very glad that the hon. Member for Sefton Central, who secured the debate, mentioned potassium chromate. As a former aircraft engineer, I still remember keenly the sweet smell of that sticky green substance which was difficult to get out from under the fingernails. Its role in preventing dissimilar metal corrosion in aircraft is well known and vital. That had the effect of taking me slightly down memory lane.

In conclusion, as a Scottish and a Scottish National party MP, I have no hesitation in supporting the ambitions of the hon. Member. The UK is a key global player in the chemical industries just now. As far as I can tell, the only chemical company in the UK in the top five chemical companies in the world is INEOS, which has a major presence in Grangemouth in Scotland. The Chemical Industries Association also covers the pharmaceutical industry, and I am very privileged to have in my constituency of Angus an extraordinarily large and important GlaxoSmithKline plant. Nowhere does interdependence and mutual reliance on common regulation apply more than in that plant.

[Alex Cunningham]

INEOS has been in my constituency as well, but it is actually closing down a plant there; the plant has finished because it is past its use-by date. INEOS can invest billions of pounds in the middle east, but nothing in Britain at this time. For me, the main issue is what the hon. Gentleman has talked about: the integrated nature of the chemical industry. The industry is losing a key component; if there are changes in regulations over time, more and more of those parts will disappear. We will therefore be reliant on the imports that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

[Dave Doogan]

Indeed. I am not here to defend or uphold the commercial decisions of INEOS, but what the industry more generally needs at this minute is clarity and certainty from Government, as far as that is possible. I look forward to the Minister explaining how the Government will give the industry the confidence and certainty that will enable them to invest in plants in Scotland and the rest of the UK. Those plants’ return on investment may take decades, and it is extremely important that we give them every opportunity to invest in infrastructure and jobs, with the attendant benefits that those bring to our communities.

Over and above the material contemporary considerations of the chemical industry, this issue is important for the livelihoods of many people in Scotland and in my constituency of Angus. Of course, industrial production of chemicals first began in Scotland, with the industrial production of bleach just north of Glasgow. We have moved a long way in the intervening 150 years, and I would hate for us to start moving back as a consequence of Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

As a lawyer, I tell the hon. Gentleman that that is an extremely long and complicated question, to which I will endeavour to provide some of the answers, but not all, because, as he knows, it is a live negotiating situation. I recognise that that brings uncertainty for business—I really do—which is uncomfortable for many of us, but it is important that the country voted to leave the EU and through various—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has been here for the last few years, as I have.

Through various emanations, we have reached a position where we are definitely leaving the single market and the customs union, and we will no longer participate in the ECHA or the EU regulatory framework for chemicals. I will set out what the Government’s position is in the immediate future. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that we do not have all the answers, but I emphasise that my door, and the door of the Minister with responsibility for the issue, will be open as we go through the negotiations this year.

[Dave Doogan]

It is helpful and candid of the Minister to clarify that the Government do not have all the answers. In pursuit of those answers, may I ask whether the Minister and her officials will give due cognisance to the fact that the scale of the European chemical industry, and the regulation that underpins it, is the global benchmark? A UK post-Brexit chemical industry would divest from that at its peril.

[Victoria Prentis]

In many ways, the hon. Gentleman will find that we are on exactly the same page, so I ask him to listen to the rest of what I have to say. We can then discuss the position as it emerges in the negotiations this year.

As I said, we are leaving the single market and the customs union, so we need to prepare for life outside at the end of this year. Many in the sector have already started to prepare and we will help them as much as we can. First, we must create our own independent regulatory regime, which is called UK REACH, as we have heard. Hon. Members will note that that is not a million miles away from the name of EU REACH. That will ensure continuity and minimise disruption for businesses and consumers, and will give us the freedom to do things differently where we consider that in our best interest. UK REACH will be our own framework but will retain the fundamental approach of REACH, including its aims of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment, and of enhancing innovation and competitiveness. We have developed transitional measures, such as grandfathering and downstream user import notifications, that address the industry’s concerns about maintaining continuity of supply between the UK and Europe.

The building blocks of REACH will all remain. Through the Environment Bill, we will make provision to allow us to amend REACH in future to ensure that our chemicals management remains fully up to date. All change will remain consistent with the fundamental aims and principles enshrined in EU REACH. There will also be a series of protected provisions that cannot be changed, such as the last resort principle on animal testing, which will be included in the Environment Bill, as has been said. The UK will, of course, continue to be at the forefront of opposing animal tests where alternative approaches can be used. We have led the way on that in the EU system to date.

I recognise the concerns that several hon. Members have raised during the debate about the UK diverging from the approach taken in the EU to the regulation of chemicals, which are obviously shared by all our stakeholders. We will not diverge for the sake of it. If we diverge, it will be done in the best interests of the UK and the environment, and of course we will take account of the impact on industry. What matters is that the decisions we take will be our own, reflecting our new autonomy. Robust scientific evidence lies at the heart of the decisions we take, and that will continue, as provided for in the UK REACH legislation. As I said, we are continuing to develop the proposals, to make sure that we take decisions transparently and with stakeholder engagement. I am keen that we go forward in that vein.

Agriculture Bill (Fourth sitting)

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 13th February 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Q On Tuesday, we had evidence from Jake Fiennes, the general manager for conservation for the Holkham Estate. In his view, the definition of livestock in clause 1 should not be extended to game—to grouse, pheasant or venison, such as the excellent produce produced in Scotland. Do you agree with that observation, or do you think that the management of game and financial help from the taxpayer for those sorts of landscapes would be beneficial to the future of agriculture in Scotland?

Jonnie Hall: First, I do not think the likes of game—pheasant, grouse and, indeed, wild deer, because we have farmed deer as well—should be governed as agricultural activity. The husbandry is not the same. They are wild animals. The habitat may be managed in their interests, but nevertheless they are not livestock that are bought, sold and managed in the same way as cattle, sheep, pigs and so on, so I do not see the benefit of that.

I do see, particularly in the Scottish context, the benefits of multiple land use in the same vicinity—the same land—such as having grouse moor management and managing wild deer populations in the interests of conservation, as much as in the interests of stalking and venison, alongside extensive grazing systems for the delivery of key habitats. That is one thing, but we will also be thinking increasingly about the preservation and restoration of our peatlands in the effort to tackle climate change. Grazing management will become a more fundamental issue—and extensive grazing management in Scotland—specifically for its public benefits and public good delivery, rather than just the production of an agricultural product.

That debate is an important one, but at this moment in time I do not view those things as agricultural activities. They can be supported through other means, because they are essentially environmental delivery mechanisms as well.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

Q Given the broader ambitions of this Bill, and that which is going through the Scottish Parliament at the hands of the Scottish Government, how seriously do you view the potential for any checks on agricultural commerce between Scotland and Northern Ireland, in terms of how that affects crofters, farmers and processors?

Jonnie Hall: Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the preservation of the internal UK market is vital to the interests of Scottish agriculture. Alan Clarke mentioned some statistics about red meat. Our most important market is the rest of the UK, but we want to grow markets beyond that. I have often referred to the spending power within the M25, where we are sitting right now, as our bread and butter. That remains key, so we are very mindful of anything that rubs against the free flow of not just finished agricultural produce, but livestock. If I were a beef producer in the Scottish borders and wanted to buy a bull from Northumberland, I would not think it a smart move to operate different animal traceability systems and have all sorts of checks and balances at Berwick. In theory, that could be the outcome if we do not get these pieces of legislation to align.

[Dave Doogan]

Q What I was trying to get at was the particular role of trade between Scotland and NI, and the implications of any kind of impediment to that free movement. We are not going to have that between Scotland and England, or between Scotland and Wales, but we potentially will with NI. How big a deal is that for Scottish agriculture?

Jonnie Hall: I do not think it is a huge deal for produce leaving Scotland and going to Northern Ireland, but it is a very big issue for Northern Irish colleagues, who obviously want to access markets in GB—the rest of the UK. That is a real conundrum, in the sense that regulatory alignment with the EU will clearly be a vital issue on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. If that has implications for regulatory alignment with the rest of the UK and the EU, I can foresee lots of headaches and issues with that.

From what I see, we are moving more and more towards the potential of triangular trading agreements between ourselves, the EU and non-EU countries—for example, those in North America. There clearly has to be some sort of tension point at some level, because the UK Government have made it clear that there will not be regulatory alignment with the EU, although there will be equivalence—whatever that might mean—in order to secure deals with non-EU countries. That puts in doubt or jeopardy our potential to trade both with the EU and with other countries at the same time. That is a major concern for us.

[The Chair]

I call Danny Kruger, and this will have to be the last question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fay Jones]

Q My farmers would argue that food production and environmental delivery go hand in hand, and you cannot have one without the other. They would not be able to make any money if they did not have good soil, clean air and clean water, and they are responsible for maintaining that. If we did adopt your model of removing land from agricultural production, who would be responsible for ensuring those environmental benefits? Who would be safeguarding that?

George Monbiot: Yes, how did nature survive before humans came along? It is extraordinary, this idea of stewardship and dominion—this idea that humankind has to intervene to protect wildlife and ecosystems. We do not. We can do a lot to encourage the protection and to kick-start things, and we will always need a role as rangers to ensure that there are not too many conflicts between people and ecosystems. However, the idea that we are necessary to create healthy soils and healthy ecosystems—the best thing we can do in the great majority of cases is to remove extractive economies from the land and to let ecosystems recover. We need to bring back missing species, to take down fences, to kick-start woodland in places where there is not a seedbank left and stuff like that, but we need very little human intervention to get a healthy ecosystem going. While farmers are absolutely right to say that they need a healthy ecosystem to sustain their farming, we do not need farming to sustain a healthy ecosystem.

[Dave Doogan]

Q Mr Monbiot, there is a significant difference between your ambitions and the ambitions of the Bill and agriculture more generally. If you were to get free rein with one element of the Bill—some operational amendment that you could make to the Bill, rather than a theoretical one—what would it be, and how would you achieve it?

George Monbiot: I think it would be a clear distinction between the additionality that public payments for public goods could produce and the regulatory environment. I am not skilled in framing policy, but basically we need to lay down a distinction between, “Here is the list of things that you as a steward of the land are expected to do. That will be a matter of regulation with monitoring and enforcement. For most of those things, you will not get paid,” and, “Here are the additional things that are not being done anyway, for which you will be paid if you do them.” Quite how you draft it to deliver that, I am not sure. Is that a clear enough answer?

[Dave Doogan]

In terms of those things that you would have them do, are these elements of rewilding or some form of carbon—

George Monbiot: Rewilding, carbon storage, watershed restoration—there is a whole series of additional ecological interventions that you could consider that would clearly fit the notion of public goods, but I worry when I see things like, “Animal welfare will attract public payments.” Surely animal welfare should be something that we legislate for. Hopefully we legislate for ever higher animal welfare standards.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

Q I apologise, perhaps Mr Zeichner planned to ask this, as he is an east of England MP, but I found your description of the east of England as an arable desert slightly confusing, having grown up there. It is better known as Britain’s breadbasket, so I wonder how you came to that conclusion.

George Monbiot: It can be both. It can be highly productive in producing a handful of crop species and deserted in terms of wildlife. There are large areas of arable land, particularly in East Anglia, where there is little wildlife. We see a lot of nitrate pollution, soil erosion and water pollution. It is not in a good ecological state, even though, thanks to lashings of NPK and lots of pesticides, we are producing a lot of food there.

We must recognise that what is great on one metric is not so great on another. The attempt to pretend that they are one and the same—that agriculture is good for ecosystems and that the more we have, the better it will be for ecosystems—clouds this whole debate. There is an inherent conflict between an extractive economy, which simplifies ecosystems, and the complex, rich ecosystems, with food webs that are both wide and deep, which an ecologist like me wants to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Q You mean they are particularly vulnerable?

Diana Holland: They are particularly vulnerable to abuse. Therefore, it continues to be recognised that they need to be identified within labour market protection. In Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, they have additional protections to those that apply in England. We think that needs to be put right.

While, of course, at the time, in 2010, a number of things identified as red tape, burdens and so on were got rid of, there was general shock throughout the sector—across the board—that it could have been done like that to the Agricultural Wages Board, with a two-week consultation period, given that it had existed all that time and had all that experience. It needs to be put right.

[Dave Doogan]

Q Diana, you talked very clearly about the effect of the removal of the Agricultural Wages Board and its replacement with the dysfunctional—in the context of agricultural workers—minimum wage. Are the three devolved Administrations broadly similar? Do you suggest that including in the Bill an instrument to replicate the provision of the Agricultural Wages Board would be relatively straightforward for Ministers to do?

Diana Holland: I would say so, yes. It has been done recently; obviously, the original legislation covered England and Wales, so extricating Wales and doing that separately has been done in recent times. My answer would be yes.

[Dave Doogan]

Q Jyoti, I was interested to note that you represent large horticultural producers as well. There is nothing in the Bill to give a positive voice to industry about the availability of seasonal labour from abroad. Do you see that as a challenge? Would you have that amended?

Jyoti Fernandes: In many ways, because our union works with workers across Europe, we think it is important that some workers can come over to other places, as long as they are respected and get decent wages and decent labour conditions, to work on larger agricultural units. By and large, we represent people who live in the UK who want to be able to produce and to farm and work on other landholdings as well. We do feel that more encouragement and support for the sector, so there did not need to be poor working conditions, there were decent wages, and fewer pesticides and fungicides were used, would encourage British workers to work on farms. We also feel that would encourage loads of independent smallholder market gardens, which can be quite intensive and could provide really good employment —and enjoyment in that employment. We would like to see a lot more encouragement for independent horticulture and British workers.

Agriculture Bill

Dave Doogan Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion
Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

I seek to underline the importance of the Bill, and the way that we transact and scrutinise it, and the provisions contained therein. My ambition is for a very different Scotland—a Scotland that speaks to the world on her own terms. We are not there yet, however, so it is important to my constituents, and those elsewhere across Scotland who are involved with the farming sector and food production, that the Bill is carefully scrutinised and amended where necessary. We must ensure that the priorities of the Scottish agricultural sector, and those of other devolved Administrations, are not swept aside in the interests of what is thought to be optimal for England, should any divergences exist in priorities or ambitions.

I raise that point because in my short time in this place I have witnessed Ministers offloading certain issues as simply “devolved” and therefore not requiring a response. Something can be a devolved responsibility when that suits the Government’s agenda, but they are much less enthusiastic to consult those devolved Administrations about meaningful ways to inform policy, with the principles of subsidiarity very much to the fore. A Union of equals? It does not feel like it if we consider the ways that powers are repatriated in post-Brexit Britain.

A key example of that is the total indifference of Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and their colleagues in the Home Office, when listening to calls from the agriculture sector—farmers, suppliers, processors, and others—who say that 10,000 seasonal agricultural workers are patently insufficient for the industry’s operational requirements. All we get from the Government is a deaf ear. That is simply not good enough, and it threatens the sector severely and imminently. I urge the Government to take urgent steps to address that matter soon.

The National Farmers Union of Scotland supports the application of Scottish Government policy and Scottish Parliament scrutiny of agriculture policy to the greatest extent. That must be unconditional in its application, not just when it suits UK Ministers—it should be a co-operative endeavour.

Confidence in UK Ministers is also an issue. We are reassured by the Prime Minister that

“There’s no question of there being checks on goods going NI/GB and GB/NI…we’re part of the same customs territory”.

Yet today, Stena Line, a key ferry operator in the Irish sea, confirmed its position that there will be checks and inspections on goods transiting between the two islands. The degree of inconsistency the industry is exposed to by the Government is simply not acceptable. It adds another layer of uncertainty for agricultural producers, processors and especially hauliers in Britain and Ireland.

We have, appropriately, talked at length about the need for producers and consumers in the UK to be protected from cheaper imports of meat produced to lower standards of animal welfare and environmental protection, but the Government must go further. Many people are choosing to eat less meat, for a range of personal reasons, but whether they are concerned about health, animal welfare or the environmental issues, including food miles, the Government can wring their hands or get on the front foot and try to ensure that when consumers are deciding what meat to buy in this country, they will choose the best prospect, which is meat produced in Scotland, Wales, England or Ireland. I see nothing in the Bill that will prioritise that.

Notwithstanding the minimal provisions of the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, forecasting for future operational planning and the purchase of capital equipment remains far too uncertain for the sector. The Government must get their act together, and nothing in the Bill gives us any confidence that that will happen.