Agriculture Bill
Monday 3rd February 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 206 / Noes: 320 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Theresa Villiers)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill will introduce the first major reform of agriculture policy in this country for half a century. Now that we have left the European Union, we are determined to do things differently and to pursue the priorities of the people of this great nation. That means strengthening the Union of our United Kingdom by levelling up opportunity, to unlock our country’s potential. As we commence consideration of this landmark Bill, I want to highlight the huge contribution that farmers make to our society by putting food on our plates and conserving the natural landscapes that we all value so much. This Bill will provide our farmers and land managers with a chance to play a fundamental role in tackling the greatest environmental challenges of our time: protecting nature and tackling catastrophic climate change.
Brexit means that we can finally leave the common agricultural policy, to build a brighter, better, greener future for British farming. With its exasperating rigidities, complexities and perversities, the CAP is a bad deal for farmers, a bad deal for landscapes and wildlife, and a poor return on public investment for the taxpayer. We can do so much better.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I hope very much that we will be able to do better. The Secretary of State talks about looking after our farmers and higher standards, but will she guarantee that those higher standards will not be undercut by cheaper imports that do not meet those standards? If they are, we will not be doing our farmers any favours at all and will simply be outsourcing lower standards. Can she guarantee a legal commitment that no imports will undermine those standards that we will have in our country?
Theresa Villiers
I can reassure the hon. Lady that our manifesto is very clear on this. We will maintain our high standards of animal welfare, food safety and environmental protection. It is there in our manifesto, and we will defend that line in our trade negotiations.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This weekend, I was approached by a young farmer who wants to succeed his grandfather as a tenant farmer. His landlord is the Church Commissioners—not so much a Christian organisation as a violently commercial one, which I suppose may be its right. Can my right hon. Friend assure all our good, solid tenant farmers, who are the bedrock of our support in the countryside, that we stand four-square behind them against rapacious landlords?
Theresa Villiers
I can. My right hon. Friend will know that the Bill contains provisions to introduce greater fairness for agricultural tenants, which we believe is very important. That is one way in which the Bill has been strengthened since the version considered in the last Parliament.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Speaking of rapacious predators, farmers and growers in my constituency and elsewhere have been victims of the habits and customs associated with monolithic retailers. We welcome in the Bill the powers that the Government will introduce to give a fair deal to farmers and growers. Will the Secretary of State speak a little more about how and when she intends to use those powers?
Theresa Villiers
I will come to those later in my remarks, but as my right hon. Friend acknowledged, an important part of the Bill is introducing greater transparency in the supply chain, so that farmers get a fairer deal for the produce that they create.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the theory of productionism, which lies at the heart of the common agricultural policy, encourages farmers to put as much land as possible into agricultural use, thereby disincentivising room for biodiversity? Can she confirm that the Bill will reverse that trend?
Theresa Villiers
The Bill enables us to provide financial assistance for environmentally friendly farming practices. Providing more space for biodiversity, trees and nature will, I hope, be at the centre of many of the environmental land management schemes that we will be able to take forward under the Bill.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Is the Secretary of State aware that providing modest support for small-scale farmers could be extremely valuable? That is part of my campaign for an Island deal similar to the one enjoyed by the Scottish islands. It could include support for small-scale abattoirs or humane slaughter on farms, which is the most humane way of slaughtering animals for human consumption, as well as milk storage, grain storage and vegetable box erectors on the Island. Those would work for not only my patch but many other parts of the United Kingdom. How will this excellent Bill help? Will she come to the Isle of Wight to talk to my farmers and see that for herself?
Theresa Villiers
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those important suggestions, and I would be more than happy to visit his constituency.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; she is being incredibly generous with her time. I want to take her back to the fact that the Bill lacks any legal guarantees to protect our food standards from being undermined. The Conservative party’s manifesto may have referenced that, but the Bill does not, so will she give us a cast-iron guarantee that the Bill will protect those standards?
Theresa Villiers
Our manifesto is clear. We will stick to the commitments in our manifesto. The Prime Minister reiterated that only today.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State knows Northern Ireland well, so she will know that the big issue facing agriculture is farm incomes, which have fallen by 23% in the last two years. What assurance can she give to farmers listening in Northern Ireland tonight that the Bill will encourage an increase in both farm productivity and farm incomes?
Theresa Villiers
My hon. Friend will appreciate that agriculture is a devolved matter, but the Government’s manifesto does commit us to maintain the same overall levels of support for our farmers in each year of the current Parliament. We do clearly recognise the importance of ensuring and securing prosperity in the farming community in Northern Ireland, and we will work closely with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on these matters in the weeks and months ahead.
We are going to put the broken system of the CAP firmly behind us. We are replacing it with an approach based on the principle of public money for public goods. We have committed in our manifesto to support that new approach with an overall level of funding to match 2019 levels for every year of the current Parliament. The Chancellor has already announced that the Government will provide £2.852 billion of direct payment support for the 2020 scheme year.
The objective of the Bill is a productive, profitable, resilient farming sector, empowered to produce more of the high-quality food that is prized around the world and appreciated so much here at home, all the while meeting the highest standards of food safety and traceability, animal health and welfare, and stewardship of the natural environment. Now more than ever before we need to recognise the vital importance of the work that farmers do because our climate is changing, because our ecosystems are under increasing pressure and because by the end of this decade 9 billion of us will share this planet.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I say to my right hon. Friend that we must not get too misty-eyed about farmers. There is far too much cattle slurry, from dairy farms in particular, going into our rivers and destroying those rivers, and we really do need to make sure that farmers are held accountable for what they do with the slurry their cattle produce.
Theresa Villiers
Through a combination of regulation and farm support payments, we are certainly doing everything we can to ensure that farmers play their part in addressing and reducing pollution, and contribute to cleaner water and cleaner air.
Finding a way sustainably to feed a rapidly growing global population is essential if we are to have any chance of tackling the climate and nature crisis that we face. Getting Brexit done means that we are able forge ahead with the reforms that the United Kingdom has sought for so long from the European Union, but never managed to secure. For 40 years successive UK Governments of all political complexions have vowed to secure reform of the CAP, and for 40 years Ministers returned from Brussels and stood at this Dispatch Box with very little to show for their efforts. This Bill will therefore deliver one of the most important environmental reforms for decades. It shows that we can deliver a green Brexit, where we have a stronger and more effective focus on environmental outcomes than was possible while we were a member of the European Union.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being characteristically generous in giving way. I agree with her entirely about the need to green and be environmentally friendly in farming. Against that backdrop, is she able to indicate her thinking about the support this Bill could provide to those farmers who are really keen to invest in agri-tech as a way of reducing the need for both insecticide and pesticides?
Theresa Villiers
The new scheme of farm support will include support for agri-tech to support productivity enhancement in a sustainable way. My hon. Friend raises an important point, which I will refer to later in my remarks.
If we get right the reform we are contemplating today, we can be a beacon for others to follow. Over $700 billion is spent around the world on agriculture subsidies. If we successfully deliver a new approach to farm support here and that encourages even a fraction of those billions of dollars of farm subsidies to be diverted into environmental improvement schemes, we will have a created a massive boost to efforts to address the climate crisis. As Secretary of State, I want to emphasise that I fully recognise the urgency of that crisis. I have been driving forward this Bill as just one part of the biggest package of legislative reform in Whitehall, but I am determined to go further. In the coming weeks, I will be publishing documents outlining more detail on our proposals for the future of farming.
The Government have always been clear that we will seize the opportunity Brexit presents to deliver reforms that work for our farmers across our Union and that help to secure crucial environmental goals, but I am afraid that that cannot be said of the official Opposition. In all the years Labour Members had to change things, they did nothing. They wanted us stuck in the EU, locked forever into the CAP and anchored to a status quo that has been holding us back for decades. I am shocked that, in tabling a reasoned amendment, they have signified their intention to vote against this Bill.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I speak here as a patriot, and I have quite a farming community in Weaver Vale, and I and Opposition Members certainly want to maintain good British standards. Why does the Secretary of State not be true to the Government’s words in the manifesto and put this into legislation, as the National Farmers Union has called for?
Theresa Villiers
The hon. Member has heard my response on that. It is in the manifesto, and we will deliver on our manifesto commitments.
The first chapter of the Bill provides the framework for funding schemes to support farmers, foresters and land managers. Clauses 1 to 3, which contain the meat of the Bill, will empower the Government to devote public money towards securing the public goods that people value so much, but which the market does not fully recognise or reward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Theresa Villiers
No, I will not give way.
That includes improving standards of animal health and welfare, managing land in a way that enhances cultural and natural heritage, and improving public access to the countryside. Of course, protecting the environment will be right at the heart of our new approach. The Bill will enable the Government to support farmers to deliver improved water and air quality, increased biodiversity—for example, through enhanced protection for our hedgerows—and measures to address climate change. We all here know that farmers and land managers are already doing a huge amount to meet these environmental goals, but, as in so many parts of our economy and our society, we need to do so much more if we are to have a chance of reaching net zero and preventing disastrous climate change. These changes in farm support will help us to meet our hugely ambitious target for planting trees and safeguarding peatland.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for the gracious and generous way in which she has given way. I point out to her that, as she will probably know, livestock farming contributes some 27% of methane production—methane is 85 times worse than CO2 for global warming—and, what is more, slurry contributes about 40% of the secondary PM2.5 in UK cities. Why does the Bill not contain anything about air pollution, despite her saying it is all about climate change and helping the environment?
Theresa Villiers
I am sorry to hear that Labour wants to talk down British farming. The reality is that well-managed livestock production can provide important environmental benefits, including for biodiversity. I think we need a debate on livestock farming that reflects the facts, which include the fact that our livestock farmers are some of the most carbon-friendly in the world in the way they produce their products.
We know how vital it is to protect soil health. Soil is clearly one of our most precious national assets, and we have added it to the list of purposes underlying the schemes that we can pay for under the Bill. This is a direct response to the views expressed in this House about the previous version of the Bill. A further addition is to include in clause 1 the conservation of native breeds and plants, so that the species that sustained our ancestors are kept safe for future generations. Work is already well under way to prepare and implement these crucial reforms. Our environmental land management scheme is the cornerstone of our new agriculture policy. Extensive tests and trials are under way in different parts of the country. We will launch the ELM national pilot in England in late 2021, and the scheme will launch fully in 2024.
ELM will provide a powerful driver towards meeting the goal set out in our 25-year environment plan, which is to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. Getting ELM right is crucial for meeting our commitment to net-zero carbon emissions, and to meet the tough targets set out in our forthcoming Environment Bill. I emphasise that our goal is to design ELM schemes that work for farmers and land managers, and in which a very wide range of farmers and land managers can take part.
Ian Paisley
I welcome the points that the Secretary of State makes about protecting our environment, because without a good environment we cannot produce the good, tasty, and traceable food for which Britain and the United Kingdom are famous. Does she recognise that the UK currently imports 16% of its milk? Why can we not buy more British milk from British farmers and close that deficit?
Theresa Villiers
I would encourage everyone to do that. We produce some of the finest food and drink in the world, and I encourage everyone to reflect that in their shopping habits.
We fully recognise the particular challenges faced by upland farmers—indeed, I discussed that issue just a few days ago with a group of farmers in Northumberland National Park. We are determined that ELM will also work for upland farmers, and the incredible work they do to safeguard our beautiful natural landscapes will put them in a strong position to take part in our environmental schemes.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Theresa Villiers
No.
Reformed funding support for farmers and land managers will be an important part of our programme to level up the rural economy, and we will provide grants and funding to improve productivity and help farm businesses become more resilient and successful. We believe that farming efficiently and improving the environment can, and indeed must, go hand in hand. We will therefore support investment in green agri-tech, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), and invest in research and development to help raise sustainable productivity levels.
Clause 4 includes a duty on the Secretary of State to set out a multi-annual plan for financial assistance, while clauses 5 and 6 include provisions that will require the Government to make annual reports on the amount of financial assistance provided in England. Those three clauses are designed to provide greater certainty and stability about assistance in the future, and are in direct response to concerns expressed by right hon. and hon. Members about the earlier version of the Bill. Clauses 7 to 13 provide that during a seven-year transition period basic farm payments will gradually be phased out.
I strongly believe that the changes in the Bill will be positive for farmers and the environment, but change of this magnitude will also have far-reaching impacts, and adjustment to the new approach will not always be easy. As I emphasised in the debate on the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, a managed seven-year transition period up to 2027 will give farmers time to adapt to the new system, and provide time for the new schemes to be fully tested before they are delivered across the country.
Tim Farron
I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. She will appreciate that in that seven-year transition period farmers will be expected to cope with the loss of the basic payment scheme—according to her Department’s figures, 85% of funding for livestock farming comes from that scheme—and for all the likely and theoretical benefits of ELM it will not be functional for everybody until 2028. Does she agree that a wiser and more compassionate way of dealing with this issue would be to not phase out BPS until 2028, rather than starting before that?
Theresa Villiers
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. In part, we want our grants for productivity and investment to help plug that gap. But we have to get on with this; we must make progress in transforming the way we support land management in this country. I am afraid the climate crisis is urgent.
Clause 11 contains provisions to introduce delinked payments during the transition, and where we can, and subject to constraints in the withdrawal agreement, we will introduce simplifications to the existing BPS scheme. Our transition to the new schemes opens the door to a fresh approach to the rules that we expect farmers to meet, as provided for in clause 9. We are determined to have a far more rational and proportionate approach to compliance than the inflexible CAP regime that we are leaving. For too long farmers the length and breadth of this country have had to put up with systems of inspection, compliance, and penalties that often seemed to defy logic or common sense. Outside the EU, we can do better.
Clauses 18 to 20 provide that in exceptional circumstances the Government can act to support farmers through significant market disturbances in England. Our farmers want to be competitive, collaborative, and innovative, and to negotiate effectively at the farm gate to get a fairer return. We are using the Bill as an opportunity to take further action, and to improve fairness in the agriculture supply chain.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State accept the offer from the National Farmers Union to work with the Government on legislative provisions, in order to safeguard standards while allowing sufficient flexibility to conduct meaningful trade negotiations?
Theresa Villiers
I am in regular touch with the National Farmers Union—indeed, I spoke to its representatives only today. Throughout the process of negotiating our new relationship with the European Union, and our trade agreements with the rest of the world, there will be strong engagement from the Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for International Trade, and from the Government as a whole, with farmers and other stakeholders on those crucial matters.
Theresa Villiers
I have to make progress because I know there is a long speakers’ list.
Clauses 21 to 26 on data will increase transparency and help to manage risk and market volatility more effectively, and clause 27 will help protect UK producers from unfair trading practices. The Bill enables us to make progress on our new multi-species livestock information programme. That addition to the Bill that was debated in the previous Parliament will support a game-changing initiative to strengthen biosecurity through traceability, and help to strengthen consumer confidence in the quality and safety of the food that reaches the supermarket shelf. Parts 4 and 5 include new UK-wide provisions on fertiliser and organic products, and on reform of agriculture tenancies in England and Wales. Many of those provisions will benefit farmers in every corner of our United Kingdom, delivering a fairer and more modern agriculture system.
The Bill includes new powers for the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland, which they requested to enable them to bring forward new agriculture policy. We fully respect the fact that agriculture is a devolved matter, and we have worked closely with the devolved Administrations on this Bill. I thank them for the collaborative approach that they adopted. Where clauses cover devolved matters, we will of course seek the appropriate legislative consent motions.
Crucially, this Bill fully recognises the importance of food production and food security. In response to concerns expressed in this House, and beyond, about the previous version of the Bill, clause 17 places a duty on Ministers to report regularly on food security to Parliament. The Government are committed to boosting the best of British, and to championing our iconic produce on the global stage. Our manifesto commits us to maintaining and defending our high standards of food safety, animal welfare, and environmental protection as we embark on our trade negotiations with countries around the world.
We will give our farmers unfailing support as their businesses adapt to the bold and radical programme of change that this Bill ushers in, so that they can maintain and enhance the high standards that are the backbone of their success, play their part in tackling climate change and giving nature the space to recover, and continue their vital work of feeding the nation. I urge the House to back this historic change to agriculture policy in this country. Together we can seize this opportunity to deliver a better future for British farming, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the spokesman for the Opposition, I ought to give notice that there will be an immediate time limit, initially of seven minutes. A great many Members wish to make their maiden speech this evening and we want to ensure that those making a maiden speech do not have to do it in less than seven minutes, but that means that many people who have indicated that they would like to speak this evening will not have an opportunity to do so, because there simply will not be time. I call Luke Pollard.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House, whilst recognising that on leaving the EU the UK needs to shift agricultural support from land-based payments to the delivery of environmental and other public benefits, declines to give a Second Reading to the Agriculture Bill because it fails to provide controls on imported agricultural goods, such as chlorinated chicken or hormone treated beef, and does not guarantee the environmental, animal welfare and food safety standards which will apply.
The amendment, which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and others, would deny the Bill a Second Reading because it fails comprehensively to guarantee environmental protections and animal welfare standards in any post-Brexit trade deals. The United Kingdom’s history and identity are connected and integral to our countryside, to our farming and to our connection to the natural world. We are rightly proud of our high farm animal standards and our high standards of animal welfare and food hygiene. Today, I will ask some difficult questions about where the Bill takes us, voice serious concerns about the Bill and set out Labour’s genuine, heartfelt and reasonable concerns about a Bill that is silent on food imports produced to lower standards that risk undercutting the great British farmer.
What kind of country do we want to be? In which direction will Britain face in the future? Will our nation rise to the challenge of the climate emergency? Will we crash out of the transition period without a deal? Will we sell our values short for trade deals, especially with the United States? I have looked in ministerial statements for certainty and found plenty of words, but no answers—at least none that I genuinely believe. The Bill sets out a path to a wholly new system of agricultural support, and Labour backs many of its provisions, but as I will explain, legal protections to guarantee animal welfare, food hygiene rules, agricultural workers’ rights and environmental protections on the food we import are deliberately omitted from the Bill.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman knows I have a lot of sympathy with what he wants to end up with on those issues, but does he not agree that denying this important Bill a Second Reading when farmers want to know the direction of travel and have some certainty would be absolutely the wrong step? Those issues are quite properly addressed in Committee and on Report, and we should get moving forward quickly.
Luke Pollard
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about giving certainty to our farmers, and I will come to that matter later in my speech, but Labour Members cannot accept a Bill that opens the door to chlorinated chicken being sold in Britain. We simply will not do it.
On the day when people are looking for certainty about where we are going as a country, this Bill does not provide that certainty—the key challenge that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and that I just spoke about. The United Kingdom has exceptionally high environmental and food standards, and an internationally recognised approach to animal welfare, which is a good thing.
Geraint Davies
Is my hon. Friend aware of the research in the United States about hormone-impregnated meat—beef in particular—giving rise to premature pubescence in children; premature breast growth and so on? Does he know that there was an attempt to pursue that, but the officials in charge were sacked by Donald Trump when he became the President?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There are valid questions about some of the farming methods used by some of our key trading partners and the reasons why they are used.
I do not want the legacy of high standards to be ripped apart by the introduction of cheap, low-quality foods following our exit from the European Union. Britain has a brilliant diversity of growers, farmers and producers. Our rural communities define what it is to be British. Our rural landscapes are beautiful, but they are not frozen; they are working environments. Our rural areas are an inheritance that we pass to our children, and that is why the rules that govern our stewardship of farms, fields, rivers and hills and valleys are so important.
Before I embark on my main argument, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I again declare an interest? My little sister is a sheep farmer in Cornwall, and I have been asked by my old man to add that he keeps a few chickens. I overlook the Pollard chicken coop at my peril.
There is much in the Bill that Labour supports. Public money for public goods is a philosophy that Labour backs. I am no fan of the common agricultural policy—it is probably one of the few areas where the Secretary of State and I agree. Incentivising farmers to protect wildlife, enhance biodiversity and restore habitats is a good thing, which my party supports. At what pace and by what mix of payments is still to be determined in detail. How this move will help smaller farmers as well as large producers is still uncertain, but the direction of travel is one that I welcome. Farmers have been looking after the land for generations, and it is not if they should do so but how that matters, especially as we scrutinise the Bill further.
As my hon. Friends the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) and for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) have said, the Bill is silent regarding the big promises the Prime Minister has made on standards. Indeed, this very morning, in his speech in Greenwich, the Prime Minister promised the British people that
“we will not accept any diminution in food hygiene or animal welfare standards”,
but the Bill contains no legal guarantee to put those words into law. So many of the Prime Minister’s promises have been broken, words twisted and responsibilities shrugged off. For any of those promises to be believed, they must be enshrined in law. For the British public, for our farmers and for anyone we do trade deals with in the future to see clearly, there must be no regression on standards—no undercutting of British farmers with food grown to poorer standards, poorer animal welfare, more damaging environmental impacts or poorer protections for workers.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is, as always, making a well-informed speech. The concerns he is voicing are not just those of the official Opposition or of other parties in this House. They are shared by organisations such as the NFU and other farmers associations—organisations that naturally support attempts to change agriculture in this country. It is not just us asking these questions. The Government need to listen to the NFU and the Farmers’ Union of Wales, which have genuine concerns and fears about the Government reneging on the commitments they made in their December 2019 manifesto.
Luke Pollard
I agree entirely. Sometimes there is a temptation to believe that, just because a dodgy socialist at a Dispatch Box said it, it must be untrue, but apparently there are an awful lot of dodgy socialists out there now.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I do not for one second suggest that the hon. Gentleman is in any way dodgy, but does he not realise that while the points the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) made are valid to him and would be perfectly reasonable to make the subject of amendments, by choosing to oppose Second Reading of the Bill, he would make amendments impossible? Will he withdraw his opposition to the Bill so that he can make the amendments that he purports to want?
Luke Pollard
Perhaps the Government’s whipping arrangements are somewhat flawed tonight, but with a majority of 80 the Bill will proceed, unless the hon. Gentleman would like to join me in the Lobby. If he is so worried about the future of the Bill, he is welcome to join me in expressing the serious and heartfelt concerns not just of Opposition Members, but of organisations that work day in, day out with our agricultural communities, which are worried that while they are improving standards in the UK, we will leave the door open to their being undermined. That is not something I can accept.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he accept that the farmers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have a commitment to deliver high-quality products that they can sell all over the world, and they have no intention of changing the regulations that ensure that those products continue to be delivered? Does he accept the Secretary of State’s assurance on the need for the devolved Administrations to be part of that? They accept that being part of the regulations is the way forward.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is right. British farmers do not want lower standards; they are proud of the standards they uphold and we are proud of what they grow and how they grow it. What worries us is the risk that, despite those high standards, the door could be opened to lower-cost, poorly produced food imports. That concern is shared by farmers. That is why the importance of putting legal protections in the Bill is so clear. Why is the Secretary of State not proposing legal protections so that chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef will not be on sale in our shops, restaurants and takeaways? Why is she not insisting that our farmers’ best practice is not undercut by US mega-agriculture? Why does she not made upholding Britain’s example on animal welfare her red line that she refuses to cross?
Speaking frankly, few in this House believe that the Secretary of State will last long in her job with the reshuffle coming up, so she had nothing to lose in making the case to support our British farmers to stop them being undercut. If she had done so, she would have been the farmers’ hero—a protector of the environment, an upholder of promises to the electorate, someone we could all be very proud of—but her silence on the issue of leaving out legal guarantees from the Bill points to one inevitable conclusion: the promises made by the Prime Minister to uphold the standards are disposable. They are liable to be rejected and replaced at will to secure a bargain-basement trade deal with Donald Trump and usher in a potential for chlorinated chicken, hormone-treated beef and more besides to be sold. If the Government say that that is not happening, why is it not in the Bill? Why will that point not be put into law?
Sir John Hayes
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about food imports: I want to see less food imports and more of the food that we consume grown here to assure traceability and guarantee food security. To get him off the hook, it would be much better for the Opposition’s credibility if they backed the Bill and made these arguments later. Not to back the Bill is to fail our farmers by not giving them the support that they need as we leave the European Union—surely he must know that.
Luke Pollard
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: it is important to back British. Indeed, if he had been present, as many of us were, during debates on the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, he would have heard my call for us to buy British, buy local, and especially buy food from the south-west, a region that I and the Farming Minister—the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—can be very proud of. Look for the red tractor, because it supports our local businesses and our country.
This issue is fundamental for the future. This is not just a minor amendment that can be put in place; it is fundamental to the direction that we are going in as a country and whether we leave the door open to cheap imported food that undermines our standards. That is why we have tabled this reasoned amendment. That is why it matters and why I am making this case today.
Another fellow west country MP—the recently re-elected Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—put it very succinctly:
“Imports produced to lower standards than ours pose a very real threat to UK agriculture. Without sufficient safeguards we could see British farmers significantly undermined while turning a blind eye to environmental degradation and poor animal welfare standards abroad.”
He proposed a very good amendment in the previous Parliament that won cross-party support, although sadly, not the support of his Front Benchers. He said:
“Our suggested amendment calls for agricultural goods to be imported into the UK only if the standards to which those goods were produced are as high as, or higher than, current UK standards.”
We could all get behind that.
Ian Paisley
I want to try to get my head around this: is the Opposition’s opposition to chlorinated chicken about chlorinating all foodstuffs? Every single lettuce grown in the United Kingdom is dipped in chlorine, so do they have a principled objection to using chlorine in foodstuffs, or is it just about Trump-bashing? [Interruption.]
Luke Pollard
A Member on the ministerial Bench says, “Tell us about the vegetables.” The important thing is to tell us about the standards and the produce. The hon. Gentleman raises a good point: some people in the House might not be familiar with all the agricultural practices that go into producing our food each day. The issue with chlorine-washed chicken is not the chlorine that washes the chicken—he is right that we chlorine-wash some of our vegetables in the UK that are on sale in supermarkets—but the reason why it needs to be chlorine-washed in the first place. That is because it frequently compensates for poor hygiene standards, such as dirty or crowded abattoirs, cages packed with birds, which would be unlawful in the UK, diseases and infections. The reason why the chicken is chlorine-washed, rather than the chlorine, is what is most concerning.
We cannot wash away poor animal welfare standards with swimming pool water. The realities of how the chicken was reared remain. Refusing to set out legal protections against that in the Bill leaves the door open to allowing such food into our food chains in future trade deals. Here is my challenge to the Secretary of State. She has heard, effectively, from both sides of the House—
Luke Pollard
I am only a shadow Minister just yet, but I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman favours my ambition.
Mr Paterson
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments. The Americans use peroxyacetic acid, not chlorine. Will he comment on the fact that Americans eat about twice the volume of chicken as Europeans but have significantly fewer cases of campylobacter and salmonella? He makes the correct case that they have different animal husbandry standards from ours, but what metric would he use? If he goes on the outcomes of the food, based on the medical evidence, American food is safer or as safe as ours. What will the Labour party do in considering food that is produced under a different regime? How will it be judged, what data will be used, and how will he stop this, or propose that it is stopped?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is right that acetic acid is used in many cases instead of chlorine. Whether the infection is killed by acetic acid, chlorine, or any other process, the concern is that there is an infection there in the first place through poor animal husbandry. I invite him to look at that and at the work produced by the EFRA Committee under his colleague, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton. It goes into detail to make sure that the standards of any imported food are as least as high as those we have in the UK.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
This goes to the heart of why Labour is supporting the reasoned amendment and does not want to allow Second Reading to go through. In the last Parliament, we supported the Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill. I sat on the Bill Committee. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton tabled new clause 4 and I tabled new clause 1 to the Bill. The Government were terrified that they were going to lose, because we had such cross-party consensus on this—from the NFU to environmental groups, to farmers and to greener people—so they suddenly shelved the Bill. We have not seen anything of it since December 2018. We cannot trust the Government this time and allow Second Reading to go through without trying to raise this point now.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for that very good point. Farmers will be watching this discussion tonight who are unfamiliar with parliamentary process. For them, the idea of letting the Bill pass Second Reading without making a case for this might seem appealing, but unless the Government and the Secretary of State, in particular, will accept an amendment or propose one that sets the promises in law, it is important that we make the case now. I say to all the farmers who do not want their standards undercut, who are genuinely worried about this, that they have an opportunity to ask their Member of Parliament, whichever side of the House they sit on, to make that case, because that challenge about putting this into law is important. Every day that passes when it is not proposed, including in the Bill, we have to ask why.
We do not need to look too far back to find a precedent that would help the Secretary of State. Last week, the Government whipped their MPs to vote for the NHS Funding Bill to set into law their commitment to spend more on the NHS. Why do the Government need a law to implement promises on the NHS but not a law to implement promises on animal welfare and environmental concerns? Let us look at what the Health Secretary said about that Bill:
“The crucial thing in this Bill is the certainty: the Bill provides everyone in the NHS with the certainty to work better together to make long-term decisions, get the best possible value for money”—[Official Report, 27 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 566.]
Indeed, certainty is a good thing. The certainty that British farmers will not be undercut by cheap imported US produce grown at a lower cost with lower standards would help them as well. Why is legal certainty good for one election promise but not for another? We know the reason: one they intend to deliver, and one they do not. That fact has been pointed to by leaks from DEFRA officials that were unearthed by Unearthed. A report published in October said:
“Weakening our SPS regime to accommodate one trade partner could irreparably damage our ability to maintain UK animal, plant and public health, and reduce trust in our exports”.
That is why this matters.
I am proud of British farmers—not just the ones who are in my family, but all of them. Because the Bill fails to uphold animal welfare and environmental standards in law, Labour cannot support it. We need a legal commitment not to allow imports of food produced to lower standards or lower animal welfare standards. We need advice and support to help smaller farms transition to more nature-friendly farming methods that tackle the climate crisis, and we need the Government to set out a clear direction of travel for future agricultural regulation. Food grown to lower standards, some with abusive practices, must never be imported to undercut British farmers.
I have no doubt that Tory MPs will dutifully vote for the Bill tonight, but each and every one of them must know that my argument has merit. They might be wise to ask themselves why the NFU, the RSPCA and Greenpeace are saying the same thing as that Labour chap at the Dispatch Box. Why did the re-elected Chair of the EFRA Committee present a similar argument in the last Parliament? Could it be that collectively we are on to something? If we are—spoiler alert: we are—I encourage Members to make a beeline to the Secretary of State to encourage her to propose an amendment to the Bill as swiftly as possible to set in train the promises made at the general election, not only by the Prime Minister but, I believe, by nearly every Tory MP here.
I and my colleagues on the Opposition Benches will be voting for the reasoned amendment to deny the Bill a Second Reading because it omits the legal protections to prevent our British farmers from being undercut. I hope that the Bill can be improved—and swiftly—because in proposing a greener and better future it will also allow for that future to be undermined by imported food grown more cheaply and to lower standards. Who will eat that food? It will be the poorest in society. Who will be able to afford food grown to higher standards? The better-off. It will lead to deregulatory pressure to ensure that Britain’s farmers can compete with US industrial agriculture, which is the opposite of the spirit of the Bill and of what the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box, and it is the reason we need legal protection to ensure that no food is imported that has been produced to lower standards than we have today. The Secretary of State has the opportunity to do that. Every day that she lets that opportunity slip by is an indication that they intend to renege on their promise.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I will try be quick as there are maiden speeches to be made.
I welcome the Bill, and I urge the Opposition to vote for Second Reading and then to try to amend it in Committee and on Report, because the amendments I tabled in the last Parliament, which the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, I might well reintroduce at a later stage. Now is the time to let the Bill through, which I welcome as an historic moment.
We want long-term certainty, as we move forward, so I am pleased that the Bill now includes a reference to multi-annual financial assistance plans, but while the Government lay out clearly how they are to phase out direct payments, which is wonderful, they are not so clear about how the ELMS and other payments will kick in. I look forward to some proper pilots. I know that some have been done, but they were started and then stopped and delayed by the problems in the last Parliament. We must have practical schemes in place as we replace the basic farm payment, and if we have trouble rolling out the ELMS quickly enough, we should reconsider the level of basic farm payment paid in the interim, because we must make sure that the money gets to farmers and the agriculture community.
The EFRA Committee looked at the role of the Rural Payments Agency in overseeing and enforcing fair deal obligations for businesses and purchasers of agricultural produce. I am keen to see how the RPA will work with the Groceries Code Adjudicator and hold processors to account—for instance, in the beef or lamb sector, if a processor is not paying the right price for the carcase, will we be able to hold them to account? Will the RPA be able to fine them? If we are to make them change their practices, we have to get in there and make it work. As I have said, I am keen to hear how the RPA and the Groceries Code Adjudicator will work together.
On food standards, the point has been made across the House that we produce some of the best—if not the best—food in the world to high environmental and animal welfare standards. We cannot allow in food that does not meet those high standards, so I look forward to things coming forward in Committee and on Report. As we design our new policy for enhancing our environment—planting trees, stopping flooding, and so on—we must also seek to enhance the way we grow our food. Agritech will be important in helping to reduce our use of sprays and fertilizers while also producing a great deal of food.
There are more than 7 billion people in the world today and there will probably be some 8.6 billion by 2030. Seeking to enhance our environment and manage our land differently is very moral from an environmental point of view, but feeding the population of the world is also a moral issue, so as we import food let us be careful that we are not importing the water to grow it and taking food from those who can least afford it. Also, if, as we enhance our environment and plant more trees, we reduce our food production, where will much of that food come from? It will come from Brazil. I have been to Brazil, as have many others, and seen them ploughing up the savannah and driving their cattle towards the rain forest. They are destroying much of their environment in order to produce food. I am sure that hon. Members can see my point. Let us be careful to keep that production in this country.
Furthermore, we rightly make much of holding carbon in the soil and planting more trees, but we sometimes lose sight of the importance of the carbon that is locked in our permanent pasture, in the grassland and in the hills. We must maintain the level of production in this country, especially from grazing livestock, in part because it is produced to high welfare and environmental standards.
Sir John Hayes
We should be proud of the efficiency and productivity of our farmers. In this debate about the environment, much of which I respect and agree with, we must not lose sight of the effectiveness and efficiency that has made our farmers leaders across the world.
Neil Parish
My right hon. Friend is right, and I am looking forward to seeing that in the Bill. As we leave the CAP and develop our own agriculture policy, we will have an opportunity not only to enhance the environment, increase biodiversity, plant more trees, and so on, but to look at the efficiency of our production and livestock breeding—for example, by introducing native breeds and cross breeding in order to deliver that very high quality. On crop production, let us use genome technology and everything that is there so that we can produce lots of food.
It is also important, as we look to managing our landscape in the future, that we seek to enhance our hedgerows and field margins, but we must ensure good production where we have very good fertile land. One thing that worries me about our policies going forward is that it is very much at the high end of food production, and that is great, but much of the population also like to enjoy good-quality chicken meat that is produced intensively but is also very reasonably priced. We produce intensively reared chicken in this country according to very high standards, and I do not want us to phase out production in this country and then import that type of meat from other countries where it is produced much more intensively. Likewise with cereals: we must make sure that the types of crop protection used to produce cereals that we import are also available to our farmers. If we do not, all we will do is export our livestock and our poultry and pig production.
This is an important Bill, and it contains much that is to be recommended. However, we must be careful to ensure that as we enhance the environment and our biodiversity we also increase production. We have an opportunity now to produce more food in this country and to be more self-sufficient.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I am sure I have seen this Bill somewhere before but, as it seems that we are destined to repeat this whole thing, and we will no doubt be going over the same ground, let me say upfront that the Bill does not respect the devolved settlement and that that cannot be a basis on which to proceed.
Let me deal first with the issue of farming support payments. We discussed it during the passage of the Bill that became the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020. That Bill was, of course, needed as a result of the Government’s failure to plan, which, I suppose, is why we find ourselves repeating a failed Agriculture Bill.
Questions that were asked during the passage of the direct payments legislation were not answered at the time. I wonder whether Ministers have had an opportunity to consider them yet, and whether they find themselves in a position to answer them now. In order to be as helpful as possible, let me refresh their memories. Like the debate itself, this may seem rather like an episode of déjà vu, given that I asked those questions twice, and other Members asked them as well. None of us received an answer, but I am eternally hopeful. It must be my Aussie optimism.
First, let me ask about currency fluctuations. Will any drop in the value of sterling see a corresponding uplift in farm payments to take account of the increased costs of the imported products that farmers will need in the event of legislation requiring the Scottish Government to make payments on the basis of existing EU rules? We know that the currency recently took another beating as a result of Brexit; do the Government propose to help farmers a little with that, and with future fluctuations?
Will there be a multi-annual framework for farm support, or will there just be ad hoc, “make it up as you go along” nonsense? We were told that the details had not been worked out. Has any thought been given to that framework since then? Even the merest idea of how the basic framework of the scheme will look would be a start. When will that be available?
When will we hear details of the shared prosperity fund—details of how much money it contains, and what conditions might be attached? When will we see the global funding figure, and the proportions for Scotland and Wales? Will we have any guarantees that they will be at least maintained in real terms and on international comparators? Will support for our farmers at least keep pace with the support that farmers in the remaining states of the EU will receive? Farmers need some idea of the long-term support that they will receive, or not receive, so they can plan their businesses. The Minister is a farmer himself, and he must be aware of that. Brexit is enough of a disaster for farmers without their not being made aware of the funds that they are likely to receive.
Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether it will be open to owners of grouse moors, shooting estates, private forestry and other such land to apply for the new English scheme for public goods. Will public money, having been directed away from food production, be finding its way to them? I personally think—and I believe that many other people think so too—that the proposed new English system will store up long-term problems in England’s food supply, which will, of course, affect Scotland’s production chain. I hope that we shall hear some answers from the Minister tonight, even if there is a timetable for substantive answers.
We have some other concerns. The viability of many of our farms relies on getting produce to European markets, but the only word that we seem to have had on the future relationship is the Prime Minister’s lukewarm hope for a trade deal. We do know that there are a couple of deadlines on the horizon in June, with the questions of financial services and fishing to be decided. We are fairly sure that fishing will be sold out in favour of the City of London’s access to the European markets. However, that wrangling and betrayal dance will mean less concentration on agriculture and the movement of goods—food produced here, to be sure, but also the fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and other crop products that our farmers use, as well the animal feed on whose import they rely.
That, of course, feeds into the subject matter of part 2: food security and the supply chain. There will be little point in the Bill if farmers cannot farm in any case. What conversations are Ministers having about ensuring the free flow of goods into and out of the EU? Just this morning we read that the Prime Minister would rather accept tariffs than EU laws, and would not follow EU regulations. Imagine the feelings of farmers and crofters hearing that from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom! What guarantees can be offered on the future of their trade? Without some guarantees, the structures and rules being set up by the Bill are meaningless phrases and empty promises.
The other deadline in June is, of course, the decision on applying for an extension of the transition period beyond the end of this year. I do not think that anyone will be surprised if there is a great deal of hubristic chest thumping and a great many refusals to extend, but the truth is that farmers will need that extension while the deals to ensure their survival are being hammered out.
In the midst of all of that chaos, the Bill contains measures that cut into devolution, trampling on devolved competences such as livestock identification and organics. That is not acceptable, and it must be reversed if the Government want to respect the voices of the Scottish people.
One final issue worth addressing, given the promises made by the Government time after time, is the failure to include protections for food quality and protected geographical indications, of which we have heard much today. We have no guarantees, our food protections are being stripped away, our food quality and welfare protections are going, and support for farmers is under threat, as is their ability to farm. This is not legislation; it is a Brexit fire sale.
In an area of “government by clever wheeze”—or what the Government think are clever wheezes, anyway—good management and sensible government have gone, and we are left with assertion, bluff and bluster. Far from the ideal of evidence-based policy making, the Bill is a hope-and-prayer pitch at filling a giant hole with a tiny pebble. In Brexit England, evidence seems to be treated with the same suspicion as experts, and we are left with this nonsense instead.
This Bill does not respect the devolved Administrations, and the SNP will be withholding our consent for its progress.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a pleasure to call Virginia Crosbie to make her maiden speech.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill is particularly important to my constituency. It will enable this Government to reward farmers for the work that they do to protect and improve our environment. I shall be working closely with the Welsh Government to ensure regulatory alignment, so that farmers in England and Wales can continue to work in partnership.
I am proud to say that the island of Ynys Môn is without doubt the best constituency in the UK. The island’s motto is Môn Mam Cymru: Anglesey the Mother of Wales. It was voted as one of the happiest places in which to live in Wales. Why? It is beautiful. The Anglesey coastal path consists of 125 miles of coastline, with beaches from Cemaes to Amlwch, Benllech, Beaumaris, Newborough Forest, Rhosneigr, Rhoscolyn and Trearddur. We have heritage, from the 13th-century Beaumaris mediaeval castle to Copper Kingdom Parys Mountain and Oriel Ynys Môn in Llangefni. Our lighthouse, South Stack, is surrounded by cliffs where puffins, guillemots and razorbills breed. The port town of Holyhead is the second busiest ferry port in the UK, and provides a key link to our Irish friends thanks to Stena Line and Irish Ferries. We are playing our part to keep the UK safe: RAF Valley trains fast jet pilots and helicopter crews, and Group Captain Chris Moon has promised me a tour.
We are home to Morgan Evans Auctioneers in Gaerwen and the legendary Anglesey agricultural show in Mona, which is held every year, and to which I extend a personal invitation to the Secretary of State. We have our own sea salt, Halen Môn, which, like the pork pies in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), has protected status, and which is the key ingredient in Barack Obama’s favourite caramels.
Orthios Eco Park is creating jobs and safeguarding our planet for future generations. My first job was with dolphins, so I am pleased to say that we even have our own zoo aquarium, Sea Zoo, and our own Butterfly Palace in Llanfairpwllgwyngyll. For those who like racing, we have Trac Môn and Cartio Môn. We even have our own science park, M-SParc.
How do you get there? You do not have to swim. You do not have to sail. We have two bridges, the Menai suspension bridge and the Britannia bridge, and if you fancy flying, we even have our own airport, Anglesey airport. But most importantly of all, Ynys Môn has its people, and these are people who have put their trust in me. It is an honour to have been elected to represent Ynys Môn, and I want to use my background, my experience and my determination for all my constituents, however they voted.
My grandfather was a miner in Wales for 47 years, and my mother worked in a jam factory. I am the first person in my family to have stayed on at school beyond the age of 16. I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Albert Owen. He leaves big shoes to fill. He was known for sticking up for his constituents and working cross-party. I hope to follow in his shoes, and I look forward to hosting Anglesey day here in Parliament. My focus will be on delivering the jobs, skilled employment and investment that Ynys Môn needs, and I am hoping that the Wylfa Newydd nuclear power station will transform the island. It will deliver jobs and help the Government to deliver their 2050 net zero carbon target.
Wales is a nation with a language that has been spoken for thousands of years, and I give my personal commitment to support this beautiful language by creating a robust economy. I took my parliamentary oath in Welsh, and I am learning Welsh. I know my pronunciation needs work, and I thank you for your patience. I am not a linguist; I am a scientist. My degree is in microbiology. I worked in pharmaceuticals and more recently I taught maths. It is a privilege to be an MP, and with privilege comes responsibility. I want to be a voice in this place for those who have no voice. This is not the hardest speech that I have ever done. The hardest speech I have done was at my brother’s funeral. That is why I understand how important our mental health services are. I also understand how fantastic our NHS is. I nearly died in a car crash when I was just 19, and this is an opportunity to publicly thank Mr Brian Sommerlad—who has changed so many children’s lives at Great Ormond Street—and his brilliant team for their surgical skills. He gave me the courage to face university.
I am proud that I am one of the 220 women MPs in this place. I am only the 551st woman MP to be elected. Before the 2019 general election, there had never been a Conservative woman MP in Wales. We now have three. I am looking forward to working with my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), and with the whole Welsh team. I would not be here without the Conservative Women’s Organisation, 50:50 Parliament, Women2Win and, in particular, Baroness Anne Jenkin. I am most grateful for their support and I promise to continue the campaign to get more women elected. I would also like to thank the police at Llangefni and the friends who have supported me on social media. You angels know who you are.
I would like to end by saying that I am a mother, a wife and a friend. I want to dedicate my life to public service, to work hard and to use my enthusiasm and ideas to make tomorrow a better day for my constituency, Ynys Môn—Anglesey, the Mother of Wales. I have an active dialogue with the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales, and I know that they and the farming community are working hard to help us to tackle climate change and wildlife decline. I am looking forward to voting on the Agriculture Bill and the Environment Bill to ensure that they are rewarded. Môn Mam Cymru. Diolch am wrando.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
There are a lot of maiden speeches tonight, and I know that a lot of colleagues have come into the Chamber to hear those maiden speeches, but there is also a debate going on, so I would ask people to listen to the other speeches as well, without too much chattering.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on her maiden speech. Her Welsh pronunciation sounded absolutely fine to me, but what would I know? Perhaps my colleague here, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), is in a better position to judge.
I do not want to repeat everything that I said on Second Reading or in Committee last time round. I hope to be on the Committee again. I will start on a positive note by saying that an addition to the Bill will now give financial assistance to farmers to share information about agroecology. Those of us in the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology have been involved in this for a long time and we would like to see a little bit more clarity in writing from the Minister about how that will work in practice. We are rather disappointed that there is not more of a commitment to financially rewarding the transition to and practice of whole-farm agroecological systems. There is a concern that we are still looking at small tweaks to a system in which environmental stewardship will be located very much on the margins, rather than being done at farm scale. That is one of the weaknesses of the Bill.
We have talked in the past about county farms, and I know that there was a commitment to support county farms, but it is not in the Bill. I would like to hear more about that if the Minister has time when he winds up.
There is no commitment to net zero by 2040 in the Bill. The NFU supports that, and I would have thought that the Government felt able to commit to putting it in the legislation. That ties in with the whole debate that we need to have about land use, which ranges from the impact of the deforestation of the Amazon and the importation not just of meat but of livestock feed, which has a direct connection with our farming here, to the burning of peatlands—the natural carbon sinks that ought to be protected and preserved, not burned to a cinder because of grouse shooting.
It is widely acknowledged that the common agricultural policy was a failure. It was a blunt instrument that led to the inefficient and unsustainable use of farmland. Landowners and farmers were often rewarded for how much land they had, rather than what they did with it, so I very much support the public money for public goods approach, but there is concern that the future environmental land management scheme could end up failing in the same way if it does not adopt that whole-farm approach to landscape-scale delivery. We also need to build in natural climate solutions to that, and to have far more debate about rewilding, peatlands, the planting of trees, agriforestry and so on. I hope that we will do that in Committee.
The Bill is also silent on the baseline of environmental standards that all farmers should adhere to, whether they are in receipt of financial assistance or not. We discussed that in Committee before, and it is really important that we establish that baseline in law and make it clear not only that farmers will be rewarded for going above those standards but that they will be punished if they go below them. This morning’s report by the Institute for European Environmental Policy highlighted the fact that hedgehogs, birds and mammals could all be at greater risk because of the gaps in domestic regulation as a result of our leaving the EU.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
As a member of the Children’s Future Food Inquiry, which I co-chaired, my hon. Friend will be aware that we made recommendations to the Government to establish an independent children’s food watchdog to implement policies that could improve families’ access to affordable and healthy food. Does she agree that the small nod to food security in the Bill by way of a report to Parliament every five years is just not good enough in this regard? Does she also agree that the Government should look into implementing a food watchdog?
Kerry McCarthy
Yes, I think that that is very much the case. As I am fond of saying, the F in DEFRA stands for food, not just farming. Food is quite cheap and there are question marks about who is paying the price. We only have to look at the breaches of human rights and the modern slavery that is prevalent in our food chain, as well as the difficulties involved in trying to find people to work here. Despite food being cheap, many people still cannot afford to feed their family in a healthy, nutritious way and are forced either to go to food banks or to buy food that is barely worthy of the name. It might have calories in it, but it has very little nutritional value. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the brilliant work she has done with the Food Foundation and on school food. She has done so much to make the case that food is intrinsically connected with our health. That is such an important thing, and I hope that we can carry on talking about it.
On trade, I tried to introduce new clause 1 on Report in the previous Parliament, but the Bill mysteriously disappeared as we were gearing up for victory. It is so important to have a black-and-white commitment, because I do not believe that many Back Benchers are prepared to accept the Government’s word. Without such a commitment, we will offshore our nature and climate commitments, exacerbating the crisis we face, we will undercut UK producers, creating a race to the bottom here at home to compete on price, and we will leave consumers unprotected against low-quality imports produced to standards that would be illegal on British soil.
Whenever we question the Secretary of State, junior Ministers, the International Trade Secretary or even the Prime Minister, we must listen carefully, because they tend to say, “No lowering of UK standards,” but that is not good enough. This is about the standard of goods that we allow into this country, so it is completely irrelevant to make promises about UK standards. A leaked DEFRA briefing stated that the Department would come under “significant pressure” from the Department for International Trade to weaken our food and environmental standards to secure trade deals, particularly with the US and Australia. I happened to be in Washington at the same time as the previous International Trade Secretary, who was on television saying that he did not think there was a problem with chlorinated chicken.
Now, with the publication of the leaked US-UK trade talk papers, we can see just how determined the US is to weaken our standards. Taken with the evidence American farming lobbyists provided to the US Trade Policy Committee last year, the US wish list now includes: abandoning the precautionary principle for food and farming; accepting hormone-treated beef, chlorine-washed chicken and meat raised with high levels of antibiotics, when we know that there is a crisis in the routine use of antibiotics in farming and its impact on human health; lifting the ban on ractopamine in pork and stopping parasitic tests on pigs; allowing genetically modified foods to be sold with minimal regulation; scrapping mandatory labelling on GMOs and for E number additives and food colourings—if anyone is lost, this is what the US has said its priorities are—ditching rules that protect traditional food and regional specialities, such as pork pies and the salt from Anglesey; removing our safety-first approach to chemicals; and legalising hundreds of pesticides currently banned in the UK under EU law. The latter is a particular cause for concern if we are serious about transitioning to a sustainable food and farming system, because the US currently allows around 1,430 pesticides compared with just 486 in the EU.
That is why those of us who have been engaged in these issues for a while have always been clear that while chlorinated chicken has become totemic, it is just the tip of the iceberg. While the Secretary of State’s commitment on “Countryfile” that we would not import hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chicken was welcome, it does not cover the million and one other issues that we ought to be equally worried about. There are questions, for example, about how easy it would be to unpick the statutory instruments that underpin that position and, frankly, all SIs that contain transferred EU food safety legislation.
I look forward to serving on the Agriculture Bill Committee, Whips permitting, to bringing back my new clause 1 on Report if the Government do not make any concessions—and to winning this time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is a pleasure to call Ruth Edwards to make her maiden speech.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like every new Member rising to give their maiden speech, I feel daunted at the prospect of speaking in this Chamber for the first time, but that feeling is dwarfed by my fear of failing to do justice to the achievements of my predecessor, the right hon. Ken Clarke. Ken served the people of Rushcliffe for 49 years and served our country in many of its great offices of state. He was a friend, sparring partner and mentor to many on both sides of the political debate. A real personality, Ken is known for his love of jazz, football, bird watching and Hush Puppies—although I have since been informed that he actually wears Crockett & Jones and by perpetuating the Hush Puppies rumour I am spreading fake shoes—[Laughter.] My oratorical skills may improve, but I am afraid that the jokes probably will not. Ken was the last Chancellor to drink brandy at the Dispatch Box. How I wish at this moment that the custom would be revived and extended to Back Benchers making their maiden speech.
By any measure, Ken’s record is more suited to a full debate than a single speech. He is one of the greatest political reformers of the 20th century. His reforms to the NHS, the police and the justice system provided many of the foundations for the institutions we have today. His skilful management of the economy resulted in the economic boom of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Following such a great politician is an immense privilege, and I am incredibly grateful for his advice, encouragement and endorsement as his successor in Rushcliffe. Ken’s experience, wisdom and commitment to one nation Conservative values are needed at this pivotal time for our country. I sincerely hope he will soon be joining our colleagues on the red Benches of the other place.
I am hugely grateful to the people of Rushcliffe for putting their trust in me. Rushcliffe is a very special place. It is consistently ranked one of the best places to live in the UK. We have world-famous sports grounds, such as Trent Bridge, Nottingham Forest, who will be promoted this season, and a thriving grassroots sports scene. The vibrant town of West Bridgford in the north of the constituency gives way to rolling countryside and the tranquil waters of the Grantham canal. It is dotted with villages, large and small, and we are home to many historic traditions, such as the annual wrestling match in the village of Bunny, for example, for which the prize was a gold lace cap. Sadly, I will not get the opportunity to compete, because the competition was discontinued in 1810—before even the tenure of my predecessor began. I will, however, be taking part in the Hickling scarecrow weekend this September—an ambition that far outstrips my artistic talents.
In Rushcliffe, we make tractors, wine, gypsum products and electricity. We are the home of the British Geological Survey. We are proud to host the Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre and the brave veterans it works with. We care passionately about protecting our environment and supporting local producers. Cropwell Bishop and Colston Bassett are two of the handful of dairies that produce the pungent, blue-marbled goodness that is Stilton cheese. Packed local markets in Ruddington, West Bridgford and Sutton Bonington showcase our vibrant scene of local food and drink producers.
That brings me on to the Bill, and I should declare an interest as my husband has received direct payments for his smallholding. I welcome the stronger focus on food production and food security alongside environmental protections, because food production and protecting our environment are inextricably linked. Where our food comes from and how it is produced are key factors that will determine how fast we are able to reduce adverse impacts on the environment. I am delighted that the Government are encouraging the environmentally sustainable production of food, and I hope the high welfare and environmental standards adhered to by British farmers will be imposed on food imported into our market, so that our farmers have a level playing field. I also welcome the inclusion of measures to protect and improve soil quality as a public good for which financial assistance can be given.
Finally, I welcome the provisions in clause 27, which strengthen protections for producers across the entire agriculture supply chain from unfair trading practices imposed on them by some supermarkets and middlemen. For too long we have taken the food on our plate for granted. We have not questioned too closely where it comes from, its impact on our planet, or whether the people we rely on to produce it are treated fairly by those who sell it to us. That must change, and I welcome the significant contribution that the Bill will make in bringing about that change.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a pleasure to call Steven Bonnar to make his maiden speech.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards). I congratulate her on a fantastic speech and tell her to listen out for a reference to Nottingham Forest later in my own speech.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech during this important debate. I encourage the House to join me in welcoming the SNP’s reasoned amendment as a significant step towards environmental sustainability, food security and the necessary protections of animal welfare in what are uncertain times for the hard-working farmers of these countries—a progressive step, I might add, already taken in November by our Scottish Government, which is world-leading on climate change.
It is an immense honour to be sent here to represent the good people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. I wish to take this opportunity to thank my election team, who have been with me from my first leaflet drop as a “yes” activist and have remained by my side until this day. Those activists took a very wet-behind-the-ears retail worker with a simple desire for self-determination for his country and made me into an elected Member of Parliament in a few short years. I am not quite sure how they have actually managed that.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank all those who put their cross in the box of myself and the SNP. I will do my best, every day, to repay that trust. I also wish to take this opportunity to assure those who did not vote for me: I will work tirelessly to represent your interests, wherever they may lie, for as long as I am in this place. I will do so with the same vigour and determination that I always have since my first day as an elected representative. I have no doubt that, in taking forward our needs and desires together, my constituents and I will face some of the same disdain, derision and apathy that people in my constituency are well used to facing when it comes to the ruling hand of London upon our shoulders.
Friends, at this point I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to the former Member I have replaced here—Hugh Gaffney. I am sure that everyone will agree that he was a formidable voice in this place for postal workers. Hugh would certainly have been expecting longer down here than the brief time he got, but I would like to wish him and his constituency staff the very best of luck in their future endeavours.
The burgh constituency of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill is made up of a few large towns and many small villages. The large towns lend the constituency its name, but the villages and other new communities, such as Stepps, Muirhead, Moodiesburn, Bargeddie, Glenboig, Birkenshaw and my own home village—my beloved Viewpark—have strong individual identities of their own. Unlike many hon. Members before me, I cannot stand here and make the claim of having the most picturesque constituency; we are, by and large, a collection of housing schemes built to house the many who worked the pits and steelworks of industrial Lanarkshire and beyond. But my constituency is not without its breathtaking scenery, like the vista of the snow-topped Campsie hills, observed as we take in the view from the historic and much-loved Douglas Glen. But at our core, we are an industrial set of towns and an industrious people—hard-working, straight-talking and as honest as the day is long. That is who we are. We wouldnae do ye a wrang turn, but you wouldnae want to step on our toes either.
We are proud of our achievements, and those of our sons and daughters—many contributions to the worlds of politics, law, sports and the arts. Poet Laureate Walter Watson lived and died in Chryston. The great boxing champion Ricky Burns hails from the town of Coatbridge; a three-weight world champion and an inspiration to many, Ricky and his fighting spirit encapsulate the town perfectly. Then there is Bellshill’s own Matt Busby. Sir Matt will need no introduction in this place: the figurehead of Manchester United and that side known lovingly as the Busby Babes.
And then there is my own home village of Viewpark. An area much like Scotland as a whole, it is always punching well above its weight on the international scene, none more so than in the sporting arenas. With a population of under 14,000, the sporting achievements of Viewpark are surely unparalleled. This wee village has three UEFA European cup winners’ medals in its back pocket. Not anywhere in Germany, Italy, France or Spain—indeed, nowhere in any of the great footballing nations—will such an achievement be matched. There are two medals for the mercurial John Robertson, won under the stewardship of the great Brian Clough and his formidable Nottingham Forest teams of 1970 and ’71; and one for Viewpark’s greatest son—the late, great, Jimmy “Jinky” Johnstone, won alongside that most famous team, Celtic FC’s Lisbon Lions. A statue to the wee man stands proudly in Viewpark today as a fitting memorial and a small measure of the esteem in which he is held. And then there is Michael Kerr, our double Paralympian for the Team GB wheelchair rugby team. The only Scot ever in the GB squad, Michael went on to captain the side, competing at both the London and Rio Olympics. His achievements also include European golds and world titles. I know you would not know it by looking at me, but we are a sporting lot.
I would like to place on the record my gratitude to my former employers and, more importantly, my work colleagues throughout the years, for the part they have all played in my journey to this place. My working life began with British Home Stores, where I had two spells before I was made redundant in 2008, when my daughter was only five months old. I wanted to take this chance to thank Philip Green for that harsh life lesson, which so many of us endured under his employment. I will not use his given title of “Sir”, as I think it is a disgrace that he still holds it. To see it stripped would go some way to repairing the damage that his immeasurable greed and indifference for his employees and their families created.
I went on to work for Debenhams in both Glasgow and Dublin and the iconic John Lewis partnership before becoming an elected councillor and now being elected to this place. Without the love and consideration of family, that would not be possible, as many Members will know, so to my Mum Margaret, KellyAnn and Sara, I say thank you and I love yous. It is that strong and loving family support that allows me to come to this place now and carry out the role requested of me.
As with many citizens of Scotland, the removal of our rights as European citizens has had a personal impact. My daughter is what I jokingly call “half Polish, fully Scottish”; with a Polish mum and a Scottish dad, it was by the grace of God she was born in Scotland and able to avail of the wonderful birthright of a Scottish accent. At least I will not have to apply for settled status for my own wean.
The good people of the towns and villages of this diverse constituency delivered an emphatic mandate for an MP committed to Scottish independence. The election results between 2017 and 2019 should crystallise one thing: my election to this place, and that of many of my colleagues on these Benches, is a direct response to our recent treatment from the UK Government. I have been sent here from a constituency that feels that it has very much been overlooked and underestimated by this place and its Governments. The contempt we have been treated with in respect of the Brexit negotiations, and how they have been handled over the last three years, will not be forgotten for a long time in Scotland—or easily forgiven.
The SNP’s emphatic victory in Scotland is in complete response to the disregard that has been held for our people and our democratic decisions, brought into sharp focus since the day we overwhelmingly voted for the retention of our European rights and privileges. It is a direct response to the treatment of the Scottish people, of our elected representatives, and of our Scottish Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, those days are numbered.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a pleasure to call Greg Smith to give his maiden speech.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow three such eloquent and powerful maiden speeches.
I had originally intended to make my maiden speech on 15 January. However, something much more exciting happened at 1.30 in the morning that day, when my wife gave birth to our second child, Charlie. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the wonderful NHS staff at Stoke Mandeville Hospital for the care they gave my wife and Charlie. Most importantly, I would like to thank the 37,035 electors of the Buckingham constituency who voted for me in December. I will work tirelessly to repay their trust, determined and principled in my advocacy of all my constituents’ concerns.
As with all of us, my being here today is only possible due to the support I receive from those nearest to me—not least my incredible wife, Annalise, for whose support and patience I will remain forever grateful, plus our three-year-old son Jacob, who does not understand why Daddy is not around so much. I hope he will read this in Hansard one day and understand just how much of my daily motivation comes from him.
I also pay tribute to the dedication of my predecessor, John Bercow, who served Buckingham for over 22 years. During the campaign, many local residents remarked on how assiduous a constituency Member of Parliament he had been—a trait I seek to emulate. However, I am certain John and I would have clashed, certainly in more recent years, over our views on Britain’s membership of the European Union. As someone whose first interest in politics was sparked by horror at the treaty of Maastricht, it is with particular pride that I have been elected as part of this Conservative majority, mandated to get Brexit done, and to be making my maiden speech in the first debate since our country became an independent nation once more. As we forge a brave, new, outwardly-looking path in the world, I look forward to playing my part in supporting this Government’s positive agenda, on the side of aspiration and opportunity, low taxes and high wages, delivering world-class public services and spreading free markets across the globe.
The 335 square miles of the Buckingham constituency are as beautiful as they are dynamic. From the medieval market town of Princes Risborough and the oldest recorded parish in England of Monks Risborough, the market towns of Winslow and Buckingham accompany over 100 vibrant, community-spirited villages and hamlets, too many to mention here today. Steeped in history, Stowe, Ascott House and Waddesdon Manor all add to the rich heritage of the constituency—not to mention the Prime Minister’s country gaff, Chequers. We have a rural economy, where farming is so important, but that is coupled with manufacturing, retail and new, high-tech industry and jobs in our enterprise zones. The University of Buckingham, under the leadership of Sir Anthony Seldon, is the largest single employer. In an era of our universities having a reputation as seedbeds for left-wing radicalism, I was delighted to discover the Hayek library in the centre of its new Vinson building, complete with the country home of the Institute of Economic Affairs. And it is an absolute personal pleasure, as a motorsport fan since I was eight years old, to represent roughly half of the iconic Silverstone circuit. As an aside, going completely off topic, is it not time that the greatest living British sportsman, with six world championships and counting, should be recognised with a knighthood in our honours system?
My constituency faces threats on multiple fronts: HS2; the Oxford-Cambridge expressway; and over- development, not least from the outrageous, expansionist plans of Labour-run Milton Keynes. One of my early mentors in politics, a former Member of this House, the late Eric Forth, once said to me that the most powerful question in politics is simply “why?” So let me put it this way: why would we take people’s homes, cut their farms in two, blight the landscape, destroy 108 ancient woodlands and risk the chalk streams of the Chilterns, all for a 60p return on every pound spent and no benefit to my constituents, when other solutions exist? It is my passionate belief that our countryside is the defining feature of our United Kingdom. There may be those who believe it is somewhere to occasionally go for the weekend, and what does it matter if we build over it or slam a new railway through the middle, but they are wrong, for when it is gone, it will be gone forever. Nor should our countryside ever be treated as just the bit between the towns and cities, for we are dynamic, home to thousands of successful rural businesses, big and small; many of which, but by no means all, grow and rear the food everyone needs and enjoys.
Turning to the Agriculture Bill, I must declare an interest, in that my wife’s family are farmers, in receipt of subsidies. I have learnt so much from a real hero of British farming, my father-in-law, not least because at family dinners he only has two settings: silence; and talking about farming. It is extremely welcome that this Bill now recognises the central aim of food production. Freeing our farmers from the CAP is one of the major benefits of leaving the EU, but unwinding from decades of bureaucracy and building a system that properly rewards quality food production and the enhancing of our biodiversity is not straightforward—to give that classic countryside answer to the city dweller who stops to ask directions, “I wouldn’t start from here.” This Bill gives certainty, and I welcome it. But as the clock is against me, I cannot better conclude than by quoting Margaret Thatcher’s closing words in her speech to the National Farmers Union in 1986:
“There is an independence and a stability in farming upon which Britain depends and which Britain cannot afford to lose...Agriculture means so much, our farming future must be assured.”
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is a huge honour to follow a quartet of excellent maiden speeches from Members from across the House, each of whom has big shoes to fill and a big personality to match. My advice, as someone who has been there, is: be yourself, and you will do wonderfully well and be a big personality in your own right.
The Secretary of State was right when she said at the beginning of this debate that farming is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland. Therefore, some of the issues could be wrongly dismissed out of hand when we consider farming, its impact and what it means for the British mainland. Northern Ireland produces an awful lot of the food consumed on this side of the channel, so it is important that we have a joined-up approach to our agrifood matters. I am delighted that my colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly Edwin Poots is the Minister for agrifoods and the environment there. I hope it will make a relationship with the Secretary of State easier because of the good connections and good support we have had from the current Government.
However, the Secretary of State and this Bill have to address the fears that too many farmers in Northern Ireland have about potential tariffs east-west, on the movement of foods, grains and other products from the British mainland to Northern Ireland. The potential for those tariffs creates a volatility in prices and has helped to drive down farm incomes in previous years. Those and threatened tariffs will only serve to do much more. This Bill is important, providing a new opportunity for agricultural product and agricultural payments that should be flexible, to meet the needs of the regions of the United Kingdom. I say that because the needs of Northern Ireland and what we produce will be different from those of Wales, Scotland or England. Therefore, these things must be flexible. They must address and support the primary producer where it matters most; help increase his or her sustainable productivity; help put money back into the pockets of our farmers; improve food security; and protect our naturally beautiful countryside.
In Northern Ireland, agriculture is king, with 75% of all its land being used for agriculture. It is used to produce meat, dairy and eggs, which account for 80% of our food output. In Northern Ireland and Ireland, animals use more land than is used to grow any crops, including indigenous products, such as potatoes. Therefore, it is essential to understand how important land and agricultural produce are in Northern Ireland; our turnover is £4.5 billion, employing one in eight people, which works out at more than 25,000 farm businesses in our country. That is threatened by volatility in the market. The big issue is that farm incomes have fallen by 23% in the past year and a half, from £467 million to £360 million in the past year.
I go back to the key point: the tariffs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland that could be introduced as a result of Brexit would drive that down further, which is why all the commitments made from the Dispatch Box about ensuring that those tariffs will be minimal or non-existent, and ensuring that things are frictionless, have to be met in reality, otherwise farmers will be put out of business in Northern Ireland. What will that do? It will help to destroy food security here in the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, we produce most of the milk consumed on this island. We produce some 73% of the beef consumed on this island. Do not destroy your food basket in Northern Ireland, and make sure that our products are protected by this Bill.
We export about 800 litres of milk a year to the Republic of Ireland, so we are also an export nation in food production. I have already given the figure for the amount of beef eaten in the United Kingdom. We want to produce so much more of that product, and if this Bill does anything to encourage agrifood production, to increase the opportunities for farmers to produce more, that will do more to sustain farming and increase farm incomes, and will address many of the problems and concerns people have about cheap food coming into the UK.
Agritech has been mentioned in the debate. I am sorry to get on to this subject, but in Northern Ireland every year 1.1 million tonnes of solid animal waste is produced. Its calorific value is 15 millijoules per kilogram. At the same time, Northern Ireland’s heating demand represents around 24,650 GWh. If we bring those two things together with agritech, we will be able to utilise that solid waste, which could account for around 20% of Northern Ireland’s heating need. There is a huge opportunity that has to be grasped, but how? Can the Bill support such innovative technology? Can it ensure that those who wish to get behind such technologies have the financial support to allow them to invest and create not only jobs but the opportunities that arise from addressing those needs? Of course, that would also give environmental support. As we all know—it has already been raised—phosphates are destroying much of our land and affect water pollution, which can also be addressed by agritech.
The needs I have described require investment, and the only way that we can do that is to ensure that the Bill really gets to the heart of it and addresses the needs of the primary producers, who care most about the environment because they work in it and need a good environment to make the best, tastiest food on these islands.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a pleasure to call Selaine Saxby to make her maiden speech.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate on this key Bill for North Devon where, I am assured, we have a higher density of sheep per square acre than south Wales.
It is easy to be the one-woman tourist board for North Devon: it boasts stunning surf beaches at Woolacombe, Croyde and Saunton; the Tarka trail connects our sand dunes from Braunton to Instow; and Members should not miss a stop at Fremington quay for afternoon tea—cream on first, for anyone not sure how to tackle their scones. We have the Lynton to Lynmouth funicular railway; miles of idyllic rural walks, by day or night, with Exmoor being the first international dark sky reserve in Europe; and our vibrant market and coastal towns of Ilfracombe, Barnstaple and South Molton. We are proud to boast 139 pubs that will warmly welcome last week’s announcement on reducing their business rates. I visited a mere 40 of them in the campaign, so there are still plenty to go in my support of the village pub, which is vital to North Devon’s rural communities.
Getting to North Devon is about to get somewhat easier, with the improvements to the North Devon link road starting this year, championed by my predecessor Peter Heaton-Jones. Peter stepped down as MP so late that many colleagues in the House were more than a little surprised to see me. I pay tribute to his hard work in putting North Devon on the map. In his maiden speech he referred to the need for more infrastructure, and in particular faster broadband. It is with some disappointment that, despite his best efforts and some hard-won improvements, broadband remains top of my wish list for infrastructure developments in North Devon.
I am what is known as a “blow in” back home in Devon. Drawn there a few years ago by its heady mix of sand, sea and rolling hills, I am far too old to ever become a local, but it is the best place to have blown in to. When I leave here and switch my work suit back to my wetsuit, I wake to the sound of the Atlantic crashing over the bar and into the double estuary of the Taw and Torridge, tucked behind a sand dune on Instow beach, which George—my rather plump Labrador—and I love to walk, with stunning sunsets and the idyllic view out to Lundy.
Over three quarters of Devon’s landscape is farmed, yet managed by less than 1% of the residents. I am therefore delighted to be speaking up for them in the debate on this Bill, which will both boost food production and champion our environment, which is another key concern in North Devon. The Bill will ensure that farmers are finally rewarded for being the stewards of the environment that they always have been, and that that is related to how the land is used, managed, protected and preserved, rather than solely to how much land is owned. The National Farmers Union is aiming for English and Welsh agriculture to be carbon net zero by 2040, and the Bill will ensure that that endeavour is rewarded. As the environment is so important to those of us who have the privilege of living in stunning North Devon—so much of which is highly designated to ensure that we are able to safeguard it for future generations—I will champion working towards net zero in the House.
Levelling up will mean a lot to all of us in North Devon. We have the eighth highest percentage of people in work, but our productivity per head is £5,800 below the UK average. That is possibly no wonder given that our average broadband speed is only 60% of the UK average. That has to change. Connectivity is so poor that one village resident explained to me at a farmers market that they were struggling even to get “The Archers”. Having run a dotcom myself for 15 years, I know how important broadband is to small and medium-sized local businesses.
It is an absolute privilege to represent the community in which I love to live, and a particular honour to be its first ever female MP. I wish to take this opportunity to thank Baroness Anne Jenkin and the Women2Win team for their ongoing support. I suspect I am like many ladies on this side of the House in attributing our presence here in large part to Women2Win. I very much hope that I may go some way to inspiring young women and girls in North Devon to fulfil their dreams and reach beyond what they thought might be possible.
My personal journey to this point has been varied, as life’s paths so often are, and I hope that that rich experience will serve me and my constituents well. Members may have noticed that I like my statistics: my short time teaching maths opened my eyes to our education sector and the need to raise our young people’s aspirations. I never knew that my decades as a fitness instructor would be so much needed, given the miles I walk daily getting lost in the corridors of the House.
I stand here to champion the people of North Devon, however they voted last December. On countless doorsteps I said that I would get things done, and I will. I am delighted to speak in the debate on this vital Agriculture Bill in this, our first week as an independent coastal state, which I hope will lead to good news for my local fishermen. I hope that by the time there is another MP for North Devon—in many years to come, of course—they will not be asking for better broadband in their maiden speech.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is an honour and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), who represents a part of the country that I have been to with my family and that we very much enjoyed. More importantly, it has been really helpful to learn how to eat scones, making sure that we do the cream first. I am sure that she will continue to make excellent contributions for her constituency in this place.
I welcome the changes made to the Bill relating to the importance of soil and the plans to assist farmers, but the Bill is not robust enough and remains vague on key areas of importance. It provides many powers but very few duties for the Secretary of State to take action, and for a Bill on food production it remains remarkably vague on food. It is silent on action to reduce food poverty and there are no provisions to promote healthy foods. It is also a missed opportunity to provide a much clearer priority in respect of food sustainability. In the world’s sixth richest country, no one should be going hungry. Food is a basic human right, but the Government’s welfare policies have seen food bank usage rise, and continue to rise. The climate crisis and reckless post-Brexit trade deals could make food insecurity even worse.
I pay tribute to the volunteers who work so hard for the food banks in my constituency, including the Trussell Trust and the Whitefoot and Downham Community Food+ Project, which I founded to meet the increasing demand for food in my community. It is shocking that there are now more food banks than ever throughout the country. The latest figures from the Trussell Trust show that in 2018-19 there was an 18.8% increase in the number of emergency food parcels distributed, compared with the previous year. That is shocking. It is shocking that there are now more food banks than ever before across our country and in particular that children are in food poverty. Clause 17 requires a five-yearly report on food poverty, but the first report is, coincidentally, timed to be after the next election. That is not good enough. We do not need more talk and inaction. We need a robust plan to tackle food poverty head-on and to end food banks completely.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Anthony Browne to give his maiden speech.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The greatest thing about speaking in this debate on agriculture policy is that we are having it at all. The last Agriculture Bill passed by this House was in 1947. That means that no one under the age of 93 has had the chance to elect an MP who could vote on farming policy—until now.
It is a special honour to speak here on behalf of my home constituency, South Cambridgeshire. It is where I grew up, went to school and got married. It has lots of farms, one of which I grew up on. My predecessor, Heidi Allen, represented the constituency with great commitment, great passion—and great political versatility. She was diligent in attending local parish meetings and famous for dancing into the night at local events, and I certainly will not be able to follow in those dancing shoes. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that it is a fabulous constituency. One resident told me that South Cambs has more Nobel prizes than France and that is a fact too good to check. [Laughter.] It is true—apparently. It is certainly true that just one building, the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, has produced 12 Nobel prize winners itself. We also have the global headquarters of AstraZeneca, one of the biggest drug companies in the world. We have Addenbrooke’s hospital, one of the top hospitals in the country, and one where I had my life saved when I had my appendix out. It has been joined by the newly opened Royal Papworth Hospital, the top heart hospital in the UK. Other MPs have urged Members to visit their constituencies if they want a great day out. My hon. Friends, I urge you to visit my constituency if you want a great heart transplant.
Anthony Browne
My hon. Friend will be very welcome to come.
The Government are planning a new children’s hospital and a cancer hospital. It is proof of our Government’s commitment to the NHS. We are the life science capital not just of the UK, but of the world. Even tiny villages boast their own science parks. Take Hinxton, which now has the Wellcome Sanger Institute, leading the world on gene sequencing. It is now decoding the genes of 500,000 people, starting a revolution in personalised medicine.
The traditional heart of my constituency is rural. Farmers are some of the most affected by EU membership. Many get subsidies from the EU and many export to it, but the overwhelming majority of farmers I met were pro Brexit. There is a good reason for that: the common agricultural policy is not fit for purpose. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are given to people basically for owning land, and with great subsidies come great rules—600 pages of them. There are 15 pages alone defining when a hedge is not a hedge. Farmers have to employ administrators just to help them survive the red tape.
I know that Brexit has its challenges. I spent five years as the chief executive of the British Bankers’ Association, which included negotiating Brexit with the EU institutions—the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. But on CAP, we can all agree. The left-wing columnist in The Guardian, George Monbiot— not often quoted by Conservative MPs—wrote recently:
“I’m a remainer, but there’s one result of Brexit I can’t wait to see: leaving the EU’s common agricultural policy.”
As we heard earlier this evening, Labour has long opposed the CAP. I remember meeting the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) 20 years ago when she was the Environment Secretary railing against the CAP.
As Europe correspondent of The Times, I covered the European summit where Tony Blair gave up a portion of the British rebate, which had been so hard fought for by Margaret Thatcher—hooray. He gave it up in return for a promise from Jacques Chirac that France would think about reforming the CAP. I can tell Members that the French President did not think very hard.
I am a former environment correspondent of The Observer and of The Times, and I now chair the all-party group on the environment. Green issues are close to my heart. Most environment groups, most farmers and all major political parties have long wanted to scrap the CAP, but there was nothing that we could do about it. I found it an affront to democracy, so nothing gives me greater pleasure than voting for this Bill. It uses public money for public goods, such as improving the environment and animal welfare.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has shown what can be achieved at its Hope Farm in my constituency, where environmentally friendly farming has led to a 1,500% increase in overwintering birds. This Bill has very wide support from farmers’ groups and from environmental groups. Certainly, there are questions to ask. It is good to have a seven-year transition from one scheme to the other, but what is the profile of that transition? Should there be a food security review every five years or every year to start with? The great thing is that we can now debate this and decide this. Voters can make their views heard and we will listen. It is part of the renaissance of British democracy.
Farming still faces challenges. It is essential that, when farmers export, they do so with a level playing field. They must not be undermined by competitors who cut costs by cutting environmental or animal welfare standards. The Bill does mean that many farmers will have to change the way that they do things, but the farmers I have spoken to are up for the challenge. They welcome being paid to protect the environment. Many are already diversifying what they do. Last week, I met a farmer who had started producing crisps and is now exporting them by the container load to America. Other farmers are improving productivity by automating. One company in my constituency, Dogtooth, is leading the world in producing artificially intelligent strawberry- picking robots. It is one of many agritech companies in South Cambridgeshire that are unleashing a new agricultural revolution.
Yes, there are challenges ahead that need managing, but we must have confidence in ourselves as a country. One millennial said to me recently that we could not possibly survive outside the EU, and I was left thinking, “How have we come to think so little of ourselves?” There are roughly 200 countries in the world, and only 27 are part of an international government that makes laws for each other. No one else has followed the EU, so there are roughly 170 countries that fully make their own laws and of those we are the fourth biggest economically—in the top 2%. If we cannot survive, what about the 98% of fully independent countries that are economically smaller than us? That includes such successes as Canada, Australia, Singapore and South Korea.
I am half Norwegian, part Irish, part French and married to a Canadian. I have lived overseas and worked and travelled in more than 70 countries. Often I see Britain as others see us—an extraordinary country capable of extraordinary things. But how has such a great country lost so much of his mojo?
We have left the EU. The new political divide is no longer between Brexiteers and remainers; it is between optimists and pessimists. Whatever side of the argument you are on, we must now come together and work together to embrace the opportunities. It starts here with this agricultural policy. I commend this Bill to the House.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne). One thing on which we can certainly agree is the wisdom of George Monbiot. I hope we will have many other opportunities to quote from his copious writings and agree with one another in the forthcoming months and years.
I welcome some improvements made in this Bill compared with the earlier version, but I want to set out where it still is not going far enough if the Government are serious about climate and nature. First, it is good to see stronger protections for farmers from unfair trading practices. Having previously tabled an amendment to bring the whole of the supply chain within the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and, indeed, any new regulator, I can say that is a step in the right direction. It would be better still if the Bill placed a proper duty on the Secretary of State to act rather than simply conferring powers to do so, and I personally cannot see the case against turning many “mays” into “musts” throughout this clause and indeed throughout this Bill. I am sure that others will applaud the excellent work of the Sustain alliance, but all eyes will be on the detail, delivery and, crucially, enforcement.
Secondly, the inclusion of soil in the public goods in part 1 is another welcome move. However, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee that conducted a whole inquiry into soil health, it is disappointing to see so many of these recommendations still not acted on given the overwhelming importance of soil carbon storage. For example, the Committee called for rules with greater scope, force and ambition to deliver restoration and improvement of soil, so why have the Government still not banned practices that do unforgivable harm to soils, such as burning on blanket bogs or the use of peat in compost. With organic farms supporting healthier soils with 44% higher capacity to store long-term soil carbon and 50% more wildlife, why does this Bill not seek a major expansion of organic farming? Furthermore, if the objective is to have healthy living soils for carbon storage, biodiversity and fertility then surely we prioritise policies that minimise inputs that exterminate that precious biological life, yet there is nothing in this Bill to phase out pesticides either.
That illustrates a wider point—the gaping hole in the Bill is on the crucial role of regulation, not just on pesticides but to drive innovation and to deliver environmental, public health and animal welfare goals.
The third positive is the new mention of agroecology in the Bill. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has championed that as chair of the all-party group on agroecology, but I suspect that she would share my mixed feelings. Although agroecology is recognised in the Bill, it is in a bizarrely minor way. In clause 1(5), the Bill states that
“‘better understanding of the environment’”—
one of the purposes for which the Secretary of State may give assistance—
“includes better understanding of agroecology”.
That seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what agroecology is and what a wholesale shift to agroecological farming should deliver for nature, climate, public health and farmers. It should not be consigned to a legislative footnote—it should be at the very heart of the Bill and the Government’s wider farming policy.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give the House guidance on what she thinks about meat eating and what sort of scale of meat eating is reasonable, given her environmental objectives?
Caroline Lucas
I support the better eating campaign that suggests that overall in this country we should seek to reduce meat eating by about 50%, but in that shift to plant-based diets we want to eat less but better meat. In other words, we still want to support our farmers. Crucially, they need to be supported during that transition. It is no good simply setting up new goalposts and not supporting farmers with finance, help and advice to enable them to make that transition.
Over the past 18 months, an incredibly strong case has been made for a 10-year transition to agroecology. I would like that vision to take shape as a green new deal for the food and farming sector. One example of the growing mountain of evidence that makes that case is the RSA Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, a major, two-year, independent inquiry that includes leading experts from industry and civil society, as well as inputs from farmers and growers across the UK. It includes abundant detail on how to make that transition, including a proposal that every farmer should have access to trusted, independent advice, including through farmer support networks and establishing a national agroecology development bank to accelerate a fair and sustainable transition. Crucially, the inquiry found that
“most farmers agreed that they could make big changes to the way that they farm in five to ten years—with the right backing.”
It is that right backing that we have to make sure that the Bill provides.
Time is of the essence if we are to reverse the loss of biodiversity and meet climate goals. A goal of net zero by 2050 is in line with neither science nor equity, and climate delay is almost as bad as climate denial. The Bill needs more than one line on that topic, especially as that one line simply says that the Secretary of State “may”—not even must—give financial assistance for climate mitigation or adaptation.
The Bill desperately needs a link to carbon budgets, unambiguous duties to deliver, and the incorporation of Committee on Climate Change advice, in particular, strengthening the regulatory baseline. I hope that the Minister will explain precisely how the Government will deliver major emissions cuts during the seven-year transition period, not just afterwards.
On biodiversity, it is truly shocking that the Bill contains nothing really on pesticides. As a minimum, it should set bold, national targets to cut pesticide use and introduce regulations to protect the public from the hazardous health impacts of pesticide use near buildings and in public spaces. There was broad, cross-party support for my amendment on pesticides last time round, yet it is rumoured that DEFRA’s inadequate pesticide plans are being diluted even more as the Department caves in to agrochemical industry lobbying. Why do Ministers not listen instead to the 70 scientists who recently called for the phasing out of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers as an urgent, no-regrets action as part of a road map to insect recovery, designed to reverse the insect apocalypse?
What is DEFRA’s response to the letter from over 2,500 scientists across the EU that warns of the unequivocal scientific consensus on the intensification of agriculture and the ever-increasing loss of biodiversity that could soon become irreversible?
Another glaring omission is on trade. Many of us have raised it tonight, but the Bill needs a watertight requirement for all food imported into the UK to be produced to at least equivalent standards on animal welfare, pesticides, environmental protection and public health. It is simply unacceptable to ask our farmers to meet higher standards, then allow them to be undermined by cheap competition from countries that do not meet those standards. I refer the Minister to the amendment to the Trade Bill in the other place that sets out that argument clearly.
Finally, the Bill should be used to introduce new measures of success for our agriculture sector so that the payments for productivity in clause 2 do not undermine progress on biodiversity, climate and animal welfare. Just as there is growing consensus on the need to measure economic progress with indicators that incorporate ecological health and human wellbeing, which GDP fails to do spectacularly, so we must adopt new indicators for agriculture. The Bill should require the Secretary of State to begin that work to develop those new metrics, to steer us towards a truly sustainable future for food and farming, and they must include overseas as well as local impacts. Greenpeace research shows that UK chicken, for example, is contributing to deforestation due to the imported soya in its animal feed. We need to design new farm policy to deliver value, not volume; diversity, not monocultures; and people nourished per hectare, not tonnes of yield.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I should declare an interest, as my parents are tenant beef farmers, and I refer Members to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I rise to offer my maiden speech as the new Member for my home constituency of West Dorset. My family has farmed in West Dorset for almost 100 years. My grandmother, who during the second world war was in the women’s land army, met my grandfather when she came to work on our farm, and it is with nearly a century of farming insight and experience—of which I am the fourth generation—that I address this House today.
I am not an academic and I did not go to university, but I must pay tribute to two people in West Dorset who did. The first is my predecessor, Sir Oliver Letwin. Sir Oliver has been greatly contentious in more recent times in this place, and Members shall have their own view on that. As Sir Oliver’s association chairman since 2016, I can tell the House that there was no shortage of correspondence to tell me! But what the press and Members of Parliament would not have seen so prominently was Sir Oliver’s tireless efforts to support his constituents in the greatest of need—work that I have already committed to continue as his successor. But despite he and I having differences of opinion on the European Union, he was highly regarded by many as a hard-working constituency Member of Parliament.
I should also like to pay tribute to the vicar of Sherborne, Canon Eric Woods, who first came to my hometown in 1993—the year in which I started secondary school. Eric has been a good friend to West Dorset and announced his retirement last week after 27 years of service.
West Dorset is the home of the Jurassic coast, from Lyme Regis to Chesil beach. It is Thomas Hardy country. Glorious Sherborne Abbey stands proud above a town that is a world leader in education, where Alan Turing, who cracked the Enigma code during the second world war, was educated. The oldest post box in Britain is in Holwell—the village where I went to primary school. There is even a village called Loders. Morcombelake is home to the famous Moore’s Dorset Knob—a savoury biscuit so famous that we even have a Dorset Knob-throwing festival! We are also home to Dorset Blue Vinny cheese— and to wash that all down, our very own beverages from Palmers brewery, Fordington gin and countless vineyards to name just a few, which can almost certainly be bought at Felicity’s farm shop! As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am living proof that you will rarely go hungry with such good local produce.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) told us last week of white chalk horses in his constituency. Now I am not one to boast about size, but it would be remiss of me not to point out to my hon. Friend that in West Dorset we have the Cerne Abbas giant—a 55-metre-tall chalk fertility symbol, standing to attention while dominating the hillside of the Cerne valley in all his glory.
As beautiful as it is, we still have many challenges and difficulties in West Dorset—including rural isolation, broadband speeds and the continued reduction of rural transport—made worse, I am afraid, by the recent announcement by FirstGroup of its intention to remove the No. 6 bus between Beaminster and Bridport. We have a three-hourly rail frequency, and the railway lines are mostly single track since the Beeching cuts some 50 years ago. There is much to do.
The idyllic countryside does not appear by accident. Our farmers work hard in all weathers, in all seasons and at all times of day. But we are seeing unprecedented levels of media depictions of our farmers as the enemy of our environment, even going as far as advocating criminal repercussions against them. Those who say that British beef, sheep and pig farming is the enemy of the environment are completely wrong. Farmers in the UK are the best and biggest advocates of our environment, and that has been the case for so many years.
This Bill is the most significant piece of UK legislation on agriculture for some 70 years. I recall the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), coming to Beaminster several years ago and telling me that he could not do lots of things because of the common agricultural policy. I am so pleased that that will no longer be the case. We will no longer be bound by the EU’s common agricultural policy, spending £44 billion a year and achieving none of its objectives. We can finally define our agricultural destiny, and I am absolutely delighted that domestic agricultural law and policy decisions have been returned to this House of Commons.
Agriculture contributes £8.6 billion to the UK economy every year, with 72% of UK land being used and cared for by our farmers. It is easy for everyone to see our farmers’ inborn environmental instinct just by looking at the rolling hills of our green and pleasant land. For far too long, farmers have been price acceptors, having to accept whatever price and conditions the supermarkets dictate, no matter how low. This Bill supports farmers, with provisions for fairness in the supply chain and assistance during times of exceptional market disturbance. British farmers need stability and certainty, and that is exactly what this Bill will provide.
The Bill is a groundbreaking piece of legislation that will transform our farming sector. It is key to achieving a green Brexit, and will unleash our nation’s farming potential and make our environment better for all of us.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). I congratulate him on a very impressive maiden speech, and have no doubt that he will make a great impression on this place and serve his constituents well.
As other hon. Members have said, this Bill will determine the future of agriculture for decades to come, so it is crucial that the course it charts is the right one. Several aspects will need to be addressed in Committee, but in the time allocated to me this evening I shall concentrate on two areas that have not been addressed in the second draft of the Bill: the need for a pan-UK intergovernmental structure to agree, establish and monitor common frameworks on agricultural policy and funding; and, as other Members have mentioned, the need to uphold UK farming production standards in the context of international trade negotiations.
On Second Reading of the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill a fortnight ago, I made the point that replacing some of the CAP’s associated frameworks would be to the benefit of all four nations of the UK. As the nations develop future policy, the question of how they will co-operate to ensure the effective functioning of the internal market of these islands looms ever larger. It is disappointing that the Bill before us today does not answer that question, but luckily for the Government, the Farmers’ Union of Wales has produced a policy paper outlining how common frameworks could work in practice, and how the four Governments—in the form of an intergovernmental body—could come together to agree the principles underpinning them, oversee their operation and resolve any disputes that may arise.
Agreeing common objectives need not limit the ability of any Government to tailor policies to best support their respective industries, but by establishing common parameters and thresholds, damaging market distortion and disruption to supply chains can be avoided. This is not an academic or hypothetical concern. For example, reflect for a moment on the consequences of the Bew review into allocations for UK agricultural funding, which over the next two years will see the difference between average annual Scottish and Welsh farm payments diverge to about £16,200 a year, or 175%; or consider this Bill, which offers Welsh Ministers scope to maintain financial assistance to farmers in the form of the basic payment scheme in a way that is not replicated for farmers in England and is not even needed for Scotland. There are already signs of divergence. The only question is how harmful a distortion it will cause.
There is danger from divergence in other areas, such as equivalence in standards, labelling, eligibility rules for different schemes, rules defining what constitutes a farmer who is genuinely eligible for support and interventions, or the rates at which direct support, environmental payments, payments for providing public goods and other interventions should be capped. Agreeing common parameters in those areas will ensure a level playing field for farmers across the UK and should be prioritised in the Bill.
I turn to an issue that has already been discussed this afternoon: the lack of commitment in the Bill to upholding farming production standards in the context of international trade negotiations. In this regard, I support the efforts and comments of the NFU, particularly its call for a standards commission to ensure that any imports meet the standards of UK products. I suppose it is quite disappointing that the Bill and this evening’s debate do not give us an opportunity for a detailed and meaningful discussion on what sort of standards or outcomes we wish to see in international trade negotiations, or how best to determine equivalence and what we actually mean by the word. Instead, it seems as though we must persuade the Government of the importance of making such a commitment in the Bill, and of the futility of developing a comprehensive and ambitious domestic policy whereby our farmers produce quality food in a sustainable manner, only for their efforts to be undermined by the importation of products not produced to equivalent environmental and animal welfare standards. As far as I can glean, the Government’s argument is that such a commitment on the face of the Bill is not required, and that instead we should take Ministers at their word—after all, as has been said this afternoon, it was a manifesto commitment. But as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) will know, if manifesto commitments were always adhered to, particularly by this Government, I would have travelled here by an electrified south Wales main line from Swansea; of course, I did not.
When one considers the words of the Prime Minister at the UK-Africa summit only a few weeks ago, when he proudly proclaimed his wish to see more Ugandan beef shipped to the UK, it is no surprise that hon. Members from across the House are anxious to see a commitment in law that food imports will be of an equivalent standard to UK produce. It was good to see the Prime Minister recognise in his written ministerial statement today the importance of maintaining existing sanitary and phytosanitary measures, but as he stated that the Government’s goal is a Canada-style free trade agreement, the question arises as to whether that will apply to sectors such as beef and lamb. Although the Canada-EU trade deal eradicates tariffs on the majority of goods, sensitive products such as some food products—including beef—are not included. There is a danger of the Prime Minister, on the one hand, appearing to project himself as the champion of free and frictionless trade while, on the other, partly conceding that there will be some technical barriers to trade where once there were none. This inconsistency is a cause for concern, as is the Government’s apparent unwillingness to introduce some friction to UK-EU trade.
It must be stressed that this approach would be damaging to Welsh agriculture. I know that the Minister fully recognises the importance of the EU market for Welsh agricultural exports, particularly sheepmeat. It need not be highlighted again that approximately 35% to 40% of all lamb produced in Wales is exported, of which over 90% is destined for the EU market. Following today’s statement and the possibility that Welsh farmers will have reduced access to the EU market, it is even more important that we see a commitment in this Bill that future trade policy will not also expose them to competition from imports of a lower standard.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
This is the first chance I have had, Mr Deputy Speaker, to pay tribute to you for being back in your rightful place in this House.
I also pay tribute to the six excellent maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for Buckingham (Greg Smith), for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), and for West Dorset (Chris Loder). They are a highly talented group of men and women in whom I think our party will have an asset for many years to come. They are fantastic advocates for their constituencies, and they will all no doubt have long and industrious—illustrious, rather—political careers.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
And industrious too, no doubt—industrious in particular.
I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in that I am a farmer and receive income from farming.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham reminded us, this is the first debate that we have had since we left the European Union—and we have well and truly left the common agricultural policy, so we now have the opportunity to design a new domestic agricultural policy that will recognise the unique characteristics and needs of the UK farming industry as opposed to 27 European countries.
The Government, in the shape of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), originally said that they would negotiate
“a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have”.—[Official Report, 24 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 169.]
However, more recently, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the Financial Times of 17 January that farms have had three years to prepare for a new trading relationship. But to prepare for what—a free trade agreement with full benefits or a no-deal situation where beef and sheep exports face 50% to 60% adverse tariffs? The future of agriculture is very uncertain at the moment. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in her excellent speech, this landmark legislation could not only boost productivity but give some of the highest environmental protection in the world, setting an example to others.
This is an industry that employs 474,000 people, with a net annual contribution to the UK economy of some £8 billion. Last summer, the National Audit Office produced a report with some frontline statistics, which it is very good at doing, saying that there were 85,000 recipients of CAP payments in England in 2017. It went on to say that of those, 82,500 would participate in the new environmental land management scheme by 2028. That seems a very high and optimistic target, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, and it will be achieved only if the scheme has properly defined objectives, is relatively simple to apply for and operate, and, above all, has an absolute commitment from the Government to pay on time for the work done, in line with their commitment to other small businesses. As I said, this is a highly ambitious target. I remind the Government that only 20,000 farms, as opposed to 82,500, had enrolled in the countryside stewardship scheme after 42 years of operation.
The NAO report goes on to tell us that without direct payment, 42% of farms would have made a loss, assuming that everything else had remained the same. The Government are committed to making payments at the same level this year, thereafter moving to a system of public goods for public money. However, having tabled amendments to the previous Bill, which fell due to the general election, to ensure that food production is at the heart of this legislation, I find it somewhat disappointing to see that public goods do not secure more of our food supply. For farmers, it will be difficult to compete in the same market as those who either have a one-sided subsidy such as the CAP or regulations that discriminate against our farmers. I understand that this year, 95,000 tonnes of rapeseed was imported into this country from Ukraine—a country that is allowed to use neonicotinoids, which are banned in this country. So we are simply exporting environmental risk to other countries by doing this.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is perfectly legitimate to defend our producers against anti-competitive distortions being introduced into our market?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is precisely what I am trying to get at—our farmers can compete with any farmers in the world, provided they have a level playing field.
It is not only regulation that could be an obstacle to them. There could be a tariff schedule that broadly supports European farmers and disadvantages British farmers. For example, lamb producers in the Cotswolds, who work in a very important farming sector, could be undercut by New Zealand lamb being brought into this country with zero tariffs, while they face an adverse European tariff that prevents them from continuing their lucrative export to Europe.
The new ELMS and productivity scheme needs to be implemented on time, to see how it works in practice and to play an important role in achieving net zero goals. If it is not introduced on time in 2024, there will be a gap in funding. Many experts believe that introducing it on time will be extremely difficult, and that it is more likely to slip from 2024 to 2028, which will produce a gap in funding. We have an opportunity, post Brexit, to create a progressive, carbon-neutral model of farming in the UK, with the NFU committed to an ambitious target of the sector being carbon-neutral by 2040.
The Bill prepares our farming industry for the future, so that it can meet the needs of this country, and with that comes consideration of the younger generation of farmers. The lump sum payment provisions should be more geared towards encouraging young people into farming. As they stand, the provisions could well lead to some areas of the country simply not being farmed, because there will be land without the ability to get any subsidy whatsoever.
Farming has experienced a huge technological transformation in the past 10 years, with better IT, better animal husbandry, better use of GPS, improved agricultural chemicals and soil sampling, and a host of other technological improvements. Those advances in the agricultural industry will no doubt continue at pace. Younger generations can quickly adapt to new technology, as I am finding with my son, who has just moved to my farm. We must support them, so that they can play a bigger part in British agricultural production, considerably increasing productivity and environmental and animal welfare standards.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The time limit is five minutes with immediate effect. I call Tim Farron.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great honour to share this debate with so many Members making incredibly impressive maiden speeches on both sides of the House. I did not expect there to be even one mention of Nottingham Forest, but there were two from our new colleagues. It is a team with a rich European heritage and, like the United Kingdom, I am sure, a prosperous European future at some point.
Today, Brexit goes from the emotional to the practical, and we are instantly reminded that “Get Brexit done” is the most misleading political slogan since David Steel told Liberals to go back to their constituencies and prepare for government. Brexit is not done and will not be done for perhaps 10 years or more, but our agricultural industries might well be done if the Government get this wrong—and there is every sign today that they will. We must design an agriculture policy that supports agriculture and food production and rewards farmers for the public goods that we rely on them for. We need to begin by acknowledging that this Bill will be a bad deal for Britain if it is not a fair deal for farmers.
First, we must address the transition from the current system. I have been horrified by the Government’s wilful deafness to the farming community over the phasing out of direct payments. ELMS may be a step forward, but the Government’s own figures show that 85% of livestock farm incomes come through direct payments. The phase-out begins in 11 months, even though ELMS will not be fully available until 2028. That is seven years of lost income and uncertainty, when we may lose hundreds of the farmers needed to feed us and deliver vital environmental and public benefits—how short-sighted and foolish. The answer is simple: the Government must not begin to phase out the BPS until 2028, when ELMS is available to all. The Government must listen to our farmers in Cumbria and across the country and make that announcement today.
In order to achieve a fair deal for farmers, it is essential that public goods are defined, to recognise the incredible work that they are already doing. The ultimate public good that farmers provide is food. We must have a coherent food production strategy, and yet the Bill fails to address that. It is a dreadful missed opportunity. Food production is the central motivation for most farmers, and food security is a real challenge for our farmers. Some 50% of the food we consume in the UK is imported, compared with 35% about 20 years ago. We are in a precarious position. How stupid would we be to put our farmers in a similarly precarious position?
We could solve so many of our problems if our farmers got a fair market price for their produce. The Liberal Democrats were proud to introduce the Groceries Code Adjudicator during our time in coalition, but of course the Conservatives limited its powers. The adjudicator could be empowered to take referrals from advocates such as the NFU, the Tenant Farmers Association or, indeed, Members of Parliament. They could expand its scope to investigate unfairness in every element of the supply chain. It must have powers to penalise those who abuse their market power to pay farmers a pittance. In short, it must have the power to secure a fair price for farmers.
A fair price for farmers will be made harder by the Bill’s failure to impose import standards. The consequences of cheap goods flooding our market would be catastrophic. Cheap imports, a market watchdog that lacks teeth and the phasing out of farmers’ main source of income in less a year are threats to farms that are plain for all to see except, it would appear, by this Government. If we fail to support farmers to be productive and to survive, there will be no farmers left to deliver any public goods.
The public good that I fear is in most danger of being overlooked is the one hardest to quantify or reward—the work farmers do in maintaining the aesthetics of our land. It is a privilege to call the Lake district and the dales of south Cumbria my home. Two or three years ago, UNESCO granted world heritage site status to the Lake district, largely due to the contribution of our farmers to the maintenance of our landscape. As well as being worth £3 billion a year to the economy, tourism in Cumbria provides 60,000 jobs. Without farmers to maintain the landscape, the entire industry would be undermined.
This is not just true of Cumbria. Helping farmers to deliver public goods and improving the productivity and resilience of UK agriculture mean releasing farmers from bureaucracy, badly run payments agencies and, worst of all, insecurity. If we want a diverse and bountiful ecology, we need farmers to steward and deliver it. If we want a better environment, we need farmers. The intentions behind this Bill may be good. In practice, though, it looks set to do more harm than good, because the Government have not listened to the farming communities that will bear the brunt of a poorly managed, detail-free transition.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We have less than an hour before the wind-ups, and I still have 17 names on my list. If Members can make their speech in less than five minutes, they will help not to squeeze out somebody else—so no pressure at all on Fiona Bruce.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I am delighted that leaving the EU means we can take back control of our agriculture policy, and there is much in the Bill to commend it. I want to make three points in the short time I have.
First—on part 1, chapter 1—it is encouraging that clause 1(4) states:
“In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food”.
That is right. The primary focus of any financial assistance must be to support our farmers in their production of food and their contribution to our food security. That is critical not only as our nation’s population increases, but as the global population is predicted to increase from 7 billion to 9 billion by 2050.
I admire the innovation and diversification of many farmers in Cheshire over recent years, but the priority for most of them is food production. It surely must also be the Government’s priority to have a robust and resilient agriculture sector. It should be a sector where, in my view, farmers have the dignity and respect due to them for the incredible hard work that they undertake to produce our food. Going forward, the emphasis on Government financial assistance must be to encourage the sustainable production of food. Supporting the development of a sustainable farming model both environmentally and economically is surely common sense. It is surely common sense that the more viable a farm business is, the more able a farmer will be to deliver positive environmental and animal welfare outcomes, while also contributing to our food security. Will Ministers confirm that this is indeed the Government’s priority?
On part 2, chapter 1, I welcome the fact that, under clause 17, the Government will be required to report on the state of the nation’s food security, but I suggest that every five years is too long a period. The clause states that a report must be produced
“at least once every five years”.
At a time of profound change for our country, may I suggest that such a report ought to be an annual requirement, at least during the seven-year managed transition period? Will Ministers consider that? The need is clear. The farming sector—certainly in Cheshire, and I believe elsewhere—has experienced substantial uncertainty, challenge, and change over recent years, and it is critical that the Government are appropriately agile in recognising and addressing those challenges and changes going forward. An annual report would better facilitate that.
As an example of some of those challenges and changes, let me mention, with great respect, a well-received speech that was made recently by Richard Blackburn, chair of Cheshire NFU, at Chester cathedral. He highlighted how many challenges farmers in Cheshire have had to address in the last two or three years, and emphasised their resilient ability to do so. Those challenges included the weather, with an exceptionally dry 2018 being followed by an unusually wet 2019. In 2018, more than 2,000 cows in Cheshire were put down because of tuberculosis, and protracted Brexit negotiations during the last Parliament led to uncertainty and a drop in many prices. Horticultural businesses faced the uncertainty, and in many cases the reality, of a shortage of farm workers. Cheshire also saw the closure of our county’s only market place at Beeston, and the collapse of a dairy at Wrexham. As we enter a new era having left the EU, an annual rather than a five-yearly analysis of our food security, and the other issues mentioned in clause 17 such as the resilience of the supply chain, would surely be preferable.
On the delegated powers that appear in parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to listening to farmers and involving them in the design of future measures that affect the farming industry? Will he confirm that opportunities will be taken to consult continuously with farmers? In that regard, may I repeat my request for a ministerial visit to Cheshire for a meeting with farmers in my county at an early date?
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.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I warmly welcome this vital Bill. I support the broad aims of shifting support for the sector to public money for public goods, alongside support for innovation and productivity gains. The new public goods model could be good news for upland areas in Yorkshire and other regions, as farmers there will finally be able to get direct payments for providing public goods such as iconic landscapes, flood defences with upper river catchment management schemes, and maintaining the quality of the 70% of our drinking water that comes from the uplands. UK peat has capacity to absorb carbon similar to that of the Amazon rainforest, soaking up more CO2 than all the world’s oceans combined, so paying farmers to restore and maintain peatlands could make an important contribution to public policy priorities relating to climate change.
As chair of the all-party group on science and technology in agriculture, I stress that the new technologies of the fourth industrial revolution are transforming agriculture as we speak. It is wise to concentrate support on facilitating the growth and efficiency gains of tomorrow.
The need to introduce the Bill afresh has allowed the Government to make substantial improvements incorporating many of the changes that would have been made via amendments to its previous incarnation. In the Second Reading debate on the previous Bill, I shared the sector’s concerns that food production and food security were not sufficiently central, so I am glad to see that clause 1(4) of the current Bill states
“In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers”.
That clear recognition of the importance of food production—something that was absent from the previous Bill—suggests that food has not been forgotten in the shift to public money for public goods.
There is also a specific legal requirement for the Secretary of State to conduct regular audits of food security. I welcome that, but share other Members’ concern to ensure that those audits are more frequent. I want reporting back to Parliament to be much more frequent than the recommended five-year periods. I am reassured by further evidence that the revised Bill shows greater awareness of the needs of agricultural production and a positive relationship between that and protecting the environment. These are entirely complementary goals and it is important that that is reflected. I am also really pleased that soil quality has been included in the Bill and recognised as a public good.
There is a lot to be positive about in the Bill. However, despite a lot of improvements, I urge the Government to remain alive to the possibility of unintended negative consequences, as with any such legislation. The Minister will be fully aware of the classic example of the notorious three-crop rule from the common agricultural policy. We cannot have a situation where policies incentivise farmers to take many acres out of possible food production, to cease farming altogether or to lay off workers and just to receive payments for managing land for public goods. We need balance and food production must be part of that. The new state-funded environmental land management system that the Government envisage must not serve to reduce our country’s capacity for domestic food production or drive down the numbers employed in agriculture.
In conclusion, I am really positive about the future of agriculture. The Bill is a great start, but we have to bear in mind our future trade talks and trade policies. They have to run at the same time as the Bill. If they do, we will be in a good place. If they do not, things might be difficult, but I support the Minister and the Department on what they are trying to achieve, and I look forward to seeing the Bill through Second Reading and into Committee.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Although the Bill includes some welcome provisions for the future of our farming, including supporting public money for public goods, if the Government are serious about tackling the climate change crisis and putting the environment at the heart of our agriculture industry, they must go much further than this.
According to statistics from the Welsh Labour Government, agriculture contributed 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions in Wales in 2017. The Committee on Climate Change has recommended a target of a 95% reduction in carbon emissions in Wales by 2050, due to our reliance on our farming, steel and power industries. I praise the Welsh Labour Government’s work and commitment on that issue in promising to go even further and reach net zero before that date.
The Welsh Government are working with a number of agricultural organisations on policies for reaching net zero in agriculture and are consulting on their clean air plan for Wales, with consultation due to be completed next month. That is an example of what can be done under a Labour Government—one who truly recognise the severity of the climate emergency and put the wellbeing and futures of their citizens and industries first.
I am unable to see any such targets for reaching net zero emissions for the agriculture industry in the Bill, but the Government must address that if we are truly to tackle the climate change crisis, especially at a time when extreme weather is regularly impacting on our farming and food production across the UK. The Government’s track record on missing key environmental targets does not give me a great deal of hope, but I urge the Secretary of State and the Government to take the decisive action that is necessary, set a target for net zero emissions in agriculture and show that we are serious about tackling the climate emergency.
With regards to food standards, we have heard—and as has been noted by various agricultural organisations, including NFU Cymru—that it is alarming to see nothing in the Bill to legislate against importing food produced to lower standards. Vague manifesto promises that we will not have chlorinated chicken and hormone or antibiotic-fed beef in our supermarkets, and that our agriculture industry will not be undercut by cheaper imports from abroad, are not enough. I urge the Government to rethink this now and work with the dozens of farming organisations that have voiced their concerns to provide real, legal safeguards for our food and environmental welfare standards as part of the Bill.
If the Government will not set up a trade and standards commission and will commit only to monitoring international standards, how will the Bill protect our farmers from being undercut in the trade deals that the Prime Minister plans to make with other countries? Will it encourage people to buy Welsh and British produce? How will it ensure that Welsh and British farmers can compete on a level playing field post Brexit? I hope that the Minister can give some answers this evening.
I pay tribute to initiatives in Wales and across the UK, such as Crucial Crew, that do great work to educate our young people on the vital issues of safety. I recently attended a Crucial Crew event with two schools in my constituency, Pantysgallog and Coed-y-Dderwen, where organisations such as the Food Standards Agency and other partners provided interactive workshops and important messages on issues, including food safety, for pupils to take onboard and apply to their daily lives.
As we have heard, there is in the Bill an alarming lack of consideration given to tackling food poverty. After a decade of harsh Tory austerity measures, the number of those living in poverty and relying on food banks continues to rise in Wales and across the country, while the latest figures from the Trussell Trust show an increase of almost 20% in the number of emergency food parcels distributed in 2018-19 compared with the previous year. There are more than 2,000 food banks in the UK, which means there are now more food banks than McDonald’s outlets, of which there are only 1,300. This is clearly unacceptable in Britain in the 21st century, and it is disappointing not to see any robust commitment in the Bill to addressing food poverty or any measures to promote and improve access to healthy and sustainable food.
Farmers in Wales and across the country have also had to deal with serious labour shortages since the Tories’ decision to scrap the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. This is another missed opportunity in the Bill. It could have been reinstated in the Bill, rather than the Government’s replacement scheme, which will allow for only 10,000 seasonal workers to come to the UK. The Bill does nothing for agricultural workers. It could have taken that step and reinstated the Agricultural Wages Board, which was scrapped by the coalition Government in 2013. Although the Welsh Labour Government quickly reinstated the board in Wales, despite operating on a budget from Westminster that has been cut by £4 billion since 2010, there are still many thousands working in the agricultural industry in England and the Bill does nothing for them. I urge the Government to take on board these legitimate concerns and give us reassurances this evening.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak after so many excellent maiden speeches on both sides of the Chamber today. I would invidiously single out the contribution of my constituency near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), who is one of seven Conservatives now representing constituencies in north Wales.
I strongly welcome and support the Bill, which ensures the Government’s continued support for all those across the United Kingdom whose livelihoods depend on the agricultural sector. It provides certainty and I am sure great reassurance to farmers across the country. I represent a Welsh constituency with a strong agricultural heritage in which a great deal of economic activity and employment are linked to and depend on farming, particularly livestock farming. Indeed, the importance of livestock farming to my constituents is such that the decision to include within the Bill changes to the red meat levy will be greatly appreciated. The current system of levy is seriously flawed, in that it depends entirely upon the location of the slaughterhouse rather than the place of production. In north Wales, the decline in the number of slaughterhouses means that animals reared in north Wales are increasingly sent to England for slaughter. The consequence has been a severe loss of income to the Welsh meat promotion entity, Hybu Cig Cymru, and therefore a reduction in its ability to promote Welsh meat, which is, of course, among the finest in the world.
The Welsh livestock industry has long been calling for reform of the levy basis. The provisions in the Bill to enable the creation of a more equitable scheme, under which those who rear the animal and add value benefit from the levy payments, have already been widely praised by industry groups. It is essential that, once the powers provided by the Bill are in place, the Government, the devolved Administrations and the meat promotion bodies work swiftly together to ensure that a fair and effective scheme is implemented as soon as possible.
It is also good that the Bill imposes an obligation on Ministers to report regularly to Parliament on the issue of UK food security, although, like other contributors, I would suggest that a more regular report might be appropriate. In an increasingly uncertain global environment, food security should be at the forefront of our minds and be subject to constant reassessment. It must always be remembered that farmers, although they are also certainly stewards of our landscape, are primarily food producers. While protecting our environment is of course a matter of fundamental importance, so is ensuring that as we move out into the wider world after Brexit, farmers do not just become ”land managers”. Rather, they must be given every opportunity to become efficient and highly competitive businesses in the global marketplace, and to enable even more of our world-renowned agricultural products to be sold in markets old and new the world over. I am therefore pleased to note the provision in clause 1(4) that, in framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food in an environmentally sustainable way. It is, of course, an England-only provision, but I am sure that farmers in my constituency will hope that it will be emulated in the Welsh Government’s own agriculture Bill.
In that connection, I have to say that it is a disappointment that the Welsh Government have decided not to take powers in this Bill to operate new schemes in Wales post Brexit, as was the case under the 2018 Bill, but to introduce their own domestic legislation later. The delay may well push the implementation of a new scheme beyond the Welsh Assembly elections in 2021, with the risk that payments under the basic payment scheme will have to be reduced for the 2021 claim year. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to give my constituents some reassurance about the level of support that they will receive for the 2021 claim year in the absence of timely legislation from the Welsh Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. After Nadia Whittome’s contribution, I will try to get everyone else in, but I am afraid that there will then be a three-minute speaking limit.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Apart from Stonebridge City Farm, there are no farms in my constituency. However, like all the other Members in the Chamber, I represent people who need food to eat and a healthy planet on which to live, and a deregulated, race-to-the-bottom Brexit will put both at risk.
We have less than a decade in which to save the planet from climate breakdown. To do that we need post-war scale investment in infrastructure, and we need to decarbonise our economy by 20% every year in every industry, yet there are no targets in the Bill for the agriculture sector to reach net zero. Will the Minister explain why, despite the clear will of organisations such as the National Farmers Union, the Bill contains no targets for net-zero emissions in farming? In fact, while providing many powers, it provides very few duties for the Secretary of State to do anything.
I welcome the principle of a farming payments system that provides public money for public goods, but why are environmental public goods only possibilities for the Secretary of State, rather than requirements? Why does a Bill about agriculture not recognise sustainable food production as a public good? This Bill is a huge missed opportunity for the UK to take a lead on agroecology. It fails to prioritise sustainable food production, despite experts’ warnings about our future food security. It could have given us a chance to enshrine in law the “right to food” that Labour has promised, promoting the local growing and distribution of food to bring people closer to food production.
I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the Government have chosen to ignore the crisis in food poverty. More than a million people are being forced to use food banks as a result of their calamitous work and pensions policies. How can we rely on the Secretary of State’s good will to end that crisis when her own colleague, the Foreign Secretary, has dismissed people who are forced to turn to food banks as merely having a temporary cashflow problem? In Nottingham, more than 26,000 people, including nearly 11,000 children, have used food banks for emergency supplies in the last year, and, shamefully, there are more food banks than branches of McDonald’s in this country. While we subsidise food in Westminster, outside this building there are children going to school and to bed hungry. In the sixth richest country in the world, this is a political choice. It is also a political choice to remain silent on this issue in the Bill before us today. We know that many Conservative Members—like the one sniggering over there—fantasise about a deregulated post-Brexit world where laws and regulations on food and the environment are weakened, but the fact is that my constituents and those in constituencies up and down the country do not want chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef.
Nadia Whittome
No, I will not.
Why has the Secretary of State ignored the sincere requests from Labour Members, from the NFU and from the DEFRA Committee to enshrine in law a guarantee that British farmers will not be undercut through the importing of substandard produce as part of new trade deals?
The Bill needs to say much more about access to healthy, sustainable food. It needs to say more about cutting emissions, and it needs a guarantee that British farming and food standards will not be undercut. I support the reasoned amendment today because the Bill fails on food standards, it fails on food production and, most of all, it fails to tackle food poverty.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We have just about half an hour, so Members may have three minutes each. If anyone takes any interventions, they will be pushing one of their colleagues off the edge.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
We have heard half a dozen maiden speeches today, all more eloquent than mine, and I congratulate my colleagues on both sides.
I welcome the Government’s opening statement that farmers put food on our plates. Domestic production is vital in a volatile world, and North West Durham has a bit of everything as far as production goes. We do poultry, beef, arable, milk and lamb. I thank the Secretary of State for her recent visit to my upland peat areas, which show that the environment and our grouse moors can go hand in hand.
Farmers in my constituency will welcome leaving the common agricultural policy and adopting a more flexible approach from the Government. They will also welcome the new measures in the Bill to deal with greater transparency in the supply chain, particularly when it comes to supermarkets, and the prominence of food production and food security in the Bill. As we move towards payment for public goods, environmental protection, public access and, crucially for my farmers, safeguarding livestock and plants, it is for many of my upland farmers the safeguarding of livestock that is important. I hope that any new regime recognises this as a crucial part of our environment. Our native breeds are an essential element of the environment. Furthermore, forestry is an important part of the future, particularly for my upland areas, and it is vital that the Government have a joined-up approach to ensuring that whatever is proposed in this area is viable.
There is concern among my farmers about the speed at which things are moving and about the seven years. There is a need to ensure real simplicity, especially with regard to the proposed environmental schemes.
I welcome the clear and balanced direction of the Bill and look forward to working with the Government at later stages to address the concerns of the rural communities in North West Durham.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I commend my new colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), for taking a minute less than required under your strictures, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is obviously due for swift promotion.
I am pleased to speak in this debate, having sat on the Committee that looked at the previous Bill. I should declare at this point that I am a farmer and therefore have benefited from the structures that are being replaced by the Bill. I am pleased that the Government have followed several of our recommendations, in particular the requirement for a periodic analysis of food security and the provision for multi-annual financial plans. The initial transition plan is for seven years. I would prefer to see subsequent plans also covering seven years, rather than five, reflecting crop rotations rather than election cycles.
I should like to make three quick points. The first relates to the need for the Bill to ensure that British food producers are able to maintain viable businesses now that we have left the European Union, while also improving the environment. As we move away from the one-size-fits-all approach of the CAP, we have the chance to reform and connect the support in a coherent way between schemes for different custodians of our land, including those responsible for farming, forestry, natural wilderness, wetlands and wildlife areas.
As this Bill is being debated before the imminent Second Reading of the Environment Bill, we can rewrite the rules and regulations governing land use in the UK. We must ensure that the Bill supports agriculture while being well aligned to improve the environment and that it is sufficiently adaptable that improvements can be made through regulations if we find that certain activities or aspects of land use inadvertently fall through the cracks. For example, the new ELM scheme will now be available only from late 2024, with significant reductions in direct payments before the new scheme can be accessed, whereas the previous Bill had envisaged such arrangements arriving in 2021.
Encouraging farm productivity is welcome to help farm businesses compete in a less protected trading environment, but many parts of the countries, such as the upland sheep farming areas mentioned earlier, have limited scope to diversify other than perhaps into forestry. That is where coherence and clarity are required in the interplay between different support schemes, and I will be grateful if the Minister confirms whether it will be possible for the House to see the detailed regulations that will set out programmes for different land use before Third Reading.
My second point is to agree with the sentiment already shared across the House about ensuring that we have world-class standards for British food and drink and for our environment. I expect further measures to be proposed in Committee to ensure that that is the case.
My final and main point is to encourage the Government to use the opportunity of leaving the EU to allow a “buy British” policy in food procurement for the public sector.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I congratulate all those who have made maiden speeches, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie): a hearty llongyfarchiadau—congratulations—to her. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and represent the many beef and sheep farmers in my constituency.
Now that the debate on leaving the European Union is over and the sky still has not fallen in, as was promised, we can begin an incredibly exciting chapter for our farming sector. We have been part of a common agricultural policy that has all too often acted like a straitjacket on UK farming. I know just how tight that straitjacket is, having been part of the UK Government’s negotiating team during the last CAP reform when we tried to work with the European Commission on the greening requirements—a particularly awkward piece of legislation that meant that farmers would lose 30% of their direct payment if they did not plant three different crop varieties. The Minister made excellent representations to the European Commission, but we were still prevented from implementing that policy in our own way. We are now free to design a policy that works for our farmers, our consumers and our environment, and that is the real prize at stake.
Tackling climate change is a priority. We need farmers on our side if we are to make any progress. Farmers are a small part of the problem, but an enormous part of the solution. Who else will maintain the hedgerows, watercourses and flower-rich meadows that we need and who else will steward a system based on grass-fed cattle that is part of a virtuous circle—good for our stomachs, good for our health and, above all, good for our economy?
As I said, I represent one of the largest beef and sheep farming constituencies, so I am here to promote the benefits of livestock farming. With six in Brecon and Radnorshire, we have more livestock markets than supermarkets, so it is incredibly important that we maintain a future for the livestock industry. This Bill gives livestock farmers the space they need to continue to deliver for the natural environment while producing world-class food.
I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) on the Bill’s reference to the red meat levy sector, which irons out an imbalance that is having a negative impact on farmers in my constituency in mid-Wales.
I also welcome the commitment to tackle unfair trading practices in the food supply chain. Farmers are very much price takers, not price makers, and it is essential to give them the tools to stand up to retail power, building on the excellent work of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
Much of the Bill will not apply to my constituents in Brecon and Radnorshire as it relates to a devolved matter. While I fully respect the devolution settlement, I hope that the Welsh Government will copy this Government’s ambition.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I start by welcoming the Bill. The core tenet of the common agricultural policy—subsidising farming—is vital. Farming is one of our fundamental industries, and it needs our support.
I ask the Minister to touch on two areas of detail. The first is the balance between environmental protection and food production. The focus on the environment will help tackle climate change, reduce pollution and make us a healthier, happier, more sustainable country. However, we need to make sure that all our countryside organisations are working together collaboratively. Much of the Meon Valley is in the South Downs national park; I would be grateful for some indication of how the Glover report will impact on the environmental land management schemes for farmers in Meon Valley.
I am glad that this version of the Bill will introduce a reporting requirement on food security. Will the Minister explain in more detail how the Government will ensure that they get the balance right between the environment and food production, and how the funding available will reflect that?
My second issue is how targets will be set for farms, both individually and on a national level, for the public goods that we wish them to produce. Farmers need clarity and an articulated, joined-up agenda that makes it easy for them to plan for the long term. How will the Government ensure that individual farmers are advised on and funded for the best use of their land? Is seven years enough time for farmers to adapt or should it be a 25-year timeframe, in line with the environmental plan, to allow farmers to plan for longer? Will there be national targets for, say, carbon capture, and how will those be set? If we are falling behind in a national target, will the subsidies change to reflect that? I appreciate that the Bill marks the beginning of a lengthy process, but I know that farmers would appreciate as much detail as possible.
Tree planting is excellent for healthier soil and absorbing carbon dioxide, but there are other carbon capture initiatives and we need to reduce pesticides. What will the targets be for improving the biodiversity of the soil, much of which is now lacking in basic nutrients? According to the Cranfield report, 80% of soil is now dead. For all farms, some environmental protections will be more viable than others. That will differ from region to region and by land type—for example, chalk, heathland, clay and so forth. Some 159 different land types have been characterised by Natural England. Will the Government reflect that in their planning and targets?
I look forward to hearing more over the course of this debate. I will support the Bill, which is an important step in the right direction, but I would like to know more about the balance between food production and environmental protection, and about how the targets will be set.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
This is an excellent Bill, and I am delighted to support it. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This Bill is the gateway to the future for an exciting and vibrant agricultural sector. I am particularly delighted that the Bill will allow financial assistance to the shepherds in my constituency, who I have been worried about. I like the direct payment element, although sadly there is more enthusiasm in the drafting of the Bill for cuts than for increases; I hope Ministers will keep an eye on that, although there are powers to modify the scheme as and when. There is an element of in-lieu payments, which is welcome for retiring farmers, although I suspect that death duties on agricultural land will delay that policy.
The food security element is vital, of course, to our whole population. The Bill is the perfect example of how Parliament should behave on a matter of national importance. The Government have not created a quango, as they seek to do in the Environment Bill—this Bill is a far better way of legislating. The elements on exceptional market conditions and fair dealing for food chain participants are welcome.
I am slightly worried about the red meat levy, because of course I care very much about native breeds, provision for which in the Bill is welcome. However, as with “pasture-fed”, there is an issue with the definition of what native breeds are—pedigree or cross-bred. The figure of 51% is not adequate: we need to amend that part of DEFRA legislation to ensure that pasture herd farmers are getting the rewards that they richly deserve. As the National Trust found, grass-fed beef production does not just reduce greenhouse gas emissions; when carbon sequestration and storage are considered, it is actually a carbon net gain. The nonsense from the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who intervened earlier, should be put to one side. The bit of the Bill that encourages organic production should be welcomed. This excellent Bill is good for my constituents, good for their food and great for our country.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
As part of the all-party group on skills, I shall practise the skill of squeezing an eight-minute speech into three.
In leaving the EU, we have the opportunity to rewrite the book on agricultural policy, and rewrite it we have; this Bill is potentially the biggest victory for nature in a generation. Farmland occupies more than 70% of the UK’s landmass, and with more than 450,000 farmers in the UK, it is vital that we recognise the stark benefits that this Bill has over the CAP. It means that farmers are rid of the old, ineffectual direct payments system, which meant that some of our largest producers may actually have ended up worse off. The CAP’s method of rewarding farmers on the basis of land size unsustainably increases rents and land costs, while forcing farmers to use as much land as possible for production. Put simply, a farmer who gets funding on the basis of land size will cover their land in crops, whereas one who gets funding on the basis of their contribution to a better environment can use parts of their land to allow wildlife and natural habitats to grow; agriculture is, sadly, a contributor to biodiversity loss.
The “State of Nature” report by the National Trust found that 41% of species have experienced decline since 1970 and about a third of wild bee populations are decreasing, much to the frustration of my constituent Jonathan Thomas, who has a business producing local honey. Jon got in touch with me recently regarding this Bill, in the hope that it would produce a fairer system for farmers that incentivised them to promote biodiversity and assist in stemming the tide of this massive loss of bees.
I am sure we can all agree, perhaps some slightly more than others, that British food is among the best in the world, and people recognise that globally. We are opening up a new world of opportunities. Now that we can trade on our own terms and are no longer bound by Brussels, those on the world stage who see the results of what our farmers can do will flock to us for their carrots, peas and sprouts, and of course our wonderful Welsh lamb. They will see the UK as the agricultural giant that we in this country know we are. This Bill removes the restrictions on our farming and offers more money—the right money—to our farmhands.
With all this in mind, it is vital that any future trade deals that we have complement this Bill and allow us to both grow and import food to our own standards. As our soil quality and animal welfare standards increase, so does the quality of our foods and our meats. Do we not then deserve to have a like-for-like selection when we trade with other nations? Is it fair that our farmers are to put in the work and the effort to produce the best they possibly can when some of our trading partners are not meeting the commitments that we require of our own? All things that belong in future trade deals—
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be able to welcome this groundbreaking Bill. Now that we are outside the EU, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform how we support English farmers. We have the chance to move away from the EU’s bureaucratic CAP. My constituency has a variety of farms, ranging from dairy to arable, and is one of the largest fruit producers in our region, so this Bill is of great interest to me.
Let me start by saying that I welcome the principle of public funds for public goods that this Bill recommends, but we must ensure that any future agricultural policy also supports farmers in their role as producers of food. I thank the Government for guaranteeing the current annual budget to farmers in every year of this Parliament, but we must ensure that farmers have the funding and certainty they need to plan for the longer term. Let me give a few examples from my constituency to illustrate that point.
It is difficult for local farmers to make long-term investment decisions if they are not guaranteed future payments. Buying a tractor can cost up to £100,000, and investing in a milking parlour or slurry system can cost several hundred thousand pounds. Everything farmers do, from buying livestock to ordering seed in advance or signing new tenancy agreements, requires forward planning and investment. Farmers in Staffordshire have done an admirable job of coping in the past few years, but the situation is challenging. So I am pleased that this Bill recognises the primary role of farmers as food producers, as it is a matter of national interest that our country can feed itself and continues to be self-sufficient. Last month, I brought the Secretary of State for International Trade to meet local farmers in Stafford, who expressed concerns about this issue. We should never compromise food security, especially as an island nation, but that does not mean that we should not incentivise farmers to allow room for nature to thrive. I do not see conflict between farmers’ roles as food producers and as environmental stewards.
Dearnsdale Fruit in my constituency has also spoken to me directly about the labour supply challenges facing large fruit producers. Already this season, there has been a 20% reduction in the number of responses to applications. The seasonal workers pilot scheme needs to be running quicker, or fruit will go unpicked this season. Local producers have told me that the Home Office permits have not yet been granted, meaning that they cannot recruit from non-EU countries. Labour supply is critical to the functioning of the agricultural sector.
In conclusion, the Bill marks the introduction of an important domestic farming policy for the first time in half a century and is a great first step towards a better and greener future for farming and our environment.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I wholeheartedly support the Bill, both in principle and in detail, but farmers in my constituency in Wiltshire are hoping for some assurances from Ministers about their future.
The context for the debate is a fact that is not often mentioned—it has not been mentioned much today—which is that we have very cheap food in this country. Households in the UK spend less on food than those in any other country in the world except for Singapore and the United States. Cheap food is obviously a good thing in itself, and no Government will want to see inflation, so the question is: how do we maintain it? We can do it in three ways: first, through science and improving yields, particularly through the use of pesticides; secondly, we can keep our food cheap by subsidising its production; and thirdly, we can use competition and import cheap food from abroad. The Government propose changes to all three methods of keeping food cheap, with less pesticides, fewer subsidies over time and more competition. All those things are welcome in principle, but all could impact on farmers’ livelihoods. I am sure they will not, but I hope we can get some assurances.
First, on the science, we can and should lead the world in the development of sustainable food, but we need to be pragmatic, not absolutist, in how we proceed. I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about the use of neonicotinoids, and particularly their impact on the oilseed rape crop. We either need to allow neonicotinoids or prohibit imports that use them.
Secondly, on the subsidies, the principle of public money for public goods is absolutely right, but surely the primary public good—the most essential good there is—is food itself, so I welcome the fact that the new system will
“encourage the production of food”.
I urge Ministers to emphasise that and reassure farmers that they will not be turned into mere wardens of the landscape.
Lastly, on competition, farmers support the principle of free trade—or at least I hope they do and think they should. We want to sell our beef and lamb to America, and we do not fear American produce coming here, but that works only if we have a genuine free market in which producers compete on a like-for-like basis across a genuinely level playing field. In that market, Britain—and Wiltshire most of all—will be a winner.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I welcome the Bill, which is a fine transition between the EU and the UK and a real opportunity for Britain to be British and do it our way.
The Bill is underpinned by a concept of public money being paid for public good. I absolutely welcome the broadening in respect of how money will be paid, and the reduction in its being paid just for the size of the land in favour of more being paid for what is done with the land, but if the motto is that we are going to pay public money for public good, what do we mean by the public good? It is not defined in the Bill. It worries me that the technical, economic definition specifically excludes food production, which does not quite fit with clause 1(4). It seems to me that clarity on and a definition of “public good” would be a good thing. It seems to me to be equally important that the productivity necessary to deliver increased food security should be specifically included as a public good. The Bill simply provides for measuring it; there needs to be a measure to ensure that we actually do it.
There is an issue in respect of what public money is—it is also not defined. Is clause 1 exhaustive? I hope not. Given my very rural Devon constituency, I have particular concerns about the support in the Bill for beef and sheep. Currently, they are the most subsidised parts of agriculture. Although several of my colleagues have said that sheep will be well provided for, I have my doubts and would like to know exactly how that will be done.
I have a significant coastal area in my constituency, which is difficult to support, and it is difficult to make it productive. We have done very well in Labrador bay. We have special methods to ensure, as far as we can, that we increase productivity and, at the same time, environmental stewardship. That is undoubtedly something that we could spread by way of best practice across all coastal communities, but there is nothing specific in the legislation that would help.
I support the provision that means that, when there are adverse market or climatic conditions, farmers will be subsidised and supported—but I should like to know how. The definition is not there. At one point, a Minister had suggested that there should be an insurance scheme. I should like to know whether that is still under consideration.
Marketing standards are absolutely critical to this legislation, but what then are the implications for food labelling and for ensuring that we have a proper campaign for buying British? Not dealing with those two issues is very much a missed opportunity. That said, I will support the Bill as it is a great step forward for British agriculture.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I know from farmers in my constituency that there is an appetite to see a UK agriculture sector that delivers public good for public money. We will not solve our biggest environmental challenges, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, without helping farmers to become more sustainable. Farmers do not see any conflict in their role as food producers and environmental stewards. Healthy and fertile soil, efficient agrochemical use, resilience to the impact of climate change, and abundant pollinator populations are all necessary components of productive and profitable farming.
We talk about public money for public goods. The intention behind the policy is right and proper. The Bill is welcome, not least because its primary role is to support the production of food and oblige the Government to
“have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and its production by them in an environmentally sustainable way.”
The Agriculture Bill is crucial for shaping a more sustainable, prosperous farming sector. There is an appetite in Cornwall, particularly in west Cornwall and Scilly, which I represent, to play an active part in shaping a more sustainable, prosperous and skilled farming sector. Work is already under way to explore what are known as “novelty” crops to see how alternative crops can help to decarbonise farming while offering an attractive opportunity for existing farmers and “new blood” to make a living and to provide well-paid jobs. There is also an appetite in Cornwall to grasp the concept of regenerative farming.
This Agriculture Bill and the Government’s flagship Environment Bill have the enabling ability to transform how we provide food for our nation, and, I hope, as the Bill passes through this House and the other place, that none of this worthy intention is lost.
Finally, there is an appetite to see a UK agriculture sector that delivers high-quality and high standards and refuses cheap poor-quality low-standard imports. We should not underestimate how important confidence in good food is to the British public. When it comes to agreeing new trade deals around the world, British consumers are concerned about the likelihood of increased liberalisation of the UK food market through trade deals with new international partners post Brexit. I agree that it is futile to develop a comprehensive and ambitious domestic support policy simply for UK farmers’ efforts to be undermined by the importation of products not produced to the same level of environmental or animal health welfare standards expected of them domestically. The Minister is a friend, colleague and neighbour. He understands the challenges and opportunities that exist in Cornwall, and I know that he will do his best to make sure that this Bill works for farmers and food producers right across the UK.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
This will be less of a speech and more of some slightly connected bullet points. I welcome this Bill. In particular, I welcome the fact that the Front-Bench team listened to the previous Agriculture Bill Committee when it comes to the importance of food security. I hope that clause 17 will be explored further in Committee and on Report. It talks about a report at least once every five years. I suggest to the Front-Bench team, that we should have a report annually or biannually, particularly in the early years. The Bill is silent on what is to be done with these reports once they have been produce; it is silent on what will happen to them, and how we will act. The National Farmers’ Union is very keen to make sure that there is greater reporting, and I support it in that endeavour.
I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for what she said in support of the agritech sector and the good work that that can do in terms of driving forward environmental improvements. Again, there is some stuff in the Bill, but I think that it could be much clearer. Likewise, we have a great estate of county farms in Dorset, but they need support. I urge my right hon. Friends to read, if they have not done so, the report by the Campaign to Protect Rural England about reviving county farms.
The Bill is a golden opportunity to support our smaller, family-owned farms. Blackmore vale, which is at the heart of North Dorset is, in Thomas Hardy’s words, the
“vale of the little dairies”.
They are an integral part of our agricultural tapestry, and those small, independent farms need and deserve our support. The Bill allows us to remind ourselves of the importance of food, food production and the role that agriculture plays in the economy.
In closing, I want to turn to the Opposition amendment. Now is not the time to put the handbrake on the progress of the Bill. Farmers have waited too long and they want certainty. I urge Ministers to put Government Members out of their misery on what I would call the equivalence clause. It is fine and dandy that we are not going to reduce standards here, but if we are going to throw open our doors to foodstuffs produced to lower standards, there is absolutely no point in having an agriculture sector. The amendment will not be supported by Government Members, but the Minister should be aware that if the Bill proceeds to Report or Third Reading and an equivalence clause is not included, the Whips and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should expect some trouble on these Benches.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
There we have it—an Agriculture Bill that is not really about food or public good; without public voice; an open door for our food producers to be sold out in a trade deal with Trump; and English farmers put at disadvantage compared with other nations in the UK, while doing too little to tackle the climate emergency. No wonder farmers will be here in droves on 25 March. I hope that Government Back Benchers heed that last call and wake up to the problem, because the Opposition are not prepared to sell out English farmers, workers and our countryside.
Yes, of course we want public money to be used to buy environmental benefits, and we have argued for reform for decades, but the Bill needs massive improvement. It needs deeds, not worthy aspiration, and a much tougher Environment Bill alongside it to make sure that it works.
We have heard seven maiden speeches tonight, and a number of Members had the delicate task of paying tribute to somewhat troublesome predecessors. It is quite a list they had to deal with—Ken Clarke, John Bercow, Heidi Allen and Oliver Letwin—but they all managed that delicate task with great tact and grace. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) paid full tribute to her predecessor, Albert Owen, which is much appreciated by the Opposition. She invited the Secretary of State to the Anglesey show. The right hon. Lady is unable to attend, but I am sure that shadow Ministers are willing to oblige. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) had the best line of the night, about fake shoes. The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) had a list of sporting heroes that any constituency would be proud to borrow, especially Cambridge United, which could do with Jimmy Johnstone or John Robertson. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) delivered a speech that was probably every Cambridge leftie’s nightmare, but we could agree on one point: we do not want the Oxford-Cambridge expressway. The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) took us on a tour of the most beautiful parts of the west country, and tactfully reminded the Government of the NFU’s ambition to achieve net zero by 2040. My near neighbour, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), highlighted the hugely important role of life sciences, and many of the wonderful institutions that abut the city of Cambridge. We have a slightly different take on the European Union, but I am sure that we can work together on the future of life sciences. Finally, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) gave a delicate account of the status of the Cerne Abbas giant, and it was deftly delivered.
While we can all agree in the House on the need to shift financial assistance in the way proposed in the Bill towards the principle of public money for public good, particularly to help those who work our land to restore and improve the natural environment, it is worth briefly reflecting on why the CAP was needed in the first place. Historians will be well aware of the cycles of dearth and plenty that afflicted previous generations, with miserable and long agricultural depressions still living in the memory when I moved to eastern England over 40 years ago.
The CAP was intended to deliver stability of food supplies and security for farmers, and it did what it said on the tin, but it was of its time, had unintended consequences and has come at huge environmental cost. It is right that we now reshape our own agricultural systems to meet the new challenge. But there is a glaring omission, as has been pointed out. While supporting greater environmental, animal welfare and production standards at home, the Bill does absolutely nothing to prevent food products with lower standards than our domestic products from being imported in future trade deals. Without any legal commitment protecting us against that, the door is wide open to products such as American hormone-injected beef, chlorinated chicken and so on flooding our markets. Statements and manifesto commitments from the Government saying that they will not allow such lower standards are nothing but warm words. Just look at what US Secretary of State Pompeo made clear last week—the US Administration want this as part of any future trade deal.
We heard from the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that it concluded in its scrutiny report of the previous Bill that the Government should put their money where their mouth is and accept an amendment to the Agriculture Bill stipulating that food products imported as part of any future trade deal should meet or exceed British standards. There is an unprecedented coalition of agreement on this, as 62 farming and environmental organisations wrote to the Prime Minister just last week, urging him to amend the Agriculture Bill with this guarantee, and farmers are planning to rally outside Westminster to press the point. Labour simply cannot support the Bill without that cast-iron guarantee, which is why we have tabled our reasoned amendment.
There have been some improvements. Thanks to the work of farming and environmental organisations, there have been some positive changes. The inclusion of soil quality as a public good is particularly important given that our soil fertility is in decline. The reforms to agricultural tenancies and the new requirement in relation to multi-annual plans are also welcome. But in what is essentially a Bill about food production, we find ourselves asking, “Where is the focus on food?” As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) made clear, the Bill contains no clear vision for the future of the nation’s food supply and no commitment to protecting the people of this country from food poverty. There is no recognition of the production of food as a public good, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) explained so powerfully.
For all its faults, the CAP was at least focused on ensuring stability of food supplies and prices. All this Bill does is require the Government to have regard to encouraging the production of food in an environmentally sustainable way. We have to ask whether the Bill actually matches up to the scale of the environmental and climate crisis that we are facing. At the moment, I think the answer is no. There is no duty for Ministers to do anything, and crucially there are no targets for the agriculture sector to reach net zero emissions—points powerfully made by my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) and for Nottingham East. There are no provisions to secure the high baseline standards of farming and land management that we are going to need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) powerfully stated in a particularly thoughtful speech. That is particularly important if we are going to tackle the ecological crisis that we are facing, including standards for those agricultural actors who choose not to engage with the environmental land management schemes.
By granting the Secretary of State mainly powers rather than duties, the Bill leaves farmers in the dark as to how and when the Government will implement the supply chain provisions included in the Bill that are designed to secure a fairer price for farmers for the food they produce. Where is the advice and support for farmers to help them in the transition? The Bill is silent on protections for workers, lacks overall vision for the future of rural communities and misses key opportunities to support agroecology. And then there is the question of whether the key provisions in the Bill will actually work, how quickly and successfully a new system of ELMS will be brought into operation, and the key matter of handling the devolved issues, which was raised very effectively by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake). We should remember that there will be different approaches in the different nations; while England will go down one path, Scotland and Wales will take a different one.
So there we have it—the Bill is 14 months late, and there is ultimately no plan for food and no plan for public goods, and there are standards that will be unachievable if they are open to being undercut. It is a policy devised by some very clever people in Notting Hill; I think the House probably knows who they are, and, quite frankly, one has to wonder whether any of them has ever been on a farm. But the good news is that the Government can start making progress, by committing tonight to our amendment to guard against imports with lower standards. They do not even have to agree with the Opposition. They just need to agree with themselves, because the Secretary of State has made the promise and it is in the Conservative manifesto. Our challenge to the Government is: put it into law. If the Government do not want to listen to me, they can listen to the president of the NFU, the chief executives of the British Poultry Council, the National Sheep Association and the RSPCA, and the Chair of the EFRA Committee, who are all saying the same: put it into law.
I extend a welcoming hand to Government Members, and ask them to join us in standing up for the English countryside. They may not know this, but it is not just the Women’s Institute who sing “Jerusalem”; it has always been a Labour anthem. We will defend our green and pleasant land, and Government Members can help us to do it: put the amendment into law. Today is the first big post-Brexit test for the Government. I fear they are about to flunk it.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
It is a real pleasure to close this debate. This is the second time that I have taken this Bill—or a similar version of it—through Parliament for Second Reading within the last two years, following the difficulties that the previous Parliament encountered. But we have now had a general election. We have a new Parliament and we have a newly elected Government who have a clear mandate to chart a different course for our country to become a genuinely independent sovereign country again and to make our own laws again.
The Bill means that, for the first time in half a century, we have the ability and the chance to create a new, independent agriculture policy. It is very encouraging to see so many hon. Members embrace that responsibility with so many thoughtful speeches today. It is particularly encouraging that so many chose to make their maiden speeches today in addressing this important Bill.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) talked about the importance of his family, the support that he had there, and some of his less than favourable experiences at the hands of certain employers in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) gave a moving speech in which she referred to a family tragedy. I am sure we all recognise from that that she is going to be a champion for mental health issues. She will also clearly be a champion for the agricultural industry. I or, I am sure, a fellow Minister would be more than happy to attend the Anglesey show at some point.
George Eustice
I will not give way as I want to cover as many of the issues raised by hon. Members as possible.
My hon. Friend the new Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) talked about the importance of high animal welfare and environmental standards, and the Bill provides for that. As she pointed out, her predecessor was a long-standing incumbent in this House. He was a big figure in politics—somebody who I did not always agree with, it has to be said, but nevertheless a highly experienced operator.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) referred to some of the great opportunities contained in this Bill. I think he is right and I am sure that, if we get it wrong, his father-in-law will have something to say about it and my hon. Friend will have something to talk about around the dinner table. He finished with that fabulous quote from Margaret Thatcher about the importance of our farming communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) will, I know, be a champion for rural broadband. As a Cornishman, I have to take issue with her particular interpretation of the correct way to put cream and jam on a scone—it is of course jam first. I am pleased that the Prime Minister recently endorsed the Cornish interpretation of such matters during the election.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) highlighted some of the ridiculous rules that we have in the common agricultural policy, which is far too complex, with hundreds of pages of guidance. We now have an opportunity to do things very differently. Hope Farm in his constituency, run by the RSPB, is a fabulous example of some of the nature-sensitive farming that can be done, and we are keen to learn from projects such as that.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) gave a fascinating account of how his grandmother, as a member of the Women’s Land Army, met his grandfather. It was a reminder of the great struggle that farmers and members of the WLA undertook to ensure that the nation was fed in the last war—something we must never forget. He talked about the importance of fairness in the supply chain and of provisions in the Bill to address that.
To turn to the points raised by the shadow Secretary of State, the emphasis of his speech was on the importance of food standards and making sure that we project British values on food standards in trade deals that we do. That was a clear commitment in our manifesto, as was dealt with by the Secretary of State earlier. The hon. Gentleman asked why a prohibition on the sale of chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-treated beef was not included in the Bill. The answer is that it is already on the statute book as retained EU law, so it already exists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) asked whether the Bill’s conclusion had stalled as a result of some of the difficulties in the last Parliament. The answer to that is: most certainly not. The trials and pilots remain on course. Indeed, we already have more than 30 different trials in place across the country testing scheme. We will deploy a full pilot in 2021. Our progress in delivering the agricultural transition remains on course. He also mentioned the fact that food security is a global challenge and that we have a responsibility, in common with other temperate parts of the world, to ensure that we play our part to produce food for a growing world population. He is right, and clause 17(2)(a) provides for that, because the global availability of food is a consideration.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) raised the issue of currency fluctuations. She will know that, under the old regime, farmers had no certainty from one year to the next what they would be paid, since a euro volatility exchange rate was introduced to the system. We have now set that at the same level as it was in 2019, so Scotland has clarity about exactly how much funding it will receive in 2020 and 2021. That is more clarity and more certainty than it has ever had while a member of the European Union.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) talked about the importance of frameworks for the UK. I recently met members of the Farmers Union of Wales. We work closely with all our devolved counterparts, but I remind him that this is a devolved policy, and it is for each constituent part of the UK to design a policy that works for them.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) talked about the importance of food production and suggested that we have not reflected that in the revised Bill. I take issue with that, because clause 1(4) is explicit in saying that in designing any scheme under the clause, we must have regard for the need to encourage food production. That is a new addition to the Bill. He also talked about the lump sum payments that are provided for in the Bill. We know from all the work done in this area in the past that, if we want to help new entrants on to the land, we also have to help older farmers retire. That is why allowing farmers to retire with dignity and supporting them to do so is an important area to consider.
My hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) suggested that we should have a more frequent review of food security than every five years. We have to see this requirement through the prism of clause 4, which envisages five-yearly multi-annual plans. It makes sense to align any review of food security with that provision. I would of course be happy to travel to Cheshire to meet the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton.
The hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) talked of the importance of agro-ecology. We are clear that whole-farm, holistic schemes can be provided for under clause 1. We are looking, for instance, at integrated pest management, catchment-sensitive farming and hedgerow schemes to encourage whole-farm approaches.
I turn to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). I recognise that agriculture is a very important industry in Northern Ireland. This is a devolved policy. Both Northern Ireland and Wales have chosen to take schedules in the Bill that give them powers to continue the existing scheme but also modify and improve it.
The hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) talked about seasonal workers. He has to recognise that we have increased the provision for seasonal workers from 2,500 to 10,000, largely due to the great campaigning work of his predecessor. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) gave a very upbeat, positive assessment of what we could do in future. That is what I want to conclude on. I grew up on a farm and spent 10 years in the industry. We have a chance now to design a modern policy that is fit for purpose in the 21st century. I therefore commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Agriculture Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 11th February 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 February 2020 - (11 Feb 2020)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points. Please switch off mobile phones. Tea and coffee is not allowed; that is not me being pompous—the Speaker does not allow tea or coffee in the Committee Rooms. Until that changes, Lent has come early and it is definitely water only.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and then a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the limited time available, I hope we can take those matters without too much debate.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I beg to move, Date Time Witness Tuesday 11 February Until no later than 10.30 am Nature Friendly Farming Network; Farmwel; LEAF; British Growers Association Tuesday 11 February Until no later than 11.25 am RSPB; RSPCA; Rare Breed Survival Trust; Traceability Design User Group; Livestock Information Ltd Tuesday 11 February Until no later than 2.30 pm Ulster Farmers Union; DAERA Tuesday 11 February Until no later than 3.00 pm NFU; National Federation of Young Farmers Clubs Tuesday 11 February Until no later than 3.30 pm Cooperatives UK Tuesday 11 February Until no later than 4.15 pm Campaign to Protect Rural England; Kings Crops; Holkham Estate Tuesday 11 February Until no later than 5.00 pm Country Land and Business Association; Tenant Farmers Association Thursday 13 February Until no later than 12.15 pm NFU Cymru; Farmers’ Union of Wales; Welsh Government Thursday 13 February Until no later than 1.00 pm Soil Association Thursday 13 February Until no later than 2.30 pm NFU Scotland; Quality Meat Scotland; Scottish Government Thursday 13 February Until no later than 3.00 pm George Monbiot, The Guardian Thursday 13 February Until no later than 3.30 pm Professor Bill Keevil, University of Southampton Thursday 13 February Until no later than 4.00 pm Unite; Landworkers Alliance Thursday 13 February Until no later than 4.30 pm Sustain; Compassion in World Farming Thursday 13 February Until no later than 5.00 pm Which?
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 11 February) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 February;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 February;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 25 February;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 February;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 March;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 5 March;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 March;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 28; Schedule 1; Clause 29; Schedule 2; Clauses 30 to 34; Schedule 3; Clause 35; Schedule 4; Clauses 36 to 43; Schedule 5; Clauses 44 and 45; Schedule 6; Clauses 46 to 49; Schedule 7; Clauses 50 to 54; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 10 March.
The programme motion was agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday. I hope we are all agreed on the programme motion, and I look forward to hearing evidence from witnesses in the order set out.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(George Eustice.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. Colleagues can get papers on that table over there. The helpful Clerks will indicate where they are; if Members go around, behind me or the witnesses, they can pick up the papers.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(George Eustice.)
The Chair
Q
Jack Ward: My name is Jack Ward, and I am the chief executive of the British Growers Association, which predominantly operates in the fresh produce sector—fresh fruit and fresh vegetables.
Caroline Drummond: I am Caroline Drummond, the chief executive of LEAF—Linking Environment and Farming—a farming environment charity promoting more sustainable agriculture and a whole-farm approach, with demonstration farms, the LEAF marque and a public outreach area. I am also married to a dairy farmer.
ffinlo Costain: I am ffinlo Costain, the chief executive of Farmwel, which was established to develop a really positive outlook on reform of the common agricultural policy post Brexit. We work very closely with the FAI—Food Animal Initiative—farm in Oxford, which is one of the world’s largest food sustainability consultancies.
Martin Lines: I am Martin Lines, an arable farmer from Cambridgeshire. I am the UK chair of the Nature Friendly Farming Network. We have farm membership across the UK, as well as public membership and organisations that support the network.
The Chair
May I say to our witnesses, if you have never previously appeared before a Committee, that there is nothing at all to be worried about? My colleagues are very friendly. They are just trying to get information from you to use during the Committee stage of our proceedings. The session ends at 10.30 am, so it will go very quickly.
George Eustice
Q
ffinlo Costain: One of the key challenges with the common agricultural policy is that it has largely rewarded farmers for owning land, and it has presided over an enormous disconnect between farmers, other people in the countryside, and customers, and often the supply chain as well. The huge advantage of the new legislation is that, in changing the funding system to public funds for public goods, we will be able to deliver the changes that we need—the farm animal welfare improvements, the sustainability improvements, the climate mitigation, and the biodiversity restoration, which has been so degraded under the common agricultural policy.
Make no bones about it: we are facing a climate and nature emergency that is upon us now, not tomorrow. It is critical that we get this right. For me, getting land use right is the golden ticket. Having the opportunity at this time to reform land use—so that we can continue producing good food and good nutrition, delivering national security in that way, which is critically important, as well as delivering climate mitigation, land adaption to help with climate change, and biodiversity restoration—is absolutely critical. The Bill comes at the perfect time, and it is well set up. There are some challenges within it, and some issues that I think we will address, but in general terms it is very positive.
Martin Lines: As a farm owner and a tenant, under the current system, with the single farm payment, I am encouraged to farm to the very edge of fields. Biodiversity and other bits of the landscape are not rewarded. As a tenant, my landlord takes away most if not all of my single farm payment on top of the rent. If we move to a public goods model, I actually get rewarded for the delivery of services as a land manager—as a farmer—so we would move into a system that better supports actual farmers, rather than the ownership and management of the landscape.
Caroline Drummond: One of the real challenges of the past system was the capability to drive ambition for farmers. It was a “Tell me what I’m doing” type of approach, so going forward, we have a real opportunity to demonstrate leadership, vision and ambition for our farming sector. Ensuring that we get the right governance is going to be really important. There needs to be partnership and development of trust between Governments, from voluntary approaches that are externally, independently verified such as farm assurance schemes, right through to building on some of the success stories of capability and innovation that we have seen among some of the farmers who are already thriving and doing very well in this country.
Jack Ward: The fresh produce industry has not benefited that greatly from the CAP. We are about 170,000 hectares; we have an output of about £2 billion from that area, and the contribution from the basic payment scheme is about £40 million. However, the contribution from the producer organisation scheme, which is broadly equivalent, has been incredibly important. I think we would like to see that continue in some shape or form.
In terms of opportunities, there is a terrific opportunity to increase the amount of fruit and veg that we currently produce. In some sectors, such as tomatoes, we are very dependent on imports. We import eight out of 10 tomatoes that we consume in the UK; we must be able to do better than that.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
ffinlo Costain: It is really important for Government to set a framework, but if there is a criticism of the way that Europe and the common agricultural policy have worked in the past, it is that it has been way too prescriptive. That has meant that, to a large extent, farmers have learned to do what they are told, rather than to properly understand and integrate what they are doing on their land.
My own view is that Government should become more goal-centred. They need to set the right metrics and to understand what outcomes they are trying to achieve, but then they need to take a step back and allow farmers to farm. Farmers understand their land, and if they have a funding model that supports environmental excellence and other public goods—restoration of soil health and so on—they can work out ways to do that. I would hate to see a situation where there is a continuing prescriptive approach, but it is focused on the environment rather than on how to produce cattle, and we end up with farmers still not really understanding what they are doing and simply farming the subsidy.
We need ownership of change, and farmers can do that. Farmers understand their land; they know their land, and if we give them the freedom to work within that public goods model, they will deliver the outcomes. They will step up. They are a standing army out there, ready to do this, and they will step up and do it.
Martin Lines: I have concerns about what the ELM for England would look like, the transition period, and how the funding is going to work. We need more detail about what the future will be, so that the farmers can start changing and adapting now to the model of what is coming. There is some concern, particularly about the transition period. As we go into the new system and payments under the current system tail off, what is going to bridge the lull in the middle, and how do we get farmers to step across to the new system at speed?
Caroline Drummond: I agree. There needs to be the policy documentation, so we can identify what this is going to look like and how the knitting all joins up—there are lots of balls of wool, but what are we trying to knit at the end of the day? Not much has been left out of the Bill, which is really key, but we need to know how it will be interpreted and how the ELMS projects will be carried out. There are a lot of them going on, and we need to know how they will be brought together to demonstrate the delivery against metrics, outcomes and, ultimately, impact. Ultimately, the Government have to deliver against the global and national targets around the sustainable development goals, the Paris agreement, and so on, but the farming sector has the opportunity to support us in demonstrating that we are helping on issues around climate change, biodiversity, soil improvement and those matters.
The Chair
Before bringing in Danny Kruger, I should have told new Members that, when they start questioning—they do not have to do it every time—they should declare any financial interest they have in these areas.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Q
Martin Lines: For many of the tenancies, the price per hectare per area went up, compared with the payment, so they see that as a benefit of owning the land. Many landlords get the payment directly and the farmer has to manage, which disconnects the reward from managing the landscape, so the current system does not benefit the farmer. It challenges cash flow, because as a tenant I am paying rent for six to 12 months before I get it back under the payments system, so there a problem with cash flow, particularly with late payments. There is a big issue with the new system about payment timings. There are huge challenges under the new system.
Under the current system, we know that some landlords are trying to get the stewardship payment, or parts of it, but under the new system, if you are delivering habitat, or pollen and nectar, bits and pieces, you are the farmer doing the work. You should be getting the reward. There will be an increase in capital, and the landlord will be rewarded for capital aspects and other things that are delivered on the landscape.
The Bill should be about encouraging the whole-farm approach of better farm land management and looking at all aspects, not just food production—pollination, flood mitigation, soil health improvement and public access. The farmer’s role is not just about food production; it is about providing goods and services. The definition of a farmer is someone who manages land to deliver goods and services. One of those is food, but many other things can be delivered, and if we move the system, we can be rewarded for those and create a better system.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
ffinlo Costain: I think you are quite right about the key concern that I and other colleagues I have spoken with have. There has to be a whole-farm approach. If public goods are being delivered, it has to be a combination of public goods and we need baseline assessments supporting that around carbon and biodiversity that are whole-farm. From our perspective, it would be horrible if we go through all this work and have all this ambition but end up with a sparing approach, where we have one bit of land put off for sequestration with Sitka spruce, creating the various challenges that that does, another bit for rewilding, and another bit for ever-more intensive food production. It is critically important that we face the challenges of the whole-farm approach. The best and most efficient way to make progress is for every hectare, as far as possible, to deliver good, nutritious food, climate mitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity restoration. A whole-farm approach is absolutely critical, and we would welcome an amendment that crystallises that and makes it clearer in the Bill.
Martin Lines: The only concern is with those who do not engage in the system and choose not to take public goods money. How are they going to be legislated for against the minimum standards?
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Martin Lines: Under the current system we have cross-compliance. With those who choose not to engage in the system, because they want to push for productivity, how is the system going to legislate for and regulate the basic standards? Who is going to be the policeman for the countryside, to raise standards and make sure they are enforced? We have seen many problems already with soil health degradation and other environmental issues that are not being addressed.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Martin Lines: We are not sure who is going to be holding them to account or what kind of standards there are. Nor do we know how those who choose not to engage in the system will be held to account, because you cannot withhold a payment if they are not receiving a public goods payment. We need to make sure that that standards system is in place.
Caroline Drummond: I think there are some nuances, in terms of the “mays” and the “musts”—there should be a bit more “must” in some areas. Whole-farm approaches are absolutely critical. I have been an advocate of the whole-farm approach for the last 30 years, and I think it is absolutely key to making sure that soil management, climate change mitigation and biodiversity, and indeed landscape and cluster-type approaches, are driven in. That is where the ELMS projects will be really vital. A lot of their design is based around land management plans, which I imagine will be whole-farm. A lot of the third tier is proposed to be around cluster groups and landscape scale-type approaches. It goes back to this question of farmers choosing not to be engaged at all, how do we account for that? How do we really drive and match the ELMS within the ambition of the Bill?
Jack Ward: While there is a lot of focus on public money for public goods, making sure that UK agriculture is inherently profitable is hugely important, because no amount of public funding is going to supplement an overall lack of profitability. If in five years’ time we have an inherently unprofitable farming industry for whatever reason, I just do not think there is going to be enough public funding available to make good that shortfall. Alongside public money for public goods, we really have to ensure that basic agriculture can wash its face.
The Chair
Mr Costain, and then we really must move on.
ffinlo Costain: The issue of eligibility for public funds is really critical. What Wales is planning is interesting. It is planning that there will be a requirement for baseline assessments on carbon and biodiversity before farmers are even eligible for the public goods payment. That will take place annually to continue that eligibility. That is a really positive approach, and it is important. Whole-farm, getting the eligibility, making sure of that baseline and continued monitoring of metrics are critical.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Caroline Drummond: I am not too sure. It is interesting that there is a lot about livestock production in here, but a lot of that level of detail will have to come through the policy support, because upland farmers are under a huge amount of pressure. There are discussions around the meat challenges of Veganuary and climate change mitigation, but we should look at what they offer in terms of tourism and capability to manage. For those very sensitive land areas, right through to some of the high-value peat areas, I think there will be the need to get some really good ELM projects to better understand how we can support those farmers. Exeter University is doing a lot of work in this area at the moment to find out how those farmers, as Jack just said, can actually make a profit at the end of the day. There are a lot of social services, public goods, environmental goods, tourism and additionalities that these farmers offer on incredibly tight margins.
Martin Lines: I think there will be movement with payments. As an arable farmer in Cambridgeshire on a large field system, the productivity of my landscape is really good. Most years it is quite a good, profitable system. If you are in the marginal areas—the uplands, in the west country where there is a smaller field-scale system—the public goods should be rewarding you more. I will probably receive less public goods money, but that will be moved, hopefully, across to the uplands and those cherished areas that cannot deliver more productivity, but need to be supported to deliver the public goods and with the landscape delivery stuff. It should be swings and roundabouts, but it should be fair. The detail is not in there and we need to see that transition. It is going to be about the journey if we move from one to the other and give farmers confidence about the future.
ffinlo Costain: I understand your point, Mr Goodwill. There is one farmer we work with in Northumberland with 1,000-odd acres on a sheep farm. When we have run the metrics of looking at his carbon footprint with GWP*—global warming potential “star”—the new accurate way of accounting for methane, which is very different from the way methane was accounted for 18 months ago and was recognised in the Committee on Climate Change land report just a couple of weeks ago, his farm impact is less than the average household of four, which is astonishing. We want to make sure that farm continues to get the funding as well.
We have proposed in the past that an acreage basis for that continuing maintenance of excellence could be a way to go because we need to make sure—exactly as I think you are saying—that we do not just restore biodiversity, we do not just mitigate climate change, but we hold and maintain that excellence afterwards. I hope that, within public goods applications, farmers will be able to make the case that they are continuing to deliver excellence. All farms can be better managed. We never achieve sustainability; it is a journey. However, if farmers can make the case that they are delivering public goods and continuing to deliver that—I would like to hear from Ministers on that—I hope they will continue to be eligible.
Jack Ward: From the fresh produce industry, in terms of sector, I think there is a lot of interest in what the ELMS might offer. Just coming back to the earlier question: until we see the detail it is difficult to make a judgment.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
Martin Lines: If we do not have the rug taken from under our feet: we are told to produce to a standard, but if different standards are allowed to be imported, how can we compete? Our costs are different. If the standard is positive across the platform, we can compete. It may be a different price model, but we can compete with that standard. We should export our environmental footprint. We can bring in produce from around the world to the same standard, so other people’s standards can increase. There is huge risk because if we are told to produce goods to a standard, then yes, there needs to be something in the Bill or an assessment of the amount of stuff allowed in that is below our standards. We already allow in a lot of products below our standards. We are not allowed to use neonicotinoid treatments or genetically modified processes in the UK, but we import huge quantities. So there needs to be that sort of balance. I would struggle to say none, but there needs to be balance and fairness for the whole farming industry.
Caroline Drummond: It would be fair to say they are extremely concerned, and I think the majority of farmers are very concerned about not undercutting the capability and the investment that they have made. We are very fortunate. We work with a lot of can-do farmers who have made a huge investment in making sure they reach the level of trying to be more sustainable; trying to ensure that welfare standards are meeting and going beyond the regulation; and driving for new innovation and ways of improving and doing things. As Martin has said, offshoring the environmental and animal welfare delivery and the learnings we have made from those practices that are just not acceptable—not only to our farmers but to our customers—is not good news. There is a double whammy because although many countries say they do not support their farmers, they do in many different ways. That will be through investments and free advice. You just have to go on to the United States Department of Agriculture website to see the substantial amount of money that is going to support marketing, drainage schemes, flood alleviation, irrigation and so on. We need to be very careful. There is that second hit of not only importing produce that potentially does not meet the standards or requirements of our farmers, but in addition to that is also being supported through different ways.
Jack Ward: In the fresh produce industry, we already import from about 90 countries, so there is a fair degree of free trade within fresh produce. I think the areas that would concern our growers are particularly around production systems that would be unlawful in the UK. That is particularly around crop protection and labour welfare standards. Those are two very key areas for the sector.
ffinlo Costain: I think it is terribly important, exactly as everybody else has said, but there are two sides to this particular coin. I understand, hear and welcome what Ministers have said repeatedly, that standards will not be lowered and that trade deals will not allow that to happen but, in terms of farmer and public confidence, it needs to be written in the Bill. I think it is really important that it is there.
I think that partly because of the impact that it could have on food, but also because of the impact it has on the industry that grows up around excellence: the marketing, the branding, the new technology, which Britain can become excellent and fantastic in. Associated with that—the other side of it—is what does brand GB look like? What are we exporting?
The opportunity here is to get something right in Britain, to do something excellent in terms of food production and the environment, and to export that knowledge and those brands and that technology around the world. When I look at Ireland, with Origin Green, it is the only example that exists of a national scheme of metrics. In Ireland, it is only around carbon; it does not yet incorporate GWP*, so it is flawed. It does not include biodiversity.
There is an opportunity for Britain when we get the metrics right, when we are collecting these at a national level, which also, by the way, means that we can better inform policy making in future, that this can underpin the British brand. If we allow food in that is undercutting our standards, it undermines our brand. It not only undermines our farmers, but the industry as a whole.
Caroline Drummond: We operate a global standard with LEAF marque; 40% of UK fruit and veg is LEAF marque certified. The fresh produce and the farmers that we work with on a global scale are meeting the same requirements demanded of our farmers in this country.
The Chair
We are now halfway through the evidence session. I have lots of colleagues who want to ask questions and I want to ensure that they are all called.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Q
Martin Lines: It would be a mixture of both. Many of the tenancies that are currently written are too short, with many of three to five years, because of the uncertainty ahead. They would be rewritten and reframed. The person doing the job— the work, the delivery of those public goods—should receive the income.
If it is about land, natural capital and something infrastructure-wise of trees, the landowner may get some of that. If it is about the delivery of habitat and flood mitigation, so that you are losing crop yield or change of land use, the tenant can manage some of that. It will be a redefining, but I think the industry will cope with it. We just need the timeframe for how we deliver it.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Caroline Drummond: I think potentially farmers will walk away from supporting them ultimately, if the marketplace is not delivering against the requirements expected of the imported produce and farmers are increasingly required to deliver against goods that are costing them from a business perspective. That is one of the big dangers. A bigger issue is offshoring, and the fact that we have nine years to deliver against the sustainable development goals. We have the Paris agreements. We have a fantastic opportunity with the conference of the parties talks on climate change being held in this country later this year to herald our ambitions for delivering and demonstrating leadership in environmental delivery and in climate change mitigation delivery.
We might think we can compete on a global level in terms of a huge productivity market, but actually we are just small producers on a global scale. Our real opportunity lies in being the best at what we do. We already have such a good background: despite all the criticism that farmers get for delivering or not delivering against the environment, they have been hugely committed since 2001, after foot and mouth, through entry level stewardship and higher level stewardship agreements, to deliver vast changes and improvements, with strong ownership in how farmers are farming in this country. It would be a real shame to lose that. The Bill is an opportunity to build on that backbone and to place our farmers in a position whereby we continue to be world leading, but with more focused ambition and strong clarity on what we deliver from an environmental perspective.
Jack Ward: In terms of delivering environmental outcomes, we are looking at a balance between a farmer or grower’s own investment and public money. If you start to cut away at the farmer’s ability to invest as an individual, you lose an important part of the funding that will deliver the overall environmental improvements that you are looking for.
ffinlo Costain: I think the future for UK farmers has to be in quality. Volume production will increasingly become a mug’s game. I would not advise farmers to go into it. It should be about environmental excellence, animal welfare excellence and sustainability excellence. The danger is that if it comes into the country, some customers—perhaps quite a lot of customers—will buy it. That is where the undermining happens: it undermines our ability to develop that comprehensive basis for environmental excellence, and it will challenge emerging supply chains in particular. Part of our big challenge over the next 10 years is to shorten supply chains and to make sure that farmers are better able to claim decent farm-gate prices by selling direct or through many fewer cogs before they reach the customer. I worry about those smaller and emerging supply chains being undermined.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
How do you assess that the security of food supply will be improved by the Bill? What do you see as the UK’s greatest threat to food security?
Martin Lines: Food security can only come from healthy soil and a healthy environment. If we over-produce from our soils, we degrade them and there will be no food security for future generations. We need a balance of how we manage our landscape and how much we can produce from that balanced landscape. We can then consider what products we need to import, and whether we need to do other things or change diets or change tjhe system. There needs to be an assessment of how our landscape looks, with a joined-up approach to landscape productivity.
ffinlo Costain: Traditionally, food security has been about volume and about being able to feed everybody. That has led us to the challenges we now face, which Martin just referred to. Food security comes from being able to produce good, nutritious, diverse and seasonally available food. That means we need to restore soil, have good water management, and good community dynamics, with complexity returned to our swards and landscapes where nature works with farmers to produce that food.
Looking forward 40 years to how society could break down as a result of climate change and biodiversity loss, food is the critical factor. If you look around the world at conflicts, including Syria, food is the critical factor that creates conflict. The way that we deliver national security is not by producing volume, but by ensuring that every hectare of our land can produce really good food, and by maintaining the rural economies and the ability of farmers to farm that land. That is why it is critical that we do not go down the route of sequestration here, wilding there, and food here. We need to be able to build broad diversity so that we have national food security in the future.
Caroline Drummond: There is often a lot of confusion around food security. There is the issue of our capability to grow, and having the infrastructure to support farmers with seed, fertiliser, tractor tyres, and investment in that area. There is the issue of what we actually mean by self-sufficiency, how we build our targets, and whether we are ambitious enough. There is food safety. We have some concerns about imported produce in terms of food safety challenges. That has been well heralded. There is also the issue of food defence—our capability to trade confidently, and to have the opportunity to receive food where we do not have self-sufficiency or sufficient produce.
It is a highly complex area. I think it is one area in the Bill where we would report every five years. Perhaps that could be amended to reporting every year, because it is so important.
Jack Ward: In the fresh produce industry, we are very dependent on imports to meet our needs. Arguably, it is the one area of food production where we want to increase consumption. Ultimately, the ability to increase our food security is down to grower confidence, and a willingness by growers to keep investing, and the returns that they can generate from that activity. The last six months have not done great things for grower confidence.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Martin Lines: If I am producing wheat, I can increase my yield by putting more products on, but that has a higher environmental risk, because a lot of those nitrates and products will leave the soil, because the crop has not used them in some years. If we hit the sweet spot with the productivity of our landscape, we can produce what the landscape can cope with, and push it some years, when needed, as well as ease off. It is about finding the balance point. We know from many livestock farmers that reducing livestock numbers actually makes them healthier, better animals, and they produce quicker because there are fewer there and the grass is better.
We have focused for so long just on yield and output, not profitability. Reducing my overall output gives me more profit at the end of the day. It is a funny way to look at how it works, but you end up spending more than you get in return. You chase the extra yield by spending more money. We need to find the place where we deliver as much as we can. Sometimes we can push that if we need to—if there are weather challenges, or other issues—but we should not be out there just to push it, doing environmental damage as a consequence of my farming operations.
ffinlo Costain: The most intensive food systems are environmentally damaging. They are damaging in terms of farm animal welfare, and often just in terms of the jobs that are provided for people, which are not pleasant. The death knell needs to be rung for those sorts of farms.
There is an assumption that with environmental excellence, because of our association with going from mainstream to organic, comes a reduction in yield. There does not need to be a reduction. There are so many examples, here and around the world—Martin being one—of regenerative agriculture, which is giving environmental excellence and social excellence. Farm animal welfare is not an issue on his farm, but elsewhere there are regenerative beef and cattle systems where yield is being maintained in terms of mainstream amounts, and even increased.
There is an assumption that high environmental standards mean a reduction in yield; that is not necessarily the case. It is not just about looking at volume; it is about looking at a whole range of different changes. We need a dietary shift in Britain. That does not mean no meat and dairy, but it probably does mean a bit less meat and dairy as we go forward, and a bit more fruit and vegetables. We can deliver that, with agroforestry approaches and regenerative approaches. We can more than sufficiently provide food for the people of this country—I have no doubt about that—but it will mean changes in diet, and a little bit of change in the way that we farm, at the same time as focusing on multiple outcomes, rather than simply the outcome of producing lots of food. It is food, climate and biodiversity.
Caroline Drummond: We have a tremendous amount of evidence and case studies to demonstrate the importance of integrated farm management practices and how farmers have increasingly adopted them, in terms of economic viability, good performance and optimising the capability of the land. That is a really strong driver. One of the big keys will be how we link the Agriculture Bill with the Environment Bill and the national food strategy—this is such an opportunity for really trying to work out what it is that we want to develop and to balance and to build in what we grow, how we grow it and how we improve the health of our nation as well.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Q
ffinlo Costain: My hope is that we would see growth in all of those areas. In order to have farming excellence we need to have working farms. In the future, there may be fewer farmers spending their days on tractors, but there will be more farmers doing more high-value jobs and more marketing within the countryside. If we look at cattle and shortening supply chains, we ought to be supporting—we can through the Bill—new infrastructure, such as local abattoirs and co-operatively owned abattoirs. That creates new jobs and infrastructure within the countryside, which can then be sold with the marketing and branding jobs that go along with that. I want to see good-quality jobs, not just jobs, and there is the opportunity here, if we get it right, to create good-quality jobs, and more of them.
Caroline Drummond: Maybe I missed it, but I do not know whether the Bill itself would be the driver for more people to say, “Yay, I want to go into agriculture.” There is an opportunity to go into agriculture, with exciting innovations and technology, and the fact that we touch each of the five senses, which no other industry does. We do a lot of education programmes at LEAF. We run Open Farm Sunday. From that point of view, it is about getting more people more connected with their food. Some of the supporting information around things like the national food strategy and the 25-year environment plan have to help to support and drive enthusiasm—have to help to inspire a younger generation to recognise that the food sector, the farming sector and its associated industries are really fantastic. We have fewer young people coming through and we just have to compete a little bit harder than every other industry.
Jack Ward: There will be more competition for labour, and trying to attract people into the industry will be more difficult. Certainly, within our sector there will be a big drive towards automation to take labour out of the equation, because it will be harder to come by. As earlier speakers have alluded to, as a consequence we will see higher-value jobs. We will see more technologists and more people designing and managing systems, rather than doing some of the manual work that we have seen them do over the past 25 years.
The Chair
We have 15 minutes left and at least five colleagues want to ask questions. I call Kerry McCarthy.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
ffinlo Costain: The first thing that needs to happen is that the metrics need to be right. At the moment, the Government are still wedded to GWP100—global warming potential over 100 years—which is focused on emissions, rather than warming from emissions. That is critical, because it really changes the role of cattle and sheep.
Oxford Martin brought out science by Professor Myles Allen, who was an author on the IPCC’s 1.5° C report. We now have an accurate metric for accounting for methane, and it changes things. By and large, the warming impact of cattle and sheep farms will be about 75% down in terms of methane. If we focus on emissions, it drives very different actions. If we focus on warming, we see that cattle and sheep on grazing land that is really well managed, ideally in a regenerative way, can contribute to the climate mitigation, climate adaptation and biodiversity that we are all talking about.
Before we start talking about hard targets, we need to make sure that those metrics are there, because at the moment, farmers are being undermined because they do not trust the metrics. That is critical. The Government clearly have ambitions and goals for net zero elsewhere. Farmers are working towards their own goals. We are working with farmers in Northumberland who control most of the national park there. They are committed to net zero by 2030. We can deliver it rapidly when we get the metrics right.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Q
Martin Lines: Yes, there is a risk. It is not clear how that regulatory authority and the baseline will work, who will police it, and how that will be transferred across the four nations. If you are farming either side of a border, will you have two different standards? How will you compete with those together?
A lot of what is in the Bill is focused on England. We are waiting for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland to develop their plans. It is about how we link it together, not race away with just England, because if you are farming both sides of the border, move from one side to the other, or move products from one side to the other, you will have real complications. We do not see that journey of who is going to manage that regulatory authority and baseline.
Jack Ward: If I may chip in on producer organisations, it would be helpful if we could have commonality within producer organisations, and not have one system in Scotland, another in Northern Ireland and another in England.
ffinlo Costain: This touches on non-regression from EU rules, which is really important. I would feel more comfortable if it were stated that there was going to be non-regression on standards.
Regulations are a safety net; they are there so that nobody goes below them. I want farmers to go above them, to tell customers about how they are going above them and delivering, and to brand around that. Theoretically, it should not be an issue, if farmers are going above, stepping beyond, managing to deliver what Kerry was talking about with net zero at an earlier stage, and telling customers about that. The fact that there is a safety net there, and that there may be a bit of divergence between different nations, is less important than the fact that people are going beyond it and they are making money because they are telling customers about it and customers are buying it.
Caroline Drummond: Ultimately, there is the opportunity to create a new governance, in terms of how the Government work with the industry and non-governmental organisations through to farmers and landowners. Some of the reporting that came out of Dame Glenys Stacey’s report demonstrated that there may be new ways for us to make it move forwards effectively.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q
Caroline Drummond: Potentially, that all goes back to the metrics, and what we are looking to ultimately deliver. The Environment Bill has set out some of the requirements in that area, although that obviously goes beyond farming as well. The 25-year environment plan also covers that area. We have seen, through things like the sustainable development goals and all our global commitments, that there are some really good opportunities to align our ambition here in the UK with delivering against some of those areas. It all depends on how ELMS are going to be managed and developed, but this is where some good environmental performance metrics and targets are starting to come through—hopefully from some of the targets that farmers are setting and working with Government on in a particular area.
ffinlo Costain: There are two aspects to your question. The first is what those measures are. As many Members here and Ministers know, we have been working very closely with Government, particularly on the farm animal welfare metrics and how those relate to the environment. That is critical; what those metrics are is really important, and Government needs to start collecting those.
Then there is the question of the mechanisms—who collects those metrics, and how. From that perspective, Government could work much more closely with assurance schemes to make sure that the metrics that they are collecting are good proxies for what Government wants, and that the new metrics that the Government are looking at are then embedded within those assurance schemes, so that assurance schemes that are already going on farm can do that metrics collection. Then farmers can sign to say that they are happy for some of those metrics to be self-reported. For example, RSPCA Assured may be collecting 500 metrics, perhaps in terms of pigs or sheep, but Government does not want all of those. There are perhaps 15 key ones that Government wants, and farmers need to tick a box to say that they are happy for those to be self-reported, perhaps through the assurance schemes. So there is what the metrics are, and the mechanisms for collection.
Caroline Drummond: We have already earned recognition with the Environment Agency, Red Tractor and LEAF Marque, in terms of helping support that relationship.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
Q
Martin Lines: We need guaranteed long-term funding or the ambition to deliver it. On a five-year rolling plan, I am planning eight or 10-year rotations in farm planning. If you are taking on tenancies for longer than that, the business risk is huge. It is about that long-term development. In the transition that we are going to have from one system to the other, we need to be clear and transparent about how that will fit and how we can move. It has become clearer that if we can enter into a stewardship agreement now, we will be able to move into the ELMS when it becomes available, before the end of the period. It is about how we are flexible within those schemes. The current system has been delayed payments, with a nightmare bureaucracy. It has over-measured and over-regulated, and there has been no trust in the farmer to deliver. We need to build that into the new scheme, and build trust with farmers to work to that system.
ffinlo Costain: Countryside stewardship has been very input-focused. Often farmers have done something because there is a box to tick—because they are getting paid for x, rather than because it necessarily delivers the outcome. I think that is what Martin was alluding to. It is not the most successful scheme. There is this five-year transition, where the basic payments are going out. In that time, it is for farmers to step up and understand how to deliver these outcomes, and to develop, either individually or across landscapes, proposals that deliver those public goods. So long as we are focused on outcomes rather than inputs, we will make progress. Farmers should be absolutely at the forefront of that.
Caroline Drummond: A little bit more security and clarity in the timescale is really important. Obviously, farmers do not make decisions today for tomorrow; many decisions are made three or four years in advance. Many crops are grown for nine or 10 months—for livestock, it is a longer time span—before you get any level of return. That timescale is at the moment not 100% clear, because decisions could be made at the very last minute. That is a big concern.
We must not forget that although a lot of the stewardship has not been ideal, for every pound that farmers get from support mechanisms they are delivering so much more from an environmental perspective, because it is good for their business and because, obviously, they fundamentally believe it. We do need to build confidence that the system will work, and that farmers really want to adopt it. We are involved in some of the trials for the ELMS project, and it is really encouraging to see farmers very much embracing it and saying, “Yeah, we want to be involved.”
ffinlo Costain: I said earlier that land use—the way we farm—is the golden ticket for getting us out of the challenges we face and continuing to support food production. I want to give you a couple of statistics. Funding for agriculture is £3.1 billion, but that is tiny in terms of Government expenditure. For every citizen in Britain, we are paying less than £1 per week to farmers for all the good work they do, which we have been talking about. Compare that with £42 per citizen per week for the NHS. Just administrating central Government is £3.57 a week per citizen, so farming is getting very little.
In terms of managing the transition and making sure that farmers can deliver, somebody has to say it: farmers should be getting more because they are doing such a good job. In the future we will be expecting so much more, and I would like the budget to increase.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Q
Jack Ward: I think the two are largely unrelated. One is an income issue, and there is a separate farming issue. Conflating the two is a problem because the food we produce is often not leaving the farm at a sustainable price, and the opportunity to drive that price down is very limited.
Martin Lines: We need clear transparency within the supply chains, and parts of the Bill address that. Who is getting the benefit out of the produce? Farmers are selling at a gate price that is way lower than the retail price, so who benefits? How can we join up the supply chains to shorten them and give farmers the opportunity to market more directly? There will be lots of exciting technologies and systems that may be able to do that, but it is about incentivising that opportunity.
ffinlo Costain: I think you have highlighted a real challenge, and I am not quite sure how we address it within the Bill. We do not want to see farmers in Britain uniformly producing high-quality produce that just fuels middle-class meals and those of affluent people. We need to recognise that an awful lot of people live in poverty or relatively close to poverty, and we need to be able to feed those people as well. But I do not think that we do that just by continuing with the model that we currently have, which involves ever more intensive volume production and low-nutrition food. We need good food. That is about the supply chain. As Martin said, it is about how we connect people who are living in more disadvantaged areas, with food. Often, if you are buying directly—if you are buying food and making meals yourself—it is a hell of a lot cheaper than living on Pot Noodle or whatever else.
Caroline Drummond: One of the scary facts is that 50.8% of the food we eat in this country is ultra-processed; in France, it is 14%. We do not know about the sustainability of highly processed food, and we often do not know its country of origin. This is where the national food strategy is such a core part of trying to understand what our ambition is for the health and the connection of what we grow. It is out of kilter at the moment and in a very difficult place.
Going back to Jack’s comment, the Bill is about trying to drive the ambition for a highly productive, responsible and sustainable farming system. We need to be very careful. There is often confusion. Poverty is a social issue, rather than necessarily an issue that farmers can respond to, and we need to be very careful that, as an industry, we are not subsidising the social challenge of poverty.
Nadia Whittome
Q
ffinlo Costain: Funding of infrastructure, which is partly in the Bill. It is perhaps about broadening the definition of “infrastructure”. In the same way that people ought to be able to apply for funding to put up the local abattoir that will make a big difference to the farmers, the land that they are presenting, the prices that they are getting and their ability to sell directly to the public locally, you are perhaps right to say that there needs to be support for those sorts of schemes as well.
Caroline Drummond: Interestingly, food productivity is mentioned in here. One would hope that that is going to be the link in terms of trying to define what the national food strategy looks like, because—
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of this session, but on behalf of the Committee, many thanks to our witnesses. You gave us invaluable information. Thank you very much indeed.
Examination of Witnesses
Thomas Lancaster, John Cross, Simon Hall, Christopher Price and David Bowles gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Thomas Lancaster: My name is Tom Lancaster. I am the acting head of land, seas and climate policy at the RSPB, so I oversee our work on the Agriculture Bill, but also lots of our work on forestry, climate change, marine policy and similar issues.
Simon Hall: I am Simon Hall. I am the managing director of Livestock Information Ltd, which is a very new company, set up on 1 October, with a remit to design and implement a new multi-species livestock traceability service in England, but also to potentially provide some UK capabilities. Just so you know my background, I am on secondment into this role from DEFRA, so I am substantively a civil servant, but on secondment for the next two years to deliver this programme.
John Cross: I am John Cross. My roots are in farming, and I still have a farming business. For the past three years, I have chaired a pan-industry and Government design working group that has worked with Simon to co-create the new traceability system that will be delivered by LI Ltd. For the sake of openness, I should say that I have just been appointed as chair of that company, so I will be working with Simon, who is the managing director.
Christopher Price: My name is Christopher Price. I am chief executive of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, an organisation that exists to promote and conserve the use of native breed livestock.
David Bowles: I am David Bowles. I am the assistant director of public affairs at the RSPCA. The RSPCA writes the standards for RSPCA Assured, which is the UK’s only higher welfare assurance scheme.
The Chair
I know that at least one of you has given evidence to these sessions before—maybe two or three of you—but please enjoy the session, which runs until 11.25 am.
George Eustice
Q
Christopher Price: I speak particularly on behalf of native breeds, rather than livestock generally, but I think that promoting our native breeds is hugely important. Dealing with economics first of all, you have pointed to the uplands as an area where it is harder to grow crops and where people therefore keep livestock, but that does not rule out having livestock elsewhere. If we have the right sort of livestock, grazed at the right density and in the right place, we are providing environmental benefits because we are creating the sorts of habitats we want. We are keeping down import costs—that helps the climate—which reduce farm incomes. There is a business and an environmental side to livestock, which are an important landscape feature as well. There is something exciting about seeing interesting animals wandering around our farms. It all helps towards tourism, and a sense of place and location. There are huge arguments to support increased livestock use.
John Cross: I speak as a mixed arable and livestock farmer, as opposed to my involvement with Livestock Information. There is absolutely no doubt that the combination of livestock on arable land has a profound effect. It is something that I would encourage the whole industry to look at, because as soon as you start to improve the organic matter levels, the vibrancy and the life within the soil, you realise the benefits that come with drought resistance and inherent fertility. In particular, if you involve a blend of, say, pigs and ruminants on arable land, you also have a profound effect on the birdlife that then decides to come to live on that farm. It is something that I believe in passionately, and it works, but certainly—as I heard referred to in the earlier session this morning—you have to be mindful of stocking densities. In particular, it is a matter of making good use of grazing legumes, which we are pioneering. It is a valuable mission that the Bill mentions, because we need more organic matter in arable land.
David Bowles: Just picking up on that point, I have been working on CAP issues for 20 years, and this is the first time that we have had the opportunity to get animal welfare into the new farm support system. We have only ever had one animal welfare scheme in the last 20 years, which was in Scotland, so it is really important that we start to get animal welfare payments into the system and, particularly on the stocking point, make sure that farmers are paid to go higher than the welfare standards they have at the moment. I think you will get win-win situations, with benefits to animal welfare, benefits to the environment, benefits to rare breeds, et cetera.
Thomas Lancaster: The RSPB is a big landowner and farmer—we have 30,000 livestock across our estate. In a lot of cases, those livestock are essential to the public goods that we deliver, particularly the high nature value farming systems that, again, have been a key feature of many CAP schemes in the past. We want to see future schemes in England supporting those high nature value farming systems. Extensive livestock production will be a key feature of those systems in future and is important in supporting species such as curlew and other breeding waders, or habitats such as upland hay meadows.
John’s point about densities is absolutely right, because overgrazing is a major problem for a lot of our designated sites and habitats. The opportunity we have in the Agriculture Bill, and with environmental land management schemes specifically, is to support farmers to find that optimum balance, which Martin Lines talked about a lot in the previous session and which can go hand in hand with a more profitable livestock farming system as well.
George Eustice
Q
David Bowles: There are huge opportunities. We have only ever had one scheme in the UK, but we have had something like 52 schemes over the 28 EU member states. The RSPCA Assured scheme is very successful in certain areas, such as laying hens, where we probably have 55% of production, but it is very unsuccessful in other areas, such as sheep, beef, dairy and even chickens, which are all sectors where we have under 5% and in some areas under 1%. The market is therefore not delivering the higher welfare assurance schemes that we want in that particular market.
That is the exciting thing about the Bill, because it will provide the opportunity to give farmers a leg up through, for example, one-off capital grants, and then provide them with payments to ensure that, where the market does not deliver, they can deliver those higher welfare schemes. The RSPCA is very happy that the Bill provides for that two-step process. We think there are very exciting times here for farmers, particularly in those areas where we have not traditionally gone into higher welfare schemes. For instance, at the moment, 0% of ducks in the UK have access to full-body water. The expression “taking a duck to water” does not exist for UK duck farming. That is a tragedy, not just for ducks, but for UK farming.
Simon Hall: There are undoubtedly opportunities in the marketplace if we can evidence welfare standards, provenance, and so on. The Livestock Information programme will put in place a new multi-species traceability service that brings together data based on animals, keepership—the people who have been responsible for the animal throughout its life—and location, the farm where it is based. The whole proposition of the programme that we are delivering is about using that data not only to better inform Government responses to animal disease control and ensuring food safety, but to enable the industry to take advantage of that data to evidence its standards and demonstrate to its consumers, domestically or internationally, the standards to that livestock is produced, the provenance of the animals and so on in real data. Working in partnership with Government and industry, there is an opportunity to set out our stall in a world-leading manner.
Christopher Price: To build on what has been said, an important aspect of the Livestock Information service—if it goes as far as I hope it does—is that it will give greater recognition to individual breeds. It will make it clear that what you are buying is a saddleback or whatever. At the moment, it is very difficult for the consumer to know that what he or she is buying is what the butcher or supermarket purports it to be, or to know when they use nebulous language to imply that it has a particular provenance. If we can get to a system whereby people are promoting particular breeds associated with a particular area, we will do well to create a much stronger sense of place and local identity, which will help with creating new markets.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
David Bowles: For the RSPCA, this is probably the biggest omission in the Bill. The Government have resisted putting anything in the Bill that says that we will not import produce or food to lower standards than those of the UK. I cannot see why they have resisted that. The Secretary of State said, “Trust me, because it’s in the manifesto.” Frankly, I do not think that is good enough. Last year the Government tabled their own amendment to the Trade Bill that said exactly that. I hope they do the same here, because if they do not, they will leave British farmers who are producing to those higher welfare standards open to US imports.
For instance, 55% of the pork meat and bacon that we eat is imported. Virtually all that comes from the EU. If you start importing that from the USA, where they still have sow stalls, where they still give their pigs ractopamine, which is an illegal drug in UK pig farming, you are opening up to cheaper imports coming in, particularly if you do not have consumer information and labelling. I am pleased that labelling is in the Agriculture Bill, but this needs to be part of a matrix. You need to have the same standards for food coming in. The RSPCA is not afraid of higher welfare food coming in. What we are afraid of is food coming in that is illegal to produce in the UK.
Christopher Price: I agree with everything that has been said, but I think we need to be careful about putting too much trust in labelling. I cannot see that people are going to make many purchasing decisions on the basis of labelling. Something like less than 5% of decisions nowadays are based on labelling, which includes all the various organic and assurance schemes. This has to be dealt with by legislation and regulation. You cannot leave it to consumer good will in the supermarket.
Thomas Lancaster: I agree with all that. We worked very closely with the NFU to co-ordinate that letter. We view assurance around import standards as a foundational element of the whole future farming policy and as really important to farmers’ ability to invest in public goods schemes with confidence.
The letter not only touched on a defensive ask, but pushed a more aspirational agenda around a role for the UK to set out a world-leading trade policy that takes account of societal demands such as climate change, biodiversity and all those sorts of issues, which are not reflected in modern international trade policy, and certainly not at the World Trade Organisation.
This is often reported as: “We want protection.” Actually, as David said, we want to be able to compete on common standards. No UK farmers are calling for protectionism for its own sake, but there is an opportunity to call for a more sustainable trade policy that has a bit more imagination regarding how we can fight the climate and environment emergency, while embarking upon a new international trade policy, as we now will.
John Cross: It has been very well addressed already, but briefly, if society is sincere about animal welfare and is aspirational—which it should be—then it should not look for one set of standards domestically and, to a certain extent, export its conscience and accept lower standards from elsewhere. You should be consistent in your attitude to animals.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Q
David Bowles: Yes; the RSPCA, as I said earlier, is delighted that for the first time we have the opportunity to provide financial assistance to farmers. One of the things that is missing from the Bill—it says it in the explanatory notes, but it is not explicit—is that financial assistance should be given only to those above baseline standards. We had a system where farmers could have been paid even if they were doing things that were illegal. I do not want to replicate that in the new farm support system.
There are a lot of things that we would like the Government to introduce to give farmers a leg up—for instance, providing brushes for cattle, hoof-trimming for cattle to reduce lameness, rubber matting for cattle to give farmers a leg up to farm at higher welfare standards, and then giving them the opportunity to get money that is not provided by the marketplace, which is the difference between farming at higher welfare and what the marketplace delivers.
There is a whole range and suite of issues that could be gathered. The RSPCA is delighted that the Government are looking at them seriously, and we hope that some can be trialled in the next year.
Christopher Price: There are two aspects to your question. The first is whether we have got the regulations right in the first place. Although we might have the right standards, I think that most people on our side of the table would hope that Dame Glenys Stacey’s report is implemented, if not in full, then to a large extent. It might be useful to expand a bit on that in a moment.
In terms of paying for meeting regulatory standards per se, I think this is something that applies throughout. Farming will go through the most immense structural change over the next four or five years, as we move to an unsubsidised, more market-facing world. There will be an incredible variety of costs for people as a result. I do not think that there is anything untoward about the Government helping people to make that transition over the short term. I am talking about significant short-term capital expenditure on the Government’s part, to get the industry match-fit—not only in terms of welfare, but in terms of having the right business processes and practices in place. After that, you can say, “Now you’re on your own. We’ve helped you to get up to the standard that we expected of you. Now it’s for the market to support you going forward.”
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Q
Christopher Price: Most legislation nowadays gives powers not duties. There is nothing unusual about the Agriculture Bill in that regard. The Bill is about the tool used to implement the policy; it is not the policy in itself. It would be useful to have the Government’s policy, to know what they are going to try to implement.
Having said all that, we are talking about some really quite complicated stuff. Food production, which is fundamental to our existence, is all based on natural processes that are really complicated. We are going through huge structural changes and as a country we have not been great at managing structural change. Bearing all that in mind, it is important that Government have a full range of tools to do as they see fit, in consultation with stakeholders. I would hate the idea that, for reasons of legislative propriety or whatever, we ended up constraining Government so much that they could not do things that, in a few months’ time, we might decide are absolutely essential.
Thomas Lancaster: We are very sympathetic to having more duties to balance the range of powers. A report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee the last time the Bill was in Parliament was quite scathing on that point. Clauses 4 to 6 are a positive step in setting out strategic objectives and they come with a range of duties on Ministers to have multi-annual financial plans, set objectives for those and have regard to those objectives when setting the budget for those plans. That is a big step forward in this Bill on the duties-not-powers point.
We would like to see a duty in the Bill to have an environment and land management scheme. At the moment, it is a legal requirement under CAP-funded rural development programmes to have an agri-environment scheme—you cannot not have one anywhere across the UK. We want to see that duty replicated in the Bill.
It would be interesting to look at other areas in the Bill as well. There are lots of powers in the Bill around fair dealing provisions and supply chain transparency, but there are no duties on Ministers to use those to improve supply chain transparency. That is another area where you could include a duty to clarify how those powers were going to be used and that they were going to be used.
David Bowles: Clause 1(1) says:
“The Secretary of State may give”—
and then it lists the public goods. We would like to see a “must”, and the RSPCA would like to see that too. The Secretary of State would still be applying the letter of the law if £1 went to animal welfare in the next five-year period. We would like to see some minimum payments under those particular public goods.
Fay Jones
Q
John Cross: I had quite a lengthy history in the levy sector. The complexity around this issue is really quite deep, because it depends on where the benefit of the levy investment is secured, where the products derived from the industry are consumed and where the supported supply chains sit. As for the desire to capture and formalise a more even-handed distribution back to the devolved regions: from what I have seen of it, it does do enough. We live in a very complex domestic market; 50% of Scottish beef production is consumed within the M25. That illustrates how complex the mix is. The red meat levy is designed—yes, funded by farmers and processors—to make the best of a supply chain and to deliver business enhancement throughout for the good of consumers and producers. It is quite a complex issue and it is not just as simple as three separate lots of industry all wanting to do their own thing in isolation, because they are all interdependent.
Deidre Brock
Q
John Cross: I will leave some of the technical detail to Simon, but in principle, this is how we arrived where we are now. Yes, we have established traceability systems in this country and they work but, as we speak, they still tend to be a blend of paper and digital—sometimes both at the same time. They work but they are high-maintenance. They are sub-optimal and they take a lot of resource to keep them going. They were, of course, designed to hoard data on behalf of statutory obligations, as opposed to share data, so the design principle needed to be completely different.
I think it is fair to say that Government was faced with the reality of having to achieve an IT refresh at some stage, with some fairly urgent timescales. For a long time, industry has wanted to have the benefit of the use of its own data. Data was being collected about the industry, but the industry could not use it to enhance itself.
We came to a moment after the referendum where the industry and Government were faced with a series of scenarios that required them to think differently and start to think together—this is where the principle of co-creation came in—right across DEFRA and all its dependencies, the Food Standards Agency, the Rural Payments Agency and the others, and right across the industry to form a think-tank as to how you design, hopefully, the optimum traceability and information system that enables Government to fulfil its statutory obligations, but better and faster, while allowing industry to start adding value to itself with information.
If it is a matter of exploring global markets, you can evidence a brand vastly better. In the global marketplace, traceability is king. In that area, you have huge opportunity. Similarly, from the viewpoint of the industry looking to eradicate non-notifiable endemic production diseases, again, to tackle disease risk you need information—you need data. As soon as you have got a unique identification of any one animal, the information you can attach to that provides almost endless opportunity.
Deidre Brock
Q
John Cross: This is an English system; yes.
Simon Hall: But it is in the context of a UK story. This is quite complex. In the current situation, traceability services are delivered through a bit of a mixed economy in the UK. Northern Ireland has a multi-species service operating there for cattle, sheep and pigs. Scotland has a traceability service for sheep and pigs. Wales has a traceability service for sheep. England operates a GB service for cattle, and we operate a pig service for England and Wales, and a sheep service in England.
So, it’s quite complicated. Then, within that, there is a mix of services and databases that come together to provide a UK view of that traceability data, so that colleagues at the Animal and Plant Health Agency, for example, can use that data to respond to an animal disease outbreak or a food safety concern, or whatever.
We have an ambition in England to create a single multi-species traceability service, or a single service capability, including help desk and so on, a single IT system, underpinned by the ambition to exploit data, not only for the benefit of Government and statutory disease control, but to deliver a range of outcomes externally. In that context, the Scottish Government and Welsh Government have decided to bring the cattle services into their own Administrations, and in the case of Wales, to bring the pig service in-house as well.
We are all moving at the same time to a position that respects devolution, where every Administration will have its own multi-species traceability service. Particularly in the context of cattle, that creates a new requirement to ensure that we have a really good UK view of cattle, recognising that we are disaggregating services that are currently delivered through one service, so we need to ensure that that comes together.
DEFRA has asked Livestock Information Ltd, as part of the process of designing and implementing the traceability service in England, also to ensure that there is a way—a mechanism, a service—to ensure that we have good visibility of that UK data. That approach is supported by UK CVOs and so on.
We are, though, at a very early stage of designing exactly how that would work. So, we do not have a technology strategy yet for exactly how that would work and whether that means that Livestock Information Ltd would have a copy of all the UK traceability data, or whether it is just providing a window into each of the services and each of the Administrations for the Animal and Plant Health Agency to look at, for example.
We have really good relationships with colleagues in each of the UK Administrations and we are having regular dialogue around how this would work and whether there would need to be some specific governance arrangements around the UK view, and so on.
Deidre Brock
Q
Simon Hall: Quite the reverse.
Deidre Brock
As you have elaborated, they already have quite developed traceability schemes
Simon Hall: This is seeing a move to devolve traceability services that comes together seamlessly at a UK level, recognising that disease and food contamination does not respect borders.
Deidre Brock
Q
Simon Hall: There are two questions there. The first is easy: our governance arrangements are that Livestock Information Ltd is a subsidiary of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which is the levy body in England. AHDB is a non-departmental public body of DEFRA, so it is accountable to DEFRA but funded by the levy payer, and therefore responsible to the farmer, grower and processor in England.
For us, the attraction of using AHDB as the parent body for this company is the way in which we can embed the traceability service as close to industry as possible, while retaining the sufficient control needed by Government. That model has already been adopted in Scotland, Wales and further afield, in Australia. Livestock Information Ltd is a company limited by a guarantee; it is a subsidiary of AHDB; it has a 49% ownership stake from DEFRA directly—DEFRA is important, but if it wants to exert control it does so through the levy body.
Deidre Brock
Q
Simon Hall: The business case has been approved; we have funding in place; we have procured IT systems; we have a team of around 50 people delivering; we are working very closely with devolved Administrations, and we are aiming for implementation from the autumn. There is lots to do. There is lots of complexity. The No. 1 thing we must not do when we effect this change is compromise our quality of traceability. If we are not ready, we will delay, but there is no indication that we will need to at the moment. We are planning for implementation from the autumn, starting with cattle, sheep next year and pigs later next year.
John Cross: A parting message: the important thing for us is to be smart and collaborative with the devolved regions, because disease pathogens—whether notifiable or not—and disease outbreaks do not recognise any political boundaries. We have to be smart and have a UK view on disease. If you look around the globe, on the international trade stage we are seen as the UK. It is a UK story if a product goes out, so from the point of view of access, wherever you go internationally, the UK is the recognised body. It is important that we have a smart, collegiate view on this.
Simon Hall: This Agriculture Bill does support the delivery of the programme in the way we set out. In part 4, clause 32 talks about granting additional functions to AHDB that will allow it to deliver that English traceability service through the subsidiary body. It currently has the function to deliver the programme and to design and implement the future service, but not to run it. The Bill provides the functions to do that, and the flexibility to provide any UK functions required, or that are sensible. For example, one might imagine that allocating a unique identity for an individual animal might be something that we choose to do once only in the UK, and we may choose to do it from here or from somewhere else.
The Bill provides the functions that we need to deliver this programme in the way that we want in the future service; it also provides some flexibility, should we work together and decide that we want to carry out some UK responsibilities.
Danny Kruger
Q
My question is on behalf of our producers. The paradox is that everybody complains about the complexity of CAP, and farmers have a tough time filling in the forms. Of course, the principle of CAP is very simple: you just pay for the amount of land that you have. We are proposing to introduce a system with a lot more complex objectives—quite rightly—for all the different public goods. I share Ms Whittome’s point about the opportunity for community-based markets and more locally based producers—more local sourcing. Do we think that those community groups and small farmers will be able to navigate what sounds to an outsider like a very complex set of objectives, and therefore potentially some complex subsidy systems?
John Cross: I can make a comment as a farmer rather than chair of Livestock Information. You make a very good point: we are entering a very different scenario. Some farmers will need considerable help in changing that mindset and getting used to a new environment, because it will require a lot more proactivity from the point of view of seeking rewards for those public goods. It will be a more complex—
Danny Kruger
Q
Thomas Lancaster: Advice is a really important part of the story. We would like to see more clarity from DEFRA as to what advice will be made available to farmers, particularly during that transition period. We also understand that the evidence base around environmental advice is a really good investment. All the evidence, particularly from work commissioned by DEFRA and Natural England, suggests that providing advice to farmers as to how they can meet environmental outcomes and navigate some of the paperwork necessary to access the public money is well worth the investment in terms of the outcomes. We know that outcomes supported by advice are better than outcomes not supported by advice.
We have done some social science research recently on farmers’ experience of those schemes with farmers that we have been working with in south Devon for 30 years on species recovery projects for the cirl bunting. That social science shows really strongly that advice is the key element, not just in getting that environmental outcome but in ensuring that farmers are bought in to the schemes, that they understand the outcomes that they are seeking to deliver, and that they are able to get past some of the bureaucracy, which is an inevitable element of this.
Although direct payments sound simple in concept, you have the eligibility rules, particularly the land eligibility rules; the land parcel identification system; and the fact that you have to measure things to four decimal places. The fact that it is a very poor use of public money and no one really knows what it is for any more, drives a lot of those eligibility rules, because you have to provide some controls around it.
Our experience of the best agri-environment schemes in England, particularly higher level stewardship, is that, supported by advice, they are much more intuitively understandable for farmers—as to why they are receiving that money—than direct payments. Analysis that we have done of Natural England data, which we have not published but will probably publish in the coming months, suggests that payment rates for small farms, on the first 30 hectares or so of agreements, are higher than for larger farms, which is obviously not the case with direct payments. We know that small farms, again when supported by advice, can profit from public goods schemes, given our understanding of higher level stewardship and similar schemes in the past.
Christopher Price: It is important to recognise just how much farming is going to change. It is not just a matter of changing the subsidy rules; it is a much bigger structural change. Farmers will be producing much more to the market, which means that we will have a different type of farmer. We are already starting to see those people—people who do not necessarily come from a farming background, who have made a bit of money doing something more commercial, who are coming to farming with business and marketing skills, and who are making a go of things in a very different way. You will know some of them—Lynbreck Croft, the Good Life Meat Company, Hilltop Farm.
People are already doing it and they have quite a big presence. They think in a different way. It is not just about who can take the biggest beast to the market every week or month. It is about sweating all your assets, so you will be selling the meat, but you will be selling meat with a good provenance, to high welfare standards and with a low environmental impact. If you are savvy, you will be finding markets for the skins, the wool, the horns. It may not be much money per item, but together it starts to create more produce with more of a brand.
If you start thinking in terms of your public goods as well—many farms are starting to—and working out what has a benefit, what you can do to improve your soil or your water quality, what plants you can grow that have biodiversity or climate benefits, and start ticking off those, you can get there. It does not need to be particularly complex. In many ways, although I hear what Tom says about the importance of advice, the way that most farmers learn is from other farmers. It is about encouraging farmers to go and see what their neighbour is doing, and not thinking of their neighbour as being their competitor, but as someone who can be a source of guidance.
So, I do not think we need be worried about complexity. Conceptually, what is being promised is more straight- forward. Of course there will be compliance requirements, but many of us think that a lot of the previous compliance requirements were more to do with EU standardisation across 28 member states rather than being particularly necessary to ensure the efficient use of public money. So, I think we can be optimistic about what is happening.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Thomas Lancaster: We, the Wildlife Trusts and WWF commissioned the report from IEEP, who are independent consultants, to look at a future regulatory framework. Because the Bill includes provisions to move away from cross-compliance, and in particular to delink payments from land, that potentially opens up gaps in aspects of current environmental regulatory protections that exist only in cross-compliance, particularly around soils and hedgerows—for example, cutting of hedgerows during birds’ breeding season and hedgerow buffer strips. We think there is a gap in the Bill in terms of powers necessary for Ministers to bring forward regulatory protections for soils, hedgerows and other environmental features, and we would like to see the Bill amended to plug that gap.
There is a big opportunity coming off Dame Glenys Stacey’s review. The farm inspection and regulation review the Government commissioned reported in 2018. It called for a more comprehensive regulatory framework that enables a more advice-led approach to enforcement, so that, rather than farmers being penalised but not really understanding the underlying issue and therefore not able to address it, the approach would seek to blend penalties with advice and incentives to ensure that you get better environmental outcomes.
There is an existing model of that in the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and its approach. When a breach is detected, there is a visit from an adviser or a member of staff, who says, “You have to address this breach. You can either go and seek advice or invest in infrastructure if necessary.” They come back a second time. If the breach has been addressed, everything is fine; if it is not, they give them a third visit and, if it is still there, then they penalise them. That approach, which Dame Glenys Stacey supported, and we supported at the time, gets better environmental outcomes in a way that farmers also appreciate and can understand, whereas at the moment our regulatory enforcement is very substandard, it is fair to say.
Again, Dame Glenys Stacey found that of 10,600 staff at the Environment Agency, only 40 do farm inspections. As a farmer, you have a one in 200 chance of being inspected by the Environment Agency, and we know that the agency is again cutting back on some of those regulatory compliance visits. There is a huge challenge in the future, not just in how we reward good practice but in how we ensure a level playing field so that the progressive best farmers out there are not undercut by, effectively, cowboys—unfortunately, there are some. The Bill is silent on that, and for us that is one of the biggest gaps and omissions.
John Cross: The only comment I would make—again as a farmer—is that any more regulation would need to be fit for purpose, logical, proportionate and enforceable. Regulation is fine, but unless it is logical so people can understand it, and it is relatively easy to comply with, it is just a source of frustration to everyone. Certainly, the industry is very keen to move towards an outcome-based form of regulation as opposed to constantly arguing about whether a particular margin is six inches too narrow or not. The industry would be interested in seeing a much more outcome-focused approach.
David Bowles: The EU has been moving towards an outcomes approach, but obviously leaving the EU gives us huge opportunities in the animal welfare sectors, such as sheep, beef and dairy, where there are no specific baseline species standards at the moment. There is a real opportunity to introduce those baseline standards, which will help not just the Bill, but in establishing what the baseline is—and then establishing how to move farmers up the scale, through capital inputs or through specific measures, and paying them where the market does not deliver. There are huge opportunities to improve the baseline regulatory standards in those areas where they do not exist now.
Alicia Kearns
Q
Christopher Price: I will take the second part first. Should we be supporting rare breeds? Yes, we should. You probably expected me to say that.
Alicia Kearns
I thought you might, but you never know.
Christopher Price: We should do it, first, for economic reasons. These breeds were bred to be in a British landscape. They can survive in parts of the country that other breeds cannot, or cannot without significant inputs. In many parts of the country, people are farming the wrong animals and are doing so expensively, because they are using certain inputs to support them. We need some help in getting farmers to transition away from the old way of doing things into going back to native breeds.
Native breeds can also provide a wider range of products than many other breeds. I mentioned wools, skins, horns and so on, which all have markets, if people think about it, or are incentivised to start thinking about it rather more. There is a role for Government in that.
Then there is the environmental side of things. The grassland habitats that we so cherish are there because they were grazed by certain animals over generations. If we are going to restore those habitats, the easiest, most straightforward way to do it is by using the animals that created them in the first place.
Lastly, there is the social side. Many of these breeds are part of our history. White Park cows came over Dogger island from mainland Europe before Stonehenge was built. They were part of the Cistercian monks’ currency. Some of the earliest Welsh laws are about how you regulate and use those animals. Herdwick sheep were bred to live on top of hills in the Lake district. Swaledales were bred to be a bit further down the fells. They are an immense part of our culture.
Those are all reasons for supporting them. In terms of how you support them, I would be reluctant for us to go down a simple headage route; I think that would just create the wrong sort of incentives. If a farmer chooses to use native breeds to graze for particular conservation purposes that do not bring him or her a direct financial benefit, that is about the public benefit, which should be rewarded, but it is more about making sure that we have the right infrastructure in place.
There is a lot to do with promoting local produce. We have talked a bit about creating local markets. Some of the more savvy farmers I was talking about are doing an excellent job of that, and part of their brand is selling local breeds and local products from those breeds within a fairly narrow radius—30-odd miles. That is where the premium comes from. It is not for everyone, but people are starting to do it, which is interesting.
Perhaps the single most important thing—we touched on this a bit in the earlier session—is abattoirs. For many of the people that I work for and represent, abattoirs are at least as important an issue as support going forward. We have huge numbers of people who are producing the right animals to the right standards in a very environmentally friendly way. You hear people talking about how their motivation in life is to ensure that their animals have a life worth living and then only one bad day—the day they go to the abattoir—and you have people who want to buy the products, but the whole thing is being stymied in significant parts of the country because there is no abattoir that can cope. If there is an abattoir, it generally will not be able to take the small numbers of non-standard animals and give you back the by-products—the horns, the skins and so on. In many cases, there is no abattoir at all.
If we are talking about short-term Government capital investments, it seems to me that there is a desperate need to invest in pop-up abattoirs or mobile abattoirs. There are practical problems with all of that, but if I could get anything across to the Committee, it would be the need to make sure that we have an abattoir network that is fit for purpose over the next few years, and for the Government to invest in creating that. It does not need to be a long-term investment; once it is there, the market can function and support it, but it is getting us there that matters.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Thomas Lancaster: We have supported in the past, and would still support, a sector-specific target for net zero by 2040, to reflect the ambition of the NFU and others. We would support an amendment to that effect in Committee and beyond. As a statement of intent and clarity on the role that the sector could play in that climate emergency, it is still a really useful thing to look at. We would also stress that, although this is the Agriculture Bill, in the climate change world there is a lot of talk about nature-based solutions such as peatland restoration, coastal habitats and woodland creation, and the Agriculture Bill, particularly through the land management schemes that flow from it, will be the central mechanism for delivering those nature-based solutions and the aims of the Environment Bill.
Thinking about how public money for public goods can support more sustainable food production that is also carbon and climate friendly, it has an important role to play in building soil carbon, potentially supporting minimum tillage systems, cover crops and other land management interventions that build resilience to climate change in the future. We see climate change running through public money for public goods, from farmed and non-farmed landscapes, and the Agriculture Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have had in the past decade or probably will have for decades to come in helping to meet the climate emergency that we all face.
Christopher Price: I would support—
The Chair
I am going to interrupt, because there are two colleagues who have been asking to put questions very quickly, Robert Goodwill and then Virginia Crosbie. Please put your questions to everyone.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Virginia Crosbie
Q
Thomas Lancaster: I will pick up on Robert Goodwill’s question. There is a lot of debate about payment for actions and payment for results. On payment for results, we would see it as the logical thing to pay for the habitat condition, not the number of species or number of birds, because that is not something that is necessarily within the farmer’s control.
There is potentially a role for predator control in future schemes, but there are a lot of steps that need to be gone through before we get to that point, because often predation pressure is a proximate cause, not an ultimate one. The ultimate cause might be forestry providing a reservoir of foxes, crows and other predators on breeding waders on neighbouring moorlands, so removing a block of conifer might be the one thing that you need to do, not investing in very expensive predator control in perpetuity. Getting an understanding of those landscape dynamics is an important part of that question.
Christopher Price: In response to the question about selling farming, to a large extent that is up to the individual farmer. It is the farmer who creates their brand, and you would hope that their brand would focus on all the good things they are doing—high welfare standards, low environmental impact, sense of place, provenance and so on. Many of the new-style farmers that I was talking about are doing that; it is fundamental to them.
Having said that, there is a role for Government at the higher level in “Brand GB”, and one thing we might want to look at is greater use of geographical indicators. There are certain breeds that are associated with Wales that the Government—possibly the Welsh Government, I am not sure—have a role in promoting and helping businesses with.
David Bowles: Just before the clock ticks over, method of production labelling is an opportunity in the Bill to give the consumer that link in to the farmer.
The Chair
I thank our witnesses very much for the time you have spent with us. The Committee is very grateful. If you feel that you were not given time to respond to colleagues’ questions, you can still submit evidence about those answers. The room will be locked, colleagues, and we start again at two o’clock in this room, where Mr Stringer will be in the Chair.
Agriculture Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 11th February 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 February 2020 - (11 Feb 2020)
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Ulster Farmers Union and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Thank you very much for coming today. We have until 2.30 pm for this session. I would be grateful if you introduced yourselves for the record.
Norman Fulton: My name is Norman Fulton. I am deputy secretary within the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for Northern Ireland. I head up the food and farming group within the Department.
Ivor Ferguson: I am Ivor Ferguson, the president of the Ulster Farmers Union. We are an organisation in Northern Ireland with roughly 11,500 members spread across all sectors.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I am sorry, but I wonder if we could ask the witnesses to speak up slightly.
The Chair
The acoustics in this room are appalling, which is nobody’s fault apart from the architect’s. If witnesses and members of the Committee could speak up, we would all be grateful. Thank you.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Q
Norman Fulton: Our motivation in drafting the schedule was to retain options for incoming Ministers—obviously this was done in the absence of an Executive—so we developed it to be able to preserve the ability to continue to make payments to farmers under pillar 1 and to enable us both to continue to deliver schemes under pillar 2, until such a time as Ministers wish to change those measures, and to keep pace with appropriate changes elsewhere in the UK. So it was really to provide that framework for incoming Ministers but not really to set out any particular direction in policy, which is clearly something that Ministers will need to take a lead on. There is some scope for simplification in the powers we propose, but it is really for Ministers to decide which of those powers they might want to move forward on.
In terms of the future direction of policy, we engaged with our major stakeholders from the farming, food and environmental sides, and we produced a draft outline framework for agriculture, which we published for consultation in August 2018, really around the four pillars of resilience, environmental sustainability, productivity and supply chain functionality. It is a very high-level document and it received a good response from our stakeholders. Now that we have a Minister and an Executive in place, we need to work to flesh that out and to start to chart a way forward in the longer term.
Ivor Ferguson: From the farmers’ point of view, we had negotiations with our farmers and discussions on how we would like to see payments going forward. We produced a discussion document. We felt that we were quite happy for farmers to be rewarded for activity, whether that be agricultural production or environmental activity. We were quite happy with that because a large number of farmers were not fully happy with area-based payments, in that they felt that the landlord or people who owned vast areas of land received most of the benefit. Our farmers will be quite happy to have money directed to people who are engaged in activity, be it production or environmental.
Having said that, we would not want to see area-based payments disappear completely. We would like to keep that in the form of a resilience or volatility payment, bearing in mind that we have a land border with the Republic of Ireland where they will still receive land-based payments. We could not be disadvantaged in any way with our farming colleagues in southern Ireland.
From that point of view, we would like to see some form of a resilience or volatility payment. If we look at the recent farm income figures for Northern Ireland, the profitability figure has fallen from well over £300 million down to £290 million. That is a similar figure to what comes in in farm support to Northern Ireland. It is a stark reminder of how dependent some sectors are on basic payments.
George Eustice
Q
Ivor Ferguson: If there were vast changes in the market for whatever reason, we would certainly need more support. This resilience payment would be much less than the payment today—perhaps 30%, 40% or at the most 50%. We have not put a figure on that yet; it is something we would have to discuss with our farmers fairly quickly now.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
Norman Fulton: This is certainly an issue of concern to us. We have to be mindful of the fact that we now have the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol under the withdrawal agreement, which means we will need to align with the European systems, whereas those in the rest of the UK could diverge. Therefore, we would be concerned that, within what will be the single UK market, there could be different approaches to marketing standards, for example. Obviously, that is something that we will all need to be mindful of. I suppose it will be managed through common frameworks across the UK. A lot of work needs to go into thinking through how we will operate across the UK, to ensure that the UK market is not distorted in any way and there is a level playing field for all players in that market.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Norman Fulton: Well, we are very clearly in one system, so we do not have the scope to change under the protocol. In the schedule, you will see that on marketing standards, for example, we have taken the ability to set standards, but that was drafted in advance of the withdrawal agreement, so it would not be enabled. At some point in the future, if we ever left the protocol, it could be brought into play. For now, our future is pretty much mapped out when it comes to marketing standards, but that is not the case elsewhere in the UK. Although we know what our standards will be, they may change elsewhere. That will create the issue of how we ensure that there is a level playing field within the UK/GB, which remains our biggest market.
Ivor Ferguson: As Norman just said, it is our most important market. At least 50% of what we farmers in Northern Ireland produce goes to the mainland GB market, and in some sectors it is 70% or 80%. If we were to diverge and the standards were to lower in the GB market, lower standards means lower cost of production, and we would be tied to the cost of production within the EU system in Northern Ireland, so it would be very difficult for us to compete in that market. From that point of view, it would be a disaster for us if the standards changed or diverged a great deal away from where we are today.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Ivor Ferguson: Take the beef sector in Northern Ireland. All the products that we produce, or 95% of them, are produced to Red Tractor quality-assured standards. A lot of them go to the major retailers in the UK, which support us well with the Red Tractor standards. For beef production in Northern Ireland, the returns to farmers are down in the last 12 months by £36 million, so there is no profit in the job at the present time. We could not accept a lower price for product, so a lot of our farmers at the moment are finding it very difficult to stay in business. If there were a lowering of the price in the marketplace, that would be a disaster for us.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Q
Norman Fulton: Again, this is something that all Administrations need to be very mindful of in the choices they make. Agriculture is a devolved matter, so each of the Administrations can set their own policy direction and agenda. Under the protocol, which we will now be operating under, certain restrictions will apply in the case of Northern Ireland. We will have an overall envelope for state aid cover, but within that a percentage will have to be green box. That will put certain restrictions on the choices we make in future policy. That does not necessarily apply elsewhere in the UK. Scotland, Wales and England will all be able to set their own policy choices.
Again, we need to be careful that we do not start to open up distortions in competition, which could arise from all this. Although these matters are devolved, GB/UK is our domestic market, and we need to make sure we do not end up trying to undercut each other by using our support mechanisms to facilitate that. There is a great deal of responsibility on all the Administrations on this matter.
Ivor Ferguson: I fully agree with Norman. If we take Northern Ireland at the moment, we would like to think that we will have the same level of support. We will certainly need the same level of support. The fact that it is paid in a different way should not distort our market all that much, if there is the same level of money that comes in. We have to be mindful that our farming colleagues in southern Ireland will have a basic payment too, so we need a level playing field. We have to be very mindful of that going forward.
Thangam Debbonaire
Q
Norman Fulton: The schedule is primarily about rolling forward what we have, with options for simplification and options to keep pace with potential changes that may have happened elsewhere. It is not really about setting our future policy direction, which is something that we now need to take forward ourselves in the Northern Ireland Assembly, now that Ministers are back and we have an Executive.
On the WTO issue, yes, that is a reserved matter, but there is nothing in the Bill that we feel will constrain our ability to set our policy agenda. For example, there are no restrictions on green box support in WTO rules, and none at this time on blue box support—for example, headage payments. Hopefully, the UK’s share of the amber box coming out of EU will be well in excess of what any region, or the UK as a whole, could ever hope to spend on agriculture, so we do not see that as a practical restriction on our room to manoeuvre in any way.
Your final point was around distortion in the UK?
Thangam Debbonaire
Q
Norman Fulton: It is something we all need to recognise. For example, if a region were to decide to go back to something we had in the past, a slaughter premium, you could easily see how that could attract animals for slaughter into that area. You would be starting to distort the movement and processing of livestock. A region probably would not want to do that because you would end up spending your regional support to support farmers located outside your region. Those are the types of things that could happen in theory, but I hope in practice they will not.
Thangam Debbonaire
Q
Norman Fulton: That is a very difficult question, because at the end of the day agriculture policy is devolved, so all the Administrations have the flexibility to deploy the budget that is at their disposal. I do not think there is a lot more you can do in the Bill to address that. It is more in the area of the common frameworks that govern how the regions co-operate across this area .
Ivor Ferguson: I will just add that we are mindful of regional variations across our areas. The future trade policy to be worked out will have an effect on that. If we diverge a lot, product coming from Northern Ireland into the GB market and vice versa will have added costs with the border inspection posts, or whatever you want to call them. There will be added costs. That is something that, if a trade deal did not go for us, or if there was a large-scale divergence, that would add a lot to our costs and we would need extra funding. We are very aware of that.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Norman Fulton: There is an overall cap on the current area-based system, but very few holdings hit that limit at this point in time. Again, those are the sorts of things we will need to consider in relation to the architecture we put in place. Certainly, if you were talking about large areas of land that needed to be brought back into good management and good condition, you would want that to be encouraged and incentivised, and any disincentive that might arise from a cap would have to be considered very carefully. At this point in time, there is no cap on agri-environment—well, there are caps on the amount that individual farmers can get. I know it is an issue that some farmers want to do more, and that is something we will have to consider in our next iteration of agri-environment.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Norman Fulton: It is a bit of a mixed picture. Certainly, it has encouraged conversations around the farm table that would not otherwise have happened. We actually put in place in addition—it was an optional addition to that measure—a requirement for the young farmer to have a level 2 qualification in agriculture, so it was a way of bringing young farmers into the whole area of technology transfer. Some, who had perhaps gone out and got jobs in other professions or trades, were coming back to the farm but did not really have the agricultural training in place, so this got them on to the stepladder. Quite a proportion then decided they would go on and take on further training and qualifications, so it was very positive from that perspective as well. The motivations on that one were good, but I think we could improve on it by looking at the restrictions and issues facing young farmers, and at how we can tailor a package to help generational renewal on farms.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Ivor Ferguson: Yes indeed. Coming back to the discussion document we produced after some consultation with our farmers, our idea was that when we moved away from the basic payment to a payment for productivity and environmental measures, it would mean that some of the farmers who wanted to do extra environmental schemes on their farms would be able to avail themselves of a grant to do that, so it would encourage environmental measures as well as production measures. That is something we are very happy about.
On the young farmers scheme, as Norman said, some young farmers certainly benefited from the scheme and it does encourage young farmers. However, going a bit further, we would like to see a succession plan put in place for older farmers to pass on to the next generation, and we would like to see some incentives, like they have in southern Ireland, such as tax incentives and that sort of thing. That would make the transition from the older generation to the next generation a lot easier, and it would be more encouraging for our young farmers.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
Norman Fulton: Yes. I think the frameworks will be important. Up to now, we have operated within a regulatory framework, the CAP, which gave us a degree of flexibility, although it was ultimately constrained. Going forward, we will no longer have that regulatory framework. It then comes back to the politics of devolution and the fact that agriculture is fully devolved. I think all the devolved Administrations will jealously preserve that flexibility, but they will also need to recognise that we will operate within a single market, and that there will therefore have to be ground rules—
Deidre Brock
Q
Norman Fulton: Of the UK, yes, which is obviously of utmost importance for everyone.
Ivor Ferguson: I agree. For us in the Ulster Farmers’ Union, we would certainly have to have some ground rules. We meet our colleagues in the NFUs in England, Scotland and Wales on a regular basis, and we certainly discuss all those matters. We fully agree that we will have to have some ground rules, but we do keep in touch with farmers in the other regions.
Deidre Brock
Q
Ivor Ferguson: Yes.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Q
Ivor Ferguson: We certainly would not be happy at all with a review every five years. We would certainly want to see this reviewed at least once a year. Especially in the transition, as we move forward, we would think that five years would be far too long a period, and that it will have to be reviewed a lot sooner than that—at least annually.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, we have finished two minutes early. Thank you for your time.
Examination of Witnesses
Nick von Westenholz and David Goodwin gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from the NFU and the National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs. For this session, we have until 3 pm. Would you please introduce yourselves?
Nick von Westenholz: Nick von Westenholz, director of EU exit and international trade at the National Farmers Union.
David Goodwin: David Goodwin, chair of agriculture and rural issues for the National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs, and I farm in south Northamptonshire.
George Eustice
Q
Nick von Westenholz: First and foremost, the content or focus of those simplifications is not as important as giving information to farmers. During the previous Parliament, as the previous Bill was going through, there was increasing anxiety that, while simplification may or may not be coming down the line this year, farmers would not be informed about what those simplifications were, and therefore would be unable to properly prepare in order to meet the requirements of whatever the scheme is. First and foremost, farmers need early guidance about the requirements of the scheme they will be subject to, well in advance of that scheme year beginning. That information is almost as important as what the simplifications might be.
In terms of what the simplifications are, we are engaging with officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as you will know. It will not surprise you that some of the current requirements, such as the three-crop rule, have been criticised by many farmers as overly bureaucratic without really achieving the greening aims it may have hoped to address; that one comes up most often in our conversation with members.
David Goodwin: All our members are keen to get on and farm. That is what we are hearing a lot of at the moment. They hope that this Bill will enable them to do that, to look for opportunities and to expand their businesses. We keep talking about simplification; anything we can simplify will be a good thing. There is a real worry that we will not meet environmental and welfare aims. We need to ensure we maintain our high standards and do not let them slip.
George Eustice
Q
David Goodwin: Access to land is obviously a key concern for our members, but access to land is good only as long as the land they are looking to farm is profitable and viable. Finding ways to enable that is also important. From that point of view, a subsidy system of some description, where farmers are rewarded for the good work they are doing, is still quite high on our agenda.
George Eustice
Q
Nick von Westenholz: I am not aware that we have looked at that sort of detail on where land rents might sit. It is an interesting question and one we probably ought to look at.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Nick von Westenholz: The obvious omission from the Bill, in our view, is anything around import standards. It is absolutely right that that should be in the Bill, because if the Government are trying to promote, which we would support, more sustainable production and food systems domestically in the future, which is the core aim of the Bill—to provide a support framework for farming in a high welfare, environmentally sustainable way—they will be fundamentally undermined in that objective if there is not a concurrent trade policy that prevents farm businesses from being undercut by substandard imports. A two-pronged approach in policy terms—trade policy and domestic policy—is needed to prevent undermining that sort of farming, in which UK farmers excel.
The detail of how the Bill is amended or of the terms of the legislation that can achieve that may be quite complicated and something that the Committee needs to consider as it goes through the Bill line by line, but at the core there must be a requirement that if the UK is going to import food, that imported food meets the same standards of environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety as UK producers are required to meet. Of course, the Government have been very reassuring on that point in recent weeks and have given some guarantees in that regard, but we feel that that needs to be underpinned by legislation, because there are real technical challenges in doing this that any Government, whether this Government or a future Government, are going to come up against as they negotiate trade deals and as they pursue a new role for us as an independent member of the WTO.
Fay Jones
Q
David Goodwin: There has been a lot of talk within our membership about support for schemes whereby we are looking at contract and share farming arrangements, particularly in the livestock sector, to enable young farmers to come on to land alongside an existing farmer who is perhaps getting a bit older and does not want to do it himself. Quite how the framework for those sorts of things fits and how you make them work has always been a challenge. I have just come back from New Zealand, and it is interesting to talk to farmers out there. There is a lot more progression on units and farmers do not seem to be so static. I think that is perhaps the other issue in UK agriculture: it is very parochial—which is traditional. It is difficult to really say how we could break that mould, but certainly from our members’ point of view, any new, innovative ways we can find to get young people on to the land—not necessarily as managers or owners, but also as good skilled workers—would be good.
Fay Jones
Q
David Goodwin: It seems to be very quick. I would repeat Nick’s point from earlier: for things to happen in farming, we need to remember how long some of the cycles in agriculture are. For farmers and farm businesses to prepare for that, they need to know what they are preparing for, and they need to know what they are preparing for a long time in advance of it happening. If you are putting a bull in today, you are not going to be selling the calves, potentially, for three years. We just need to be mindful of how agriculture works and how that fits with the legislation’s aims.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q
Nick von Westenholz: I think, taking a view of what the Bill is trying to achieve in totality in terms of a sustainable food production system, that the need to provide consumers with affordable and safe food must remain fundamental to that.
One concern we have is that a singular focus on some of the public goods aspects might lead to the food production aspect being overlooked. Indeed, that was a criticism we made of the original Bill. That is not to downplay the importance of the clause 1 public goods elements and the development of the land management scheme, but we have been clear from the outset of the process, some years ago, that a really comprehensive agricultural policy needs to be built of three key blocks. You need a sustainable, environmental block—the sort of stuff that this Bill does very well—but you also need to keep in mind the need to produce food, which is what farmers do as well. You need to encourage increased and improved productivity in the farming sector. Again, the Bill provides the powers to do that, although we are waiting for details from DEFRA about exactly what schemes and measures might be introduced to achieve that.
We also have a concern around what we call volatility, or what might be called stability. That is the stuff that farm support systems around the world generally do, which is underpin the farming sector as food producers to provide a certain degree of food security and affordable food for their country. Obviously, there are new, welcome food security clauses in the Bill. Our concern is that as we go into the next few years, direct payments will be reduced and replaced with a scheme that is focused on environmental land management, and we will potentially be in a very difficult trading environment, depending on how the next 10 and a half months of trade negotiations go. That perfect storm will seriously undermine our ability to provide food. We try to make clear that this system needs to be as much about providing food for the country as it is about looking after our countryside and our farmed animals.
The Chair
Before you do, I have a large number of people indicating that they wish to speak. Please could Members and witnesses be brief.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Nick von Westenholz: Yes. We have good communication with DEFRA officials and conversations are ongoing. Given the immediacy of some of the changes coming in, we are looking for assurance that schemes are going to be developed and deployable quickly. There are concerns over that.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
Q
Nick von Westenholz: As far as they go, we are pleased with the inclusion of the tenancy clauses in the Bill. They are quite technical and we are looking to develop some amendments to strengthen them, which we will be happy to share with members of the Committee. In particular, we want to bring in more of the recommendations of the tenancy reform industry group, which has been up and running and working for some years now, so that those are properly reflected in the Bill. We will suggest some improvements, but we generally welcome the clauses that have been introduced in this Bill that were not in the last one.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
David Goodwin: Yes, very much so. County farms have been a shining light for getting younger people into holdings. In the counties where it works well, it works very well. Obviously, there are counties where there are challenges and more pressures on estates. Unfortunately, we see those in the news regularly at the moment. There are some good examples. The number of county estate farms is very small, compared with the number of people who are perhaps looking for opportunities. Some of those individual holdings are very small and do not always offer the stepping stone that is needed. Going on from there, there is still a lack, particularly with tenanted farms, of progressional farms to go on to from a county starter farm.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Q
Nick von Westenholz: It is a fair point, because the question of how you compare standards in this country with those in other countries is very complicated. I think there is a way that you can still build requirements into the Bill that address those concerns. Basically, you can provide safeguards to the Government’s stated aim on these issues. I should add that that is one reason that we very strongly called for a commission with the Government, stakeholders and industry to be set up that would examine these very difficult issues and make clear recommendations for precisely how the Government can safeguard our standards in future.
In terms of the Bill, you could require the Government to produce a register, for example, of what our food and farming standards are, or certainly the ones that we are keen to safeguard. We can then put in a requirement that imports should meet those standards or should have to demonstrate that they do, and possibly some sort of reporting mechanism to demonstrate whether imports are meeting those standards. There have been several amendments to this Bill and the last Bill to attempt to address that.
You could introduce amendments that are much more explicit. For example, they could set out the sorts of veterinary medicines—whatever it might be—that are prohibited and would not be allowed to be put on the market, as well as goods treated with those medicines that could not be put on the market in this country. That would be a very clear and straightforward legislative safeguard on standards, but you would be looking at quite a lot of text if you were to go completely across the board. There are a number of options.
Thangam Debbonaire
Q
Nick von Westenholz: I think as a point of principle, we would not just argue that any mays need to be turned into musts. We recognise that this is an enabling Bill and the merit of the Government’s having legislation that gives them flexibility. There would probably be some points where we would be more forceful than others, such as the powers around exceptional market conditions. At the moment, there is a “may” power for Government intervention when exceptional market conditions are adversely impacting agriculture—this speaks to that point I was making about volatility, as agriculture, probably more than other economic sector, can be subject to climate volatility, weather volatility, market volatility and so on—but we think there should be a trigger there that requires a “must” for intervention. I know some have argued that there should be more of a “must” clause around the financial assistance powers. I am not sure whether that would do the trick, because it could still be an inadequate amount of financial assistance that is provided.
The new clauses addressing multi-year financial plans and reporting are important and we are pleased to see them; we think that those, alongside the Government’s guarantee on the total budget, are just as important in giving farmers certainty and the ability to plan for the long term.
I did not quite understand the question on the WTO agreement.
Thangam Debbonaire
Q
Nick von Westenholz: Not that we have identified, but I will have another look at it after the session.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Q
David Goodwin: We are working closely with various county agricultural colleges at the moment. We have just run an event in the north—I have forgotten the name of the college—in association with DEFRA, through our DEFRA grant holder, to engage with our members about this Bill in particular and the ELMSs that are coming forward. That is a project that we were looking to roll out considerably further; unfortunately, our timescale was put back when Parliament was prorogued and we had to postpone a lot of events that we were planning to run. Agricultural colleges lend themselves well to setting up and running events with our members and our target audience of potential members and people who are looking to come into the industry. We are certainly doing as much work as we can with county colleges and the universities, which are all struggling a little bit for students at the moment.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
David Goodwin: As we have touched on at various points in this session, the crux of the matter is this Bill’s enabling farmers to run effective, efficient and sustainable businesses, both environmentally and economically. From a young farmer’s point of view, the foundation of all this must be a strong, stable agricultural industry. The only way to attract young people into agriculture is to offer them opportunity; it is difficult to sell the idea of working 150 hours a week and being paid less than the minimum wage to people who are not necessarily in love with agriculture. There are no specifics that spring to mind, but anything we can do to support agriculture is a positive.
George Eustice
Q
David Goodwin: I have a very quick point on that, specifically pertaining to the lamb industry. We have had quite a lot of feedback from our members about lack of transparency: under the sheep legislation as it is at the moment, we are forced to electronically tag and identify all the sheep, but currently the abattoirs and processors are not required to pass that information back down the chain or identify those carcases as pertaining to those animals. There is a perceived transparency issue with some processes. It is not that potentially we are not being paid the right amounts, but I think people would like to know what our killing out percentages are, so that we can improve performance and make better informed decisions.
Nick von Westenholz: We are working through our commodity boards, which is the way we cover the different steps in the NFU to address exactly how the powers will be used. We are pleased that those powers are in the Bill, but lots of them rely on secondary legislation to operate, so it seems that potentially there is still quite a job to do once the Bill is enacted to ensure that the powers can be used properly to do what they are supposed to do. We look forward to working with officials to work out exactly how those powers can be deployed once the Bill is enacted—that is a feature of the enabling aspect of the Bill. We certainly think the focus on improving the supply chain is a critical bit of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Nick von Westenholz: Yes, absolutely. We would like more detail. We understand there was an intention to consult on them at some point under the last Bill, so presumably that will still happen. You are absolutely right that there are potential unintended consequences, not least because those aspects of the Bill relate to England, and there could be a very different way forward in other parts of the UK. That would potentially lead to a very different looking system between England and other parts of the UK. We need to understand the details. Some people might be attracted to the implications of delinking, superficially. Once you delink—particularly with the potential to move to lump sum payments, which is one of the reasons for doing so—you are moving away from some of the things I spoke about earlier, such as being able to manage the transition for the next few years, particularly in the volatile circumstances that might arise for farming. So yes, the long-winded answer is that we would like more detail.
David Goodwin: We tend to agree on the whole. There is a feeling of quiet optimism that it might offer opportunities for young people to come into agriculture. Without some detail to see exactly how that might work and whether it is feasible, people are keeping it at arm’s length.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Nick von Westenholz: The main parts of the Bill that are relevant are around the transition. Currently, the Bill still has the timetable of beginning to phase out of BPS next year and going over a seven-year period. We have called, as have others, for a delay in that process. That is still absolutely right because we are unlikely to know the trading environment in which farming will operate until potentially very late this year, possibly even into next year, yet the schedule has us beginning to phase out of BPS next year. As David mentioned, agriculture works on very long timeframes.
While we do not know what the future looks like, delaying that is important, not least because this Bill, the previous Bill and the health and harmony consultation that it was predicated on, all took place in a very different political environment where the future relationship with the EU and some other aspects were envisaged very differently. Things have changed, and the Bill and the transition period should also change. We could face some very volatile times ahead and we need to be able to manage that.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for this session. I thank the two witnesses on behalf of the Committee. We will move on to the next evidence session.
Examination of Witness
Richard Self gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Co-operatives UK, and we have until 3.30 pm. Welcome. Would you like to introduce yourself?
Richard Self: I am Richard Self, agriculture manager with Co-operatives UK, supporting our farmer co-operatives up and down the country.
George Eustice
Q
Richard Self: We are broadly happy with the way the Bill is set out. The detail will come in secondary legislation for the areas of co-operation and collaboration that we are interested in. The main concern is around exemptions. The exemptions are currently very supportive of co-operatives, but there is some room in the Bill for that to be narrowed, and we need to ensure that the current exemptions are carried through to this new environment. We want to encourage our co-operatives, not discourage them.
On subsidy payments, we accept that. It will create a new environment and a new world for farmers to operate in. Again, co-operation and collaboration can help farmers become productive and efficient within that new world.
George Eustice
Q
Richard Self: It is an interesting area. I am not an expert on the dairy sector, but in milk co-operatives the first-stage processor is owned by the farmers. If that processor takes a high price, farmers will get that back at some stage; in another situation where they do not own the processor, they will not. Therefore, it inhibits them from reacting to the market, because ultimately in a situation where the farmer owns the processor, the benefits will eventually come back to the farmer because they own the business.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Richard Self: Producer organisations have done a good job, but I think some people would say they could do a better job if they were better organised. I think we could have made better use of them in the past—other countries have made very good use of their POs. One concern we have around POs is that they might be too narrow. We want to ensure that all types of co-operative have the chance to be a PO, and that extra hoops and barriers are not put in the way of existing co-operatives, making it more difficult for them to get to that PO status.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Richard Self: Other countries have taken those funds that they get through being a PO, and the help with their technology, productivity and so on, but they have also changed their business models. What is important is to get the right business model in place, where you can add value, capture it and bring it back to the primary producer. I think what we have done is just take the money for the grants, if you like, as opposed to changing the business model and the way that the supply chain works.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Richard Self: I think it can do. As I said, I think the detail will be in the secondary stage to this, and how that is built up, but the foundations are there. We can make that PO scheme work, as long as we are inclusive of all the different co-operative structures that we have got within that, and do not create extra barriers and hoops for people to jump through to get into the PO scheme.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Richard Self: There is nothing specific that I would like to see. At this stage, it is about trying to keep it as wide as possible, so that we keep our options open and look at every stage of making the environment right for co-operatives to thrive and succeed.
The UK is well behind most other developed agricultural systems in its use of farmer co-operatives. France, Germany and the USA are all developing a number of co-operatives, while the number of our co-operatives is reducing. We need to change that balance around. Our market share of co-operatives, based on my most recent figures from a few years ago, is about 6%, compared with Germany’s 17%. I think France has something like 55% and Denmark somewhere over 60%. Their market share is much greater. The value added that those co-operatives bring is returned to the primary producer.
The other advantage with co-operatives is that they make the markets less volatile. That is one of the things we are worried about in the future—volatile markets. A co-operative can help balance out that market to make it work well, so that there is less volatility in the price of goods—the primary produce. It also makes sure that the supply chains are fairer for the farmer because they are working together.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Do you think that, under the old system as part of the European Union, we have in many ways been trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole, and fit what is going on here into the way that we can access funds? How do you think in future we can actually produce a system to encourage co-operatives, of the sort that would maybe work in the UK, rather than trying to emulate those across the water?
Richard Self: Generally, we have some very good co-operatives out there. The governance angle of co-operatives is the key thing. If we get that right, and get them well managed at the leadership level, that will help to address the sort of thing that we have had in the past.
We have large farmers in our country, compared with some of the others, but in fact it is the small farmers who do not tend to collaborate so much. I think the larger farmers tend to be very professional in what they are doing, and they are looking at this as a business arrangement, as opposed to the smaller farmers, who want to do things themselves. The evidence I have seen basically says that we need to target smaller farmers probably more than we do the larger farmers.
Danny Kruger
Q
Richard Self: No; that was a good point. Education is good point. I looked at this last year. I looked at our universities and colleges, and they do not do anything on the co-operative business model and how it works round the world, and how farmers benefit from getting engaged. Last year, the Royal Agricultural University did some work for us. It highlighted the lack of understanding of how the business model works and brings benefit back to the farmers—it is about adding and capturing that value and bringing it back. Some farmers have said to me, “Is there any point in us adding value, because someone else captures it?”, whereas a co-operative makes sure that that value is brought back.
We need to educate—“inform” might be a better word in some ways. We do proper case studies and show how, around the world, co-operatives are used in such an effective way, and how their use continues to be developed as they go forward. We were doing quite a lot of work after the Curry Commission report. I was involved in Share to Grow initiatives to get production collaboration going, and we were making some good ground, but then 2008 happened and the cash—the support—stopped. Since then, progress has basically stopped. We have probably moved backwards, if anything, since then in terms of the level of collaboration and co-operation. External support is required to make this happen; it will not happen without that external support to carry it through.
George Eustice
Q
Richard Self: Obviously, marketing and consolidating products to make efficiencies in the supply chain are really important, but as we move forward, there are lots of other opportunities for co-operatives to get involved and for farmers to work together. Data is one—we talk about “big data”—and co-operatives are in an excellent position to harvest that data and to use it, not just for their benefit, but for the benefit of the whole supply chain. It will be important, going forward, that we have really efficient supply chains, so that we compete with external supply chains. Working with a co-operative at the centre of that, at the production level, is important both upstream and downstream. If we can have PO schemes that run across different areas and different sections of that supply chain, it would be good.
George Eustice
Q
Richard Self: I think that the existing competition law that we enjoy now—or did, under EU law—would be good to carry through. That is how I understand it, although I am not an expert in this area. The worry is that it might be narrower in the future, so that the onus comes to fall on the co-operative to show that it is not competing unfairly, whereas at the moment it can say, “We’re a co-operative,” and then someone else has to prove that it is competing unfairly. The problem with that is that co-operatives would have more risk and more uncertainty when they were trying to grow a particular business and so on. That is why we would like to keep it as it is at the moment.
George Eustice
Q
Richard Self: I think that would be sensible. It would be a good aspiration for some areas.
Ruth Jones
Q
Richard Self: I am probably not qualified to say how well the Bill does in that sense, but I believe that if we can have a policy with an almost horizontal theme of collaboration and co-operation that runs through the environmental or production side of it, or anything else, it would be good to improve that. In particular, that strengthens up the position of the primary producer working in a co-operative, in terms of balancing out.
Some processors and suppliers are worried about this, if farmers get together. In some situations, they have—how should we say?—been proactively discouraging it, and we need to avoid that happening. It is to the benefit of the whole supply chain if it works with that co-operative—they can get economies of scale, help manage supply and demand, and use the branding of the co-operative, if you like, to get to the end consumer to show the traceability, the welfare and the quality of the product when working with a co-operative. There are win-win situations for both co-operatives and businesses up and down the supply chain if it is looked at the right way. They can see it as a threat to their profitability.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Q
Richard Self: I think the only thing I would change is to make sure that the exemptions are firmed up and protected over the next few years. We are worried about that, in terms of suddenly making it more risky for our co-operatives to develop.
Miss Dines
Q
Richard Self: There is a two-year period on this. It could be managed more flexibly, so it would be good if that could be extended for two years.
Miss Dines
Q
Richard Self: Five years would seem like a good period, but I do not have significant knowledge on that front.
Theo Clarke
Q
Richard Self: I’m sorry; what would that be?
Theo Clarke
Q
Richard Self: I probably do not know enough about that. The code does a good job in helping the process. Co-operatives are my area of expertise. It would be good if that included co-operation and collaboration as it would help redress some of the balance of fairness within the supply chain, but would be for the benefit of the whole supply chain if handled the right way.
George Eustice
Q
Richard Self: Obviously, there is a democratic process within the co-operatives in which you can vote people on who have a particular stance. The idea is to help control your own co-operative in doing what the membership wants. A co-operative should have a process in place whereby that can be fed into the co-operative to get the criteria right for that membership. The process of democracy within the co-operative should allow for that. I cannot comment on an individual case, but it is up to the members how they run their business. They should be able to set it up the way they want it.
George Eustice
Q
Richard Self: I would hope so, yes. But I am not an expert in the dairy industry, so I would need to investigate that further; we are happy to look into that. I have good contacts with our dairy co-operatives and can help feed that into the system.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Richard Self: Increasingly, farmers will have better data on their anticipated crop yields, milk yields or whatever. They can collect that raw data, and farmers can trust their co-operative to handle it in the right way for them. That data is useful and is worth money to others in the supply chain. It is a question of how they can work together to maximise the use of that data for the benefit of the supply chains they are working in.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Richard Self: Obviously, the more data you have across an area—information on yields, or even perhaps on the supply side, on agrochemical use and the anticipated use of crop-protection products—the more it helps you to manage supply and demand going forward, which helps improve efficiency and productivity. Co-operatives are in a really strong place because they are working on behalf of their farmer members, and they can use that data in the right way to help the whole supply chain.
Fay Jones
Q
Richard Self: On risk management, the problem is that you put your crops in the ground or start to produce your animals well ahead, and you do not know what you will get for them. Mechanisms to control those risks against unforeseen events and so on are really important. If they could be built in, that would be very useful. Again, co-operatives have a role in that: you can pool your crops or your fertiliser payments to average out prices within a co-operative. That is the sort of thing that helps to manage risk. If you have a known price for a thing, or you get an average price over a period, you do not get hit hard if the price suddenly goes up or down.
Danny Kruger
Q
Richard Self: I would say both.
Danny Kruger
Q
Richard Self: I think there are some wins there for local things, but if we really want to make a difference, it has to be about getting a good market share of UK supply chains and then working with those groups to see how we can develop export markets around the world for high-value, high-welfare, quality products. There are some opportunities for that. It is a difficult area to get into—obviously, it is highly competitive—but with the story we have through our production methods and so on, we should be able to do that. Again, the point is that you need the right business model to add that value but then capture it back to the primary producer. The problem is that when a farmer produces something and it just goes off on a lorry and they do not know where it is going, they are price-takers and somebody else is capturing the value they have created. That is why we need to get the business model right for those groups.
The Chair
If there are no more questions, I thank Mr Self, and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Graeme Willis, Jim Egan and Jake Fiennes gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Kings Crops and the Holkham Estate. We have until 4.15 pm. Would the witnesses like to introduce themselves first?
Jake Fiennes: I am Jake Fiennes, the general manager of conservation at Holkham Estate in north Norfolk.
The Chair
Before I move on to Mr Egan, may I say that this is a huge room and the acoustics are terrible, so can people speak up?
Jim Egan: I am Jim Egan, technical advisor for Kings Crops.
Graeme Willis: I am Graeme Willis, agricultural lead for CPRE, the countryside charity.
George Eustice
Q
Jim Egan: From my perspective, one shortcoming is that the current system does not allow fully integrated environmental and farming management. It does not let the whole lot sit together, which causes issues. One of the biggest shortcomings of the current system is its administration in my specialised area, agri-environment schemes, which will put people off, as it has in the past. I do not really want to go much further than that, Minister. There are lots of things, but that is my area of expertise.
In terms of modifying in the short term, my personal view would be not to, particularly on countryside stewardship. I do a lot of work directly with farmers on getting stewardship schemes in, and I have never seen so much demand as this year. I already have 65 people on my books wanting to do the modified schemes. There are obviously things pushing them towards that, but the simplification of the actual stewardship process has been good. We just need to get the payments and other things right in the short term, to provide certainty.
If I was going to modify anything within the wider BPS system, I would perhaps modify the three-crop rule, so I could say that we had done something. However, I think people are used to it, and it is actually very important, in a time of turbulence, that we keep it as stable as we can at the moment.
Sorry; what was your third question?
George Eustice
Do you support the general thrust of the future policy, moving from subsidy on land tenure to—
Jim Egan: Yes.
Jake Fiennes: If we split it into pillar 1 and pillar 2, the current BPS is rather clumsy and, in places, overly simplistic. We have the ecological focus area ruling within that, which, as Jim refers to, is cumbersome. The three-crop rule and hedge-cutting dates sort of tie farmers into a knot; they are unable to be flexible.
In the short term, farmers are preparing for a transition period, which will start in 2021, according to the current Secretary of State, although I know that some are pushing for that to be extended, because we have just seen a delay of this whole process. However, farmers are slowly taking on board that there will be seismic change within their business. It has happened over a very static two years, but we have seen a real momentum, and there is a general acceptance among those within the industry that this is coming around the corner. If they have an ability to prepare their businesses by going into the current schemes—I think the new stewardship scheme was opened today. I have not looked at it, but I think the detail made it easier and more user-friendly.
We have to put the past aside, with all the issues that we had with the RPA, Natural England and late payments. I think we have moved on from that, and I think this year was an example of the RPA demonstrating very swift payments, and the current stewardship payments are being rolled out as we speak. That is all very positive. Again, I see a greater uptake of the current schemes—the countryside stewardship higher tier and middle tier, and also the simplified scheme.
That will get farmers ready through the transition period, which comes on to the Minister’s third point, where I am in full favour of it. A slight redrafting of the Bill—talking about soil and productivity—basically got the entire land-based community on board.
Graeme Willis: I think it is well attested that the CAP scheme is inefficient, ineffective and inequitable. People such as Allan Buckwell and Alan Matthews have made that point, and DEFRA’s own research has shown that, and there have been statements, so we very much support that view. In terms of the current countryside stewardship schemes, as Jim said, it is very important that farmers keep faith with those schemes. The simplification has been very helpful.
Certainly within DEFRA, I have been making the point that those schemes are probably under-commented on, because we have a 2030 deadline for addressing climate change by cutting emissions very significantly. Four years through to when ELMs beds in is a very important period in which to get trees in the ground and to get peatland and other high-carbon soils restored. It is very important in this phase to keep putting money in and investing in farming. It is very important that farmers keep faith with that, and the schemes have been expanding, which is very welcome after a rocky start.
We believe that public goods for public money is the right way forward. It is the absolute crux for enhancing the environment, obviously addressing climate change and biodiversity issues. But, as Jim said, it is very important to harmonise what farmers do in producing food and other goods with environmental improvements which we know are very necessary. Bringing those two together is critical so that they are not seem as oppositional.
George Eustice
Q
Jake Fiennes: Are we referring to the blueprint of ELM?
George Eustice
Yes, in the new scheme.
Jake Fiennes: We have the regulatory payment. I hear of calls for up to 30% of existing payments that farmers receive, which is about £200 per hectare. I am certainly not in favour of that, because it will not encourage stakeholders to go into the middle tier and I think you will see a great uptake in the middle tier. On the final tier, which is landscape restoration, whether it is on a catchment basis, if we are going to have sustainable, functional land use, it has to be at scale and deliver all the climate change issues and soil regeneration. All these processes will go into the final tier and, having listened to some of the comments earlier about the smaller farmers not working well together but the bigger ones working better, we are seeing a great uptake of facilitation funds and cluster groups. This whole movement is happening. I would not encourage the lower payment to be a major factor, because we would basically go back to a reverse BPS system.
Jim Egan: My way of answering that would be to look at the fact that in the majority of lowland England, if you split it that way, you will find farmers taking up more than you think, if it is properly rewarded, if it is linked in by the rest of the industry and it is linked together. You quite commonly talk to farmers now who take out anything between 5% and 15% of their land to manage it “for the environment” and also recognise the real benefits of changing what they do: introducing grass lanes to help with grass weed control and to build soil fertility, which helps with cleaner water and so on.
I agree wholeheartedly with Jake that there is a sea change coming. A lot of people stood back, because of the political uncertainty, but they are ready for that. The higher extremes you referenced, such as peat restoration, will be a focus in an area where it can happen, getting those landowners together and talking about it. It will take time. I do not think they are completely divorced and different.
On woodland, it will fit when people start to see natural capital, particularly the natural capital potential of their land, and they have choices of what to do. Then woodland will start to happen, especially where you can get people working together and you can make the links. I would be positive about that.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Graeme Willis: In terms of maintaining standards, we are very concerned—I know that statements have been made about supporting high standards—that undercutting those standards through imports would undermine farmers’ incomes, as well as their ability to perform environmental management. I know that an amendment previously tabled to the Bill sought to introduce a broad requirement that any international trade agreement that was to be ratified must be compliant with UK standards. We think that is a major omission and one of the major things that needs to be addressed in the legislation. We have a common cause with the whole of the farming sector on that. The whole of the NGO environmental sector takes that view. It is a very important element and condition.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Jim Egan: Regarding possible current uptake this year, I have always been positive, and I have been proved wrong, year on year, as I am often told by DEFRA’s agri-environment group. This year, in particular, people have heard for a long time that BPS will start going down. They have seen their neighbours’ farms going into the simplified scheme, although not in huge numbers. I work with a company that provides agronomy advice, and the agronomists are starting to understand it.
The weather this year in the east midlands, my patch of the country, has meant that there are farms with no combinable crops in the ground at all—not 5% or 10%, but none. That has made people think. It has made people think about sustainable income streams, support, unproductive areas and what they could do differently. There is a whole raft of different things. There is also a question of who sells it. If you sell it directly and positively, people will do it. If you are negative and you harp on about late payments and so on, the meeting will leave you. I tend to be positive about it. Perhaps that is why I have a long list of people wanting to work with it.
Jake Fiennes: When you put economically sustainable agriculture to a farmer, he may have had 47 years of being paid just to produce food, irrespective of the quality, quantity and yield he produces on his land. They must realign their business. If we see this transition period take place as of next year, some famers will lose anything from 5% to 20% of their support income.
Agri-environment helps them through the transition period financially, but it also gets them to understand. At the moment, farmers lack good agricultural environmental advice. That is what we don’t see enough of: advice on the ground. Farmers are a particularly fickle community. They are wary of individuals they do not know, so the advice has to come from individuals with whom they have had previous relationships, whether through their agronomy, because we are seeing agronomy become more open to environmental delivery, the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Groups throughout the country, or Natural England, which changed the game of agri-environment 20 years ago. The advice on the ground is key.
If farmers are sold an economic reason and then have an ability to deliver the environmental goods, whatever they may be, through sound advice, we will see greater uptake. The reason we had the stop-start scenario with agri-environment was, as Jim referred to, late payments—“Am I going to get paid for it?”—or commodity prices. We have seen the volatility in commodity prices. If I am getting £200 a tonne for my milling wheat, why do I need to go to an agri-environment scheme when I have already invested in the men, the machinery and the infrastructure to deliver that crop? It is an evolving, moving process, but they are definitely coming more on board with it.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Jim Egan: I think there is underlying capacity out there. There are enough people to do it. There will be a change of mindset in some sectors, but bear in mind that business is seeing some of the opportunities here as well. Jake is right: it needs to be somebody the farmer trusts—there is a wide range of advisers trusted by farmers—and the advisers need to believe in the scheme. Many advisers have not sold environmental work for the past five years, because they do not believe in the scheme; they do not want to put their name on the line when the payments are late, and when the agreement does not turn up for a year after you have entered into it.
You should not underestimate the impact that that has, because if your adviser walks up the drive and says, “I can’t put my name to that, because I can’t advise you about that future income and part of your business,” it puts people off. We are starting to get a lot of certainty now about stewardship. I know it will change and evolve, but we need that certainty of scheme and of process. The advice is there; people just need to believe in it.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Graeme Willis: Referring to uplands, we have signed a letter to say that we want peatland burning to end rapidly, and the Committee on Climate Change has taken the same view. I want those landscapes to be managed in a re-wetted form, which might help different forms of game. It might not be the same kinds of game management.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Graeme Willis: The blanket bog, essentially. That could be re-wetted and improved upon, and I think you would get different game. You would not necessarily get the same driven grouse shooting, but it is important to take into account what game management could do in those areas and how it might adapt to that. It would be a different form of activity, but very important. I take the point about large estates, but Jake can say far more about that; it is important that you maintain that kind of management. It has a lot of environmental benefits, certainly in integrating woodland into those environments and into the farming.
Jim Egan: I have no experience of upland, so I will not try that one. I used to work at the Allerton project for GWCT, and my experience of lowland game management is that, where it is done very well, it is very good. It encourages woodland management, habitat management and the provision of wild bird seed mixes, pollen and nectar. You are right to reference the fact that many of those estates were doing that work before agri-environment and working with agri-environment. We need to be careful to ensure that that management is positive and good, because, like everything in life, there are good and bad shooting estates. For me, it comes back to farming and the environment, completely melded and meshed together. Sporting activity is part of the rural environment and needs to mesh in with it.
Jake Fiennes: It is an Agriculture Bill and game is not agriculture. We have to remove game, because it is just a landscape pastime. The environment can benefit game. The game community has enough issues to deal with on its table, but we can see that game interests have evolved over the centuries. They will be more crucial in the delivery of environmental goods. Those with a history of managing with a game interest see the benefits. The Allerton project is a great example. The Duke of Norfolk’s estate in Peppering is specifically targeting game, but the benefits to the wider environment are huge. All the game interests form part of an agri-environment scheme, so they are sort of intrinsically linked. Where it is done well, it is done very well, and where it is done badly, it is an environmental disaster. Those with game interests will have to change, which is no different from how those with food production interests will have to change.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Jake Fiennes: I think the ELM schemes will do exactly that. If we can demonstrate better land use for our land that is less productive—use for the environment, biodiversity, carbon storage, cleaner water and cleaner air—everyone gets to benefit.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Jake Fiennes: Game is not agriculture. Game has never been part of agriculture. Forestry is agriculture; farming, dairying and beef production are agriculture, but game sort of sits on the sidelines and is not part of agriculture.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Jake Fiennes: It is a technicality, but game has never been—
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Jake Fiennes: But a game farmer is not a farmer. He is not a poultry producer either, strangely. Sorry, but it is a real technical difference.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
My other question is that you mentioned your views about county farms, and I am keen to see what you think should be in the Bill. I think there is general support for the idea that county farms are a good thing, but that does not necessarily mean that they need to go into the Bill. Can you say what you think needs to be in the Bill on that front?
Graeme Willis: On peatland, it interesting how broad that goes in terms of land management. Going back to the Minister’s question, I would imagine that large-scale restoration might well be part of ELM. The public goods statements are quite broadly framed, but they do talk about soil, and the supporting position statement talks about soil and peat.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Graeme Willis: Yes, climate change being one of the objectives. It is very important, given we know the level of emissions from upland peat, that the intentions of the Bill should cover those areas and ELM should be able to deliver on that within that wider land restoration component, if that be. I think that will be very important, because where else will the resource come from to do that? The 25-year plan had a £10 million fund. Scotland has committed £250 million for restoration, so we need money to be identified that can go towards that restoration over the longer period. There is an issue about the viability of those peatlands in the long term in a warming climate if they are managed in a different way. That makes things even more contentious.
I am pleased that you mentioned county farms. I am not a specialist on entrants, but I think something on supporting new entrants should be in the Bill through an amendment to that effect. The Minister has spoken about investing in county farms on several occasions and to the EFRA Committee. He welcomed the idea as a very interesting development. The farms could be invested in so that they can produce more peri-urban horticulture, for example, which might be one way to make smaller units viable. As was referred to earlier, there is an economic question around those. An amendment to invest and fund—or to give the Secretary of State powers to invest and fund—county farms to be developed and improved for wider purposes, would be great.
We would also consider asking for a protective lock on county farm estates while they can develop new wider sets of purposes, so that they can be invested in for the future. Wider purposes in terms of mitigating and adapting to climate change, supporting connection to the countryside, access to land and landscapes and the realities of farming, would be very welcome.
Virginia Crosbie
Q
Jim Egan: When you are on the receiving end of the inspection regime does not seem proportionate at all at the moment. It is heavy-handed. We all accept that there must be rules and that there has to be an inspection, but you are working on a farm, on a shop floor that has no straight edges. When somebody can come and deduct a payment for being four decimal places out in area, which is what it could go to, it does not feel right. It actually puts an awful lot of people off engaging with agri-environment schemes and measures because of the pure fear of the inspection. The inspectors are great people—they are doing a job—but they do not engage during their inspection process. There is a finality to the inspection process that says, “Mr Egan, you are wrong.” There is an appeals process, but there is no face to face. That is not a very nice place to be.
It would be better if it was done in a much more approachable way. We all accept that a lot of money goes into the industry, but we should be approachable. We should be able to say, “Oh, I didn’t quite get that right.” If it is a minor infringement, it is nothing. There will be something else on the farm that delivers above and beyond what it was intended to, but it is never taken into account.
When I worked at the Allerton project, we had three inspections in seven years. That is in a place where there is a board of trustees, a management team and we all get on. There is a lot of pressure on the people responsible for that. Imagine being on a farm on your own. It is not a good place. It needs to be more human and a better process.
As for success for me, do you mean in terms of the scheme or the inspection regime?
Virginia Crosbie
In terms of the scheme.
Jim Egan: In terms of the scheme, it would be everybody engaging, and engaging willingly and talking about it.
Deidre Brock
Q
Jake Fiennes: I don’t think I was referring to grouse moors specifically. I was referring to game shooting as a community.
Deidre Brock
Q
Jake Fiennes: Well, no, I think there are clear benefits from grouse shooting. We can see greater biodiversity on well managed grouse moors. If we look at the burning of peatlands, on Saddleworth Moor last year a huge area of moor had very deep burning within the peat; that was an area of moor that was not managed for grouse, because the heather was very poor, and it was a tinderbox that caught fire very quickly. We must understand the benefits of well managed grouse moors to a landscape that is iconic to the English uplands: 70% of the world’s heather moorland is in England, so it is a key habitat. Admittedly, there are some quite extreme management techniques in places, which we are quite aware of, and the industry is looking inward on how to address that.
Deidre Brock
Q
Jake Fiennes: A payment system that rewards farmers and land occupiers for delivering public goods should not exclude anyone. As Jim just said, this has to be open to everyone.
Deidre Brock
Q
Jim Egan: I do not get involved in policy; I have never worked in it.
Graeme Willis: In terms of the breadth of it, I think it is still open to question as to how wide it goes. I am on the stakeholder engagement group, so I am limited in what I can say because of confidentiality about that. However, I have certainly seen a slide that shows how wide it might go, and there might be questions around whether it includes, for example, airport operators, which have large tracts of open grassland that they need to manage to keep trees off. Could they do positive things with that?
I think there is a very important question about the amount of resource available and whether those are the right people to receive that resource, as against farmers, given the context we talked about, the viability issues going forward and the cuts to basic payments during the transition. However, something to address the issues across a broad landscape is very important.
On whole-farm areas, we would not want large areas of farmland managed very intensively within a system in which other areas are just managed for public goods. I think they need to be combined and harmonised, as we said before, so that land is shared and used in the very best way, for the environmental benefits and for good, sustainable food production.
George Eustice
Q
One thing we have described for the future scheme is that you would instead leave all that behind, and individual farms would have a trusted, accredited adviser on agri-environment schemes. That could be a trusted, accredited agronomist, or someone who works for the Wildlife Trust or the RSPB, and they would be trained to help put the schemes together. They would visit the farm, walk the farm with their boots on and then sit around the kitchen table and help an individual farmer construct a scheme.
We are obviously testing and piloting and trialling that now. If that system could be made to work—an altogether more human system, as you said, because a trusted adviser would do the initial agreement and would maybe visit the farm three or four times a year, not to inspect but to be a point of advice—how many farms can a single agri-environment adviser with that type of remit realistically do?
Jim Egan: It would depend very much on type, size, place, aspect and everything. I do not think you can put a number on the people that you could hold as clients. I actually do not know how many clients my agronomy colleagues have, because I am new to that business. However, where I work, I would be perfectly comfortable managing 40 or 50 clients and working through with them.
The main premise is not to overlook that that process of walking the farm with a trusted adviser already happens for countryside stewardship. Most farmers will take advice and will rely on somebody working with them. The opportunity that comes from splitting out and putting everything into ELMS—including all the basic payment elements, so that it is one big agricultural and environmental processing scheme—actually means that you can widen that advice and make it broader. The trick will be that those advisers will have to have knowledge of the farming business and will have to talk to others within the business. Even on a small dairy farming unit, they will have to talk to the vet, the feed merchant and the farmer. It is a facilitation skill as much as anything else, and it will require an understanding of how those farming sectors work.
This is definitely the right way to go. We will need professional advice to do that. A farmer doesn’t grow an arable crop without an agronomist. You don’t grow beef cattle without a vet or a feed merchant. So why should you not have what I would call environmental facilitators?
George Eustice
Q
Jim Egan: First, I do not think they should be recruited by Natural England or the RPA. Within the supply chain, there are probably sufficient people. An agronomist has to be trained and to get your agronomy diploma you have to do a BETA—biodiversity and environmental training for advisers—certificate in conservation management. It is only a three-day course, but it is about awareness. Whoever is drawing up the scheme will need to pull on other skills and pull and bring the environmental community and the farming community together. A good person does that already. I do not think you need a new qualification. The qualifications are there. The BETA certificate in conservation management and that type of approach already addresses some of the issues. It would probably need an upland module and a little bit more focus on grassland, because it is an arable-focused course.
I also believe that it is Natural England or the RPA’s responsibility, if they get a bad application, to send it back. I went to DEFRA and Natural England about eight years ago and asked for that to happen and it never did. Natural England continues to re-work bad applications. Once you do that, the farming community will soon know not to go to that person. It doesn’t need degree level; it needs an element of a qualification, a CV and management by a managing authority that is not afraid to take people off the list if they are not doing the job properly.
Fay Jones
Q
Jake Fiennes: If I am brutally honest, I do not think the Treasury would sign up to that. If we all opted out, we couldn’t afford it. I am intrigued that that is still on the table.
Earlier you referred to land values. How to devalue very quickly? Everyone opts out and land values plummet —in an industry that is generally reliant on that support in the way it currently manages land.
Graeme Willis: When I heard about this in the original Agriculture Bill, I was concerned that no constraints were placed on that money. I was not clear about the rationale for that. If the rationale is for new entrants, there is an issue if that is only done through land prices falling. I am not convinced that we can guarantee that when a farm is sold, a new entrant will get that farm. There is no control over that, so it seems too broadbrush. It also seems somewhat a hostage to fortune because large amounts of public money being paid out for what is not a clear set of purposes could play very badly with the public; other people have raised that concern. If that were tied to some investment into the farm, there is an element of advantage there to having a lump sum to invest that could meet the other purposes to improve the farm’s environmental performance and productivity. Also, it could be good if it were tied in some shape or form to supporting new entrants.
Earlier, there was a mention of share farming—some form of succession where there is no son or daughter to pass the farm on to, some mechanism where that was locked in to ensure that a new entrant could get on to a farmstead and actually learn. You mentioned skills: they could learn from the skills of the farmer on that farm and not lose the knowledge of the land, the aspect, the farming and the culture of that farm, and pass that on to a new, younger or older person with a different set of skills. That would be really interesting.
I see it as too broadbrush and not clear at the moment, and I have concerns. I understand that that will be consulted on, but I am not sure whether that is clear from the Bill as it stands, or whether that can be clarified.
Miss Dines
Q
Jim Egan: I think it can be achieved. The current example of facilitation funds in cluster groups is an absolute classic for that type of farming. I think that there is a facilitation fund in your constituency; there is certainly one not far away. Those farmers could come together. I am not a believer in “one farm, one advice”. If there are six people who farm together with smaller farming units who want to go into a scheme, and will achieve better environmental outputs if they all work together, we can give one set of advice to all of them.
We need to think really differently about where we are going now. It is not just about one-to-one advice; it is about one-to-six advice. It is about, when you put the scheme together, providing the training to those six to implement the measures. I think that it is completely affordable, and it works. We just need to think differently about how we put these things together.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Graeme Willis: On where those targets are expressed, we know that the Environment Bill has been laid before Parliament. The relationship between the Agriculture Bill, the Environment Bill and all the other policy instruments is very interesting, and remains to be resolved. If you had gone in the right order, it might have been that you had the Environment Bill, then the 25-year environment plan, and then the Agriculture Bill, because the main funding mechanism seems to be environmental land management, which would deliver on the kind of targets that you set through the 25-year plan. That can be established through the legislation in the Environment Bill.
I am not sure whether it is right to put a target in this Bill at the moment—it may be a commitment by the Minister—but I think there is a possibility of introducing further regulation that might address that. Obviously, there is the Environment Bill. One of the complicated issues is whether the Agriculture Bill could reference the Environment Bill, because it has not received Royal Assent. There is a question about how we address targets, and whether that is set out through the Office for Environmental Protection, for example. It is a complicated relationship.
I think that the situation has changed, and therefore what the Agriculture Bill is able to do, and the amount of funding that comes forward to deliver on those targets, is critical. Clarity about the long-term funding arrangements is therefore very important, as well as how those would seek to address the climate change issue.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Graeme Willis: A target for the sector would be very interesting. I know that the NFU has come up with its own leadership statement of a 2040 target. It would be interesting for the sector. I would flag up that when emissions from agriculture are referenced they are land use, land-use change and forestry emissions, which relate to agriculture. Peatland use, particularly, is not mentioned, which is very high indeed—particularly on lowland peat. Those need to be factored in. It is of great concern that those do not get mentioned adequately. I think there are powers within the Bill to address those.
I suspect that if you had sector targets for agriculture you would argue for targets for other sectors. I am not sure whether those are in place. In the agriculture sector, I think that there will be ambition, given the right funding, to do a lot more on climate change, certainly in terms of locking carbon up in soils, where it belongs, rather than losing it to the air. There is great potential for that.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Jake Fiennes: There could be a technical mechanism relating to tenant’s dilapidations from the landlord’s perspective. The landlord could seek to recoup that if he was going to devalue the land by taking those future payments away. There is a technical mechanism that allows that to happen. That strengthens the landlord’s ability to retain that land to rent to others or to new entrants. It is important that there is some kind of mechanism within the Bill for that. Potentially there would be land abandonment because it has no value, or we would see deep intensification of land areas that have no support mechanism. Then we are trying to deliver environmental land management on a landscape scale, and we have these blackspots in between with no support mechanism. That would be my concern.
George Eustice
Q
Jake Fiennes: Land rents are artificially high based on the support mechanism. We will see that slowly diminish. Commodity prices will periodically affect land prices. The horticultural sector does not rely on support at all. The average age of the British farmer is 62: land rents are overly high and they will be reduced, thereby suddenly allowing new entrants to come in who will be more open to environmental land management and public goods proposals. We will see a wholesale change. We are expecting a recession in agriculture through this transition period, for all the reasons being discussed today. Where there is change there is opportunity, and the opportunities are there for another generation to move in and manage land environmentally, economically and sustainably.
Chair
We will now hear evidence from the Country Land and Business Association and the Tenant Farmers Association. We have until 5pm. Welcome; please introduce yourselves.
Judicaelle Hammond: I am Judicaelle Hammond. I am the director of policy and advice of the Country Land and Business Association.
George Dunn: I am George Dunn. I am the chief executive of the Tenant Farmers Association of England and Wales.
George Eustice
Q
George Dunn: That is an interesting question, and one to which there is no simple answer. There are two codes of tenancy in play. One is the code under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, and one is under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. The 1986 Act has a formulaic approach to rent. It steers you away from the market. In my view, if you look at the rents that are on Agricultural Holdings Act tenancies, they are probably more akin to an affordable level of rent. We are seeing around £80 per acre on arable, £50 to £60 per acre on grass and up to £100 per acre on dairy.
The farm business tenancy rents, which are driven by tender rents quite a lot, are far too high. We often see rents for arable ground in excess of £200 per acre and over £200 per acre for dairy ground. Those are clearly unsustainable. I would direct the Committee to look at the sorts of evidence you would get from the 1986 Act as to what a reasonable level of rent is.
Judicaelle Hammond: I do not think it is that easy. As George was saying, several things make up land rents. One of them is what you can get for what you do with that land. It is right that it should be left to the market. It may well be that some of the rent levels are unsustainable. I think they will probably adjust as we change regimes, but I do not think that being bound by a formulaic rent system is a good idea in a system where there is uncertainty in trading conditions and there needs to be some flexibility.
George Dunn: To add to that, the problem with an open market system is that the market is so slim, and the evidence is so hard to come by. Therefore, you tend to be driven by the froth in the system—the tender rents. If you look at DEFRA’s own figures, the average farm business tenancy rent on an arable farm is about £100 per acre, but the tender rents suggest they should be double that. I just think we need to ensure that we are not wholly going with the market level.
George Eustice
Q
George Dunn: On that point, we would see the farm business tenancy rents under the 1995 Act move more towards the level of rents we would see under the 1986 Act. They might fall a little bit, but because they take into consideration the productive and related earning capacity of the holding, that would reflect better what that holding can physically produce.
George Eustice
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: There is no easy answer to that, because the circumstances will vary. I think it very much depends on what the person who owns that land wants to do with their holding. It may well be that, due to questions other than just land rents, they want to bring it in hand. It may be that there are other things they want to do on that land—for example, tourism or something completely different to agriculture—or it may be that renting the land to tenants suits them and they will continue doing that. That will vary according to the owners’ vision for the land and the stage they are at in terms of their business.
George Eustice
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: We would totally agree, as the CLA, that this move is the right move. We have been a proponent of moving towards payment for public good for a while now. The Bill is welcome. We also welcome the inclusion of soil quality, for example, and the consideration of sustainable food production and food security in the Bill. The fact that there is now going to be a multi-annual framework for financial assistance is also important, as is assistance for productivity improvement.
Regarding what we would want to see, there are two main aspects, as well as a number of other improvements, which I might talk about later. One is making sure that the transition is right. At the moment, we are missing information, not just about what is going to happen next year, but about residual payments for individual businesses over the rest of the transition years. We are missing the kinds of details about ELMS that will make it possible for those businesses to make decisions about where they want to take their business, and in particular, of course, about payment rates. In the absence of those details, and given the uncertainty in trading conditions, we would like the start of the transition period to be pushed back by one year without moving the start of ELMS.
The other issue that we have is about trade standards, which the NFU and others have spoken about. We certainly share their concerns.
George Dunn: I would take you back a little bit, Minister, and just say that we need to be really careful. Despite the fact that there is a great deal of criticism of the CAP, and the way in which the basic payment scheme operates and its impact on rents, we need to be clear that those payments are being received by individual farms right up and down the country that are doing the right things on the environment, animal welfare, consumer safety and all those issues. If we simply remove the BPS payment without properly thinking through the changes that we need to make, we risk the good work that we are doing. That is why we have been saying that we are making changes for a generation, and they need to be done well rather than quickly, so we support the CLA’s stance on delaying the transition. We think that we have concertinaed the work on ELMS, for example, too much to try to bring that forward into a sensible place.
Also, while we support the general move towards public payments for public goods, we see that move alongside the productivity elements, which we believe are really important as well. The Bill has a couple of lines on productivity, but we want to see much more about how that can work alongside creating resilience within farm businesses. There are also the trading elements and ensuring that we are not undercut by cheap imports from abroad, produced to standards that are illegal here; the fair dealing practices; and the issue of access to the tenanted sector. Schedule 3 goes some way towards addressing that sector, but it needs a little bit of work.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: The main one, as I said—I will not labour the point—is the delay in the start of the transition. It also seems to us that a couple of other things would be improved if they were done differently. For example, the multi-annual framework for financial assistance is five years. I can see why it has been done like that, but that means that it is at risk of being entangled with the political and election cycles. As far as I know, farmers in the EU—which is going to be our closest competitor—will still have seven years to plan. That is closer to the business cycle in agriculture, so we would favour lengthening the period covered by the multi-annual financial assistance framework.
The other thing that could be added to the Bill is a provision on rural development and, in particular, socioeconomic funding schemes. In the new world, that is going to be done via the UK shared prosperity fund, but that is not due to arrive until 2022 at the earliest. What would happen if that got delayed, or got into other difficulties? We would like to see some provision to make sure that it is possible for Government to continue socioeconomic schemes.
Those are two important improvements. We would also want to make sure that any moneys that are recouped from direct payment, particularly in the early part of the transitions, are used for productivity and ELMS pilots and do not go back to the Treasury.
George Dunn: We agree on the issue of trade standards. We think we need to nail that wholly into the Bill to ensure that we are not undercutting our high standards here and offshoring our issues abroad.
While there have been some helpful statements from the Government, we are concerned about some of the rhetoric that appears to be emerging, particularly from the Prime Minister’s Greenwich speech, where there was an indication that we would not necessarily insist on our laws being protected in trade deals, which is rather worrying. Of course we were also promised free and frictionless trade with the EU on leaving the European Union, but we hear the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster saying today that we need to prepare for issues at the border when we end our implementation period.
On the fair dealing section of the Bill, we should nail down the fact that that should be regulated by the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The Bill leaves it hanging as to who should be the regulator. There is a suggestion that the Rural Payments Agency has a role to play; I would disagree. As the CLA has said, we need a delay in the transition period by one year, which will give us sufficient time to think about these things more deeply.
The access for tenants to schemes needs to be addressed, because schedule 3 to the Bill provides a provision only on a “may” basis. We want it to be a “must” basis that the authorities come forward with regulations. Currently, that applies only to the 1986 Act tenants, not the 1995 Act tenants. As that is half the tenanted sector in agriculture in England, we think that should be changed.
On the food security section, we want the report to be annual, not five yearly. Finally, in the financial assistance plans, the missing thing is the word “financial”. There is no commitment to say what the finances are going to be in any one year over the five-year period. That needs to be nailed into those plans as well.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
George Dunn: There is nothing in the Bill that will affect the lengths of tenancies per se. Obviously there is the welcome inclusion of soil health within the public payments for public goods element of the Bill, which might encourage people to go for longer tenancies, depending on how the ELMS fits into that, but there is nothing specific that will do anything about the lengths of tenancies.
The Tenancy Reform Industry Group made a suggestion, because one of the things that landlords are concerned about is how they get land back if the tenant goes into breach. We are not interested in protecting tenants who are in breach. If we had easier-to-use provisions that allowed landlords to take land back if they had let for a long period of time, that might make them freer to do that.
There is also a need to look at the taxation framework, which goes beyond the Bill, but we hope that the Chancellor might say something about that on 11 March.
Judicaelle Hammond: Interestingly enough, we would support the introduction of provisions that enabled landlords, as you might expect, to get possession of the land in the case of breach. The question for us is whether there should be a threshold on that. Our answer would be that two years or more would be better than any arbitrary longer threshold. That is certainly an additional provision that we could support if there were not an arbitrary threshold.
George Dunn: Our view would be that there would be no public policy use for such a short-term clause. If we are looking at longer tenancies, we need to find a way of encouraging them, so it needs to apply to tenancies that are of 10 years or more.
Danny Kruger
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: It is really important to understand that, in most cases, we would expect agreement to be found. I think the reason why we do not like one of the particular provisions in schedule 3, which has to do with arbitration in case of disputes, is that at the moment it very much looks at the interests of the tenants, who might be gaining financially quite a lot, without necessarily having a balance of the interest of the landlord.
I will give you a few examples of why landlords might withhold consent. It might be about landscape protection. For example, the National Trust will have properties where they want to make sure that the landscape continues to be enjoyed as it is. Or it might be that something does not fit with the business planned for the whole of the holding—in particular, if you are looking at other areas of the holding that are currently in hand or are farmed by somebody else, which might be better suited to planting trees, because trees cannot grow very well in all places. Or it might be about putting buildings on land in order to create new activities.
As drafted, the schedule would mean that, in the case of a dispute, it would go to an arbitrator, and then the decision is binding on the landlord. That means that there could be really long-term and possibly irreversible decisions being imposed on the landlord. We see that as a really fundamental infringement of property rights, and that worries us. It is the absence of balance that worries us.
Danny Kruger
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: Ideally, we would not want this in the Bill at all. Certainly, if it were to stay in the Bill, we would want to see assurances that would redress that imbalance.
George Dunn: Just to correct something that you might have said in your question, for the basic payment scheme, which is being phased out, in 99.9% of the cases that would be going to the tenant, the occupier, who has the land at their disposal.
Obviously, within some of the newer farm business tenancies under the 1995 Act—which I referred to earlier, following the Minister’s question—a landlord might expect to receive at least the basic payment scheme in rent, plus more, in terms of the tenant’s willingness to pay rent on that basis, so there is a secondary move of the payment to the landlord, but the claimant is the tenant, and that is what the regulations say.
The bigger area that we have concerns about is the agri-environment scheme, where there has been this idea that you could have dual use, where a landlord could claim countryside stewardship and environmental stewardship while the tenant is claiming the BPS. We think that is wholly inappropriate, and we will ask for amendments to the Bill to define the rightful recipient of some of this money. It should be the active farmer who is in occupation of the land.
Responding to what Judicaelle said about the need for tenants to have access, all of Judicaelle’s members will be entirely reasonable and will give consent to our members to go into these things, but we are looking for those beyond the CLA’s membership, who are not always as reasonable. Sadly, we do see landlords withholding reasonable consent very frequently. “Reasonable” is the key word here. We are looking for a set of regulations. The Bill provides that there should be regulations, and those regulations will set out what are the reasonable terms upon which a tenant should be able to apply and insist upon a consent, for either fixed equipment or for access to a scheme.
If we take the issue of trees, for example, trees are normally reserved out of tenancy agreements. It is the landlords who hold the trees, so if there are any carbon credits available under the Bill, they will not be accessible by the tenant because those trees are reserved to the landlord. Perhaps that is something that needs to be thought through, if trees are going to be a really important part of the Government’s policy going forward.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Q
George Dunn: The majority of my members are looking for longer terms; they want security. The average length of term on a farm business tenancy today is 2.9 years. Think of agriculture in terms of its long-term need to look at soil management, agri-environment schemes and so on. If you take land that has buildings it goes up to about seven, if you have land with housing, it is up to about 10 or 11, but we would expect those later ones to be even longer than that. Our members consistently ask for greater length of security of tenure. For example, if you go to a bank to borrow money to invest in your business and you can only show a three-year or a four-year time horizon, why would the bank lend you money to do any substantial investment if it only has a four-year period to pay that back? Even those tenancies that the CLA often claim get renewed year after year, are only for annual security. How do you go to a bank asking for support for something where you have annual security? We think there is a great deal of appetite for longer-term tenancies.
Judicaelle Hammond: I think my members want good tenants who look after the land and can pay their rents. They want tenants who are willing to innovate and continue to develop their business. It requires flexibility on both sides. I understand the appetite for longer tenancies and that can be agreed. However, what we do not want is a third party determining how two parties who are free to contract, contract.
Rolling tenancies happen and I therefore think that the figure of 2.9 years is a little misleading. We want a system that works for both parties, particularly in times of uncertainty. I would add that an awful lot of my members are somebody else’s tenant. They have land of their own, but they might add to it, for scale, for example.
George Dunn: In a situation where we have 90% of all farm business tenancies in England now being let for periods of five years or less, there is market failure here, which the Government need to address.
Thangam Debbonaire
Q
George Dunn: From our end of the spectrum, we do not want the Bill to have a minimum term for agricultural tenancies, because that will not help our sector at all. We want to see the ability for landlords, where they let long term or where they are nervous about letting long term, in case they get a tenant who they do not get on with or who does not pay their rent, or who does something to the historic landscape, if the landlord is the National Trust, to feel confident to let for a longer time, because they know they can get the land back early if there is a problem. We are absolutely on the money with that. There is what might be called an oven-ready amendment that could go into the Bill to achieve that.
Thangam Debbonaire
Oh, please don’t call it that!
George Dunn: More widely, we think the taxation system needs to be looked at to incentivise longer-term tenancies and penalise shorter-term ones through the taxation system. Ireland has done some good things on the income tax side, which the Treasury could look at, but that is not something that would be put in the Bill.
Judicaelle Hammond: You will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with that. I do not see that there is a market failure. There might be things in the market that are happening at the moment, because of the way that the system works, that may be unsustainable. We will see what happens when the BPS ends. If you look at some of the reforms that have been made, not in Ireland but in Scotland, it all but killed the rental market. That would not be good for my members or for George’s. We need to be extremely cautious about putting things in legislation and rushing them through without proper consideration of the consequences for both parties. That could lead to a market that is even more nervous than it is now and, as a result, becomes ossified. I do not think that would be good.
George Dunn: We certainly need to learn the lessons of what happened—what is happening—north of the border, but that should not be an excuse to do nothing south of the border.
Theo Clarke
Q
George Dunn: All businesses operate within a sphere of uncertainty about the future for their market and how they intend to run their businesses in the long term. Anybody who thinks they can do a 10-year business plan and stick to it after year five is thinking wishfully. The idea of having multi-annual plans is really good, but they need to highlight how much money will be spent and how it will be spent through those plans, rather than just vague indications of the way in which the financial systems powers will be played. If farmers had a reasonable five-year horizon to work through, that is as much as I think they would be looking for.
Judicaelle Hammond: I totally agree with the TFA that the more certainty in the future, the better. Part of the problem we have at the moment is that we do not have certainty past next year. Although there have been commitments to maintaining the current level of funding, so far they are, unfortunately, just commitments. We would welcome a quantification as part of the multi-annual financial assistance frameworks.
Theo Clarke
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: I am sure it could be improved.
Theo Clarke
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: I think that my lawyers would probably have my guts for garters if I tried to answer that question on the spot.
George Dunn: I think it is good that there is the facility to pause or extend. One would hope that there would be close consultation with the stakeholders to consider that. There is a doubt as to whether we can reverse, which might be possible. There is also the issue, which I know other witnesses have raised, that if you are taking money out of the BPS, and, for whatever reason, we are not ready to spend that through the new public payments for public goods or productivity schemes, that money needs to be paid back to the recipients from whom it has been removed, until such time as the Government are ready to commit to that expenditure.
Mr Goodwill
Q
George Dunn: Yes, and I think that is what the Bill intends. My reading of the Bill would suggest that that is what would happen under those circumstances. To go back to the previous question, if money was taken out of the system that was not able to be spent through the new arrangements, that would have to be paid back, in our view.
George Eustice
Q
George Dunn: My view is that the answer you were given was nonsense. There would have to be a very specific clause in a tenancy agreement that provided for the circumstances that you are describing—for a landlord to be able to dilapidate a tenant for taking away the payment, which is rightfully theirs anyway, because it is their entitlement to do with that what they will.
We are actually quite excited by the provisions on the lump sum and the extent to which that could generate some really good restructuring within the sector. I do not think there will be an impact on land values as was suggested, because land values are driven by much more than the agricultural return, which is about 2% of the average land value, when you look at how agriculture operates. There might be an impact on rent, which could be a good thing for the sector in terms of productivity and margin and efficiency, but we think that the lump sum elements are certainly something worth pursuing.
Judicaelle Hammond: I think we are a little bit more cautious without more detail. We look forward to the consultation that will happen on the secondary legislation. It is hard to say how it would work and whether there would be any unintended consequences without more detail. The same thing is true of the lump sum. We can see opportunities, both for retirement and investment in the farm, but at the moment, we also see that it could have all sorts of unforeseen consequences. We really do need to have a thought-through view of how the system would work.
George Eustice
Q
George Dunn: Minister, you would be surprised to hear me say that we are absolutely content and there are no other changes that we would want to make, and I am not going to say that. There are elements that we think need to be added—for example, what we were talking about earlier in terms of the provision for farm business tenancies, for encouraging longer-term lets, to give landlords the option of ending those early, but only for those who are letting for a long time. We think that the provisions in relation to tenants’ access to diversification, financial assistance and fixed equipment need to be extended to include 1995 Act tenancies.
I noticed that a question was raised by a Member on Second Reading about widening the franchise of succession to include nephews, nieces and grandchildren, which was not adequately answered by the Secretary of State. Perhaps there is an amendment that could be brought to look at widening the franchise. Very often, it is the nephews and nieces and grandchildren, rather than the sons and daughters, of farmers, who are the active individuals. So there are certain changes that we will promote through amendments to the Bill.
Judicaelle Hammond: What I have said before about schedule 3 stands. We do not particularly like the commercial unit test removal; we think that it is actually well worth having and it should be strengthened. Why would individuals who are already successfully farming elsewhere have the privilege of reduced rent? It does not seem fair and it does not make sense. Apart from that, my significant concern is with the arbitration proposal for dispute resolution on landlord’s consent.
There are a number of things that the CLA welcomes in there, for example provisions relating to landlord investments, which we think will provide protection for both the landlord and tenant, and the removal of the minimum retirement age of 65 and also the widening of the pool of potential arbitrators. We are not opposed to the whole of schedule 3, but we certainly have significant concern with what is in there at the moment. We certainly would not favour any extension to the AHA tenancies, which we regard in this day and age, and given the flexibility that the market requires, as an outdated system, which certainly should not be prolonged.
George Dunn: You would not expect me not to disagree with what Judicaelle has said about AHA tenancies. If we trusted the landlord community with farm business tenancies to deliver sustainable, long-term, sensible tenancies, we would not be hanging on to the AHA tenancies as much as we are. Sadly, the landlord community has not played the game well in terms of farm business tenancies, in the way that they have delivered those.
The commercial unit test that Judicaelle talked about is a capricious test. It hits people when there is a death out of time, or people who are badly advised. That is all. It is a very expensive test to have advisers help you through. In essence, the Bill is about productivity and increasing efficiency. Having the commercial unit test in place hits those individuals who have been go-ahead, and have been looking to get themselves on rather than waiting for dad or mum to die in order to get the tenancy of the farm. Why should they be penalised when they have been the ones who have been go-ahead, and those who are not so go-ahead get the opportunity to succeed?
Ruth Jones
Q
George Dunn: We are in discussions with Welsh Government officials, as you might expect. This morning, I was having discussions with their policy lead on tenancies. Certainly, I would take from the discussions that we have had to date that there is a real understanding of the need to ensure that they are moving at a pace that allows tenants to have access to the new arrangements.
In the context of having devolved Government, there is no point in having devolved Government if you just do what England does, so there will be specific things for Wales that we will need to look at. I know that the Welsh Agriculture Minister has some aspirations for that in Wales. We are waiting for a White Paper from the Welsh Government that is coming later this year. We are having input into that White Paper. Obviously, they have not reserved the rights for the financial assistance powers within the Bill, but the agricultural tenancy section—schedule 3—applies to Wales and England equally.
Judicaelle Hammond: We represent farmers and landowners in Wales as well. I think that, given the framework of devolution, there needs to be some flexibility. Like previous witnesses, we are a bit concerned where either the implementation of the Bill or, indeed, the way that the money is allocated across the UK changes to such an extent that we see intra-UK market disturbances. We would certainly argue that that should be avoided.
The Chair
If there are no more questions for Members, I thank the witnesses for giving evidence this afternoon.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Agriculture Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 13th February 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 February 2020 - (13 Feb 2020)
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from NFU Cymru, the Farmers’ Union of Wales, and the Welsh Government. Thank you very much for coming and welcome. We have until 12.15 for this panel. Would you introduce yourselves before we move to questions?
Huw Thomas: I am Huw Thomas, NFU Cymru political adviser, based in Builth Wells.
John Davies: I am John Davies, president of NFU Cymru.
Tim Render: I am Tim Render, director for environment and rural affairs in the Welsh Government.
Dr Fenwick: I am Nick Fenwick, head of agricultural policy for the Farmers’ Union of Wales.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Q
John Davies: Thank you, Minister. Obviously, we await any announcements eagerly. We would look to amend where there are, we would say, unfair penalties for minor infractions. There are major improvements to be made there, for instance. There will be a need for more trees to be planted in future; where there are hedgerows or woodlands, at present, they are taken out of any calculation. There are minor adjustments to be done there that could reduce stress quite significantly in the interim period, I would suggest.
Dr Fenwick: We entirely agree with that. Penalties are a huge issue. It is widely recognised that they are very often completely disproportionate to things that have no impact on the wider environment or the general public. Things that may have cost Government, for the sake of argument, a few pounds, can incur fines of many thousands of pounds.
Greening is another issue. The 100 trees per hectare limit has had a very big impact and goes completely against the current thinking on the importance of trees. The way that it has been implemented in Wales—understandably, given the wording of the European legislation—seems counter-intuitive, given the priorities in terms of silviculture and agriculture co-existing.
Tim Render: From the Welsh Government perspective, we consulted on this question in our last document on ideas for taking farming policy forward and future farm support measures. We also identified that, as part of the transition, you would need to look at simplification. The four things that we flagged were very much penalties, as union colleagues have identified; some of the issues around cross-border payments and the single application rule; the basic payment scheme window for unvalidated beneficiaries; and how the environmentally sensitive permanent grassland rules operate. As I say, those are things that we consulted on. We are assessing the consultation responses at the moment and will make policy decisions on how to implement that when we have the powers, through the Bill, to implement—potentially from 2021.
Huw Thomas: One thing to point out is that the powers relating to Wales in schedule 5 are far more modest than those described for England in clause 9. The scope of the ambition for Wales is perhaps somewhat curtailed by that. In relation to England, you have far more powers to remove and reduce burdens, penalties, financial costs and so on; for Wales, the powers are a bit narrower in scope. That is just something to note.
George Eustice
Q
John Davies: I would say that it is very difficult to farm in a prescriptive way. We have a real challenge this year with the weather, which will cause real issues around the three-crop rule, so we need to be flexible in our approach there, because it is simply not practical in some areas at some times. We need more flexibility.
Dr Fenwick: We agree entirely. Something that is aimed at certain types of farms has actually had an impact on the types of farms that it was not aimed at—I am talking about the impacts of greening. Indeed, that has been recognised across the EU. The European Commission is undertaking the same process of looking at greening and how it should be improved, and has taken steps in that direction. I think it is universally recognised as completely disproportionate.
Tim Render: We would be happy to look at that in the light of the consultation responses we get.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
John Davies: We have a very clear vision and ambition to lead the world in producing the most climate-friendly food, and that is to be realised with proper policy and proper support going forward. Obviously, it would be a disaster if that were then undercut by food production systems that are illegal in the United Kingdom, so we would be deeply concerned about the opportunity there and we would like to see that much more strongly identified in the Bill and ruled on.
We welcome the comments that a number of you made during the Second Reading debate. Also, Liz Truss, International Trade Secretary, said last week:
“In addition, nothing in any agreement will undermine the Government’s commitment to tackling climate change.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 15WS.]
We lead the world with our commitment to net zero by 2040, so we look to that being honoured. That is an absolutely key statement to us going forward.
Dr Fenwick: In clause 36, which relates to organic products, subsection (5) makes it clear that it is possible to restrict or prohibit the import of organic products. That will be legislated for once the Bill becomes an Act. We would have expected an equivalent paragraph or provision relating to other production standards to have been incorporated in the Bill. It is there for organic, yet it is not there for all these other issues and in particular the key issue that John raised—our environmental and climate change obligations.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Q
John Davies: If we take America to start with, there is real hunger to access the UK market, but they are pretty adamant that their standards are the standards and that they work on equivalence. Obviously, we would have deep concerns about that for a number of specific aspects. Other countries are more flexible and will look to change, I guess, but I think it needs to be written in absolutely, in black and white.
Dr Fenwick: It is clear from the leaked trade talks document that came out in November—which we assume are valid—that there is that appetite. It seems to provide evidence that that appetite is there. We also know that from the defensive position taken by scores of countries when the UK and the EU first agreed how certain issues would be balanced—in those few areas where agreement was reached—in terms of the splitting of our quotas as regards New Zealand lamb and Australian products. The objections submitted then to the World Trade Organisation by these countries make it clear how important we are as an existing trading destination for them and as a potential destination.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Q
“The regulations may make provision requiring a devolved authority to provide information to the Secretary of State.”
Do you want a corresponding requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the devolved authorities on the operation of those provisions? This is about classifying domestic support in so far as it affects the agreement on agriculture and relates to our position in the WTO. It is a very specific question: do you think that Wales—and Scotland and Northern Ireland—should be consulted, as well as required to provide information?
Tim Render: That question is probably for me. This is an issue that we had extensive conversations with the Minister about regarding the equivalent text in the previous version of the Agriculture Bill. Yes, we would love a consent provision, but in the context of the last Bill we came to a bilateral agreement between the UK Government—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and the Welsh Government on how the provisions would be operated in practice. The Minister has confirmed to us that that agreement will be carried over with this Bill. We look forward to him making that statement again during this stage of the Bill or at a later stage in the House, about how we would work together on that, about the advice and about, were there to be disagreement, our opposition being formally presented to the House of Commons to be part of your decision-making process. We have agreed a way of working to ensure that that voice is heard effectively.
Thangam Debbonaire
Q
Tim Render: It is not in the Bill, but I have the text in front of me. It is an exchange of letters that was published in the context of the previous Agriculture Bill. In our bilateral conversations with the Minister and DEFRA colleagues, we have assurances that that can be taken forward in the context of this Bill.
Thangam Debbonaire
Q
Tim Render: We would be happy with that, yes. That is essentially our way of working, but if it is written in the text, that would be even stronger.
Dr Fenwick: We would also welcome such an addition. It must be noted that this extends to far more than WTO issues, given where we are with our current financial ceiling; we are well below WTO limits. The WTO issue is absolutely essential to avoid disputes, but a key issue for us is the fact that we are moving from a very specific framework of financial ceilings for different areas of spending to one that is almost as liberal as it could be. It appears to us that there will be a single financial ceiling for agriculture expenditure in each of the devolved regions and in England.
For example, under EU legislation, we have multiple ceilings relating to how much we can spend on direct interventions in agriculture production and on young people, how much money can be diverted to rural development spending and so on. I am afraid that this area just screams divergence between nations at an unprecedented level, as do many of the other sections.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Q
Huw Thomas: On the red meat point, we are broadly content. We have been calling for this for a number of years. The issue of repatriating the red meat levy has been a bit of a running sore for a long time, so we welcome this. There has to be a will on the part of the parties concerned to use the new powers that they are about to have conferred upon them. It is all well and good to legislate, but the parties need to work together and find an equitable solution to this problem.
We are glad to see this change, but we would not preclude collaborative working at a pre-competitive stage between the domestic levy bodies on things such as red meat, health and climate, which are not directly related to the market. Repatriating the levy is certainly something that we welcome.
Dr Fenwick: We recommended precisely this sort of action in the Radcliffe review, which was published in 2006. That is how long this issue has been running for. We very much welcome that this is there, but this is the first step—it simply opens the door. Given that lengthy period of waiting, and the imbalance in where the levy has been spent, this needs to be acted on once that door is open.
Tim Render: We welcome the clause on the red meat levy, and we are grateful to the Minister, who has put a lot of effort into working with the devolved Administrations to craft this, to resolve this long-standing issue. On the way the Welsh Government are looking to take things forward, we have said that we plan to produce a White Paper by the end of this year, which will set out the framework for a Welsh Agriculture Bill. Ministers have said that they want to take that forward early in the next Assembly term in 2021.
In terms of operational measures, we have already announced that we will effectively maintain the basic payment scheme approach in 2021 as well, so we have that package of measures to take forward in our own Welsh Bill. That would, I suspect, mirror and address some of the wider issues that this Bill takes forward but are not reflected in the Welsh schedule, as well as dealing with some wider things.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Q
Tim Render: Of course, agriculture is a fully devolved policy area, so we will be developing our own equivalents of the land management approaches that England is proposing. We have already issued two major consultation documents with a lot of detail on that. What we are looking to do through this Bill is to ensure continuity: to make sure that a lot of the important operational elements that mean the agricultural market can work effectively and we continue to have the powers to pay agricultural support to farmers, will be in place and can be maintained beyond the end of this year. From a Welsh perspective, the main thing this Bill does is give us those continuity and keeping pace powers.
However, what we have explicitly decided not to take through this Bill—this is a change from the previous Bill—are powers to make radically new types of payments, analogous to the ELMS in England. We discussed that with the Assembly, and they felt that it was potentially such a large change that they wanted to be able to influence that development of a Welsh agriculture policy, so we have not taken those powers to make major changes in the future; that is what we would do through a Welsh Bill. Obviously, this will depend on the Government after the Assembly elections in May 2021, but we would expect that to be taken forward fairly rapidly as a new Welsh agriculture Bill in that period. As I say, we will be setting out detailed ideas as to what would go in that Bill, particularly the new powers, building on the very detailed proposals we have already set out in consultation documents.
John Davies: It is vital that we take our time over this, because we still do not know what trading environment we will be operating in, and there is an awful lot of volatility out there. It is absolutely vital that we get this right and do it in a co-production way. If we get it right, there are real opportunities; it needs to be a co-operative model that we not only design with the industry, but across different Departments of the Welsh Government. Recently, the Welsh Government have announced that we have hit our target for food sales from Wales, which is £7.5 billion. If we get our “sustainable farming and our land”—that is the name of our new agricultural policy —and sustainable brand values right, we will have two gears meshing, which will really benefit our climate credentials and validity by being able to prove that what we do and how we do it are totally sustainable. It is vital that we get this right and do not rush it.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Q
Huw Thomas: Probably the biggest missed opportunity is the one about standards, which we have already covered, but there are certainly provisions in the Bill that we welcome. The food security provision, for example, is new and something we have been pressing for for quite a while. The requirement to report every five years is not especially ambitious; it should be every year. Especially as we are transitioning out of the EU and leaving those structures behind, we need to ensure we have a review every year. I would also suggest that the Bill does not impose any positive obligations on a DEFRA Minister—for example, in the light of an adverse finding in a report on food security. You could consider placing obligations on Ministers if we are found to be deficient in food security.
Dr Fenwick: From our point of view, it is about more than farming and food production per se; it is about the families that farm on the land. There are certain types of farming that continue, but effectively the communities do not. We see that in parts of England; thankfully we do not see it so much in Wales, if at all. We would say there has been a missed opportunity to include among key priorities the sort of ambition that is there at EU level in terms of the reforms that are going through, which relate to looking after farming families and communities and to laying out sentences explicitly in legislation.
I refer you back to what Tom Williams said about the 1947 Act, which was in place until it was superseded by EU regulations. He said it was based on providing
“adequate remuneration and decent living standards for farmers and workers”—[Official Report, 17 December 1945; Vol. 417, c. 931.]
with a reasonable return on capital investment. We would welcome that sort of aspiration being inserted into the Bill.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The other day, we heard evidence from John Cross of the Traceability Design User Group and Simon Hall, who is the managing director of Livestock Information Ltd, which is a new organisation. I thought they were a little vague on details of the traceability service that they are setting up in England, and on how it will integrate or potentially even overrule existing traceability services in the devolved nations. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on that.
Dr Fenwick: Having only had the time to look at this and go through it as thoroughly as I could yesterday, that clause did ring alarm bells for me. Compared with other systems, Wales has a very successful sheep traceability system that it took into public ownership, rather than farming it out to a private body. It works very well. It could work better, as is the case with all systems, but we hope to develop it into an improved system that will encompass more species. That is certainly the aspiration, and that clause of the Bill certainly raises questions about how those two things interact.
It certainly makes sense to have some form of central data collection point for the UK, given that we are a single country and that it is important for our trading arrangements with other countries. Nevertheless, it depends on how that functions. That part of the legislation would effectively grant powers to non-public bodies—boards that are given certain powers by the Secretary of State. That in itself raises questions; indeed, it is why you took evidence from the witnesses that you mentioned.
Tim Render: To build on that, there are clearly some really important operational issues with the livestock identification systems. We are developing the livestock identification system that we already have in Wales, which works very well. It was co-designed with the industry for ease of operation. We also built it with expansion to different species in mind, so we are looking to turn it into a full livestock ID system, building on a proven IT platform and user interface. It is absolutely vital that we get the behind the scenes IT with what happens in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to have that interchange of data, because you have got cross-border trade and that is how you manage animal health issues, which do not respect borders. That is the big piece of IT work that we are doing with colleagues in DEFRA and colleagues in the other Administrations around the livestock identification system. We will build our own front-end system for Welsh farmers to use, building on what the industry sees as a successful system.
John Davies: It is vital that we get this right. Animal disease does not respect boundaries well, and I concur with everything said in terms of the databases talking to each other. There is also an opportunity here to bring realtime information to purchasing decisions around animal health and the likes, and we need to get this right.
Dr Fenwick: If I may come back, to lessen the potential adverse impacts of clause 32, which amends the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, there needs to be at the very least a duty to consult and reach agreements with Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Government and so on to ensure that this does not hand over an extreme power to, in effect, an English board.
Deidre Brock
It is the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.
Dr Fenwick: Yes, or it could be anyone, because it is only created with those powers.
Deidre Brock
Q
Tim Render: At the moment, it is only sheep for which there is a full integrated electronic system.
Deidre Brock
In Wales.
Tim Render: In the UK. The other systems are much more primitive, it is fair to say. For instance, the British cattle movement service is not essentially an online realtime system. This is one area where we have what are technically called concurrent powers and we are in discussion with DEFRA about these powers and those around organics being subject to consent by devolved Administrations rather than just consulting, for the reasons that colleagues outlined.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
Q
Dr Fenwick: There are about 600 cross-border farms. Some are administratively answerable to England and some to Wales, depending on the proportion of land on each side of the border—I think that is how it works. Those guys have consistently been the last people to receive payments of any form for the last 15 years, since basic payments and what is generically called the single farm payment was introduced in 2005. They have a very tough farm and are placed at significant disadvantage.
Divergence will clearly be an issue for those farms. Conversely, some of the powers in the Bill would lessen the impact, allowing their payments to be released earlier by changing EU regulations that make it difficult when one payment authority is slower than the other at processing applications—because unless everything has been processed, payments cannot be released. The ability to change the rules is therefore welcome, but as things diverge, as they may well do—it is difficult to see how they would not—a lot of thought and care needs to be taken regarding those impacts. It is not just divergence over payment systems and policies; it is also about standards. This provides an opportunity for Wales to, for example, have different assurance standards from England, yet we have a 300-mile-or-so border, which is effectively porous.
John Davies: As one of the UK NFUs, we have a fantastic working relationship. We met last week in Glasgow at NFU Scotland’s AGM. Divergence is front and centre of all our minds, because it is vital that we do not diverge too greatly and create a different trading environment in the UK. That is really important. The key basis that we always operate on is that everything should be done through agreement, not imposition. That is our guiding principle.
Tim Render: Divergence is a consequence of devolution, in that you are making different choices to reflect different circumstances, although I have a lot of sympathy for Mr Davies’ points about operating in a common market, and about standards and not diverging in some of those areas.
The issue of cross-border farms keeps me awake at night, as I think about how I move to develop a new policy. It is one of the really difficult issues. We do not have clear answers to it yet. We are working with the industry and DEFRA on what doing potentially quite different things in return for public support on either side of the border means for those 600-or-so farms that are potentially on either side of that. How we manage that is a tricky question. I do not have any answers to that, but it is something that we are working on with DEFRA and the industry, to work out what the most practical, simple and effective way of doing it is.
Dr Fenwick: When it comes to divergence, of course devolution implies divergence. We as a union supported devolution, so we have no problem with divergence, but it was divergence within boundaries. The current EU framework has strict boundaries in terms of flexibility within legislation and flexibility within financial limits. We are looking, potentially, at a complete liberalisation of those boundaries, so that they become far wider and the degree to which divergence can be market distorting becomes potentially far greater under what is happening at the moment.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Tim Render: I think we can. The questions around water and diffuse agricultural pollution are live in Wales at the moment. In terms of our regulations under the various water rules, we are some way behind the rest of the UK, and we are looking to take action to ensure that we have effective measures for the management of agricultural pollution.
One of the things, looking to the medium term, is an ability to think about how we do some of the wider regulation: what conditions we attach to future payment regimes; how we link that to the regulatory floor; and things around earned autonomy for more flexibility, in return for clearer, authenticated and demonstrable actions that take account of flexibility while there are, at the same time, clear ways of ensuring and providing assurance that the necessary actions are taken. Those are some of the opportunities that we have in the medium term, adapting some of the regulations, but it is probably through more sophisticated regulation and earned autonomy approaches that we can really provide some of that greater flexibility.
John Davies: Thank you, Mr Goodwill, for the opportunity to comment on this, because obviously regulation has been one of the reasons that Europe has had less favour. Nitrate vulnerable zone regulations are among the most prescriptive and least effective of those that have been implemented by Europe. Let us move away from that. Let us ensure that regulation, when it comes, fills the gaps and is effective. Anybody who thinks that they can farm by date will fail. It is vital that we farm by the ground conditions. We have a changing climate here, and we have to respond to that. We have to evolve, adapt and work effectively to reduce the number of incidents. It is coming down slowly, but we need to move more rapidly to reduce it. It is vital that we get on top of that through effective, proper, reasonable regulation.
Deidre Brock
Q
Tim Render: I agree with that. Equally, there are some measures that need to operate across the UK for trade and operators. The red meat levy is a very good example of something that needs to be applied at the UK level, but from a devolved Administration perspective, where some of those powers operate at a UK level, that needs to happen with our consent and agreement. Yes, let us agree a common approach to something—that is very often the best approach—but, for us, those sorts of concurrent powers need to be with consent.
Dr Fenwick: To give an example of the sorts of divergence at a very simplistic level that will potentially have an impact in the coming months, the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020 received Royal Assent the day before we left the EU. That effectively cuts and pastes EU payment regulations back into domestic legislation. However, one section of the Act allows devolved regions—this relates primarily to Scotland—to exceed those financial ceilings that are effectively derived from EU-set ceilings.
Within hours or minutes, effectively, of our leaving the EU, we have the potential for financial divergence that would increase the difference between the average payments received by a Scottish farmer and a Welsh farmer, which is already in the tens of thousands, potentially to far more. That relates to the Bew review, which has given lots of additional money to Scotland. Previously, that money could not be paid to farmers. The new legislation allows them to diverge—I go back to that word—from the ceilings that are set in the legislation.
John Davies: We have a very clear ambition for a policy made in Wales, where we see the productivity and the environment meshing together, underpinned by a stability pillar that will give us real opportunities. We are ambitious for the future. There is real opportunity out there to make policy in Wales, for Wales, by Wales.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that we are at the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Gareth Morgan gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Soil Association and we have until 1 pm for this session. Welcome to the Committee. Please introduce yourself.
Gareth Morgan: I am Gareth Morgan and I represent the Soil Association, a charity engaged in sustainable food and farming. We also run some certification of organic agriculture and sustainable forestry.
The Chair
The acoustics in this room are appalling. Can you speak up and project your voice?
Gareth Morgan: Yes, will do.
George Eustice
Q
Gareth Morgan: Unsurprisingly, we were delighted to see that addition, which we thought was a grave omission last time round. There was a rather arcane debate around whether soil health was a private or a public good. What matters is that we achieve better soils, because we know that there is a soils crisis. Indeed, Michael Gove highlighted that in some of his speeches.
The other problem, as you allude to, Minister, is that soil is highly geographically variable and contains many different parameters, from organic matter in terms of the ability to sequester carbon to soil biodiversity, productive capability and the rest of it. That challenge has made it very difficult to set standard provisions around soils for farmers to follow. I suspect that that side of it will probably be best developed through the 25-year plan in the Environment Bill, so in a sense the Agriculture Bill is the place where the tools for farmers to improve their soils can be placed, and where the provisions around what sorts of soils we need, and where, will need a lot of research and geographical specificity. Farmers will need assistance to understand their soils, so a top-down approach to the same soils everywhere is probably not the right way to go.
One exception is that the concept of a steady increase in the carbon content of soils seems to be widely accepted. I think the UK is in the “4 per 1000” club on this, which is around a steady percentage increase of organic matter in soils. That will be a useful single aspiration for farmers and policy makers to coalesce around.
George Eustice
Q
Gareth Morgan: The lack of knowledge should not be used as an excuse to not do anything. I agree with you that far. In terms of understanding at the field level what a particular farmer needs to do, I do not think I agree that that is always obvious. You might have shared the same train journey that I had today from Bristol. Going through Wiltshire and looking at the waterlogged soil-laden water lying on the fields, so that it is pouring into the River Avon at the moment, is a signal to me. That is not necessarily the fault of the farmer, but there is a gap between academic understanding of what soils should be like and what is happening in practice in the fields. There is a huge need for farmers to better understand what is appropriate on their farms. That will involve a fair bit of Government investment to help them in that process.
George Eustice
Q
Gareth Morgan: Yes. The Soil Association is rooted in the philosophy that the essence of successful farming lies in the soil. There has been a welcome resurgence of interest in soil over the last few years. It is not an exclusive club; there are things such as minimum tillage, which is not necessarily an organic philosophy. A lot of farmers are increasingly focused on soil as the central organising principle of productivity, pest resistance, carbon sequestration and biodiversity, but that recognition still has a long way to go. I do not think organic is the only way in which that can be achieved, but it is one simple codified way of farming that we know builds on that understanding of soil and organic matter in soil.
George Eustice
Q
Gareth Morgan: No, I would not say that. That is why there is increasing use of the term “agroecology”, to suggest that there is a more inclusive approach to sustainable farming. Organic is a great codified way of doing that and guaranteeing to the farmer and the consumer that the farmer is following a particular practice, but agroecology is wider in the sense that it incorporates practices such as mixed farming, where there is a mixture, or ruminant livestock and arable so there is a natural fertility cycle. It incorporates a focus on reducing pesticides—it would be fantastic in the Agriculture Bill to have some target for the reduction of pesticides as an aspiration—and a focus on leguminous plants, to increase nitrogen naturally, to avoid the use of artificial nitrogen. We are going to have to wean ourselves off artificial nitrogen at some point if we are to meet our carbon targets, because we have not found an alternative way to make it. All those practices can be incorporated into conventional farming systems.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Gareth Morgan: There is a soils crisis, which is expressed in a number of different ways. It is probably slightly alarmist to talk about a certain number of years of soils left, which is quite graphic and gets people engaged in the topic, but that will be different in different places. Soil can regenerate, so we should not look at it as a one-way trajectory of decline; we know ways in which soil can be recovered. The decline in organic matter in soil is a key dimension of that crisis.
The other big element of soil health that has been neglected by the environmental side as much as by the farming side, is biodiversity in soil. I assume that is as simple as the fact that it is below the ground, and therefore you do not see it. I heard an interesting statistic the other day: in a typical sheep field, the weight of creatures underneath the field far exceeds that of the animals on the surface, whether as simple as worms or down to bacterial and fungi. The problem is that, because we do not see it, it is not that immediately obvious to us. It becomes obvious through things such as feeding birds in the winter—the number of lapwings on the fields. If there are no invertebrates in the fields, there will not be birds above them. Getting back to a sense of the biodiversity of soil will be a good way to re-engage with it.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Gareth Morgan: I absolutely agree with the latter point. We may come on to the issue of trade equality later in the discussion, I imagine. There is simply no point in us exporting our production by forcing up standards here when we are importing products that are produced to low environmental and climate-change standards from other places. We urgently need to find a way to address that, because the tsunami of change that is about to hit farming in this country will not be able to withstand that, so we have to find a way of addressing that issue.
I do not think that should be used as an excuse for not starting to tackle some of these big crises, such as the soil crisis. It would be useful in the Bill, for example, for the food security provision to talk about things such as soil as part of food security. At the minute, it is very focused on economic factors. If we do not sustain the simple biological and physical nature of farming over this period, we will not have food security. That is one place where it would be useful to put this in the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Gareth Morgan: I do not think anyone has found a simple solution to this, other than a protectionist model, which is what we are trying to get away from. The most interesting example I have heard is talk from Dieter Helm at the Natural Capital Committee about some kind of carbon border adjustment. It would seem ridiculous for us to import products from countries that are not signed up to the Paris treaty and may be subsidising fossil fuels for their farmers in order that they can produce cheaply, and for those products to be on the market in this country, going against products that properly factor in the carbon price. It is not going to be easy to get around, but we cannot duck it. A number of groups have put forward potential amendments to the Bill to try to address some of that, and that also needs to be reflected in the trade Bills. Just ignoring it, as is being done at the minute, is not satisfactory for our farmers or our environment.
Danny Kruger
Q
Gareth Morgan: I think the Bill is a good step, in terms of providing the toolkit to give farmers the financial assistance to provide some of those public goods. The environmental land management scheme seems to have got quite bogged down over the past couple of years because it has been trying to get round this issue of working to more outcome-focused schemes, rather than just prescriptions for farmers, but there is a reason why we ended up doing prescriptions, although they are very frustrating for farmers to work to, because it is a list of rules that you have to follow and that is not a very creative way of doing things. The reason we do that is that you can audit them and specify them, even if it is a bit rough and ready, whereas saying to a farmer, “We would like to see 10 pairs of skylarks on your land. You decide how you do it,” is quite open-ended and not that helpful to the farmer. Hopefully, ELMS is the place where we will find a way of reconciling those two conflicting priorities.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
Gareth Morgan: One reason I joined the Soil Association —I was previously working at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—was the sense that you can do quite a lot for particular things, such as bird numbers on farms, without affecting the underlying sustainability of farming operations. I do not think the Bill deliberately plays into that, but it could be an unintentional consequence. There is a whole series of public goods that a farmer could choose to provide, but—particularly if we are going to lose things such as cross-compliance now, which is the basic way to encourage a farmer to look across the whole farm—there is a considerable danger that we will just focus on the easy or obvious bits, such as doing a flower margin or some skylark plots on a farm, and not really think about why the ecological operation of a farm is not satisfactory.
At the moment, there are two distinct dangers. First, some farms might opt into the public goods system while other farms will decide to farm to the market, especially if they are competing with foreign imports produced to lower standards. Secondly, even on individual farms, a farmer might be tempted to look for a particular thing that can be done that will be good for the environment, but neglect what is happening on the rest of the farm, for example the state of the soil across the whole farm. The whole-farm approach should be at the centre of the Agriculture Bill, but it is not at the moment.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Gareth Morgan: It is fantastic that the NFU has taken the position of committing to an early net zero target for the agriculture and land use sector. That has shifted the debate enormously. Establishing the route map by which you do that is quite difficult. I am not entirely sure that a net zero clause in the Bill is the right way to go about it.
In several sectors—such as transport and energy generation—we have a clear idea about what that route map needs to be. Land use will be much more complicated. We do not know all the answers yet—for example, in the current argument about red meat, we are veering a different way each month. Setting a clear trajectory in farming to net zero in law could be counter-productive. The easiest way for us to go net zero in terms of land use in the UK is to stop farming and plant trees everywhere and import food off our balance sheet. That would be madness, but it could be an inadvertent consequence if we get the wrong sort of legal fix into law. I think the Bill could be more explicit about net zero and the need to achieve it, but we need to be careful about the way in which we phrase that.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Gareth Morgan: That is a well-made point. In food, demand and production need to be balanced. That is true not only of organic produce; it is a general point.
One key point is that it would be helpful if the Bill recognised the specific contribution that organic farming can make against a whole range of public goods. Rather than inventing a complicated system in parallel with organics—for example, saying, “If a farm satisfies the carbon criteria, the biodiversity criteria, the rotations and the rest of it, then we will make a payment”—let us just cut to the chase and say that it makes sense for there to be some kind of organic maintenance payment to recognise additional public goods that are there but cannot be recovered through the market. I think that would in some sense help with the conversion issue, because if farmers are clear that if they move to an organic model they will be rewarded, both by the market and for the public goods that they provide in the longer term, then that will give them that level of certainty.
Regarding conversion, you are right—I think there needs to be caution around doing that, because in the past we have had examples of where there has been over-conversion to organic ahead of the market being ready to be there. So I think the focus on some sort of organic maintenance payment in ELMS is absolutely vital.
There is a role for help with conversion, but it may not be in terms of straightforward payments during that period. It may be through things like the ancillary productivity payments or some of these other issues that are acting as a barrier to conversion. For example, bringing livestock back on to arable farms will be quite a difficult operation, and most people who convert to organic would need to do that if they are an arable farm. So help with the process of establishing those things might be the way that one could assist in that process.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q
Gareth Morgan: At the end of the day, there will have to be some sort of whole-farm planning process. I am sure the Minister has thoughts about this: there is an aspiration to reduce our transaction costs, around the amount of advice and so on that schemes involve. I think there is a limit to how far that can go, so at the end of the day I suspect that any farmer who is receiving substantial public good payments will need to have some kind of system of working with an adviser around a whole-farm plan, which will enable them to put the measures into place, particularly for something like soil.
There are general measures that are great for wildlife and the environment, like having flower margins around fields, having rough grass margins and the rest of it; they will be useful anywhere. With something like soil, I cannot really see how that can be done without the support of an agronomist, or a specialist, or someone helping the farmer and working on the nature of the soil on that particular farm. That need not be done by Government advisers; it could be done by certifiers, or private suppliers and so on. But without that level of support being built into the system, it is quite hard to see how farmers will be able to make the transition that they might want to make on their farm to things like sustainable soil management practices.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Q
Gareth Morgan: I am quite pragmatic about where those targets should lie and if it is not in the Agriculture Bill, there are other places; I have already alluded to the potential for both the Environment Bill and the 25-year plan to be the place where those targets and metrics could reside. It is disappointing that at the moment the Environment Bill does not have a soil chapter, because it would seem to me logical for that to be the place where, say, a target for increasing organic matter in soils at a national level would reside.
Regarding the targets for an individual farm, clearly it would not be sensible for those to be iterated in this Bill, because they might have to be done farm by farm. However, some provision for making sure that farmers are clear what they are working to on the soils on their farm over a particular period will be vital. I do not know whether some provision can be made in the Bill for there to be that level of assessment before public good payments are made on a particular farm, for example, because you are right: unless the farmer is clear about their current resource or what the expectation is about where they will be going, it is going to be quite—and this may be one of the reasons why soils were not previously itemised in the Bill, because of this precise problem about that geographical specificity.
Miss Dines
Q
Gareth Morgan: I think a soil organic matter target nationally is realistic. I think there is a fair consensus that increasing organic matter in soil ticks so many boxes that that is something that would be useful. That does not necessarily help the individual farmer to know what needs to be done on their farm. There is a good national soil survey, so there is good spatial information about soils that we could be using as part of this process, so it does not all have to be done from a base of no knowledge.
George Eustice
Q
Given the complexity of the issue, is there not a danger that if you are waiting to try to identify the target, you end up effectively delaying action—the worst of all worlds? Does it perhaps matter less that there is some sort of prescribed target, and more that you encourage and incentivise good soil husbandry from year one as best you can with the knowledge that you have? You can measure trends. You can get a sense of whether the trends that matter are moving in the right direction from the interventions you are doing. Is not that perhaps a better way to approach these things than some kind of prescriptive target?
Gareth Morgan: I think you are right, in the sense that the best must not be the enemy of the good, and there is plenty that can be done on soils tomorrow. I do not think I agree that the absence of a target is something that we should be content with in the long term, particularly at the Government level. Targets have been useful in focusing the attention of policy makers on results. The farmland bird recovery target, although the bane of many people’s life, was useful in terms of focusing attention on what could be done to reverse the decline of farmland birds.
I think national targets around soils would be helpful in terms of focusing and attracting funding. Ultimately the Treasury is going to come and say, “I can see you are doing lots of interesting things on your farms; what, actually, are you benefiting, in terms of the natural capital account for the country?” Unless we can go back to the Treasury and say, “This investment of £2 billion or £3 billion has achieved the following things over this period,” I suspect the money will dry up pretty quickly.
George Eustice
Q
Are you content with the revised organics regime that we are about to inherit from the EU, as it stands, or would you be interested in us using these powers to make specific changes that might make the future UK organics regime work better?
Gareth Morgan: That is a little bit off my area, so I will not speculate too much. The Soil Association is only one part of a very broad organic movement, so there are a number of players who, I think, will want to come back. I think the general feeling was that the provisions in the Bill provide the right enabling starting point for creating a domestic structure around organic regulation.
The one concern that I have heard expressed is that, given we have quite a collaborative model for developing organic standards and lots of players in this country, building that level of engagement with the various players and consultation into that process will be important. At the European level, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, or IFOAM, has been involved in the ongoing development of organic regulation. We will clearly need to have something similar at a domestic level to ensure that everyone, from the farmers to the certifiers to consumers, has a stake in the development of the regime.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Gareth Morgan: Taking the first point, it does feel that there is still a gap in the policy and legislative architecture in agriculture. We have “Health and Harmony”, which sets out a good, new, broad trajectory for agriculture, and we have quite a technical, nitty-gritty enabling Bill here in terms of saying, “Here are the tools that can be deployed to achieve things.” At the moment there is not anything knitting all that together to say, “What are food and farming for? Do we have any sense of what the right model might be?” I suspect that is perhaps a bit of a legacy from having had the CAP, which was a prescriptive and sometimes flawed model of European farming. We have almost moved away from that to being afraid to say we have any preferences at all. We have a series of tools and a broad aspiration that farming should be good for the environment, and then the market does the rest.
The reason for putting down a marker on public health was to say that food and farming are not just about a commercial transaction; it is of huge national importance whether people have secure and healthy food supplies and access to the right sort of food and whether the farmer is able to get a just return from the market. Some of those things are touched on in the Bill, but it almost feels like there needs to be something right at the front of the Bill to say what all this is for, as opposed to, “What should we pay farmers for and how?” It feels a bit too fast. That does not necessarily have to come in the Bill, but it has to come somewhere, to our mind. Again, that is where we would say that a presumption in favour of a move to a more agroecological way of thinking about farming probably would sit. Equally, it is the place where the national food strategy would fit in to say that food is more than just a market transaction for consumers.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Gareth Morgan: I would tread very warily in that minefield.
Daniel Zeichner
You do not have to answer if you do not want to, but the fact that you are treading warily tells us what we need to know. Thank you.
George Eustice
Q
Gareth Morgan: I should first say that other certifiers are available—for example, our colleagues in Organic Farmers and Growers. It is a competitive market. I am not from the certification side of the organisation and so I will follow up with written evidence on that point, if that is acceptable.
The Chair
Thank you. If there are no further questions from the Committee, I thank you, on behalf of the Committee, for giving your evidence, Mr Morgan.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Agriculture Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 13th February 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 February 2020 - (13 Feb 2020)
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from NFU Scotland, Quality Meat Scotland and the Scottish Government. Thank you for coming. The panel will finish at 2.30 pm. Could you introduce yourselves for the record?
Alan Clarke: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Alan Clarke. I am chief executive of Quality Meat Scotland.
George Burgess: Good afternoon. I am George Burgess. I am the head of food and drink at the Scottish Government.
Jonnie Hall: My name is Jonnie Hall. I am director of policy for NFU Scotland.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Q
Jonnie Hall: I am happy to start. I can quote Mr Eustice back at him and say that the CAP has largely “incentivised inertia”—a phrase he has used many times. We agree. The bluntness of area-based payments has not driven innovation or productivity, or indeed delivered on environmental challenges.
In that respect, we see the departure from the EU and from the CAP as an opportunity to develop bespoke agricultural policy tailored to the individual needs of the devolved Administrations. We have some capacity for that already, in the fact that we have four different settlements of pillar 1 and pillar 2 under the CAP, but we are nevertheless constrained by an awful lot of bureaucracy and by the rules and regulations around mapping, inspections, penalties and so on.
It is vital for us to take the opportunity and for Scotland to be allowed, under the devolved nature of agricultural policy development and delivery, to develop its own suite of schemes and measures that fit the needs and profile of Scottish agriculture, which is significantly different from that of the rest of the UK and, in particular, England. That is absolutely right and, therefore, this provides us with an opportunity.
George Burgess: The Scottish Government position, as I am sure all Committee members will know, has not been in favour of Brexit. We believe that continued membership of the single market and customs union is the best way forward on economic, social and environmental grounds. That includes on the common agricultural policy.
Obviously, there will be areas in the common agricultural policy that are not necessarily to our liking. Work has been under way in Scotland, under the “Stability and Simplicity” consultation, to identify, in the short term, any areas where some improvement could be made to the common agricultural policy. That might be around issues such as mapping and penalties, as Mr Hall has mentioned. We are working, through a farming and food production future policy group, to look at longer-term policy in Scotland.
Alan Clarke: I have a couple of points from Quality Meat Scotland. This gives us an opportunity to look outside our normal markets. Currently, 69% of Scottish red meat is being sold in the rest of the UK, outside of Scotland, and 10% goes internationally. It gives us an opportunity to continue to build on that. To do that, protection of our protected geographical indicators is essential.
In addition, we need to have no reduction of standards of any other imports coming into the country, to make sure that we have a level playing field for our food producers. We would like to see transparency of price reporting throughout the supply chain, to enable us to make better decisions across that area. As you will perhaps hear later from me, we have been working closely with the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and Hybu Cig Cymru on levy repatriation work. We think there is a lot of work that we could build on across the three nations, if not the four nations.
George Eustice
Q
George Burgess: The Scottish Government’s approach through the “Stability and Simplicity” consultation is that, for the period from now until 2024, we will essentially retain the features of the current CAP system with some scope for simplification, improvement and piloting. Beyond that, we are open to looking at a more radical reform of the policy. That is the approach we are taking through our future policy group, which includes representatives from the farming industry, food production and environmental groups, so that is the forum for considering the longer-term changes in Scotland. Whether it retains area-based payments or moves to some other system, or a combination of the two, remains to be seen.
Jonnie Hall: I support that, in the sense that area-based payments are far too blunt and do not deliver the objectives that we all aspire to, not only in supporting agricultural incomes and productivity but in addressing challenges such as climate change, biodiversity and so on. The sooner we move to an approach that is more action- based than area-based, the better. However, we are in alignment with the Scottish Government in the sense that from 2021 onwards, we will be venturing into uncharted territory in many ways, given the changes in our operating environment, trading issues and other areas. The ability to retain direct income support that offers some stability in the interim is key. We are absolutely in alignment about change, but the key questions are about the pace of that change and how we manage it.
We note with interest what is happening in England and the Bill’s proposals for phasing out direct support. Of course, that would be inappropriate and inapplicable in a Scottish context, so we need the devolved capacity to do things differently. The direction of travel is very much the same and the landing space is probably the same as well, but we have to consider the pace of that change and recognise the challenges and issues that are particularly pertinent to Scottish agriculture.
George Eustice
Q
George Burgess: No, I do not think so. The Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill, which implements the stability and simplicity approach for the period between now and 2024, is currently before the Scottish Parliament. I have mentioned the future policy group, which aims to bring forward proposals by the summer of this year. That is the point when we will begin looking at the transition—things that may be piloted between now and 2024—so we are definitely not looking at a sharp cliff-edge transition in 2024.
Hopefully within that time period, we will gain a clearer understanding of our trading regime with Europe and the rest of the world. At the moment, it is frankly quite hard to work out what we should be doing with sectors such as sheepmeat, given that we do not know what the situation with our largest export markets will be.
Jonnie Hall: A number of interests in Scotland have suggested that there should be a sunset clause in the piece of legislation that Mr Burgess has referred to, so that it comes to a definitive end in 2024. However, we would not agree with that, because it would potentially create a cliff edge where we would go off the stability elements that we have talked about and into the unknown. We want to avoid that; we need to be able to adjust to and reflect on the circumstances of the time, and it is right that the Scottish Government have the ability to do so under the legislation that is going through the Scottish Parliament.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
Alan Clarke: It would be a disaster for the Scottish red meat industry. The Scots were pioneers of quality assurance. Scotland was the first country in the world to set up whole of life, whole of supply chain quality assurance, and that gives a unique selling point to our world-class products of Scotch beef PGI, Scotch lamb PGI and specially selected pork. For any diluted product to come to market and be able to compete directly—as far as I am concerned, that has no place on the supermarket shelves.
George Burgess: I suspect you will find a very large measure of agreement at this table. The Scottish Government are very concerned at the prospect that future trade agreements could allow for a dilution of standards.
Jonnie Hall: It is also worth adding that the produce of Scotland—commodities is the wrong word—is not about, “Stack it high, sell it low.” We are not going to compete on world markets. We are not a volume producer. We are based on the authenticity and the provenance of our product, and the welfare standards and environmental standards behind that. If we expose Scottish agriculture to cheaper imports of substandard production methods and so on, we will blow large sections of Scottish agriculture out of the water. That will have significant impacts on the agricultural industry itself, but also, more importantly, on the wider issues around rural communities and the environment and habitats that Scottish agriculture underpins with its extensive grazing systems and so on.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Jonnie Hall: It is quite clear, in many ways, in the sense that the development and delivery of agricultural schemes and policy, in terms of what outcomes we want to achieve from managing our land in an agricultural sense, should absolutely be devolved, and is today. However, when you are looking at the operation of the internal UK market, we need to be able to operate to the same rules in a very transparent and open way across the United Kingdom.
Our worry and concern is that a lot of the discussions from outside of the Government appear to be about common frameworks, but we are unsighted on that. We are not seeing what common frameworks might look like. More important to me is the governance of those common frameworks going forward. Like or loathe the European Commission, at least it acted as some sort of referee when it came to compliance with regulation, standards and so on across member states and within the UK. If we are going to preserve the internal UK market, as Alan Clarke has pointed out is so important to Scottish agriculture, we need to ensure that we are all playing to the same rulebook on a whole range of issues. We are unsighted on an awful lot of that. We are still trying to flush out of Governments—plural—the actions and discussions that are going on.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Q
The Chair
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. We are halfway through and a number of Members want to ask questions, so I would be grateful if you could be short and precise.
Fay Jones
Certainly. Mr Hall, your counterparts in Wales are happy with the pace at which the Welsh Government are bringing forward their equivalent Agriculture Bill. Are you content with the pace of the Scottish Government?
Jonnie Hall: If anything, we would like the pace to be a wee bit quicker. As I said earlier, we recognise that we are all venturing into an unknown world, in terms of the operating environment in which we will find ourselves, so it is probably more pragmatic not to give ourselves distinct deadlines. I mentioned the proposal for a sunset clause in the current legislation, which might suggest a deadline for new policy to be put in place for the longer term. We do not want to be a hostage to fortune on that. Certain sectors of Scottish agriculture might find it particularly bumpy in 2021, 2022 and possibly 2023. We want to see change happen sooner rather than later, but let us not push ourselves into a situation where we must accept change but that change does not take us in the right direction.
Fay Jones
Q
Jonnie Hall: We have had a beef calf payment since 2005 under the CAP. There are strict rules on how much money can be spent on that. It is about how important the suckler herd is to the socioeconomic fabric of rural Scotland. It certainly has not driven production, because suckler cow numbers have continued to decline over that period. If anything, it has slowed the decline down, so I would not call it a production support. It recognises the additional cost of suckler production in our hills, in particular, and therefore it is a very important piece of the policy toolkit. It enables the retention of suckler beef in Scotland, and that has significant implications further downstream and into the supply chain, as I am sure Alan Clarke would agree.
Alan Clarke: Absolutely.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
Jonnie Hall: In our evidence we cite a number of areas. If you look at the Scottish Bill going through the Scottish Parliament and the Bill that you are considering now, there are clear overlaps, not just on animal traceability issues but marketing standards and other things. Many of those issues are devolved, but our concern goes back to the operation of the internal UK market. It is quite right that those things are devolved, but how do we ensure that there is consistency in application of those devolved issues across the United Kingdom? If there is not consistency, there has to be at least co-ordination of those things. It is right that the capacities are devolved. It is right that the Scottish Bill is doing what it does and the UK Bill does what it does, but it is about where those things might rub together to create problems in the UK internal market. There are a number of examples in there. [Interruption.] I am not saying that it will happen, but we need to have consistency if not co-ordination across the UK.
George Burgess: From the Scottish Government’s perspective, the Bill is something of a curate’s egg. The provisions that we like include the red meat levy provision, which we played a large part in developing at the outset. We very much welcome that, and we would like to see a commitment from the UK Government to its swift implementation.
Other provisions in the Bill on food security and fertilisers make a great deal of sense, but we have some difficulties with others, including the livestock information provision, which has already been mentioned. Again, the concern is really about governance and the appropriate role of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments.
Similarly, the organics clause to some extent recognises devolved competences, but we are concerned about the power that is given to the Secretary of State to act in devolved areas without seeking the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Other concerns of long standing from the previous Bill relate to producer organisations, the World Trade Organisation agreement on agriculture, and fair dealing in supply chains, where we have a very different view on devolved competence from DEFRA.
Alan Clarke: I will pick two, Deidre, because I am conscious of time. In relation to the LIP system that we talked about, I think there has always been a history, if there has ever been a disease breakout, that everybody has worked extremely well together and come together and shared all the information. I think it is important that that is retained and that anything that is developed in England must read across to the rest of the UK. ScotEID, again, has been leading the way on that in Scotland. There must be those links. I know the meetings happen regularly every month with the devolved associations and the developers of it, but the mechanism that George talked about is one to consider.
The second issue is levy repatriation. I have been working very closely with AHDB and HCC towards getting a scheme of operation, which can be put to Ministers, showing what the long-term solution for levy repatriation would look like. We have identified, using that scheme, the numbers involved. It would mean that every year, £1.2 million of producer levy that is currently trapped in England would come back to Scotland, and £1.1 million of Welsh levy currently trapped in England would come back to Scotland—to Wales. Apologies—Wyn will not forgive me for that one. Essentially, the scheme has been agreed by the three levy bodies. It has now gone to each of the boards, and we hope to be in a position to put that to the Ministers in a short period of time.
Behind the scenes, we have been looking at the interim solution of the ring-fenced fund—the £2 million that has been ring-fenced for the benefit of levy payers in England, Wales and Scotland. We hope to make an announcement in the next few weeks on greater working relationships between the three levy bodies. This gives us a really good opportunity. We would like to see a date put into the Agriculture Bill to say when the legislation must be passed and the scheme be in operation by. The three levy bodies are working to a date of 1 April 2021 for a long-term solution to be in place, meaning that this is the last operational year of the ring-fenced fund that we will be coming into in April. It would be nice to have that enshrined in law.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
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
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
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.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Q
Jonnie Hall: I think it is a very important point for the future direction of agricultural policy anywhere. I would say at the outset that blunt area payments reflect neither activity nor outcomes; they are simply a ticket to receive an income by declaring an area of land and doing some compliance. We really need to work on a system that recognises the actions that deliver an outcome; you then pay for the actions that deliver the outcomes you require. If it were exclusively about delivering outcomes, that is a very risky situation for farmers and crofters in Scotland. We probably need a combination of both systems, and we are piloting various things in Scotland—for example, an outcome-based approach to agri-environment in different parts of the country.
It is about actions on climate change and so forth. How do we encourage more efficient production systems, soil management and extensive grazing systems? That is within the gift of the farmer or crofter. What is not in their gift is the precise outcome that we get from that. We might think that we will get the right outcome, but we do not 100% know. There are lots of forces at play in agricultural land management, and the risks need to be managed carefully. The key thing is to move away from area-based payments in the first place, with actions then delivering the outcomes and objectives that you want.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for coming along this afternoon.
Examination of Witness
George Monbiot gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from George Monbiot. Welcome to the Committee. This panel will finish at 3 pm. Would you introduce yourself, please?
George Monbiot: Thank you. I am an environmental campaigner and journalist.
James Morris
Q
George Monbiot: I think it really important to tighten the definition and to stick with, basically, the classical definition of non-rivalrous and non-excludable. There is potential for slippage within the wording of the Bill, for example into food production that does not fit the definition. We should basically also be funding public goods that are additional and which are not going to be delivered anyway.
We should be very careful not to use subsidies as a substitute for regulation. There is a real danger in saying, “We will put all this on a voluntary basis and we will pay people to do the right thing,” rather than saying, “You may not do the wrong thing.” I feel that there have already been a lot of failures in monitoring and enforcement of cross-compliance under the current subsidy regime. If we are not careful, we could see those failures become a lot worse.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
George Monbiot: One of my aims would be to reduce the area of land used for agriculture. All agriculture is a radical simplification of ecosystems, until you get to the point at which it is so extensive that it is not really agriculture. The Knepp Castle Estate, for example, is a wonderful example of rewilding, but I worked out that if we were to universalise that across much of the UK, we would need to cut our meat consumption by about 99.5%—that is not a great example of agriculture. Until you get to that level of extensification, you are really removing huge numbers of species and a huge amount of potential carbon storage that would otherwise be there.
In this country, we suffer grievously from what I call “agricultural sprawl”—large areas of land used to produce small amounts of food. It gets to the point at which, for instance, sheep farming in the uplands, according to my estimates, occupies roughly 4 million hectares—almost as much land as all our arable and horticultural production put together—yet produces roughly 1% of our food by calories and roughly 2% by protein. That is a remarkably wasteful use of land, which could be much better used for carbon storage through regeneration and rewilding, and for the great resuscitation of ecosystems and the recovery of our very put-upon wild species.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
George Monbiot: That is a very good question. The Bill discusses both natural heritage and cultural heritage. Both are very important values and neither should be dismissed, but there is an assumption in a great deal of rural thinking in Britain that they are one and the same. We have to acknowledge that they are often in direct conflict. Maintaining sheep on the land is highly damaging to ecosystems, but getting rid of sheep farmers can be highly damaging to local cultures and languages. We have to see that a balance should be struck.
We have so often fudged the issue, the classic example being the world heritage bid in the Lake district, where they were assumed to be one and the same. It is always resolved in favour of farming, because farming is assumed to be good for ecosystems, but in the great majority of cases it is not—the best thing to do for an ecosystem is to withdraw farming from it. But because we do not acknowledge that there is a conflict, we do not produce a balance that ever favours wildlife.
Mr Goodwill
Q
“farming is no longer essential to human survival”.
In contradiction to what the Soil Association told us this morning—that we should have more mixed farming and more livestock, allowing soils to be improved by the use of natural manures—you suggest that we should abandon livestock production, particularly on the uplands, and plant trees and rewild large areas of our country. Is that a correct appraisal?
George Monbiot: That is broadly correct. One thing to say is that in the uplands there is almost no mixed farming. In fact, it would be very hard for mixed farming to be established in the uplands, which are very unsuitable on the whole for arable. In the lowlands, if we were to reintroduce mixed farming, at the microlevel that could be a very good thing by comparison to the arable deserts of East Anglia, but we would see a major decline in total yield. There is very little research on what that decline would be, but everyone can more or less accept that we will see that decline.
The global conundrum we are in is that roughly half the global population is dependent on NPK, to put it crudely, and certainly on nitrogen and other artificial fertilisers. If we were to take those out of the system, we would have mass starvation—huge numbers of people would die. However, we are aware that applications of N, P and K and others are causing global disaster: they contribute significantly to climate breakdown, soil loss, downstream pollution, air pollution and a whole load of other issues. We cannot live with it and cannot live without it. We are in an astonishing and very difficult conundrum. If we were to switch—as the Soil Association recommends and as my instincts would tell us to do—to mixed rotation or organic farming, we would not be able to produce enough food. It is as simple as that.
How do we get out of that conundrum? I see some hope in factory-produced food—microbial protein and cultured meat. That could be the only way of reconciling environmental needs of future generations and the rest of life on Earth with the need to feed people alive today and in future. We need to find ways of feeding the planet without devouring it. That could be the way.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
George Monbiot: I do not know whether this would fit in the remit of the Bill, but I would certainly favour banning driven grouse shooting, which is a major cause of peatland erosion. I would look at the strongest possible measures we could introduce for the restoration of blanket bogs. I would, at the very least, commission new research into the impact of agriculture on peatlands, and whether we are better off without agriculture on peatlands in terms of the carbon budget.
There is a paper in Food Policy by Durk Nijdam that points out the extraordinary levels of carbon opportunity cost on Welsh farms with high organic soils. He talks in some cases of 640 kg of carbon per kilogram of lamb protein, as a result of the lost opportunity to protect those organic soils, which is a result of farming continuing there. It would be far better in carbon terms not to farm soils, if his research is replicable.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Q
George Monbiot: There are a lot of things we need to save ourselves from at the moment, and the most urgent is climate breakdown and ecological breakdown. Huge tracts of this land are scarcely feeding us at all. There are very large areas of land where you have one sheep per hectare, per 2 hectares or, in some places, per 5 hectares. That is not producing food in any appreciable amount, yet that land could be used to draw down large amounts of carbon, to stop the sixth great extinction in its tracks, for the restoration of wildlife and ecosystems, or to prevent flooding. There is a whole load of ecological goods—public goods—that that land could be delivering, but it is not currently delivering them, because it is producing tiny amounts of food instead. We are probably all against urban sprawl and believe it is a bad thing because it takes up huge amounts of land while delivering not many services for the people who live in a sprawling city. We should be equally concerned about agricultural sprawl, which takes up far more land.
Miss Dines
Q
George Monbiot: I would characterise the Peak park as an ecological disaster area. It is remarkable how little wildlife there is. You can walk all day and see just a handful of birds; I will see more in a suburban garden. We need a completely different approach to managing land like that.
What you can tell the farmers is, “Let’s pay you to do something completely different, such as restoration, rewilding, bringing back the missing species or bringing back the trees.” Where are the trees above around 200 metres in the Peak district and, indeed, most of the uplands of Britain? They simply are not there. This is a disaster. Anyone who visits from another country—someone from Brazil or Indonesia, my friends, tropical forest ecologists—says, “What’s happened here?” They see these places we call our national parks and say, “How can you call that a national park? It’s a sheep ranch.”
By all means let us keep people on the land, but let us use public money to pay them to do something completely different. Let us face it: there would not be any hill farming in this country without public money. It is a loss-making exercise. If we, the public, are going to pay for it, I think we, the public, have a right to determine what we are paying for. We should be paying for public goods, not public harms.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q
George Monbiot: I think this should be the perspective through which we start to see everything. This is the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced: the breakdown of our life-support systems. The Governments that will be judged favourably by future generations are those that put that issue front and centre. Other things are subsidiary to our survival. It is imperative that we should start favouring a low-carbon diet and use public policy to disfavour a high-carbon diet. Whether through farm subsidies—I think that does play a role—or meat taxes, which I think could also play a role, we should find all the instruments possible to steer and encourage people to reduce the environmental impacts of their diets.
The most important metric here is what scientists call carbon opportunity costs, which is basically, “What could you be doing on that land if you weren’t doing this?” If, for instance, you are producing beef or lamb on this piece of land, what is the carbon opportunity cost of that? What would be the carbon storage if, instead, trees and wild habitats were allowed to return? There has been some new research just published, or a new compilation of research, on Our World in Data showing that when you look at the carbon opportunity costs, those of beef and lamb are massively greater than those of anything else we eat. It is really, really huge. Even when you take food miles into account, they are tiny by comparison to those carbon costs, and that is what we should focus on.
Danny Kruger
Q
George Monbiot: It should certainly not be linked to the public goods agenda; it should not be seen as a public good.
Danny Kruger
Q
My next question is this: do you agree that a grass-fed cattle herd on open pasture in Wiltshire has a net positive effect in terms of carbon capture? I appreciate that you have an argument about opportunity costs—missed opportunities from grazing—but the terrible carbon impact of beef is because of intensively farmed, closely packed cattle—
George Monbiot: No, that is not true at all.
Danny Kruger
Q
George Monbiot: No, that is simply not true. That claim has been made many times, and it is now basically reaching the level of climate denial—climate science denial—because it is so far removed from what the science base actually tells us.
I can pass the papers on to you if you wish. There has been a meta-study done by the Food Climate Research Network that looked at those claims. It investigated 300 sources and found that in none of the cases that it looked at was carbon sequestration in the soil under pasture compensating for carbon losses. The highest level of compensation was 20% to 60% of the overall carbon losses; there is a net loss in every case. The extensive grazing systems also have a higher net loss and a higher carbon opportunity cost than even the intensive grain-fed systems.
There is a paper by Balmford et al in Nature, I believe. There is another one by Blomqvist et al—I think it is in Science of the Total Environment. They show that, paradoxically—unexpectedly, perhaps—intensive systems per kilo of beef produced are less carbon-damaging than extensive systems per kilo, and that is simply because of the amount of land that they occupy.
Deidre Brock
Q
George Monbiot: I would see them as ecological restorers—people who have a different but very rich relationship with the land, bringing back wildlife and ecosystems. We would hopefully see a constant racking-up of ambition as time goes by.
It is hard to universalise it, but there is now quite a big literature on nature-based economies, showing that, certainly in some circumstances, they can employ a lot more people than farm-based economies, even in quite fertile areas. For instance, I was at Gelderse Poort in the Netherlands last year, in an area that was previously dairy and maize farms. For the purposes of creating more room for the river, the dykes were taken a mile or so back from the river and the land was rewilded. The farmers were saying there would be a loss of employment. In fact, it turns out that there was an increase of between five and six times the total employment as a result of the tourists who have come in to see the wildlife, the bed and breakfasts, the cafes and the rest of the things associated with that. The farmers have done very well out of it.
I do not know the answer to whether we can replicate that everywhere, but we should be urgently investigating other new rural economies based around the restoration of wildlife and nature. Given that we are competing here with a loss-making economy—an economy where the farmers would make more money if they took the subsidy and stopped farming—it is not a very steep competition that we have to win if we are to show that nature-based economies are more productive in terms of employment and income.
Fay Jones
Q
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
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
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.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Q
George Monbiot: I am afraid I have not seen changes commensurate with the declaration of a climate emergency. This should be front and centre. An emergency is an emergency. We should be maximising mitigation and absorption of carbon from the atmosphere. The Paris agreement asks us for the greatest possible ambition; we do not see that in the Agriculture Bill.
Nadia Whittome
Q
George Monbiot: The public goods agenda is something useful that we can build on. It is a massive improvement on the common agricultural policy, but it must be much more explicit about what public goods are. Carbon storage, as a metric, must run throughout it like a stick of rock, but also ecological restoration—we do not want to make it just about carbon. We want to maximise the recovery of wildlife and ecosystems, which are in such a dire state in this country.
It must be recognised that the ecological difference between farming and not farming, particularly in the uplands, is far greater than the ecological difference between, say, BPS sheep farming and HLS sheep farming, which is very small in ecological terms. Having a cessation of farming in those areas, bringing back many of the missing species and having an ecosystem dominated by trees and other thick vegetation would be massively better, in terms of both carbon and ecology, than a modification of farming in those places.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
Q
George Monbiot: As I say, we should distinguish between environmental improvements and not doing harm. I do not think we should be offering payments for not beating up old ladies. That is the way I see it. Lots of people do not do bad things in society, but they do not get paid for refraining from doing bad things. Keeping soil on your land should be a regulatory requirement. We should not have to pay people to do that; we should say, “You are not allowed to destroy our natural heritage in that way.” But we should pay for bringing in ecosystems that do not currently exist.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of this session. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for your evidence. I apologise to those members of the Committee who would have liked to ask questions. You have answered more questions per minute in half an hour than anybody else. Thank you very much.
Examination of Witness
Professor Bill Keevil gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Bill Keevil from the University of Southampton. We have until 3.30 pm. Will you introduce yourself, please?
Professor Keevil: Good afternoon. I am Professor Bill Keevil, professor of environmental healthcare. I head the microbiology group at the University of Southampton.
James Morris
Q
Professor Keevil: To my mind, food security is the supply of wholesome, nutritious, safe food. Within that the key issue is safety. There has been a lot of discussion this afternoon about whether the UK can provide its own food. If it does not, we have to rely on imports. What is the veracity of checking the safety of those imports?
We made a short written submission to the national food survey—it may have been circulated to you—in which we talked about the microbiological safety of food, particularly from the processing point of view. It deals in particular with the chlorination of food, which has become a very contentious issue in how the UK sees its future trading relationship with countries that use that practice. Currently, the UK follows EU law, with the standing position being that they dislike chlorinating food. Their perspective is not that chlorination poses a toxic chemical risk if you ingest the food; they are more concerned about animal husbandry. As a microbiologist, I would go further and ask the question that most people have ignored until now: does chlorine actually work? Our published research shows that, in fact, it does not.
For more than 100 years, we have relied on the gold standard of examining a sample from patients, the environment or food by culturing it and growing samples in a Petri dish on a nutritious agar medium. If anything grows, something is still alive; if nothing grows, by that definition, everything must be dead. Our research and that of other groups around the world shows that that is not true; it tells us that the current methods of analysis, which help us set the standards, are not rigorous enough. We have to use modern molecular and biochemical methods, which are available, but which, by and large, have not been adopted so far.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Keevil: As you rightly say, when we look at the data, depending on the source, it can be difficult to interpret because of the way it is recovered. For example, in the USA, they report on infections, some of which are assumed from the evidence they have available. If you look at the reporting of the numbers of pathogens in American produce, such as poultry, they report it in terms of the answer to the question, “Does the food contain more than”—for example—“400 counts of a pathogen per gram of food?” In the UK, the Food Standards Agency reports in terms of “low”, “medium” or “high”. National surveys such as sampling from supermarkets, for example, show that 50% of poultry have very low numbers of pathogens such as a salmonella; only about 5% or 6% have food samples with over 1,000 counts of a pathogen. By those criteria, UK foods appear to be safer—but, I must stress, according to those criteria.
As I say in the written evidence, we now have this vexed question of viable but non-culturable—VBNC—bacteria. When looking at some of the published data, it is very difficult to take that into account, but the work that we and other labs have done is now telling us that we cannot ignore it. We have published our work on chlorine treatment, but we have also looked at what happens when you stress a pathogen such as listeria by depriving it of nutrients. For example, in a factory where you are washing down with tap water, the listeria can still survive, and in those conditions it can become this VBNC form. If all you are doing is regular swabbing and then reporting, you could say, “Our factory is clear of listeria.” In fact, if we used the more modern methods, that might be found to be not true.
We are really talking not just about standards now, but the standards we should adopt in the future, both in the UK and in what we would expect other countries to adopt if we are going to import food from them.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Professor Keevil: As you rightly to point out, it is very complex. We have to talk about the food chain, but let us look at the route which is the primary source of pathogen ingress into the food chain. To take the case of poultry, one of the issues is that some countries, including America, they have intensive rearing of poultry; they also have cattle feed lots, where animals are raised and fed in a dense community. In the UK and Europe, our husbandry standards appear to be better, poultry are reared in less intensive conditions and we do not have cattle in feed lots like the Americans do, so the animals have more space, they appear to be healthier and, from what we have seen so far, they have reduced numbers of pathogens at that stage.
Of course, you are quite correct that every step in the food chain is a potential source of contamination. If we use lorries, provided that those lorries are properly cleaned and decontaminated, that should not be an issue. When food is produced for restaurants, if the staff adopt good hygiene, they should not transmit pathogens to the customers—that has been well documented. The supermarkets are very responsible; they have a reputation to maintain—they do not want to be seen as the supermarket that poisons their customers—so they maintain very high standards.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Professor Keevil: That is a tough question, partly because all the time we are seeing pathogens emerging. For example, we have E. coli 0157, which not even been heard of 30 years ago. We have Cryptosporidium, which had not been heard of 25 years ago. We are being presented with new challenges all the time. If we look at the more conventional pathogens, however, such as salmonella, if anything British farming is doing a good job. Salmonella-contaminated eggs have virtually been eliminated under that scheme, and the quality of the poultry sold by supermarkets appears to be a lot better. These are good things.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Professor Keevil: The previous speaker was very concerned about the carbon footprint, and he rightly commented that the world needs NPK. The UK, if it needs NPK, has got to import it, and that means a very high carbon footprint from shipping, so that is in a way counter-intuitive.
For hundreds of years, the UK has been very good at crop rotation and the recycling of animal and human wastes. My research team has previously done work for DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency, looking at how safe composted animal manures and treated human wastes are. Our research shows that if they are treated properly, they can be recycled safely to land. That is a valuable source of NPK.
In terms of ecosystems and services, we are looking for balance and harmony. If anything, I would support more the view of the Soil Association. I think we can live in harmony, but we need to get that balance. For example, there has been a lot of concern about the availability of bees to fertilise plants. If everything was converted over to woodland, would we have sufficient banks of wildflowers to support essential insects to maintain the ecosystem? The plant life in the UK needs it; certainly, agriculture needs it. We need that balance. I think there is a role for farming in the UK.
On the impact on the environment, we still have green pleasant lands, and when you speak to visitors who come to the UK, a lot of them comment as they fly in that it is a pleasure to see well-kept farmland alongside woods, which I think is a good thing.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Professor Keevil: Yes, it does. As a microbiologist, I support the safe production and supply of microbiologically safe food. One of the problems is that when we import food, there is a potential issue. If that means that that food is cheaper than what can be produced by UK farmers, the Bill must address that, because otherwise they could be at a financial disadvantage. The UK has always prided itself on quality, and I know that British farmers would like to maintain that reputation for quality. Perhaps the food they supply may be a little more expensive, but in a way that can be reassuring. If it means that the customer has to pay more, that is something that the Government have to look at within the Bill. When they talk about subsidies and remuneration, can it be facilitated that farmers who produce to the highest-quality standards are in some way remunerated for that?
Danny Kruger
Q
Professor Keevil: A lot of it is price driven, not surprisingly. Certain countries say, “We are in a competitive economy, and we believe we can supply food safely for a lower cost.” That is what our research and that of others is starting to challenge.
In terms of global supply, we talk a lot now about international jet travel. For example, we can travel around the world in 12 hours or what have you, hence the current problems with coronavirus, but many people forget about migratory birds. We know that some birds fly thousands of miles north and south, east and west. They can bring disease with them. That is partly why we have the problem of emerging diseases that we must be conscious of for the future. We have had concerns, for example, with avian flu and DEFRA maintained high surveillance of the farms where avian flu had an impact, to ensure that it did not decimate the poultry industry in the UK.
Those are all issues that we will have to face. We do not live in a sterile world. We have mass migration of people and particularly of wild birds. We must allow for that in all our farming practices and ecosystems services. I maintain that good husbandry practice is the way forward. The previous speaker mentioned factory production, and I agree with him in that very good supply chains are now being established for vegan burgers, much of which is produced from bacteria and fungi. That is a good thing.
Vertical farming is starting to become more prevalent. That is the horticulture where crops such as salads are grown in an aquaculture-based system, and everything is stacked up. We are now seeing very large factories where they control the quality of the water, the lighting regime and so on. That seems to be a very safe, nutritious way to produce salads. In the winter the UK imports a lot of salads from the Mediterranean countries—we used to import a lot from Kenya, but I think that is reduced now. We used to import a lot from Florida and California, and that is a carbon footprint, but if we can do more vertical farming ourselves, particularly in the winter, that is a substitute. We can get this mix of what we might call modern biotechnology with more traditional farming.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Q
Professor Keevil: To my mind, every five years should be the minimum frequency. That is because, as I have said, we are continually beset with emerging diseases and we have to be able to respond rapidly. The Food Standards Agency reports much more regularly than that, so in a way we already have inbuilt mechanisms to supply the information. It is true that the Bill says it should be every five years as a minimum, but I think DEFRA and the food standards agencies report more frequently. Whether that should be incorporated within the Bill is up for discussion, but we have good reporting.
Ruth Jones
That is what I would like to have your opinion on, because obviously five years is a long time. Do you have any thoughts on the timescale? Would you make a recommendation?
Professor Keevil: I would like to see it reported much more frequently, every year or every two years.
Miss Dines
Q
Professor Keevil: That is a good question, because you will get different metrics if you go to different sources. What we tried to do with those numbers was look at the annual reporting by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. You will find the information on their website. A lot of the agencies say, “Well, these are the numbers of actual reports that we have received,” for example, through people going to hospital, to their GP and so forth, and then they apply a multiplication factor for the numbers who could have been affected but for whom the signs of disease are much less—people who do not report that they have had any disease. A lot of the information is based on those types of numbers—for example, 14% of Americans do not report to a doctor to say they have had food poisoning—but they are extrapolated. As I say, you will get different metrics depending on your source. It could be that the figure in the UK is more than 1.5%, but I do not think it is anywhere near what the Americans have extrapolated.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Professor Keevil: As I said at the start, the issue is very complex because food security is not just about supply; it is about whether it is nutritious, wholesome and safe. You cannot separate one from the other, so we have to be aware of the microbiological safety of the food that is being produced and consumed. The work that we and others have done shows us that our current methods of assessing safety are not adequate. That has to be recognised. As a scientist, I would always say we need more research done; I sincerely believe we do in this particular case. Knowledge improves standards, and we have to adopt and enforce the highest standards. We need better research and continual reassessment of what we are being challenged with, and perhaps the Bill can reflect that.
The Chair
It seems we have no more questions. Professor Keevil, on behalf of the Committee, I thank you for your time and answers this afternoon.
Examination of Witnesses
Diana Holland and Jyoti Fernandes gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Unite and the Landworkers’ Alliance. We have until 4 pm. Welcome. Would you introduce yourselves?
Diana Holland: I am Diana Holland, Unite’s assistant general secretary, with responsibility for food, drink and agriculture. We are the only union that represents agricultural workers directly, as the historical Agricultural Workers Union is part of Unite.
Jyoti Fernandes: I am Jyoti Fernandes. I am a farmer in Dorset and president of the Landworkers’ Alliance, which is a union for small and family farms, mixed farms, market gardeners and community supported farms.
The Chair
Thank you. The acoustics in the room are poor, so it would be helpful if you raised your voice.
James Morris
Q
Diana Holland: The measures we were thinking about have previously been raised in a number of submissions: first, looking at the impact of the Bill on workers in agriculture, and secondly, looking specifically at the reinstatement of the protections of the Agricultural Wages Board, which currently exists, in some form, in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but not in England.
Why do we think that is important? We do not think that agricultural workers are like every other worker; we think that they are different and their experiences are different. As a union with an incredibly long history of representing them, we speak from experience. They have a special place in the union, and we think that they should have a special place in the Agriculture Bill, too.
Right this moment, the director of labour market enforcement has a session going on to look specifically at the problems of wage theft and employment law non-compliance in agriculture. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority has had a licensing system in agriculture for 15 years, but it is still recognised as an area with a high level of exploitation and threat of exploitation. That is the background to this.
When the Agricultural Wages Board covered everywhere, there was a level of protection and information that is no longer available to us. Increasingly, you will find that statistics relating to agriculture have little stars by them and a note at the bottom saying, “The sample figures are too small.” That does not mean that there are no other workers to record; it means that they are not hitting any of the official ways of recording people. Increasingly, we find that people are employed in different ways, meaning that they are not recognised in the official statistics in the way they used to be. The Agricultural Wages Board provided a way of ensuring that all that information came to the forefront.
Finally, we have always argued that safe, healthy food and high-quality jobs go hand in hand. There is lots of evidence that where workers are badly treated, there is also an undercutting of food quality standards across the board. We see this as part of ensuring and protecting food standards, food security, supply chains and all the other issues in the Bill. They all have workers associated with them, and we think they should be included and recognised.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Diana Holland: There are a couple of ways. One would obviously be an additional clause that covered the impact on workers of those developments in agriculture and how the protections that exist in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland could also be applied to agricultural workers in England. On top of that, in the rules for agri-food imports, where we will be looking at future developments, we are extremely concerned, first, that there is a lessening of all standards and, secondly, that where food is concerned, while there may be some recognition of protections for food standards, and even of animal welfare, workers may be left out. It should all go together—food, environment, labour protections for everybody.
As I said, when we wrote to our rural and agricultural representatives to ask for examples of issues—I am aware it is anecdotal, but it is important—we found that there are still pressures to hide problems that agricultural workers face, because in small isolated communities personal relationships often extend over other areas and the employer may have other roles in the community that people feel could have an impact on their lives. There is pressure all the time not to speak out about problems that arise. Your accommodation is often tied to your job in some shape or form, whether that is on the horticultural or agricultural side of things. It is those kinds of pressures and those sorts of experiences that we think need to be included; otherwise there is a real danger that, as well as being wrong for the people concerned, they will undermine some of the other things that the Bill is trying to achieve.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Diana Holland: First, there is a bit of a dearth of information. We have been constantly asking for that to be specifically looked at. We have done some research ourselves, however. Not long after the board was abolished, within the first year or two years, we surveyed all our members who had been covered by it. We were really shocked, although perhaps not surprised, to find that a huge proportion had had no pay rise since the Agricultural Wages Board had been abolished. Those who had had a pay rise, the vast majority, had had no say or discussion over that pay rise—it had just been introduced.
The employers we have talked to in the sector have said that they would find it helpful to have a process that could be relied on and about which everybody has said, “We’ve come to a conclusion,” rather than the pressure of having to negotiate individually or to find that the pressure is on and to think about what is fair in the circumstances. There is also exploitation in the sector—I will not run away from that—but I am not saying that every single person is deliberately trying to exploit. Sometimes there are other pressures.
There was also some survey work done in 2017 that compared Wales with England. There was a suggestion that protections in Wales meant that there was a 6% higher rate of pay overall. As I say, again, these are often small samples and figures, and we need to look more. We have had a chance, however, to talk to the employers in Wales. Some of the evidence from the employer representatives has made us concerned that there are employers in the sector—who previously followed a system that has been abolished—who are not aware of their responsibilities and who saw the national minimum wage as a voluntary mechanism rather than an absolute requirement. That might seem impossible, but it is a reality that came out in the discussions and the evidence. We feel that where the Bill talks about public money for public goods, that should also include ensuring that the workers are treated decently.
The minimum wage does not cover all the additional things. Career progression was provided, relating it to the jobs and roles that people have, allowances for having a dog, overtime and sick pay rates. All those details were included, but they are not in the national minimum wage, which does not take into account the particular considerations that the Agricultural Wages Board does. But that does exist elsewhere. That has been a massive loss to those people, without any demonstrable gain to anybody.
Fay Jones
Q
Diana Holland: Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean in terms of the workforce?
Fay Jones
In terms of farmers being at one end of the supply chain, dealing with much larger retailers and much longer, complex supply chains. Do you think the Bill gives them any further protection than they already have under the Groceries Code Adjudicator or the grocery supply code of practice? Do you think that the Bill will work well with existing policy measures?
Diana Holland: First of all, we really welcome the recognition that protection needs to be built in to the supply chain. However, we are concerned that there is not sufficient detail, and how it will work in practice needs to be fleshed out in more detail. In our experience, holding different stages in the supply chain to account is a very difficult thing to enforce. Often, when workers are at the end of that supply chain, they are the last people to be considered. Something that may have been very well intentioned at one end of that supply chain pushes enormous pressures at the other. If there are savings to be made, it would be on the amounts of money that are paid.
We want protections built in, so that part of enforcement along the supply chain would be to check that that is not happening, and that it is not a method of passing on pressures to cut standards and people’s pay. It is really important that it is in there, but we feel that there should be more detail. I have not identified any contradictions with other legislation, but when it comes to the detail, that would need to be taken into account.
Fay Jones
Q
Jyoti Fernandes: No, I do not think it gives more protection to farmers. This is a slightly different part of the Bill, and I had prepared to talk about it later. It needs to change from powers to duties, to assure farmers that the money will come through to support farmer incomes. We greatly agree with the thrust of the Bill, but it is quite scary that even though great programmes are being rolled out, such as the environmental land management schemes, there is no assurance that that will continue and that Government will give the budget to those programmes to help supplement farmer incomes in future. That is scary and it is worrying for our food supply. It would mean a lot if the Bill’s wording was changed from “may” to “must” give money, to ensure that we will be able to rely on some income to supplement producing the food that everybody needs.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Jyoti Fernandes: Our union represents all scales of farms: we are all agroecological farms, family farms and mixed farms. As smallholder farmers, this is something we are particularly interested in. We also represent a lot of horticulturalists, who grow fruit and veg, and it is possible to grow a lot of fruit and veg on a very small acreage.
To date, we have been really disadvantaged by the payment schemes that are out there. There is a 5-hectare threshold, which cuts people off from getting payments if they have less than 5 hectares. If someone has a large landholding that is used extensively for beef, they can get quite a lot of subsidy, but if they have less than 5 hectares and use it for intensive market gardening—providing the fresh fruit and veg that we need—they get nothing. That means that 85% of our membership have never received subsidies before. That puts us at a serious disadvantage, even though we as small farms provide a huge amount of public goods—we directly provide fresh food, the sorts of fresh fruit and veg that we need for healthier diets—to communities. In the transition around climate change, we need to eat more fruit and veg and less meat. That is the sort of thing that we can be in a position to do.
There is nothing in the Bill that specifically directs towards helping smaller farms, though the focus on public goods would enable us to do that, if we get the right schemes in place. We are working with DEFRA to try to ensure that the schemes it rolls out will benefit horticulture and fruit and veg. One amendment that we suggested was about affordable access to food. We would like to see some acknowledgment that agriculture is about producing food and that everyone needs food. While food itself might be a business like any other—bought, sold and traded—access to food is not. Having good, nutritious food available to everyone is something we strongly believe in.
If that was in the Bill, a lot of our farms, which provide a social outcome directly to consumers at an affordable price—from fresh fruit and veg, to milk and pasture-fed, free-range meat—could be enabled to develop those marketing mechanisms. That would help us out quite a lot. That means community supported agriculture, direct supply chain stuff and doorstep delivery of unpasteurised, raw, wholesome milk, or whatever it may be. That would enable those small businesses that work directly for our food supply in our local communities to get support. It would also support community farms that integrate social measures. They might, for example, have green gyms, work with horticultural therapy or bring people form disadvantaged backgrounds into the countryside to learn where their food comes from and join in that process. Food has a much wider remit than just being something that farmers gain an income from. A lot of us produce food because we believe it is important to our society.
Danny Kruger
Q
Diana Holland: Obviously, all workers deserve overall protection. Many workers have additional forms of collective bargaining or representation through different structures. Agricultural workers in some areas are an example of an extremely fragmented and isolated group of workers; in other areas, there are big concentrations for small periods of time. The work is seasonal and there is insecurity.
The issues they have experienced over many years are well-documented. I think that singles them out to require more than the basic national minimum wage, working time regulations etc., to take account of the fact that people may have accommodation tied to their role, which could be their permanent home or temporary accommodation for a seasonal role, or that transport could be provided, which, in extreme circumstances, is used to keep people on site beyond the time that they should be there or is denied to them. Those kinds of things mean that there is intense pressure.
Danny Kruger
Q
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 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 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.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Diana Holland: When it existed, it was not any different, and it was fine in the sense that it operated. Whether everybody got what they were entitled to is another question; perhaps you are suggesting they did not. Certainly, we have worrying evidence of individuals being paid not in money but through provision of accommodation and so on. We got evidence—it was a terrible story—that an individual woman had worked for a long time on a farm and in all that time had never received anything, apart from the odd bit of what might be considered pocket money. She was extremely worried when the employer was in danger of stepping down from his responsibilities that nothing—no rights—would exist for her. I think that is evidence of the nature of the problems that workers in the sector face. I do not think it is a reason for not trying to do something about it. I think it is important that people receive recompense for what they are doing, and that needs to take account of the nature of agriculture. The Agricultural Wages Board does that by bringing together workers’ representatives, farmers’ and employers’ representatives and independent experts in a tripartite way, to make sure that that properly reflects what is really going on. The issues you raise would be discussed at the table, alongside the pressures and issues that I am raising and the official evidence gathered by the experts.
Theo Clarke
Q
Jyoti Fernandes: We believe in smaller units, where you do not need to bring in loads of seasonal workers. With smaller-scale market gardens and horticultural units that pay well, you can attract British workers and will not need to bring in so many people from other countries in order to pick those crops. We see a flourishing, home-grown fruit industry, where you can bring in more people to do that kind of work.
That needs investment, access to land, grants for people to get into that kind of small-scale market gardening and horticultural units and to plant fruit trees into mixed farms, and training. It needs routes to market, which means processing facilities, so that you can make apple juices and that type of thing, and so that you can store those things, add value to them and get better value back on them. It needs distribution facilities within local market economies. That might be market facilities in town, online distribution services or co-operatives that try to process those fruits and get them to market, so that you get a good price for them. It needs all those sorts of investment in our national infrastructure in fruit, fruit processing and distribution.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Diana Holland: You are definitely right to be concerned about it. The important thing is that, where decent standards are protected and reinstated, they should apply to everybody. The original seasonal agricultural workers scheme was part of an educational opportunity for students. We worked very hard and gave evidence over many years to make sure that that was what it was. It should not be about workers coming in from other countries—because the sector cannot get people in this country to work for the terms and conditions and pay that it is offering—and then treating them extremely badly when they are here. As you say, it will not provide the security, the quality needed or the stability in the sector. It is very important. We want opportunities that are properly worked out. How fantastic it would be if we could make this sector one that people want to work in and one that they look for, rather than thinking it is somewhere they will be exploited.
Daniel Zeichner
There is a danger that, if we do not address those labour supply issues, the industry will struggle, and we will then inevitably be back to importing food from outside again.
Diana Holland: Exactly.
Jyoti Fernandes: I was going to bring up something really important to this whole scenario, which is the impact of trade. Basically, we are never going to get the conditions here where small and family farms can survive as independent businesses, or keep decent work opportunities on larger units, if you are undercut by cheaper produce from elsewhere. It just is not a possibility. The global marketplace can source cheap labour—slave labour—from all over the planet, and really exploit places with really low conditions. It is not just the trade standards: it is also the competition from very large multinational corporations in other countries—the huge farms in California or South America, which have loads of exploited labour, much higher levels of pesticide usage and multinational advertising campaigns that will blow any of our homegrown industries out of the water, unless we can get some control over that and have something in the Bill that allows for tariffs that stop that imported stuff, and standards and rules that do not allow our homegrown industries to be undercut.
This is a very exciting Agriculture Bill. Everything about it that is moving towards environmentally friendly farming, agroecological farming and all of that is tremendously exciting. We could have one of the best homegrown food supplies in Europe, and we could really pioneer something very special and really support small and family farms, independent businesses and workers being treated decently, but not if we are undercut by cheap imports. That must be looked at very carefully, otherwise all the good work and the good will of this Bill will be undone.
The Chair
If there are no more questions, I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Vicki Hird, Dr Nick Palmer and James West gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Sustain and Compassion in World Farming. We have until 4.30 pm. I welcome the witnesses and would ask them to introduce themselves for the record.
Dr Palmer: I am Nick Palmer. I am the head of Compassion in World Farming UK. Compassion is the largest animal welfare charity globally, and we have developed our interests to also look at the environment surrounding animal welfare issues. In the mists of pre-history, I was the Member for Broxtowe for 13 years.
James West: I am James West, the senior policy manager at Compassion in World Farming—I work with Nick.
Vicki Hird: I am Vicki Hird, farming campaign co-ordinator at Sustain, which is an alliance of over 100 non-governmental organisations and royal societies, including Compassion and many other people you have had as witnesses.
James Morris
Q
Dr Palmer: The Bill is a good basis, but it is a missed opportunity in the sense that it provides the basis for a variety of things that the Secretary of State may do, but it does not specify what the Secretary of State will do. In the current situation in particular, after Brexit, the farmers and everyone dealing with the industry need more certainty. This would really be an opportunity to pin down what we are prepared to do and what we are not prepared to do in terms of trade, support for the farming industry and a long-term strategy to ensure that we have a viable farming industry stretching into the future.
James West: I would add that it is important that the Bill is joined-up in its thinking, in as far as protection from potentially being undercut—as I am sure you have heard lots of times—as a result of trade agreements. That is fairly critical. That is not in the Bill. Added to that would be that you are then providing farmers with subsidies and grants to help them move to higher standards of production. We should also be looking at things such as method of production labelling—as Nick said, that it is a “may” in the Bill, rather than a “must”—so that consumers know what they are purchasing. We should also look at Government procurement policy, so that in addition to protecting farmers from what is coming into the country, you are also rewarding farmers for delivering higher standards and for protecting our animal welfare standards. Just on Government procurement, McDonald’s has better animal welfare procurement policies than the UK Government, which should not be the case, and the Bill could address that.
Vicki Hird: We were very pleased to see some of the changes in the Agriculture Bill. Overall, we are very positive about the public money for public goods approach and the financial support being listed. We were very pleased to see soil being included in that. We would like to see a stronger reference to agroecological whole-farm systems, because we think that is the way to ensure that you get the in-field changes, as well as the edge of field, wildlife and other nature outcomes that you see. We need the whole of the UK farming system to go towards an agroecological approach in whatever way they can. Those steps should be available through financial support.
We would also like to see, as Nick said, a lot of these things as duties, rather than powers. It seems incredible how much effort—I know, because I have been involved—DEFRA has put into the environmental land management scheme, when it could stop it all in a couple of years and pay a smaller amount of money and not follow through. As MPs, you should have that accountability for you on delivering ELMS.
Finally, I agree with Diana on the protection for workers. We are also pleased with clause 27, which concerns fair dealing. It has been enhanced to really protect farmers. We are grateful to DEFRA for making those changes and to George Eustice, who we welcome as our new Secretary of State. We would like to see that as a duty, because it is so important. It is absolutely vital that we get the protection for farmers in the supply chain. They do have that from retailers, but most farmers do not sell direct to retailers. They need good codes of conduct developed with the industry for every sector, probably starting with dairy.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Vicki Hird: Thank you for reminding me about the public health purpose. We think it would be very easy to insert it into the Bill. There are so many ways it is already designed to help, for instance with air pollution and with reducing exposure to plant protection products, which can be harmful. We think that saying that there is a public health purpose for agriculture would recognise what an important thing farmers do in providing us with healthy, safe food. It could help by showing that having animal health and welfare measures that help farmers to manage their stock and change their stocking patterns can reduce the reliance on antibiotics, which we know is an absolute global public good, in order to protect our medicinal antibiotics.
The other area is the huge need to boost our supply of fruit and veg, so that people can have access to closer-to-home, more affordable, fresh, sustainably produced fruit and vegetables. That is absolutely central to a healthier diet for the nation. To be able to say that we were doing that would be a benefit. As James was saying about procurement, we could be saying something about procurement and investing in healthier diets for our children in schools.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Vicki Hird: I think that would be very helpful. We designed a clause for the previous version of this Bill that mentioned that, along with exposure to pesticides for consumers, workers and the community, and other aspects of public health. There therefore is a clause available, if anybody wants to table it.
Antibiotic reduction is important. I know that the industry has already gone some way. It is doing a good job, but it needs to be supported in that, through animal health and welfare financial support, and through training, advice and demonstration. The Budget should definitely be strong enough and big enough to provide farmers with that kind of support, to take things in the direction of lower antibiotic use.
James West: The question was about subsidies, and bars on subsidies. We support the use of subsidies for delivering the public goods that are in the Bill. Again, we would like that to be a requirement rather than a “may”. Essentially, public money should deliver genuinely higher standards of welfare; it should not be for meeting the regulatory baseline or going marginally beyond it. If you are looking at the top line, you might consider such things as allowing animals to express their natural behaviour, access to pasture for dairy cows, and the provision of enrichment materials for pigs. Obviously, depending on which species you look at, there will be different requirements, but broadly speaking, they will be lower stocking densities, slower-growing breeds, if we are talking about meat chickens, and access to pasture outdoors.
You might also look at things that would disqualify someone from receiving an animal welfare payment. One of the things that Compassion works on is ending the live export of animals. From our point of view, if you are involved in the live export trade, you should probably not receive the public subsidy for good animal welfare. In the area of mutilations, going back to pigs, you have enrichment. In Germany, they provide a premium for pigs at slaughter when the pig gets to the slaughterhouse with an intact tail, because that means that you have almost certainly run a very good system. The amount of space, enrichment and so on that you will have given the pigs during the rearing process will have been such that you will not have needed to tail-dock the pig, as you might in more intensive systems. We have fairly detailed documents with what may or may not qualify you for a subsidy, but broadly speaking it is natural behaviours and space.
Dr Palmer: The absence of a clear percentage commitment regarding the amount of support that will be given for animal welfare purposes means that a degree of uncertainty remains, which is bad for the whole agricultural industry. A farmer needs to know that what amount of money is potentially available, so that they can try to work for it. With respect to the new Chancellor, we are unlikely to get an infinite amount of subsidy in the Budget, so it makes sense that the available money is used to help farmers to become among the best in the world, rather than to move marginally from a fairly low base to a slightly higher one.
In the long term, the future of British farming has to be at the top of the scale. If we try to race to the bottom, we will fail. The British farming industry will not succeed on that basis, so we should consider the areas where we can help farmers to move towards higher welfare—for instance, ending the use of farrowing crates. There is a one-off cost, which it is reasonable to help them with. Once they have moved away from that, there should not be an additional cost. They will then, in association with the better labelling scheme, be able to tell consumers that British farming has produced higher welfare, higher quality meat.
Mr Goodwill
Q
However, I noticed that the Compassion in World Farming website talks about ending “the horror” of factory farming. I just wondered if you felt that there were any farms in this country that that definition would apply to. You talked about housed livestock—for example, dairy cattle that are housed in winter. Do you think that is acceptable? Where do you set the bar in describing what British farmers are doing, perfectly legally, as “horror”?
Dr Palmer: When we are talking about horrific factory farming, we are talking about the caging of egg-laying hens, which is still one third of the total in Britain; we are talking about the use of farrowing crates, which keep the sow unable even to turn round for up to five weeks.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Dr Palmer: There are very well-established alternative methods. At the moment, British farming is 50:50—roughly 50% have moved away from farrowing crates and the other half have not. That is a record that is less good than some countries’, and really we should strive to be the best.
One can always argue about the exact wording, but I think that anyone familiar with the range of systems in British farming would agree that it ranges from the very good—where we can really be proud and tell the world that we are the world leader—to areas where the farmers themselves would say that they would like to do better but cannot afford the conversion costs. This is a classic example of a public good. I think the overwhelming majority of British consumers would be pleased to know that farmers were moving up the scale. Farmers themselves would like to, but they need assistance for the one-off transition costs.
This is not an area of huge controversy between us and the National Farmers Union and others. We are all pulling in the same direction, and we should use the opportunity of Brexit to try to make sure that we actually get to that point.
Ruth Jones
Q
Dr Palmer: Having more local abattoirs is clearly desirable. It is a marginal business for many, and you cannot force people to set up a local abattoir, but I think there would be a great deal of cross-party and cross-industry support for the idea that it should be encouraged.
The problem with overseas shipment is partly the time involved, and you can get pre-weaned calves transported for over 100 hours. That is with pauses, but it is nevertheless a grim business and is really difficult to defend, and a lot of farmers will not defend it.
Also, there is the lack of control. It is very difficult, with the best will in the world, for DEFRA to say what will happen at all stages of a journey once a vehicle moves outside the UK. I used to be Parliamentary Private Secretary to a DEFRA Minister, and this was an issue we struggled with. Live exports is a very small part of the British farming industry, and we think it is one that should come to an end.
James West: I would add that people can take the journey length to be the time it takes to take the channel tunnel from Dover to Calais, for example, but we are talking about live exports going on a boat that is not really designed for sea crossing. The crossing from Ramsgate to Calais normally takes about six hours, so by the time you have got to Ramsgate and across to the other side, you are talking about a fairly lengthy journey time, which in most cases would probably get you to an abattoir in the UK.
Theo Clarke
Q
Vicki Hird: I think it is welcome to have that in there. There is a case for making it more frequent, given that we are facing a climate and nature emergency that will threaten our supplies and production here and overseas. We should be building that into the review, in terms of anticipating how that will affect land use both here and overseas. That is currently not in the Bill, and it would be a welcome addition to recognise the sustainability factors that will increasingly come into play before the next five years are up. We already know that flooding is more frequent, and drought is affecting many parts of Africa, which supplies us with a lot of fruit and veg.
There is a case for more frequent reporting; it is a welcome element in the Bill, but as the previous speaker mentioned, we already do much of this food security assessment already, so it is a question of building on that and making it an integral part of the sustainability of our food system. [Applause.] May I congratulate George Eustice, our new Secretary of State? I will end there, on food security.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Palmer: Yes, I see the problem. As in other areas of public subsidy, we have to start from where we are. Because we have the range of quality that I mentioned in response to the previous question, there are a lot of farmers who would genuinely like to raise their standards, but need assistance in doing so. I accept that there is an element of moral hazard in that, if someone already has superb standards, they may feel a bit irritated that someone else is being given money to come up to them.
Kerry McCarthy
Is that how it would work? That is the other thing. It is the same as with planting trees or improving soil health; there is a danger that, in a bid to use public money to encourage other people to do that, the people who were ahead of the curve are penalised.
Dr Palmer: I believe DEFRA envisages, which I think is right, two types of support. One is to assist with specific one-off costs—I gave the farrowing crate as an example—but the other is to reward people who are meeting a higher standard. To my mind, that must be linked to a good labelling scheme, because if we are spending public money to assist farmers to reach a higher standard, we should also be able to tell consumers about it, so that they can respond, in the same way that we have seen with eggs. When there was a choice between free-range and battery eggs, people migrated overwhelmingly to free range, to the point that it is now very difficult to get the lowest standard of egg in supermarkets. You are right that, over time, we will probably develop further ideas on how to give farm animals the best possible life, and that is right—we should not stay at the same level forever—but for the time being there is a lot to be done to reinforce the farmers who are striving to be the best.
Fay Jones
Q
If I may, Mr Stringer, I have a small supplementary. In Compassion’s written submission, you welcomed the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations regarding farming method in relation to labelling. Could you elaborate on that, please?
James West: We submitted details to DEFRA a while ago. Essentially it would be different labels indicating the method of production. The range of methods of production would differ according to species, but in effect you would indicate whether it had been produced, say, intensively indoors versus extensively outdoors and everything in between. That would be on the packet, so when you go to the supermarket or shop you can see how the product was produced. As Nick was saying, with eggs that moved the market towards free-range eggs and away from caged egg sales—barn egg sales in the UK are low—to the extent that roughly half the supermarkets have phased out caged egg sales and the other half plan to do so by 2025.
It goes back to the point that you need to support the farmers in the subsidy scheme we introduce, but there also needs to be an outlet for them to show that they are delivering at a level that consumers may want. It does not mean that consumers have to buy it—they can see the stuff produced to a lower standard and still choose that—but at least they are informed. At the moment, it is really hard to find meat or dairy products labelled as to method of production. Possibly the only other one is outdoor-bred and outdoor-reared for pork; other than that, it is essentially free range/organic or you are in the dark. It would cover the whole spectrum.
Dr Palmer: That is also really important when you come to trade, because if we are to sign a free trade agreement with the United States or other countries, we really need to give our negotiators a clear steer on what we collectively are willing to see. If we have an evolving labelling scheme, we have a basis for doing that. As you know, international trade negotiations usually start from the point that each side says what their red lines are and what they cannot move on and the negotiations operate around those to see what is possible. We are keen to see specifications in the Bill on minimum standards for animal welfare—Ministers have said this many times—so that our negotiators can say to their American, Brazilian or other counterparts, “I’d love to help you, but I’m afraid I can’t because it is in the legislation.” That would give farmers and consumers the reassurance that we are absolutely not going to end up with British farming being undercut by what you vulgarly call cheap and nasty imports.
Vicki Hird: I think that goes for other aspects of food standards and production standards. I totally agree with Nick. It is very important that we see something in the Bill around trade—I am sure you have heard this a lot over the last week—so that we have a way to stop agri-food imports produced to lower standards of food, animal welfare and environmental production systems. I would add labour standards as well.
One of our members is supporting the idea of an 100% grass-fed label, because there is some confusion about grass-fed labels and claims being made. There is a very good Pasture-Fed Livestock Association producing animals with really strong environmental, as well as animal welfare, benefits. It is only fair that that should be recognised through a proper labelling scheme.
Danny Kruger
Q
Vicki Hird: There is a balance to be struck. People are still going to eat meat. It is a highly nutritious product and there are people who want to eat it. Recognising that, we should be eating much less but better meat, produced here in ways that we can recognise, enforce and celebrate, alongside the rewilding that can go along with those animals.
Danny Kruger
Q
Vicki Hird: There is a lot of science, and people pick the science they want to use. There are a lot of differences. You can go from one meter in one field, to another meter, and it can be a different carbon reading. We have to be careful with this and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, small-scale producers will not be able measure their carbon with expensive tools, so we need to make sure we are doing right but also supporting farmers for agroforesty, for rewilding with animals and for silvopasture, which is fantastic and can have big animal welfare gains. There is a spectrum that we need to recognise.
George has a particular approach and we do have a crisis ahead. We need to recognise that, but we take a less is better approach. We can envisage the Bill supporting farmers to deliver that. It does not include factory farms, I have to say.
Dr Palmer: I am not sure I fully answered your question regarding Compassion’s submission on labelling. This is an area where the international debate is moving very rapidly. France now has a very extensive scheme, pioneered by Carrefour and Casino, two of the big supermarket chains. Germany is proposing that the European Union as a whole looks at labelling, specifically for animal welfare. There are also schemes in Italy and Denmark. It is important that we do not fall behind the curve here. People are looking at us and asking, after Brexit, are we going to be better or going to have to fall behind? This is a classic example. The Bill offers the opportunity to pin down some of the reassurance that people are looking for.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Dr Palmer: Personally, I would not go in for legislating on what people call things, unless there is a deliberate attempt to defraud. If someone goes to the vegan section in Sainsbury’s and sees a sausage, it is unlikely that they will say, “Aha! That’s a pig.” I do not feel it is worth parliamentary time. Companies are quite capable of making clear what it is they are selling.
The Chair
If there are no more questions, on behalf of the Committee I thank the witnesses for their evidence this afternoon.
Examination of Witness
Sue Davies gave evidence.
The Chair
We have until 5pm for evidence from the representative of Which? Welcome. Could you introduce yourself?
Sue Davies: Good afternoon. My name is Sue Davies. I am head of consumer protection and food policy at Which?.
George Eustice
Q
Sue Davies: May I start by saying congratulations on your appointment, Mr Eustice?
We support the public money for public goods approach. We think it is the right way to go, but there is a real opportunity to put more about consumers—the people who will ultimately be eating the food—in the Bill. There is a range of ways in which that could be done. We have a real opportunity to redesign agriculture policy to make sure that we have a much more joined-up approach to food and farming policy in general. We welcome the commitment to the national food strategy, for example, as part of that.
The public money for the public goods that are included is really important, but we would also like to see a stronger focus on other consumer benefits, particularly in relation to food safety, public health and reducing antibiotic resistance. When talking about productivity and increasing food production, we fine that people care so much about food. We have done lots of consumer research over the years. In the last couple of years, we have particularly focused on asking people about food standards.
People expect the UK to have really high standards and that, if anything, we will build on the standards that we have at the moment. We talk about productivity, and we want it done in a way that meets consumer expectations. We would also like to see a more general commitment to upholding high food standards in the Bill.
George Eustice
Q
There is a separate area that is about public health campaigns, healthy eating and food standards, but obviously measures are already in place through the Food Safety Act 1990 and the work that the NHS does to encourage healthy eating. Our view is that we do not want to duplicate work that is already present in other fields and is the responsibility of other Departments.
Sue Davies: I can see that to some extent, but there is a real opportunity to integrate public health much more in farming practices. A good example of that is the work the Food Standards Agency did a couple of years ago to try to reduce campylobacter rates in chickens. We have regulation to some extent around that to try to control the practices that are used, but it was only by incentivising action throughout the supply chain—in that case, by the Food Standards Agency doing a retail survey, where it was, in effect, naming and shaming retailers by showing how campylobacter levels compared—that that led to co-operation across the supply chain to look at what measures could be put in place. That included measures in slaughterhouses as well as a strong on-farm focus, such as looking at biosecurity measures and what happens in relation to thinning.
It is that kind of approach that we feel should be included, and certainly the opportunity to do it should not be excluded. Some things will require regulation, and we definitely think they should be regulated, but it is a mix of using regulation and wider incentives to raise best practice. For issues such as antibiotic use, there is an opportunity to try to incentivise the reduced use of antibiotics again, on top of the legislative requirements that we have.
George Eustice
Q
Sue Davies: It is certainly really positive that that is in there, but if there are specific measures where the main goal is focused on human health, rather than animal health, that should be included in the Bill. Ultimately, the Bill will determine the types of food choices we have as consumers and the sorts of standards to which our food is produced. Obviously, a lot of other policies will have an impact on that, but we think this is a real opportunity to shape our food system in a positive way that works for consumers as well as farmers. We should not miss these really good opportunities to include that in the Bill at this point.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Ms Davies, I am bound to ask you the question that I have asked virtually every other witness: from a consumer’s point of view, what would be the impact of allowing imports produced to lower standards? I think I can probably guess the answer, because it has been very consistent across all our witnesses. At the end of the whole chain, particularly with ready meals and so on, do you feel that consumers know enough in the current system? Could we not do more through the Bill to lift standards, particularly on antibiotics and so on?
Sue Davies: I think your food standards question is really important and shows why we need to make sure that we have a joined-up policy. This will have a big impact on the sorts of choices that consumers can make, but if we do not address other policies, particularly trade policy, it could completely undermine all the positive things that we are trying to achieve with the Bill.
As I mentioned, we know from our consumer research that people have really high expectations on food standards. Some 93% of people said they expect that food standards will be maintained, and ideally people think they should be enhanced now that we have left the EU. People do not expect cheaper imports to come in and undercut our producers. People want to support UK producers, particularly of products such as meat and dairy, so the tariff schedule that has come out is interesting. All of that has to be joined up to make sure that we are not trading away our standards and potentially bringing in safety issues, or allowing production methods that we know consumers do not find acceptable.
We saw with the horsemeat scare that food has many different aspects. Some are about safety, and others are cultural—people just do not want to eat food that is produced in certain ways. We have been doing a lot of survey work and we know that around eight in 10 people have concerns about eating hormone-treated beef. A similar number have concerns about food produced using antibiotic growth promoters. Those practices are used in some of the countries with which we will seek to reach trade deals—hormones in the case of the US, Australia and New Zealand. We absolutely have to ensure that trade policy builds on our current standards. If anything, we are looking to improve our standards rather than allow them to deteriorate or accept lower quality imports that will make it very difficult for UK producers to produce to the standards that consumers expect.
We have also asked about labelling issues, because sometimes it is suggested that people can decide if you just label everything. People feel strongly about it and do not think that labelling is the solution. That applies to people across all socioeconomic groups; it is not just better-off customers who can make this sort of choice. We think it is really important that there is something in the Bill that makes it clear that we should maintain and build on our food standards.
We have asked people what they think about labelling, and they generally tell us that they think the labelling information is about right, but when you ask people about where improvements might be made, they talk about things such as helping people to make more sustainable choices and improved animal welfare labelling. There is scope to look at how we can improve that by building on the labelling information that we have already. One area that we know people feel strongly about is the traffic light nutritional labelling system, which we would like to be made mandatory when we have the opportunity to legislate to do so.
Fay Jones
Q
Sue Davies: We can put it in this Bill and in the trade Bill. This is about agriculture and how we incentivise food production, and a vision for agriculture in the UK. The approach that we take to trade will have a huge impact on how we are able to deliver that, and it will have huge implications for the support that needs to be provided to farmers and how we incentivise standards. There is a strong link between the two.
We think there should definitely be something in the Bill recognising, at a principled level, that this is what UK food production is about. It should also recognise that, on the one hand, we need to ensure that we maintain high standards that meet consumers’ expectations at a national level and, on the other hand, that we will take a strong stance to ensure we are not trading away those food standards to get the many other benefits we might get through trade deals. It should not be about losing food standards to get those benefits.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Sue Davies: I suppose that reinforces your question in a way. Ultimately, things like soil health will feed through into the quality of the food that we eat as consumers. That is why we must ensure that there is recognition that the way we produce food has huge implications for consumers, both in terms of their health and their preferences. Most people will not think about soil when you ask them about food, but it will have an indirect impact on them.
At a more principled level, when we are talking about public money for public goods, we should recognise that public health and food safety are important. There is a range of different mechanisms. Some things are obvious, such as the promotion of fruit and vegetables, but as we are looking at how food is produced and the production methods that are used, it is important that there is a clear steer that public health and food safety must also be at the heart of that.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Sue Davies: Including provisions that enable financial assistance for food safety and public health measures, such as the reduced use of antibiotics, feeds through into the things the Food Standards Agency is trying to achieve. That then allows sufficient flexibility.
I mentioned the example of campylobacter because that has been a big priority. It is the main type of food poisoning in the UK. Most of it comes from chickens. We have been struggling to reduce its level for years. We have made progress in recent years by taking the farm-to-fork approach. We need to recognise that a lot of things that manifest at the end of the food chain originate in production. Giving the flexibility to be able to provide financial assistance and incentivise those kinds of measures is really important. The Food Standards Agency will then need to work with DEFRA and others in defining what those might be and what sort of indicators you might want to include, in terms of the monitoring that is set out in the Bill.
Miss Dines
Q
Sue Davies: We are certainly not protectionist and we are certainly in favour of consumer choice. However, it is about enabling people to make meaningful choices and the types of choices that we want. We also base what we say and what we call for on consumer research—talking to people and understanding their perspectives. Over the last couple of decades, we have been talking to people about food a lot, but in the last three years we have had a regular tracker and have been asking a lot about food standards.
We are just in the process of doing some more research, for which we are going to do a series of public dialogues around the country, particularly focused on trade deals and what some of the opportunities of those could be, as well as some of the issues over which people might have concerns. It will look at food standards, but also at things like digital services and opportunities for a wide range of cheaper products. We know from the research we have done to date that people feel very strongly about food production methods and would have concerns if food was allowed to come in with reduced, cheaper standards that undermined the standards and choices we have at the moment.
I do not think it is about reducing people’s choice. It is about enabling people to have an informed choice, and about enabling everybody to have a choice. At the moment, we have regulation and standards that underpin everything that everybody buys, whatever their income level. If it suddenly becomes the case that only those who can afford it can have the type of standards we have at the moment, and other people have to have lower standards, that would certainly be a completely retrograde step.
We are starting from a point where we have good standards, and we are about to start negotiating trade deals, so we need to be really clear in those objectives about where food fits. We need to look at the opportunities for food and other things that we might gain in those trade deals, but also to be really clear about where we will not compromise. Things such as food safety and quality and animal welfare come out from our research as things that people do not think we should compromise on.
Ruth Jones
Q
Sue Davies: We are really pleased that the national food strategy is being developed. In a way, it is incredible that we have not really got a clear vision for food and how it should be produced, so we think that is really valuable. The way it is being conducted, with public dialogues and citizens’ assemblies, is a really inclusive process, and will hopefully look at the breadth of issues and the many different interests involved in food policy.
As you say, ideally you would have your food policy, and you would then have your agriculture policy, your trade policy and your environment policy; they should all be complementary. Obviously things are working to different timescales, so we need to make sure that the Bill allows for the breadth of issues that agriculture can be impacted by. That is why, as part of that national food strategy, we think it is important that food delivers for consumers and that we tackle some of the challenges in the food system, whether that is climate change, dealing with obesity or food security issues.
We realise that there is limited scope within the Bill, compared with the strategy, but we should take every opportunity to make sure that we put the right incentives in the Bill to deliver on those wider things that matter to people.
Ruth Jones
Q
Sue Davies: Obviously Which? would say this, but it is really surprising that consumers are not featured in the Bill, when ultimately the Bill will shape the types of food choices we will have, potentially for decades. It is really important to make sure that the Bill recognises that we ultimately produce food to meet the needs and expectations of consumers, and to have a market where people want to buy the products. That is why we think we should ensure that the public money for public goods area is aligned with consumer needs and benefits, particularly public health and food safety. If we are talking about productivity and producing more food, we should recognise that that has to be done in a way that meets consumers’ expectations; not by using production methods that mean people will ultimately not want to buy or eat the food. That is where having that commitment to food standards in the Bill is really important.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Sue Davies: We have done a lot of consumer research over the years and have talked to people about their attitudes to different food technologies. About three or four years ago, we did quite a big project with Sir Mark Walport and the Government Office for Science looking at food system challenges and carrying out public dialogues in different parts of the country. What comes out from those dialogues and our wider research is that people really want to have a more open discussion about what the risks and benefits are. It seems that people do not really know enough about it. They want to be convinced that, if technologies are being used, they are being looked at in the full range of possibilities and alternatives. People are more nervous about technologies like gene editing than, say, the use of precision agriculture. Often in these debates, we start from the technology and look at how it can be used, rather than looking at what the problem is, what the range of options is, and why we are deciding that that is the right approach.
The other thing that comes across really clearly is that people expect there to be strong, independent oversight. It is concerning that when we talk about the use of technologies, you often hear some people call for deregulation and less oversight, when all our experience is to the contrary: you do not want to over-regulate and have an overly burdensome system, but people want to know that things are being done in the public interest, and that there is a clear understanding of any safety issues or wider environmental risks before we go down the route of using some of these technologies.
People are open to technology, but they want to know exactly why it is being used and whether it is the best approach. The only way to do that is that to make sure that, if we are looking at using these technologies, there is proper public engagement and understanding of them. The retailers and others in the food industry are obviously key, in terms of their understanding of whether people would want to buy products produced using these methods.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Sue Davies: All the research shows that it is quite a straightforward risk-benefit analysis. If you are ill, you will take something that you think is more risky but might make you better. If it is about maintaining health, people expect there to be a higher barrier.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Sue Davies: It is not something that we have carried out any research on, to be honest. It is not something that we have particularly worked on. As I say, when we have asked people about labelling information, most of them feel that we have quite a good level of information. Certainly, the areas that come out most strongly where people would like more clarity are things like making more sustainable choices. Animal welfare issues are important. We did a report in the last issue of Which? that looked at the different assurance schemes that are available to help you make sustainable choices. They all covered different elements of sustainability, so it is difficult for a scheme to help you make a choice. There is a lot more scope in that sort of area to improve labelling. Method of slaughter is not something that we have asked about recently.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Sue Davies: I think there are still cases where the way foods are presented does not meet the actual way they are produced. When we ask people about their expectations, though, people are often surprised: they may think that welfare standards are higher than they actually are, and then when you explain, they are often quite surprised about what is the minimum—what is free range, what is organic or whatever. It is certainly an area where people want more information.
We also did a report on chicken welfare in, I think, the November issue of Which? and it was quite interesting to ask the different retailers about their stocking densities for chickens and to see the variation, even within the current legal framework, between individual retailers. That went down very well; I think people found it very useful information.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Sue Davies: It is really good that in the Bill there is, obviously, the potential for financial assistance, and animal welfare is a clear criterion for that. I think that that is right. Whether it is in the Bill or the food strategy, I think there needs to be a mechanism to look at how we improve labelling.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Sue Davies: I suppose that the Bill will also cover the marketing standards that fall under the common agricultural policy, which cover everything from breakfast products like jams to poultry. So there is an element within the Bill where that could be covered. We have had concerns that the marketing standards under the common agricultural policy have been developed very separately from other food standards and very much from a producer-only perspective, rather than by thinking about what the end consumer might want. I think that there is an opportunity, if we are reviewing any of those standards, to make sure that they are meeting consumer needs as well.
The Chair
If there are no more questions, let me thank you on behalf of the Committee for the evidence that you have given this afternoon. Thank you very much.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Agriculture Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 25th February 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 February 2020 - (25 Feb 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points. Will Members switch electronic devices to silent? Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Today, we will begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings, which is available in the room, shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection list shows the order of debate. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I will use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following the debates on the relevant amendments.
I hope that is helpful. The process and procedures are very similar to those in the Chamber. If any Member is new to this and requires assistance, the Clerk and I will be as helpful as we can to support proceedings.
Clause 1
Secretary of State’s powers to give financial assistance
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance for the purposes listed in Clause 1.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I welcome everyone to the Committee. I suspect we will have lengthy and interesting discussions, and I am sure we are all very much looking forward to that.
To those who were here some time ago for Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill in the last Parliament, the amendment will look remarkably similar to the opening amendment then, although of course the world has moved on. This is a big issue, but I would like to preface my detailed “may”/“must” comments with some overarching observations.
I should make it clear from the start, as we did on Second Reading, that the Opposition support many of the principles underlying the Bill. Indeed, as I have pointed out before, one can find similar sentiments about improving the common agricultural policy and making it more environmentally friendly as far back as Labour’s 1998 rural White Paper. We have already said that the shift to incentivising farmers to provide greater support for the environment and deliver public goods, and to providing finance for that, is welcome.
I think there is widespread agreement about that—interestingly, not just in this country. Those who were present at yesterday’s debate on an agriculture statutory instrument will know that I spent some time then explaining how the European Union has sought to green the common agricultural policy, including by promoting measures such as environmental land management schemes. I observed that I find it slightly puzzling that a Government so enamoured with burnishing their green credentials did not fully use flexibilities such as the 15% in pillar 2 that could have been transferred to environmental schemes in England. However, a repentant sinner is always welcome—despite the nagging suspicion that some may not be entirely repentant.
The Opposition seek to work constructively to improve the Bill, but also to tease out what we see as some of the underlying contradictions, not least by pointing out that the Government are proposing a framework system for agriculture that does not see food production as a key part of its role. I quite understand why those fighting for a shift to environmental goods—they have fought the good fight for many years—may be nervous about the risk of business as usual through the back door, but we must be aware that just exporting our environmental damage somewhere else does not help. I must say that the Secretary of State’s continuing refusal to put into law the standards we need to apply to imported food does little to assuage concerns, and his comments at the weekend did little to reassure us. We will return to that at a later stage.
Members do not just have to take my word for that. They might want to look, for instance, at the powerful response to the new immigration system from the British Poultry Council last week. Its chief executive, Richard Griffiths, said the proposals
“have shown a complete disregard for British food production and will have a crippling effect on our national food security”—
a very strong statement from an industry leader. He continued, and this is the salient point for this morning:
“We cannot run the risk of creating a two-tier food system where we import food produced to lower standards and only the affluent can afford high quality British produce”.
That is the danger—some farmers paid via environmental land management schemes to do good things, with a bit of food production on the side, while the food that most people in our country eat is imported to lower standards. That is the risk, and we will not take it.
Our support is qualified on the Government coming clean on the plan. On a day when Sir Michael Marmot has laid out the consequences of the policies of the last 10 years—shameful consequences in my view—it is hardly surprising that people are worried, because the creation of a two-tier country is part of a piece, and the architects of this Bill have also been responsible in other policy areas for where we find ourselves today, in a disunited kingdom. We are not prepared to see this continue. For our purposes today, how much better if we had had the food strategy, and probably the Environment Bill, in place already, but we are where we are.
Having made trenchant criticisms of the Government, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that there have been improvements since the first version of the Bill, and we welcome them. We have noticed that the Government have been responsive to constructive criticism of their proposals and made additions to the Bill from its previous incarnation, following strong interventions by stakeholders. We hope that the Government continue to be receptive to improvements, because we believe there is certainly room for improvement.
It is precisely because changes have been made to the Bill, and because the climate and ecological crisis has become ever more pressing in the year or more since the Bill was last in Committee, that it is so important that we have returned to scrutinise this new version of the legislation. Our amendments are intended to strengthen the Bill—to give it more bite and deliver greater certainty to our farmers, to tackle the health and climate crises, and to fill in some of the gaps and missed opportunities.
I turn to “may”/”must” in amendment 1. Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to provide financial assistance for the public goods purposes listed in the clause. It stipulates that the Secretary of State may do this, but there is no requirement to do so. Our amendment would change that, so that the Secretary of State must provide financial assistance for those clause 1 purposes, which I suspect we will debate at some length.
The simple fact is that the Secretary of State is not bound to do those things; they do not have to do them. The Government have guaranteed the previous annual budget under the common agricultural policy to farmers for every year of this Parliament, but what about after this Parliament? What guarantees do we have that financial assistance will continue to be provided for these public good purposes if that is not a strong requirement in the Bill?
What guarantee can the Minister give that the promised budget will be allocated? We still do not have the long-promised broader policy statement on ELMS. I wondered whether that was what the Prime Minister was working on at Chevening last week—I can imagine him spending his week doing the detailed policy work—but I am told that it is imminent and will be available within minutes. I think it is slightly disrespectful to Parliament to introduce such an important part of the policy process half an hour after Committee proceedings have started—I am sure we will all spend our lunch time poring over it.
I understand that the Secretary of State’s need to avoid the difficulties of his predecessor earlier this year and to have something to talk about when he is at the National Farmers Union—once a pressman, always a pressman. I rather admire that; however, I think we should have seen the statement before today.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I arrived in the office just before nine this morning to discover that these documents had been produced. That makes things very difficult, because we may have missed the opportunity to table amendments to this part of the Bill if anything in those documents raises concerns. As my hon. Friend said, it is wrong that this situation has been dictated by the need for the Secretary of State to make a speech at the NFU this morning. The Committee should take precedence.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are politicians and we know how the world works, but it is a pity. This Government have a strong majority and are at the start of their term; surely they should not be running scared so soon. Frankly, it speaks volumes. I do not blame the Minister—I am sure she is doing what she has been asked to do—but this raises particular difficulties for us. Until we have seen the documents, we will not know whether we should have tabled different amendments. We probably have a fair idea of what is in there, but this is no way to proceed.
Do we know that the money will actually be allocated? This is a change to a new and complicated system. The experience of stewardship schemes in the past is that they have not always been easy. We heard very enthusiastic evidence the week before last from some who say that everything will be wonderful. That is not what I hear from others. The question in my mind is whether budget allocated will be different from budget taken up. My sense is that many farmers think they are going to get the same kind of money, minus the 10%, in the years ahead. They may not. There is no guarantee that they are going to get the same amount for doing something slightly different. The money may be allocated in very different ways, which is part of the concern that people feel.
The shift that we need to see in our agricultural systems towards producing food in a way that is less destructive to the environment and that reduces agriculture’s contribution to climate change is too important to leave to the optional discretion of Secretaries of State. Under the current wording, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position whereby current and future Secretaries of State will be under no actual obligation to provide financial assistance to address agriculture’s contribution to climate change, despite that supposedly being a key driver of the Bill.
If the Government understand just how important the environmental and climate crisis is, it really is not such a tough ask for them to back up their commitments with stronger wording in the Bill. Others had the same discussion about the previous iteration of the Bill, so I am well aware of the current Secretary of State’s arguments against the change—that by keeping this as a power and not a duty, the Government are following a legislative tradition—I am sure the Minister has been given appropriate examples to make that point. I will not re-rehearse the point, but she will note that it was not only the Opposition who expressed that concern last time. She may find that some Members on her side of Committee care and worry about this issue. I would gently point out that the circumstances are really rather different now; in fact, the case has been strengthened since the previous discussion, given the climate emergency that we are facing. We hardly need look very far around the country to see the evidence of that.
Of course, we are also now leaving the European Union and embarking on a journey of considerable financial uncertainty for farmers and the wider rural community. That is why we need strong legislative commitments that guarantee long-term support for the environment and the climate, and financial certainty for our farmers. All that the amendment would do is make it a requirement to provide the financial assistance.
Other measures in the Bill are worded as requirements. Clause 4 makes the preparation of multi-annual financial assistance plans a requirement, while clause 17 obligates the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on UK food security. There are other provisions in the Bill where the power is a duty. The amendment would ensure that clause 1, which is pretty much at the heart of what we are talking about, has equal standing to other clauses. Shifting the power to a duty would rightly open the Secretary of State’s actions up to proper parliamentary scrutiny. If it is the law that the Secretary of State must provide finance for those essential activities, and they do not, they can be held duly accountable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, at this very exciting time for agriculture. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his broadly kind words this morning and for his acceptance that we have a great deal in common across the House, as we move forward in planning the next stages of food production, farming and other systems that we want to implement to make sure the environment is better protected. We have much in common in this area at the moment.
As a newbie to this Committee, I also welcome those who served before and who, as the hon. Gentleman said, did a great deal to improve the Bill, which appears before us today in a new, streamlined form. Clause 1(4) includes an important mention of the role of food production as part of what we do in our countryside. It makes it clear that encouraging the production of food in an environmentally sustainable way is necessary. That is one of the most important changes made to the Bill, and I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to standards. I am sure we will return to this discussion, probably next week, when we discuss imports and how that issue will be taken forward. I ask him to accept that my predecessor and I—and, indeed, many Government Members who are interested in agriculture—have always been clear that it is important that we are committed to the highest possible standards of food production. We want reasonably priced food, but produced to a standard of high ecological and animal welfare.
Kerry McCarthy
Can the Minister clarify whether she is talking about standards in the UK or standards of imports, too?
Victoria Prentis
It is a great pleasure to take an intervention from the hon. Lady. She and I have worked together for many years on food waste reduction, so we have had a certain amount to do with each other in that sphere.
The Bill deals with standards in British agriculture that we impose on our farmers. It is inevitable at this exciting time for our nation that we will also stray into discussions on imports. I do not wish to shut those discussions down, however the Bill concentrates on the financial assistance that we give to the people who produce food in our countryside and are engaged in other schemes that, hopefully, will help us to enhance the environment.
I wish to restate the Government’s commitment to giving farmers, stakeholders and the public as much certainty as possible as we move away from the common agricultural policy towards our new policy of public money for public goods. I know that the previous Committee discussed at enormous length whether “may” or “must” should be used. As you may have heard, Mr Stringer, I am a former Government lawyer, and I am aware of the way in which legislation is often framed. When talking about financial assistance—which I politely say is what makes this different from the other clauses that the hon. Member for Cambridge referenced— it is traditional, in this sphere at least, although not in all Government legislation, to use the word “may”. Two examples are the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and the Science and Technology Act 1965, which both use the word “may” when discussing financial assistance. I would suggest that, in this situation, that is not an unusual piece of drafting nor one that in any way lessens our commitment to providing the financial assistance to which we have committed for the remainder of this Government.
We listened to hon. Members’ concerns during the passage of the first version of the Bill and have included new duties relating to financial assistance. The provision of the multi-annual financial assistance plans under clause 4 is a significant change, which sets out our strategic priorities for financial assistance under clause 1, with the first plan starting in 2021 to cover our seven-year transition period. Publishing these plans and other reports required under part 1 will ensure greater transparency and provide necessary certainty about the amount of public funding that has been allocated under clause 1.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying some of those points. She said that the Government aim to create as much certainty as possible. That is sadly not how it feels to many in the sector. Part of the reason for people’s concerns is that they wonder why some of this was not in the original Bill. That is why I keep returning to the underlying philosophical principles driving this. That is my concern and what has fed people’s worries.
Of course, we welcome the changes and improvements to the Bill. However, as I said earlier, Government Members raised questions 14 or 15 months ago. I suspect they will not necessarily be reassured by this. They would like to see something stronger, as we would. That is why—as this part of the Bill is so important—we will press the amendment to a Division.
I noticed—although I am not surprised—that the Minister did not feel able to respond to the observation from the British Poultry Council. Those are very strong statements coming from some sectors. I am of an age that I can remember the debates about manufacturing in the 1990s. I recall a visit that I made to one of the shoe factories in Norwich with the late, great Robin Cook. We were stunned to hear from that business that they had had a visit from a very enthusiastic Minister in the then Conservative Government to tell them, essentially, that they were not needed any more; the future was going to be different.
My concern, which is reflected by others, is that extraordinarily, in our great country, with its wonderful rural traditions, there is in some quarters a school of thought that sees the same outcome as a possibility for agriculture and farming. That is why we are so concerned and why we believe the powers should be strengthened.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned that the inclusion of the word “must” could open up the Government to judicial review from farmers who could make a sensible argument that not all the objectives are being fully funded? They could then revert to the courts to try to get that through. That is not what I believe the Government should be doing with the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
I always listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, because he knows of what he speaks, but I wonder whether that is a slight red herring in this case. What he warns of could come about, but on balance I would say that that is a risk worth taking to strengthen the Bill. To me, the risks that I have just outlined are greater.
I have huge confidence in the future of the sector, but some ideologues in the world have strange ideas. I do not think that is unique to one party or another. I would just caution Government Members to be aware that they, too, have people with some interesting thoughts on their side. In my view, the country needs such people to be seen off. I suspect that there is, if not unanimity, then considerable cross-party support for that point. We want our agricultural sector to continue to thrive and prosper. Food production is a key part of that, and we want that strengthened in this legislation. On that basis, I will press the amendment to a Division.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert—
“(aa) supporting agriculture and horticulture businesses in enabling public access to healthy food that is farmed in an environmentally sustainable way, including food produced through whole farm agroecological systems”.
This amendment would add to the purposes for which financial assistance can be given, that of ensuring access to healthy food produced sustainably including through whole farm agroecological systems.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(k) establishing, maintaining and expanding agroecological farming systems, including organic farming.”
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
“‘environmentally sustainable way’ means in a way which employs factors and practices that contribute to the quality of environment on a long-term basis and avoids the depletion of natural resources”.
This amendment defines “environmentally sustainable way” for the purposes of clause 1(4) and Amendment 2.
Daniel Zeichner
Amendment 2 seeks to address two issues: what we consider to be a lack of proper emphasis on access to healthy food, and the missed opportunity to support whole-farm agroecological systems more explicitly. As I have intimated, for a Bill on food production, there is very little about public access to food and how the Government could support moving the sector towards producing healthy and sustainable food for our citizens. There is a nod to the broader issue of food security in clause 17, which we believe can be improved, and to which I will return.
This is a Bill about agriculture and public goods, and it is important to recognise that access to healthy, sustainable food is a public good, and one that should be eligible for financial support. I suspect that economists would go into technical detail about what public goods may or may not be. We believe there is a market failure in this country. We need to provide people of all income levels with access to fresh, nutritious food, no matter where they live. Last year, a study by the Social Market Foundation think-tank suggested that more than 1 million people in the UK live in so-called food deserts—neighbourhoods where poverty, poor public transport and a lack of shops and supermarkets are seriously limiting access to affordable fresh fruit and vegetables. That has clear public health implications.
We all know that we have rising levels of obesity, and we know about the strain that puts on the NHS. Only yesterday, we heard that record numbers of people are developing type 2 diabetes. I have already referred to today’s report by Sir Michael Marmot, which we should all feel anxious about. We also know that with rising food poverty, we are in the upsetting position of having more food banks than we have branches of McDonald’s restaurants—over 2,000. That statistic is frequently cited. There is an obvious opportunity here for provisions in the Bill to enable the Government to support the core production of food and food distribution in a way that facilitates access to healthy and locally produced foods at an affordable price. There is a clear need to boost our supply of fruit and vegetables, so that people can access food that is closer to home, more affordable, fresh, and sustainably produced. Provisions could facilitate community-supported agriculture and encourage local public food procurement. The Government could also be enabled to give farmers the support they need to reduce UK reliance on imported food. We will come back to the issue of the balance of locally produced and imported food.
If the Government are not convinced that some of this can be done, I invite them to visit my Cambridge constituency to see the innovative work led by Labour Cambridge city councillors Katie Thornburrow and Alex Collis, including community gardens in some of the new developments in Trumpington, on the edge of the city. These innovative pioneering schemes show that it can be done: they are a real opportunity to work with food producers, but are currently outside the scope of funding as a public good. This is not about returning to the common agricultural policy and simply paying farmers to produce food; it is about supporting public access to food that is healthy and local, and recognising that it is a public good in itself—with all the potential public health implications.
Amendment 2 explicitly allows for the provision of financial assistance to support food produced through whole-farm agroecological systems. The Government have made a move towards recognising the importance of agroecology clause 1(5) of the Bill by clarifying that financial assistance that farmers can receive under clause 1(b) for supporting a better understanding of the environment among the public includes a “better understanding” of agroecology. A “better understanding” is about education. It does not financially support the adoption of agroecological principles by farmers. In their written evidence to this Committee, the Sustainable Food Trust said that
“without adequately supporting the implementation of agroecology, it is merely rhetoric.”
In putting the maintenance of natural ecological processes at the heart of agricultural production, we know that taking that agroecological approach can deliver many of the public goods throughout the farming process identified in the Bill in an integrated way, not just in separated or reserved areas or only at the margins. These systems are geared towards using natural processes across the board to reduce the use of agrochemicals; encourage biodiversity; improve soil health; recycle nutrients, energy and waste; and generally create more diverse, resilient and productive agroecosystems, which we know we need. Sustain’s written evidence to the Committee highlighted that by adopting an integrated approach in this way, agroecological systems can deliver a “higher level of benefits”, with organic farms
“supporting 50% more wildlife than on conventionally farmed land, and healthier soils with 44% higher capacity to store long-term soil carbon.”
The report “Our Future in the Land”, produced last year by the RSA Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, recommended the design of a 10-year transition plan for sustainable agroecological farming by 2030, and the establishment of a national agroecology development bank to accelerate a fair, sustainable transition. Reports on sustainable agriculture produced by the UN high-level panel of experts on food security and nutrition in 2019 state that Governments should
“promote agroecological and other innovative approaches in an integrated way to foster transformation of food systems.”
The Bill is an obvious place for the promotion of that approach, which is now widely recognised. It should provide specific funding for farmers wishing to switch from conventional production to agroecological production. The support could be directed towards training farmers and providing capital grants for the infrastructure investments required to transition to agroecological farming systems, as well as significantly increased research into agroecological farming systems. It would create a funding mechanism for farmers currently locked into an industrialised production system through no fault of their own. We can help them adopt an agroecological approach that would speed the much-needed transition towards more sustainable methods.
Such funding could be made available at whole-farm level, to avoid the piecemeal approach of greening only the edges of fields, which risks creating isolated areas of biodiversity and retaining the deserts of intensive agriculture that we still too often see. It seems clear that a whole-farm approach should be at the heart of the new environmental land management schemes, some of the detail of which we will all enjoy over our lunch break.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman’s amendments are entirely laudable, in that we should wish to encourage the production of more organic food in our country. However, in the evidence sessions, we heard some concern from representatives of the organic sector that the supply-demand balance in the organic market in the UK is very delicate, and that over-incentivising switching to organic production may undermine those at the forefront of organic production and may result in market collapse. We have already seen that—to an extent—in the liquid milk market, where organic production has exceeded demand, meaning that those who have invested in organics have not reaped the benefits they would have wished.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has seen research by the Royal Agricultural University, Cranfield University and the University of Reading into the impact of organic production on the environment and on food production in general. Although they found that greenhouse gas emissions from organic production were 20% lower and that there would be
“a 4% reduction in livestock emissions and a 6% overall direct emissions bonus if the UK went fully organic”,
they found that the effect on food production as a whole
“would be a 40% reduction in total food production in England and Wales when expressed as total metabolisable energy (ME) output.”
That means that a massive switchover to organic may not only collapse the market but may cause us to have to import more food. Organic production produces less food, but the overall demand for food in this country in terms of calories needed would remain the same—indeed, it would increase in line with the population.
My worry is that the hon. Gentleman’s amendments would over-incentivise switching to organic production, which would not necessarily have all the environmental benefits we expected, particularly if the grain production, for example, that was lost to the UK because of a switch to organic was replaced by imports from places such as Brazil, where rain forest deforestation is carried out. That may have the opposite effect to the one that we expected. I absolutely understand the sentiments behind the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, but I wonder whether the law of unintended consequences might come into play.
Kerry McCarthy
Mr Stringer, amendment 11 is in this group. Is it in order for me to speak to that amendment now?
Kerry McCarthy
Thank you for that clarification.
My amendment 11 is very similar to the Labour Front Benchers’ amendment 2. It would give the Secretary of State the power to provide financial assistance for the purpose of
“establishing, maintaining and expanding agroecological farming systems, including organic farming.”
For a number of years, I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology for sustainable food and farming. We have not yet reconstituted in this Parliament, but the group has gone from strength to strength. It is fair to say that, when I first got involved, it was very niche; we would have meetings with a small handful of people. Now, however, we regularly pack out Committee Rooms—standing room only. As I said, I chaired that group for a number of years, apart from when I was in the shadow Cabinet, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge kindly took over.
Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby just said, agroecology is not just about organic production. I entirely refute what he said about organic productivity and so on. Unfortunately, I do not have the figures to hand, but I am sure that the Soil Association will soon be in touch with him and the rest of us to put straight some of the things he said about the ability of the country to feed itself under an organic system.
Agroecological systems include organic, agroforestry, pasture-based livestock systems, integrated pest management—farming in a way that does not require pesticides—low-input mixed farming and biodynamic agriculture. All such things deliver a higher level of benefits and co-benefits across the farm than conventional systems do. Organic farms have 50% more wildlife than conventionally farmed land, and healthier soils with a 44% higher capacity to store long-term soil carbon. Obviously, too, if the soil is more fertile, that increases productivity. The amendment is supported by Sustain, the Landworkers’ Alliance, the Soil Association and many others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned food deserts. The survey that he mentioned showed that two of the top five food deserts in the country were in south Bristol: the estates of Hartcliffe and Withywood. In the top 100, an area in my constituency is also listed. In a city such as Bristol, that is really surprising. Bristol prides itself on going for gold among the Sustainable Food Cities later this year—I am sure the Minister supports that; we are surrounded by countryside, with an awful lot of urban food growing; and Feeding Bristol does a tremendous amount of work to encourage healthy eating and tackle food poverty. Yet we still have those areas where that is a difficult problem to crack, so I very much hope we will pay particular attention to that in the food strategy that the Government are developing.
On the amendment, as I said, agroecology integrates food production with delivery of environmental and social public goods. That would give farms the support and incentives they need to transition to ecological farming models. I am sure that at some point we will talk about climate change, but land use—the sustainable use of land, which means sustainable agriculture—is absolutely intrinsic to meeting our global climate targets. We will discuss later why there is no commitment to net zero in the Bill, as supported by the NFU. We must take the situation seriously, and it is so frustrating that, year on year, all we talk about is fossil fuel use and industry, with perhaps a little nod to transport and electric vehicles, but we do not talk about this incredibly important angle—locally and in the impact overseas with deforestation and so on, as was mentioned.
The recent Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations modelling report makes it clear that a 10-year transition to agroecological farming, which was also recommended by the RSA’s food, farming and countryside commission, can deliver the food and environmental outcomes needed to feed Europe and to tackle the crisis we face. Were the Minister to look at the example set by France, she would find that there is far greater focus on agroecology and organic farming, and it has been done very successfully.
The Bill only rewards farmers for managing land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment; agroecology would reward them for integrated, whole-farm action. At the moment, a farmer might still farm unsustainably in the middle of the field, so most of the farm would not be sustainable, but could get the public money for public goods for things done around the edge. Farmers will be able to pick and choose—to cherry-pick certain things that they do—and that will not transform farming in the way needed.
If agroecology is specified as a Bill purpose, the Government could also chose to develop schemes that deliver social benefits as part of the farm system, such as community projects for public education about food growing and cooking. That is so important, to change farming from being seen as part of a countryside versus town thing; everyone eats food and benefits from the growing of healthy food.
The Bill fails to support whole-farm systems in delivering public goods in an integrated manner. Agroecological farms, including organic, at the moment may get start-up funding under clause 1(2), and certain agroecological approaches may get funding under clause 1(1), but there is not support for whole-farm systems to deliver public goods on an ongoing basis. That is not explicit anywhere in the Bill; I think it should be.
The Chair
May I clarify the answer to the hon. Lady’s initial question? It was completely in order to debate amendment 11. If she wishes to press it to a vote, that will be after the debate on amendment 40. I hope that is clear.
Victoria Prentis
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members who have spoken with such passion. I would be delighted to visit all sorts of food producers in their constituencies whenever the diary allows.
I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to support domestic food production, and to the farmers who provide high-quality, home-grown produce farmed in an environmentally sustainable way and produced, broadly, at a reasonable cost. Clause 1(2) allows us to provide financial assistance for starting or improving the productivity of agricultural forestry, and horticultural and certain related activities. That will complement the Government’s increasingly joined-up approach to food, which goes far beyond the Bill. We hope that will ensure public access to healthy food.
Last year, the Government asked Henry Dimbleby, the lead non-executive director at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to lead an independent review of the food system and to shape a national food strategy. The strategy will cover the entire food chain from field to fork, including addressing the challenges of supporting people to eat healthy diets, producing food sustainably, protecting national food security, and ensuring that our food system delivers safe, healthy and affordable food, regardless of where people live or how much they earn.
I do not wish to shy away from the debate about food poverty, which was raised by several hon. Members, but, with respect, we are discussing the scope of the clause, and I politely suggest that food poverty should be considered in a debate with the Department for Work and Pensions, which provides a safety net and a £95-billion-a-year budget to help those in poverty. We are discussing financial assistance of about £3 billion a year to those who provide our food. I hear what hon. Members have said, but it is important not to get drawn into a debate on food banks.
Farming efficiently and improving the environment can and must go hand in hand. Clause 1(4) demonstrates clearly that the Government recognise the importance of environmentally sustainable food production. It places a duty on the Secretary of State, when framing schemes under clause 1, to take into account the need to encourage English farmers to produce food in a way that protects and enhances our environment. Those who apply environmentally sustainable farming techniques, including whole-farm systems and agroecological principles, to their farming or land management practices will be very well placed to benefit from ELM schemes in future—I will come on to amendment 11 in a minute. The ELM systems will be regulated in a different way: an agronomist will go out to the farm and consider in a holistic and whole-farm manner how systems can best support ecology. That is really exciting and I look forward to discussing it further with the hon. Member for Bristol East.
We made it clear in the Bill that funding can be provided to support better understanding of the environment. That could include funding for better education and understanding of agroecology. Ultimately, good farmers and land managers know their land best. We want to ensure that our future schemes give them the freedom to choose the best approach, with high-quality advice for their land and businesses. Turning to the hon. Lady’s amendment 11, I pay tribute to her work in the APPG and I recognise that agroecology has sometimes been misinterpreted as synonymous with organic farming. That is, of course, one example of an agroecological system. Let me take the opportunity to reassure the Committee that we recognise the environmental and animal health and welfare benefits of agroecological farming systems and principles, including those on organic farms.
Daniel Zeichner
We have had a good discussion pointing out some of the interesting trade-offs and tensions that we face as we look ahead. I was struck by the point made by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, because it seems there are potentially many unintended consequences of the changes that we are about to make. I absolutely understand his point about oversupply. All I would say is that if we are trying to tackle the climate crisis, we will have to manage the transition. That is one of the great challenges of the Bill.
A long time ago, I was a student of early modern economic history. The terrible crisis that faced farmers and communities was the constant problem of how people deal with dearth and plenty. Year after year, we saw populations across Europe struggling with that. I gently suggest that the post-war settlement, and the development of a system to try to manage that problem, was what the common agricultural policy was originally about. That is one of the reasons that we now have to change it and reform it. It was never set up to deal with the environmental challenges, although there have been attempts to reform it. The basic question of how we ensure that we have sufficient food for our population, and a decent return for those producing it and living in rural communities, does not go away just because it has not been a problem for a while.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible and considered point. My concern was that, in the same way as we strove to reduce our carbon footprint in the metallurgical industries by offshoring some of the production of steel and aluminium outside our country, we might see a risk. For example, it is virtually impossible to produce oilseed rape in an organic way; the weed pressure is such that it is almost impossible. We might find that we export production of oilseed rape to countries where that production is less sustainable, resulting in more carbon being burned and possible deforestation.
The Chair
Order. May I take this opportunity to remind Members that interventions should be short and to the point? There is plenty of time to make speeches in the debate.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful, Mr Stringer. I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. One difficulty we have in discussing the Bill is that the philosophical underpinning is somewhat absent. These big questions of what agriculture is for, and whether we are going to have a future, sustainable agricultural system, trouble many of us. As I said earlier, those issues do not go away. He made a very strong point, which many Opposition Members will return to, about the danger of effectively moving the environmental harm elsewhere. That is a key sticking point, which I suspect will be returned to on many occasions.
We want to ensure that we can manage a transition. I would like to see us get to a much more sustainable system. I hope that the discussions we are having provide a structure to allow people to make that transition. The danger is that it becomes more expensive, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out.
We may move to lower levels of food production in this country. That is a matter to be debated. Provided the standards elsewhere are good enough, from our point of view, it would not necessarily be the case that we would want to maintain the current levels. We will come to that when we discuss food security, no doubt. It is always tempting to say that we should continue as we are, because that happens to be where we are now. Looking ahead, do we think the world is safer than it was or not? Those are the questions worth asking.
Returning to discussion of the amendment, many of us would like to see much more local, sustainable production. People worry about food miles involved. Having rehearsed these debates in the past, I am sure there are transport experts in the room who will point out that it is not simple. Not being far away geographically does not necessarily produce a lower carbon footprint.
Those are matters that people rightly want to discuss and challenge. There is no better person to challenge those than my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, who displays a passionate knowledge. She has been bending my ear on this issue for the best part of two decades. [Interruption.] Sorry. That was when my hon. Friend was a very young person.
As is often the case, people are proved to be right. I am not sure that when my hon. Friend was embarking on those points two decades ago, everyone would necessarily have agreed or given her the space to make those points. She has been proved right. It is important to pursue the matter in the amendment. I take the Minister’s point that it might be possible to secure some support through the environmental land management schemes. Without wanting to sound like a broken record, it would have been a lot easier if we had had further detail on that earlier. That is why I think it is reasonable for us to keep pressing.
I understand that the Government did not have entire control over the political agenda in the past couple of years, but this has been done in the wrong order. The food strategy is really important, and we welcome it, but it just seems to be the wrong way round. The food strategy should be set first, followed by discussion on how to achieve it. We are in the curious position of trying to second-guess what is going to happen. Given that it may well be set in stone, as this is a key moment in agricultural policy, and may have to stand the test of time for 40 years, it is difficult to approach the matter in this order.
I fully appreciate what the Minister said about tackling poverty. From our side, every opportunity to tackle poverty is worth pursuing. It is a striking feature of too many parts of our country that the opportunity for people to eat healthily has been withdrawn from local communities. Sometimes, it is all very well to point the finger at individuals, but individuals can only choose from the choices that are offered to them. Ironically, it is not only in cities—in many villages and rural communities we have seen the absence of local shops. Of course, the market will do what the market will do unless we intervene.
Labour strongly believes in intervention. Where there are market failures, we want to respond to our constituents’ rightly held view that if there is no fresh fruit and veg in the local shop—as is too often the case—they are left with unpalatable choices because, as demand falls, it is hard for shopkeepers. What should we do? The amendments would give us the opportunity to provide support. I know that would not be welcome to market fundamentalists, and it might not be the most hyper-efficient way of producing food goods, but it produces something bigger, which is a public good—our people having access to the food that they deserve.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as I am here in my capacity as a Whip today. Does he agree that the time will come when people will look back on the Bill as a lost opportunity? We have not grasped this—the point of agriculture, as many farmers, including Members opposite know, is to grow food. Is this not the time to tackle food poverty?
Daniel Zeichner
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is considerable enthusiasm in many communities to grasp that opportunity, if it is given. Many communities do not have the resources necessary to do it themselves, without some external help and support. This is exactly the opportunity to do that.
I will touch on the Minister’s initial discussion of how Environmental Land Management schemes may operate. We are all enthusiastic and want them to work well. I have rather enjoyed the images that the Secretary of State has occasionally conjured up of a cosy chat around the farmhouse table. I caution the Conservative party—I think country suppers got it into trouble in the past. Members opposite may want to reflect that not all farms are the same. I have often noticed over the years that the kind of farms I have been invited to are wonderful, astonishing places—the crème de la crème of our system. Not all farms, in my experience—I go back to my days as a rural district councillor in Norfolk—are like that. For many farmers, it is tough. As we know from the statistics, they are barely eking out a living in some places. I have never been entirely convinced that all those farms would be quite so welcoming to the agri-economist turning up to have a discussion. From their perspective, it may feel a touch intrusive, if they are told to make changes that they will find very difficult.
My cautionary note is that this may work well for some. I was challenged by the NFU to visit a farm in Cambridge, which my team originally thought would be a challenge. It turned out that we have a wonderful farm on the edge of Cambridge doing some fantastic work through many of the existing agri-environmental schemes. I am sure it will do very well under the new system. My worry is what happens to farms in other places that will find this much tougher.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
‘(ca) improving public health;’.
This amendment would add ‘improving public health’ to the list of purposes for financial assistance given under clause 1, with ‘improving public health’ defined in Amendment 35.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 35, in clause 1, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
‘“improving public health” includes—
(a) increasing the availability, affordability, diversity, quality and marketing of fruit, vegetables and pulses,
(b) reducing farm antibiotic and related veterinary product use, and antibiotic resistance in harmful micro-organisms, through improved animal health and welfare,
(c) providing support for farmers to diversify out of domestic production of foods where there may be reduced demand due to public concerns over issues such as health, environment, and animal welfare, and
(d) reducing harm from use of chemicals on farms, and reducing pesticide residues in food;’.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 34.
Daniel Zeichner
The amendments cover a huge number of areas that could occupy us for many hours, no doubt. I promise I shall spare the Committee that. Greatly missing from the Bill, however, is the understanding that how we manage our agricultural systems not only has implications for the environment but for public health. What we grow and the support we provide for that affects the availability of healthy food, as we have already discussed. The current overuse of antibiotics to counter high stocking densities in livestock continues to be linked to worrying trends in levels of antibiotic-resistant diseases. Pesticide use can also have impacts beyond biodiversity on human health.
The Government’s White Paper “Health and Harmony: the future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit”, which prefigured the Bill, highlighted the key links between our agricultural and food supply systems and public health outcomes. Yet, as my predecessor pointed out, where has health gone in the Bill? It does not seem to be there, and we think it should be.
Amendment 34 would therefore include “improving public health” in the list of public goods for which farmers would be eligible to receive financial assistance. Amendment 35 outlines specific priority areas we believe should receive funding, including the key areas of reducing antibiotic use; reducing harm from the use of chemicals and pesticides, particularly pesticide residue on food; and increasing the availability and affordability of healthy produce such as fruits, vegetables and pulses to encourage healthier diets.
Reducing antibiotic use in particular is a clear global public good. We know that antimicrobial resistance is increasing across the world and that the United Nations has identified the overuse of antibiotics in farming as one of the biggest emerging threats to human health. In particular, routine preventive dosing of healthy animals with antibiotics has implications for the rise of potentially fatal viruses, and we have already seen outbreaks of viral diseases that have spread to people, such as bird flu and swine flu, which have been directly linked to intensive farming.
Over the last few years, our farmers have rightly cut back on using antibiotics. We appreciate that, but we believe that more needs to be done. We also think that moving outside the European Union and its rules has put a question mark over our position on that. At the moment, we have our UK voluntary standard produced by RUMA—the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture alliance—which requires farmers to avoid routine use of antibiotics, but we still do not have legislation banning the routine use of preventive antibiotics on groups of healthy animals in the UK.
The European Union has seen the light and has agreed to end the use of all routine antibiotic use, including group preventive treatments, by January 2022. So far as I am aware, however, we have heard nothing from the Government on whether we will follow suit. I would appreciate the Minister’s observations.
We believe that we need concrete incentives in the Bill to reduce antibiotic use now. I am well aware that farmers operate in a marketplace and need to produce food at affordable prices, and indeed at various price points. That is why we believe that help for people is legitimate when we want to make that change. Finance should be made available to support farmers to make those changes.
Surprisingly, as far as we can see, the Bill makes little mention of pesticides. We will discuss the need to monitor pesticide use in relation to the environment with a later amendment, but we all know that those chemicals can have an effect on human health. Last year, Soil Association research showed that reliance on modern intensive farming methods means that every day we are exposed to traces of potentially carcinogenic compounds left on fruit and veg. I suspect that we will return to such contentious points later, but some foodstuff tested by the Soil Association was contaminated with up to 14 different chemicals.
In the evidence sessions, we heard some of the difficult questions about the science of such issues, and I fully admit that it is contested. None the less, it is important. When we used to work under the precautionary principle, we were cautious about such things. According to the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food, pesticide traces were found in 45% of thousands of tested samples of food and drink bought in the UK in 2018, so it is a significant issue.
The potential implications of repeated spraying of pesticides in rural areas on the health of rural communities has also been well documented in the past, although I fully acknowledge that all farmers are cautious and careful, not least because of the costs involved—people do not do this willy-nilly—but, sadly, not always in ways that necessarily protect the adjoining rural communities.
Mr Goodwill
I understand that pesticide residues must be minimised, but is it not the case that the current generation that is living to ever-increasing ages, with more people than ever before at 100 years of age, is the first generation not to be brought up entirely on organic food?
Daniel Zeichner
The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to go back to the Marmot report. Sadly, not everyone is living to 100—not everyone necessarily wants to live to 110 or 120, of course—and the worry is that the increase in life expectancy appears to have stalled. However, he makes an important point. I am not one of those who thinks that life was so much better in the past. Most of us can recognise plenty to celebrate in the modern world and in the technological advances we have made, but alongside those advances we have learnt some of the downsides and unintended consequences of some of the things that we can now do. Perhaps we are at a point in time—to go back to this being a key moment in developing our policy for the future—to look at the decisions made 40 years ago to tackle scarcity and shortage. Now, we might be tackling a different set of problems. That is why the debate is so important, but the right hon. Gentleman makes an important contribution.
Going back to the potential issues with pesticides, in March 2017 the report of the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food highlighted the fact that chronic exposure to agricultural pesticides has been associated with several diseases and conditions, including cancer, developmental disorders and sterility, and that those living near crop fields are particularly vulnerable to exposure to those chemicals.
Again, I acknowledge that some of that is contested, but it would be unwise to suggest that there is no potential problem here. If we can find ways of reducing the risk, that is surely something to be sought. It is also the case that, while those who are administering the pesticides should use protective equipment when using agricultural pesticides and there are clear guidelines and rules on that, adjacent rural residents and communities do not necessarily have anything like the same protection—most do not have any protection at all—and there are still no mandatory measures in the UK specifically for the protection of those rural systems.
Alongside that, boosting our supply of fruit and veg is particularly important for public health, as we have just discussed, so that people can have access to fresh, sustainably produced fruit and vegetables closer to home. We know that low intake of fruit and veg is among the most important dietary risk factors for chronic disease, including heart disease and stroke. I am told that, sadly, only 31% of British adults and 8% of children currently achieve the Government’s recommendation of five portions of fruit and vegetables per day.
We are using far less of our agricultural land to produce fruit and vegetables than we could—only 1.4% in England, when the Public Health Policy Evaluation Unit estimates that we could be using up to 19% of land to cultivate crops of fruit and vegetables. Looking back, we had a very different mix in past times. This is part of the wider discussion about the extent to which we are part of a global trading system and want to import things that we could very well produce here. Again, it is part of the economic trade-offs.
Kerry McCarthy
I was pleased to see mention of pulses in amendment 35. People often talk about fruit and veg, but pulses are not only good for the soil, in terms of fixing nitrogen, but an important part of a healthy diet. In certain parts of the country, including East Anglia, which my hon. Friend is very familiar with, they are a booming part of the agricultural sector. For example, for people who cannot handle gluten, there are pea-based pizza bases and things like that. I have spoken to producers about them. Does he agree that we ought to be pushing that as well?
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. I am still chastened by one of the hon. Members opposite chiding me about my comments on eastern England at the evidence session, because I am very proud of eastern England, but I do reflect occasionally that the landscape has changed over the decades. We are very efficient food producers, but—there is always a but—there have been some costs to that in terms of environmental degradation. There is an opportunity, through these changes, to move some of that production to the kind that my hon. Friend is suggesting.
My guess, although I do not know for sure, is that many farmers would be quite happy to do that, because we know that farmers tend to operate within the rules that this place sets. That is why we have a responsibility to make that more attractive and to incentivise it, and not necessarily to make it attractive to carry on as we have done in the past. There is a real opportunity there, and I am sure we will talk further about diversification opportunities, but I must say that I worry sometimes about imagining that everyone wants to be diversified. Some people went into farming because that is what they want to do and they do it very well, and we should recognise that.
Going back to fruit and veg, the Public Health Policy Evaluation Unit’s written evidence to the Committee estimates that, if there were a gradual increase in land use for fruit and vegetable production to 10% of suitable land, fruit and vegetable intake could increase by around 3.7% and 7.8% respectively. That could prevent or postpone around 3,890 cardiovascular disease deaths between 2021 and 2030. My guess is that the science is not exact, but the drift of the argument is clear. There is an opportunity here, and I very much hope that, as we discuss the environmental land management schemes in more detail, we will be reassured by the possibilities.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his considered amendments—I am enjoying his philosophical approach. I was brought up by a farmer who studied philosophy at university—he has joined us to watch—so the hon. Gentleman’s approach is one with which I am very at home. My first job for that farmer was selling plums at the side of the road, and the hon. Gentleman may have noticed that my Christian name is that of the best-selling plum variety.
I heard and agreed with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman said about fruit, vegetables and pulses. It is crucial that we recognise the many connections between agriculture and public health. DEFRA is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and others to ensure that we put the improvement of public health at the heart of everything that we do.
I spoke earlier about Henry Dimbleby’s independent review to develop a national food strategy, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for it. We hope that it will ensure that safe, healthy and affordable food is available to everyone, regardless of where they live or how much they earn. We are also investing significantly in schools, to promote physical activity and healthy eating, through various programmes, including the healthy start, the school fruit and vegetable and the nursery milk schemes.
Turning to the amendments and to support for fruit and vegetables and—as the request of the hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned—pulses, the UK enjoys a high degree of food security, which is built on access to a range of different sources, including domestic production and imports. Our climate means that, try as we might, we cannot grow everything here, so access to a range of food sources is important. Having said that, I love buying British fruit and vegetables, and I encourage others to do so.
The Bill will enable us to continue enhancing food security by supporting the adoption of new technologies to help producers and to extend our domestic growing seasons. Such an increase in domestic production could help to increase the availability of different foods throughout the year, reducing imports and leading to a reduction in prices for the consumer. Of course Victoria plums are the best, but many other plum varieties come to fruition earlier and later in the season. We may need to support such native species when considering financial assistance given under the scheme.
A joined-up and practical approach across Departments is required to tackle public health and food issues properly. That is beyond the scope of the Bill alone, but I reassure the Committee that we are committed to increase demand for and access to healthy food. One example is the school fruit and vegetable scheme, which provides 2.3 million children in key stage 1 with fruit or vegetables every day.
Subsection (1)(f) allows the Government to give financial assistance to protect or improve the
“health or welfare of livestock”.
We will use the power to develop schemes to tackle endemic diseases, which will support a responsible reduction in antimicrobials and other veterinary medicines and, through that, better public health. More needs to be done on antimicrobials, and the Bill provides the ability to give financial assistance to encourage good practice, but I also refer the hon. Member for Cambridge to the UK five-year action plan for tackling antimicrobial resistance. The Bill provides carrots—if I may use that term—but we also have regulatory sticks, as not everything can be provided for within that context.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of ensuring that farmers can make a choice to diversify and respond quickly and flexibly to market demand. Our intention through the Bill is to enable farmers and growers to improve productivity, better tap into market demand and provide new protections to first producers from unfair trading practices. That is particularly important for growers of high-value fruit and vegetables, who too often see produce returned by retailers and processors for no good reason—I was brought up hearing all about that at the farm table. The Bill gives farmers and growers the ability to challenge such practices.
On the use of farming chemicals and pesticides, we are already committed to protecting people and the environment from the risks that such products can create. Strict regulation already permits the sale and use of pesticides only where thorough scientific assessment shows that they will not harm people or pose unacceptable risks to the environment. The Department is carrying out a review of the national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides, which will focus on introducing integrated pest management and alternatives to pesticides. Some of that will come within the practices that we are trying to encourage in the Bill, but some will remain a matter for strict regulation.
We are already working hard across Government to tackle the issues raised in the amendment. I am confident that the Bill already provides broad powers to support further activity in these key areas, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I have listened closely to the Minister. In some ways, this goes to the heart of the problem in our discussion: the Opposition are raising a series of things that we think should have funding and support through the new system, and although £3 billion is small compared with the DWP budget, it is a considerable amount of public money, which in the past went directly to farmers. For many of them, the question is: how will the new system work? As I suggested—this point has been made not just by the Opposition but by senior Government Members—the idea is that the money will transfer over almost seamlessly, provided that farmers do a bit of this or that, but that is not necessarily how it cranks out.
While I absolutely trust what the Minister says about the Government’s abilities through the environmental land management schemes, I am sure she understands why there is concern. That is why we want this detail in the Bill. Again, the point has been made before by Government Members that, in future, there may be less rural-friendly Ministers, who may be tempted to look at the budget line and think, “Well, given that the local school is struggling and the local health service is struggling”—the Minister knows entirely what I am talking about. This needs to be nailed down in the Bill.
I appreciate the difficulty the Minister has, because I suspect she probably agrees, but that is why we think it is necessary to set out these various public goods to protect them. It has been said to me by farmers that, actually, farmers do quite well under Labour Governments, so I do not suggest that there will be any problem down the line. However, not everyone necessarily will always be as sympathetic, so it would be very much in the interests of communities—particularly those that many Government Members represent—to take a safety-first approach and tie down these public goods.
This is our opportunity to make it easier for farmers, as they go through this difficult transition, to access the money that the Government have promised will be available during this Parliament. My concern is that some of them will find that money not very easy to access, so why not widen the scope so that, where they can see things they could do with some help and support for—transferring production to pulses, fruit and vegetables, for example, or tackling some of the difficult issues around pesticide use—they are enabled to do them? This goes back to economics. Essentially, we want farmers to be able to survive, but if they are disadvantaged in any way, they will struggle. Why not use the resource that is available in a way that farmers can understand and that will help them?
We urge the Committee to support amendment 34 for that reason, but also because it would send the right message about these public health issues. I represent an area with a strong life sciences sector, and antimicrobial resistance has been brought to my attention constantly since the moment I was elected four and a half years ago. It is difficult. I lose track of Prime Ministers, but the Prime Minister before the one before the current one—David Cameron—had Jim O’Neill do a lot of work on this issue. I think there is cross-party agreement about it; it is not a party political issue. It is a real concern and a real worry, and I am in no doubt that farmers also worry about it. However, market pressures—I keep returning to the same point—dictate that people do certain things. We must therefore act to mitigate those pressures and to provide help and support. We are in the slightly unusual position of having a £3 billion budget. Normally, one has to make the argument, but the money is there; the question is how it will be accessed and used. What better use could there be than tackling some of these big public health issues?
I probably should have intervened on the Minister to ask about schools support, but I was still ruminating over what she was saying—I think I was stuck on Victoria plums. It is not entirely clear to me that the Bill will allow some of that money to be utilised in that way. I guess we will not know until we get down to the detail of the environmental land management schemes, but we would like to make it clearer, as we seek to do throughout this process, not least because that would give farmers the certainty that the Government rightly say they want to give them.
On that basis, I am afraid that I would like, yet again, to press the amendment to a Division. We think it is of considerable importance.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, after “(d)” insert
“limiting greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture or horticulture or encouraging activities that reduce such emissions or remove greenhouse gas from the atmosphere, or otherwise”.
This amendment explicitly provides for limiting and reducing greenhouse gas emissions to be one of the purposes for which financial assistance is given.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to move this amendment, which would make it explicit that the public goods for which farmers can receive financial assistance should be activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. The Opposition believe that the current wording in clause 1(1)(d), which refers to
“managing land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change”,
is not strong enough. We must do more and go further. Mitigating is lessening the impact of something that is happening, not preventing it; adaptation is managing the impacts that we are already seeing. We think it is extremely important that the money that will go from direct payments into environmental support should explicitly target emissions reduction. The wording is important throughout the Bill, and not least in clause 1.
It is essential that climate change as a cause is front and centre of the Bill. It will be one of the most important measures introduced by the House in the coming decade to tackle the climate emergency genuinely and effectively. Through the support of the public goods, it will be a central mechanism by which we can reduce emissions from our land management and deliver the nature-based solutions to climate change that we know we need, such as peatland restoration and woodland creation.
Her Majesty’s Opposition believe that the Bill needs far more than one line on climate change, especially as we have established that the provision effectively states that the Secretary of State “may”—not even “must”—give financial assistance for the relevant climate mitigation or adaptation. There is no bite to that, and no certainty or urgency.
The Bill should set a target for agriculture to reach net zero carbon, and I have no doubt we will return to that later. The National Farmers Union is already committed to that. There is no reason not to have a sector-specific target for agriculture when we know how significant its contribution is to emissions and how much support the sector will need to reduce it.
The 2019 progress report by the Committee on Climate Change showed that agriculture in all parts of the United Kingdom is not on track to meet any of its indicators. There has been no progress in reducing emissions from agriculture since 2008. As only 30% of direct payments are currently secured through meeting greening requirements, we know that the lack of financial support for farmers to adapt their practices to focus on climate change has been a key part of that, which is why it is so important to get the financial provisions to support farmers right in the Bill.
A great deal of the Bill, as I am sure we will discuss in the coming weeks, places great trust in the hands of future Secretaries of State. That is particularly evident in relation to prioritising climate change. As the division of funding between the various clause 1 public goods is unknown, as has been alluded to already, we very much hope that clause 1(1)(d), in whatever form it goes forward, will have a greater focus on that funding.
The Committee on Climate Change’s progress report contained clear recommendations on agriculture and land use, and on the development of an effective post-CAP framework, and firm policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is ample room for consolidation in the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I say to the Minister that there is no harm in accepting an amendment that allows the Government to make their intentions for emissions reductions in agriculture more explicit with a slight but important wording change.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Lady for drawing attention to this important and pressing topic. We on the Government side are committed to leaving our environment in a better condition than we found it. That includes facing the challenges associated with climate change and with greenhouse gas emissions. That is why we legislated in June 2019 to introduce a net zero target to end the UK’s contribution to the most serious environmental challenge we face: climate change. We are the first major economy in the world to legislate for a carbon net zero target.
We have not made sector-specific targets, so I will not be accepting the hon. Lady’s amendment, although we are pleased with the ambitious target set by the National Farmers Union for its members. We are committed to continuing to work with the agricultural industry to tackle climate change together. One example is the £10 million of Government money given in May 2018 to help restore more than 10,000 football pitches’ worth of England’s iconic peatlands, which she referred to. This year we will establish a lowland agricultural peat task force that will build on the work already begun in this important area.
Kerry McCarthy
On the subject of peatlands—I have an amendment on this, to be considered later—it is one thing to talk about restoring peatlands, but if grouse moor owners are being allowed to burn peatlands, a huge amount of damage is being done, by destroying what is a natural carbon sink and releasing carbon into the atmosphere. Does she agree with me, and with her ministerial colleague in the House of Lords—he has indicated that he believes this too—that we ought to ban that practice?
Victoria Prentis
I do not necessarily agree that all burning should be banned outright. Some low-level burning is not necessarily as harmful to the environment as the hon. Lady suggests. We can agree on the importance of peatland as a place to store carbon, and the importance of working together to ensure that peatland is restored and improved.
I move on to our £90 million industrial strategy challenge fund—the transforming food production initiative. Through this fund, we support industry-driven research and development to move agricultural systems towards net zero emissions. It has some relevance to the point made by the hon. Member for Newport West. It is important for us always to be open-minded and able to look at evidence. Everything we do must be evidence-based in this important area. This investment will support the development and adoption of advanced precision technologies and solutions to boost the efficiency of our agriculture. It will help to ensure that we produce high-value food in a way that maximises productivity and environmental performance.
The original drafting of the clause enabled the Secretary of State to give financial assistance for the purpose of
“managing land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change.”
We envisage that these objectives will be delivered by a broad spectrum of activities, and therefore all agricultural or horticultural activities that contribute to this purpose would already be within scope of funding support under clause 1(1)(d), as drafted. I hope that I have demonstrated that we already have the powers in the Bill to cover the proposed content.
Daniel Zeichner
On that point, the concern shared by many of us since the previous Agriculture Bill is that the climate emergency seized all of us and yet there is no net zero target. The National Farmers Union say 2040. What is the Government’s view?
Victoria Prentis
The Government legislated for net zero emissions, and in doing so we decided not to make sector-specific targets, but we absolutely support the NFU’s ambitions. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman watched “Countryfile” at the weekend, but there was an interesting piece on agricultural emissions that mentioned both livestock practices and the keeping of nitrogen within soil. This debate, as he says, is not really partisan; we do not have different passions for this. We need to work carefully together, always looking at all the evidence, with improved support for research and development, which the Bill absolutely provides for. I hope that we will be able to meet the NFU’s exacting targets.
Kerry McCarthy
My concern is that other sectors have quite a clear road map for how we get to net zero, and carbon budgets that deal with that. I have never seen that for agriculture. I was quite worried that the previous Secretary of State seemed to think that the answer was all about technological solutions and weird and wonderful things, rather than in how the land is farmed. That is what is missing. Some of us have been talking about this for a very long time, but the Minister talks as if these solutions are new to the table and need to be investigated. There are a lot of good practices out there that would help. Why is there not a clear agenda or line of direction from the Government for achieving that?
The Chair
Order. May I make it clear that there is no limit to the number of times Members can contribute, but there is a limit to the length of interventions? I would be grateful if hon. Members could be precise and to the point with their interventions.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Lady and I will discuss these issues over many years. I point out one important change made in the new version of the Bill relating to soil quality. It is really important that we recognise that soil is itself an essential natural asset and very important to the way we work to reduce carbon emissions.
I do not want to trespass on your time any further, Mr Stringer. I hope that I have shown that we already have the powers in the Bill—that was just one example—to cover the proposed content of the amendment, and I hope I have demonstrated the Government’s commitment to making good use of those powers. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her considered thoughts on the matter. Labour Members are united on this. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, this is crucial to how we move forward. We need to make sure that we give a clear message, and the Bill gives the perfect opportunity to send a clear message to the agricultural sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East talked about the road map for other areas and how we do not have one for agriculture. We have all heard about the good farmers and how they will be necessarily working with agronomists, but in terms of assistance and guidance, the Bill could be key to ensuring that everybody works together and does what is necessary for the greater good, of not only of the UK but of the planet as a whole.
We heard about the peatlands. Although there is some debate about this, we know that it is crucial that we maintain our existing peatlands. We need to make sure that tree planting continues apace. We know that the Government are missing their target on that by at least 70%. We need to plant millions and millions of trees, not the odd thousand here or there. That is not good enough. This is what we need to work towards.
Land managers need guidance and support, and the Bill should show the way, blazing a trail. The Minister quite rightly alludes to the climate change emergency declared last year by her Government, but it is important to make sure that we carry on. We cannot just declare and stop; we need to say, “Declare and so what?”. We need to move forward.
Agriculture Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 25th February 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 February 2020 - (25 Feb 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir David. First, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. My point of order is straightforward. We are happy with the Government’s response to our concerns about the publication this morning of the “Environmental Land Management” policy discussion document, which I am sure we all read over lunch. We were concerned that we would not have been able to table further amendments, but my understanding is that the Committee will adjourn once we finish debating clause 1 and we have been advised that it will be possible for us to table amendments for consideration on Thursday. I am grateful for that sensible solution to the delay.
The Chair
That is the most sensible point of order I have heard for a long time. I understand that the policy paper relevant to the Bill was published earlier today, and I have it in front of me. It is helpful that that document has been made available to the Committee as it considers the Bill, and I hope that Members will be better informed as a result.
The hon. Member has answered his own question, but he asked whether fresh amendments, on points arising from the policy paper, may be tabled for debate on Thursday, even though the usual notice period will not have been observed. I have spoken to Mr Stringer, and we are prepared to use our discretion to consider any such amendments for selection for debate in the Thursday morning sitting, which Mr Stringer will chair. However, we will consider selecting amendments only if they meet three criteria—namely, that they arise from the policy paper; that they apply to a part of the Bill that the Committee has not yet considered; and, most importantly, that they are tabled before the rise of the House today. There is no wavering on those criteria.
Daniel Zeichner
Thank you, Sir David. I am grateful for the good sense that has prevailed.
The Chair
There will be a Division in the House at 4 o’clock. If there is only one vote, as I suspect will be the case, we will adjourn for 15 minutes and return at 4.15 pm.
Clause 1
Secretary of State’s powers to give financial assistance
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 1, page 2, line 17, at end insert
“, including measures to improve the standard of accommodation for farrowing sows”.
See explanatory statement for NC12.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 41, in clause 53, page 43, line 35, at end insert—
“(ca) section [Sow farrowing stalls],”.
See explanatory statement for NC12.
New clause 12—Sow farrowing stalls—
“Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 of the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 shall be omitted.”
This new clause and Amendments 40 and 41 would end the use of sow farrowing crates (subject to a delayed commencement) and add improving the standard of accommodation for farrowing sows to the purposes for financial assistance in Clause 1.
Daniel Zeichner
Amendment 40 relates to clause 1(1)(f), on
“protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock”,
and would ensure that farmers receive financial assistance to improve the standard of accommodation for farrowing sows. New clause 12 and amendment 41 would end the use of sow farrowing crates, subject to delayed commencement at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The provision in clause 53 means that the ban outlined in new clause 12 would not come into effect immediately when the Bill becomes an Act, but on such day that the Secretary of State makes a statutory instrument to that effect.
That is all totally incomprehensible to most people, but, taken together, the amendments and the new clause would allow for a phasing out of farrowing stalls and make available resources and finance to support farmers with the capital costs of that process, as well as those who take interim measures to improve the conditions of farrowing sows. I suspect there will be widespread support for that aim, but I fully appreciate that this is a contentious subject that has been well rehearsed on other occasions. The public take the issue seriously and we would all like it to be achieved over time. As I have said on many occasions, it is a question of ensuring that the resource is available for people to make changes and to not be disadvantaged by competition elsewhere.
To give some background, although sow stalls that kept pigs caged for the entirety of their pregnancy were banned by Labour in 1999, it is still permitted for female pigs to be kept in farrowing stalls for seven days before they give birth and until the piglets are weaned. That can result in sows being caged for up to five weeks at a time. If they farrow twice a year, that means that they spend up to three months a year in an extremely restricted space. It may be called a crate or a stall, but it is effectively a cage. The crate length is such that the sow is only able to lie down or stand up. The standards state that the space should not allow excessive free movement. Before anyone jumps in, I will come to the reasons for that in a moment.
The sow is often completely unable to turn around. She can scarcely take a step forwards or backwards, and she cannot reach the piglets placed next to her for suckling. I am told that 60% of the 350,000 to 400,000 sows in Britain are kept in such crates to give birth. We know that keeping pigs caged in that way causes distress and leads to repeated bar biting, and it limits the pig’s ability to exhibit important natural behaviours, such as nest building.
Trapping the animal in that way also creates a breeding ground for diseases. E. coli in newly born piglets often presents in conditions where the mothers have been moved into farrowing crates to give birth and suckle their young. We know that is not done out of cruelty; it is done because keeping a mother restrained prevents the death of piglets by accidental crushing. We would argue that that in itself is a direct consequence of high-intensity farming techniques. In normal conditions, in the wild, the mother pigs would make effective nests and have the space to keep the piglets safe.
As with so much in this area, the research is contested, but robust studies suggest that there is clear evidence of a significant difference between the mortality rates of piglets reared in crated systems and those reared in loose housed systems. There are also other systems, which I shall come on to. The individual farrowing arks or huts used in the outdoor systems of organic farming are deep bedded with straw. There are many examples across eastern England.
Although piglet morality rates can increase in extremely cold and wet weather, UK figures show that outdoor systems can rear largely the same number of piglets as farrowing crates. Good production figures have also been attained from the so-called Swedish group system, where each sow has her own box to farrow in and can leave her piglets and carry out normal activity.
We contend that there are alternatives, though we fully appreciate that they are more expensive. The industry rightly points out that consumers buy at different price points and that producers respond to that demand. We understand the economics but, as I said earlier, this is an opportunity to use public money for public good.
This issue has been debated many times in this place over the past 20 years. We rightly pride ourselves on pursuing higher animal welfare standards, but other countries are already ahead of us and have moved on to alternative systems. I am told that Norway, Sweden and Switzerland have already banned farrowing crates and that free farrowing systems are being developed in other European countries, particularly Denmark and the Netherlands.
In response to animal welfare concerns, the Soil Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals already prohibit the use of farrowing crates under their labelling systems. This is another example of this country’s multi-tiered system of food production, with food being produced at different prices for the consumer. The question is how we can lift standards while protecting the interests of farmers by making it economically viable.
Back in 2015, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee’s report on free farrowing systems recommended taking action to encourage the replacement of farrowing crates, and called for the adoption of free farrowing systems to be reviewed in five years. Well, 2015 plus five is 2020—it is five years later. We contend that the Bill is the perfect opportunity for the Minister to make it clear that financial support for higher animal welfare includes specific provisions for farrowing sows in relation to such crates.
We recognise that it would be a challenge for the industry. As I have said, a ban would need to be phased in with financial support, which is what the amendment would provide for. Back in 1999, when sow stalls were rightly banned by the Labour Government, it is undeniable that that had an impact on the domestic pig industry. We contend that Government support for alternative systems is vital to encourage a switch, while protecting the UK pig sector.
The flipside, of course—this will be a repeated refrain—is that we have to ensure that any home production of pigmeat to higher welfare standards is not simply replaced by imports produced in other countries that continue to use such stalls. It is important that we protect all our animal welfare standards, and that in upcoming trade deals we do not sell out our farmers by allowing lower-standard imports. We will insist on provisions being added to the Bill to guarantee that, and will seek to amend it later to guarantee against that danger. In the meantime, we urge the Minister to consider this important clarification to the Bill to allow financial support to improve pig welfare, specifically in relation to such restrictive crates.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I would not argue with anything the hon. Member has said. We all wish to have the very best welfare standards for pigs in this country. Indeed, the Red Tractor label assures customers that very high standards are being met. My only slight caution is that history might repeat itself, and the law of unintended consequences may come into play. Members may well recall that when veal crates were banned in the UK, the result was that calves were flown to Holland and elsewhere to be turned into veal under the very systems that we wanted to ban. Owing to single market rules, we could not ban that movement.
Similarly, when dry sow stalls were banned in 1999, there was an erosion of the British pig market, particularly by such countries as Denmark and Holland where dry sow stalls were still being used. Indeed, most of the EU still allows dry sow stalls from up to four weeks after service to birth, when in some cases they may be put into farrowing crates as well.
My concern is that, were we to act unilaterally through legislation, we could end up having more pigs coming into the country as imports. It is all very well saying, “Let’s ban the importation of pig products not produced to our high standards.” It would be very difficult to ban imports from the European Union given the degree of reliance on that market and the cross-border trade in pig products. The different parts of the carcase that are consumed in the UK and in Europe mean that there is a vibrant market in different cuts of meat, to meet those particular markets. Were that to be destroyed or undermined, it would cause great problems for the British pig industry.
Of course, if we had more pigs coming into the country from abroad, that would mean more castrated pigs. In the UK, only 2% of pigs are castrated. In Sweden, the figure is 94%, in Denmark 95%, the Netherlands 20%, Germany 80%, and Spain 20%. It could, in effect, result in more pigs coming on to our supermarket shelves and into our restaurants and cafés produced under systems that we do not wish to see in this country. Surely the answer is not legislation, but better consumer awareness of those production methods, better labelling, and better understanding of the labelling systems, so that supermarkets and customers, who would be enlightened, can do what we did regarding battery cages, which was to get people on to free-range eggs not through banning batteries but by consumers understanding that it is right to make choices based on animal welfare.
Although I agree with what the hon. Member for Cambridge said about trying to improve standards, I note that he made the slight caveat that at certain times of the year, particularly at the moment, some of our outdoor farrowing systems result in quite high piglet mortality. I have seen piglets trampled into the mud in the quagmires in outdoor systems. That aside, we should look at how we can move the industry into a better place, particularly in terms of farrowing crates, but without allowing our market to be eroded by other countries, particularly in the European Union, that do not have the same high welfare standards as us. I would not like to see history repeating itself in terms of what happened with veal crates and dry sow stalls in 1999.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is particularly good, Sir David, to be discussing animal welfare provisions with you in the Chair. A certain amount of consensus has broken out again in Committee. The Government are a world leader in animal welfare and we are absolutely committed to retaining that status by strengthening our standards. However, we would say that this amendment does not make any legal change to the powers set out in this Bill and is therefore not a necessary addition. Financial assistance can already be given and is provided for under section 1(1)(f) in order to protect or improve the health and welfare of livestock. That includes schemes for improving the accommodation of livestock, including farrowing sows.
The Government’s aim is for farrowing crates no longer to be necessary, but it would not be right to end the use of such crates without examining all the evidence around their use and considering all the options. It is important to recognise how they protect piglets, for example. The hon. Member for Cambridge talked about that. Alternative farrowing systems in indoor production are being developed all the time—I have heard about some high-tech solutions with moving floors—which need to be investigated fully. They will be expensive to install, but that may well be a price worth paying. As the hon. Gentleman said, the public is broadly with us on that. It may well be the sort of public good for which the public is keen to pay, assuming we have sufficient transparency in our systems to ensure that they understand that that is what is happening.
The UK has led the way in improving the welfare of pigs. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the banning of close confinement stalls in 1999. While approximately 60% of UK sows farrow indoors, it is not always the case that they spend the full length of time that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in such crates. We hope that farmers would be able to work to much shorter periods of time. The remaining 40% of sows are housed outside and able to farrow in much more natural conditions. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has funded recent research into alternative farrowing systems and the Farm Animal Welfare Committee has provided expert advice on this issue.
As part of our ongoing commitment to animal welfare, we are developing a scheme that aims to improve farm animal welfare in England. We are exploring a one-off grants scheme that will help farmers to improve welfare on farms, for example, by installing new equipment. We are also exploring a payment by results scheme whereby farmers could receive ongoing payments for developing specific animal welfare enhancements. The Animal Welfare Committee, industry and non-governmental organisations will have their say on the welfare outcomes that are financially supported. For pigs, this could easily relate to improved enrichment opportunities to root; improved housing; and tail docking, which has not been discussed today.
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I have kept extremely free-range pigs at home in the past. They are so free range that they have, on occasion, wandered off around the village. While the Bill aims to support native breeds, it may well be that the pigs kept exhibit such behaviours. Our most difficult experience was with iron age pigs, which are one-quarter wild boar and do not seem to view fields as any sort of captivity.
We are constantly reviewing our legal standards as part of our commitment to animal welfare. A new welfare code for pigs, which includes guidance on farrowing has been produced, is available online and comes into force on 1 March. I think the Committee will broadly welcome paragraph 158, which says:
“The aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets. Where the sow is confined in a farrowing crate, it should be large enough to accommodate her and to allow her to rise and lie down without difficulty and should be easily accessed in an emergency.”
It goes on to give further specific details.
To my mind, that is an excellent way forward, and the owners and keepers of pigs will have to be aware of and abide by it from 1 March. That is one example of how we continually update and review secondary legislation under the animal welfare legislation introduced in 2006. The Government share the public’s high regard for animal welfare and intend to use the powers in the Bill to reward farmers for improving a number of animal welfare issues. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I will not withdraw the amendment.
In a way, the Minister conceded something important—that clause 1(1)(f) shows that resources can be used, which I am sure will be welcome to some. However, the clause also points to some of the general difficulties in the Bill. The pig sector benefits only indirectly from support under the current system. The clause rather suggests that money will be moved around the system, and I wonder whether everyone is aware that there will be winners and losers as a result. As we all know, one generally hears from the losers, not the winners, but that is a problem for the Government, not me. I am pleased about that concession, but I do not quite see why the Government could not actually do themselves some extra good by making the positive benefits specific, as we suggest. I encourage them to do that.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. I was chided by one or two of my colleagues for agreeing with him too much earlier, but I disagree with him robustly now, in a civilised way. He makes an important point about where responsibility for these decisions should lie. We have been trying with labelling over many years, and he is right that it has proven more successful in some areas than others.
However—this is probably a fundamental philosophical division between us—I think that putting the onus of responsibility on individual consumers is problematic, not least because, as we heard the evidence sessions and in written evidence, it is pretty clear that many people subscribe to notions of higher standards until they get into a supermarket and are confronted with price differences. I suspect that many of us in this room are now in the fortunate position of being able to make an informed choice and not worry so much about the price, but for vast numbers of our fellow citizens, price is still a key driver. For many people who would probably like to support higher standards, if the price is too high, they have no choice.
We want not to take that responsibility away from people, but as with so many other things, to make it easier for them to make the right choice; in other words, to exclude the low-cost alternatives. I am not an economist—it was suggested earlier that I might be, about which I am partly flattered and partly not flattered—but there is clear evidence that, if standards are lifted, industries respond and prices begin to settle. This is a case of needing leadership. We have done it before. There are consequences, but we have public money to spend, and it could well be that the public would actually be very happy that we offered this kind of support, which would to some extent get them out of that price dilemma.
It is a bit like the dilemma around the smoking ban. I lost track of the number of smokers who told me that they were delighted that, basically, the ban made it easier for them to give up smoking, because the Government had intervened. That was during the last Labour Government, and I remember Tony Blair being very nervous about suggestions that he had offloaded responsibility on to local councils, which did not go down well. In the end, it needed cross-party leadership—it has to be something supported across the House—to make it easier for people to make the right choice. It is a judgment call.
Mr Goodwill
In many ways, the hon. Gentleman is enlarging on my argument, given that when we banned dry sow stalls consumers chose to buy the cheaper pork and bacon produced in Holland and Denmark, where a was not in place. It made the problem worse in many ways because those consumers made those choices.
Daniel Zeichner
The right hon. Gentleman is making my life much more difficult and I am going to have to be horrid to him again. Yes, in one sense, he is correct, but that is the challenge. Throughout this, if we do not find ways, whether in trade agreements or whatever, to protect—and it is protect—our higher standards against lower standards, we are lost entirely. That will be a recurring theme throughout this debate. I do not think it is beyond the wit of hon. Members to find a way of doing that. The right hon. Gentleman may disagree with me, and that will probably be a fundamental point of difference.
I have two final points to make: first, I do not think it is fair to offload the responsibility entirely on to consumers. We should take the lead. Secondly, we need to take the lead on making sure that we can protect our higher standards. That would attract considerable support across the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 1, page 2, line 28, after ‘activity’ insert—
‘, provided that such assistance does not contradict or undermine the purposes in section 1(1).’
This could possibly be described as a probing amendment. There is general agreement that the Government’s commitment to the principle of public money for public goods is welcome. This amendment is a safeguard to ensure that the delivery of public goods is not undermined by any financial assistance for improving productivity. There is some concern that it could mean a greater proportion of the money going to the productivity head rather than to public goods. If the new environmental land management scheme is to be successful and provide value for money, all the payments need to contribute to the delivery of public goods.
It is still not clear how the future Budget will be distributed between financial assistance for public goods and productivity, and there is concern that we could end up with a pillar one and pillar two-type system—again, where public goods take second place. I am seeking assurances from the Minister. If I am confident that her assurances are credible, I will not push this to a vote.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Lady for that assurance. I understand that she wants to ensure that we do not provide financial assistance to improve productivity or production in a way that would harm the environment or undermine any of the purposes in clause 1. I hope that is a fair summary of what she said.
Kerry McCarthy
It is partly about not undermining that, but it is also partly about how the money is divvied up. If a huge proportion of the money goes towards productivity, it is not clear how the budget will be divided. That is what I am seeking clarity on—that there is money for public goods.
Victoria Prentis
I cannot give the hon. Lady absolute assurance at the moment as to how the budget will be divided, as that is a matter for the development of the scheme. We will do a great deal of work developing it, including years of pilots and a great deal of consultation, in which, I am sure, she will be involved. I can assure her that it is not our intention to put the productivity wing on a higher level than allowing damage to the public purposes, which are there to protect the environment, or the other purposes is clause 1. That is absolutely not our intention. Our ambition is to leave the environment in a better state than we find it.
Kerry McCarthy
Just to clarify, it would help if the Minister could give an assurance that all payments need to contribute to the delivery of public goods, whether it is a payment for productivity or directly for public goods. She phrased it to me in the negative—they should not undermine public goods—but the intention of this Bill is that everything should support that public goods agenda.
Victoria Prentis
I think the hon. Lady and I are dancing around the same issue, which is that the ambitions do not need to be mutually exclusive. We absolutely believe that producing food and managing a sustainable environment can and should go hand in hand. Improving productivity is normally about improving efficiency by using less energy and fewer pesticides to produce the food that we eat. Greater efficiency can also mean using less land, so that other land can be freed up for other purposes such as tree planting. I share the hon. Lady’s concerns, however I feel that her amendment would restrict our ability to offer financial assistance in the most effective way.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East has raised a very important point. The lunchtime reading of the ELMS policy discussion document prefigures further discussion on this. It is a shame that we were not able to have our earlier discussion in the light of some of these points. To a number of us, on first reading, tier 1 does not look sufficiently ambitious, in many cases, and it feeds exactly into my hon. Friend’s point that there is a worry that we will not get the environmental gains that we thought we would. That will be of concern to many. I wonder if the Minister could clarify that point.
Victoria Prentis
At the moment, I cannot set out how the ELM scheme will work. That will be worked on, probably by all the people in this room, very carefully over several years, before we come up with the final scheme, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman absolute assurances as to what will happen.
I can say, however, that we added clause 1(4) because we wanted a clear requirement—partly because of the work of the previous Agriculture Bill Committee—on the Secretary of State, in framing any financial assistance scheme, to have regard to the need to encourage food production in an environmentally sustainable way. I hope that I have provided some reassurance about how we intend to use the powers in clause 1 so that productivity is improved in a sustainable way that does not undermine the other purposes in the clause. I cannot go further than that at the moment. I ask the hon. Member for Bristol East to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I appreciate why trying to get the balance correct is a difficult dilemma, but it is crucial that we do so. We are not satisfied, frankly, that we are getting the clarity that is required. We understand that this is a framework Bill, but much more detail is required to give certainty, so—I may be speaking on behalf of my colleagues here—we would like to push the amendment to the vote.
Kerry McCarthy
I am afraid I am not satisfied with the Minister’s reassurances and would like to push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kerry McCarthy
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 1, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and its production by them in an environmentally sustainable way; and
(b) the need to ensure that all farms and horticulture units, including those smaller than five hectares, can access financial assistance.”
The key point in the amendment is paragraph (b), which deals with the need to ensure that all farms and horticultural units—including those smaller than 5 hectares —can access this financial assistance. In 2014, the then Secretary of State ruled that a farm needed to be more than 5 hectares to receive direct payments. The decision to increase the limit from 1 to 5 hectares excluded one in six English farmers during the transition from single to basic payments.
During the oral evidence sessions we heard evidence from Jyoti Fernandes at the Landworkers Alliance that the threshold resulted in smallholders being at a serious disadvantage. In designing any new scheme, the threshold should be scrapped. Every farm, no matter what its size, has the ability to deliver the public goods listed in clause 1. The farms and horticultural units showcased in the latest Landworkers Alliance report, “Agroecology in Action”, illustrate what they can achieve in terms of encouraging biodiversity, building soil health, replacing agrochemicals, mitigating climate change, integrating communities and enhancing economic resilience. Earlier we discussed the need to bring food production closer to communities. Often, it is the smallholdings that do that. They also tend to have higher levels of employment than conventional farms. A 2017 study of agroecological farms smaller than 20 hectares found that they employed 26 times more workers than the UK per hectare average. It would be a huge mistake to exclude them from financial assistance.
It was good to see from DEFRA’s press release today that
“anyone from any farm or land type”
can participate. Will the Minister confirm that “any farm or land type” means farms smaller than 5 hectares?
Daniel Zeichner
I echo my hon. Friend’s comments. It is important that small farms are not left out of this legislation. As she said, in the evidence sessions we heard compelling evidence from the Landworkers Alliance that farmers on smaller holdings have been much disadvantaged to date by the current payments system due to the 5 hectare threshold, which cuts those with less than 5 hectares out of the system for getting payments. I was surprised to hear that 85% of its membership had never been able to get support for their work. We know why: back in the previous iteration of discussions, there was concern that small firms would not be subject to cross-compliance. That is my understanding. That was possibly a reasonable position to take, although I suggest that the answer to that is that there should be proper and appropriate checking and verification.
Precisely for the reasons that my hon. Friend has explained, we will support the amendment. We need to include many more people in the system and to make it far more likely that they will be able to benefit from it.
Victoria Prentis
It should have been obvious from my previous comments that I am a passionate smallholder, so I listened to what Members had to say with considerable interest. As I have said, I cannot promise exactly how the ELM scheme will work going forward, but I hope I can provide sufficient assurance in the rest of what I say. Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to design agricultural, horticultural and forestry schemes in a way that best reflects our circumstances and allows us to deliver the best possible outcomes.
As my predecessor said, we are determined to work with industry to co-design the new schemes and ensure we get them right. In determining whether there should be a minimum size threshold for eligibility, we will need to weigh up the benefits that can be delivered by small land holdings—benefits that I recognise—against the administrative costs associated with managing agreements, as the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned. We need to ensure that the different schemes provided under ELMS provide value for public money.
Detailed eligibility criteria will be established for ELMS as soon as the schemes are developed, working with stakeholders. I can only apologise, because I do not have all the answers at the moment. This will be a very complicated, new set of schemes, which will take many years to develop.
I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Bristol East to clause 1(2), which is reflected in the press release she mentioned. It provides a power for financial assistance to be provided in connection with
“starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity”.
The power clearly does not put any restrictions on the size of holding for which financial assistance can be provided. We will be designing our future schemes alongside industry in a way that delivers the best possible outcomes. I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
Kerry McCarthy
I am confused by what the Minister is saying. She is right that there is no mention of any limit in the Bill, but her earlier words, before she mentioned the clause about start-ups, clearly suggested that she thought there could be bureaucratic problems. She was sort of putting objections in the way of extending the scheme to smallholder farmers. Today’s smallholder could be tomorrow’s big food producer.
I do not know whether the Minister wants to intervene to say more, but I do not think she has given any assurance at all. The 5 hectares issue has come up time and time again, including during previous discussions on the Bill. Why has the Department not got to the stage that it can give that assurance to smaller farmers?
Victoria Prentis
As I said earlier, the environmental land management systems have not yet been worked out. It is clear from the scoping document that was published today that they will vary enormously in their size and scope. Some will be concerned with just one farm, and others will be concerned with multiple farms or even a whole area, in order to provide the best possible ecological solutions that we are all seeking. I am unable to provide the hon. Lady with an absolute assurance at the moment, but I hear what she has to say about the importance of small agricultural holdings.
Kerry McCarthy
Once again, I cannot accept the Minister’s assurances and would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Mr Goodwill
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 1, page 3, line 13, after “kept” insert “or managed”.
In clause 1(1)(d), reference is made to
“managing land, water or livestock”.
The amendment would change a reference later in the same clause to keeping, not managing, creatures. My worry is that relying on the word “kept” may exclude some of the most environmentally beneficial land uses, where birds or mammals are to a greater or lesser extent wild and thus, by definition, not kept.
I have a number of examples, such as the Chillingham wild cattle in Northumberland. The herd, of about 100, has not been touched by human hand or been seen by a vet for more than a century. They are certainly not kept, but the environment at Chillingham Castle is managed for the benefit of the many species and birds that thrive there.
Wild ponies also carry out important land management tasks. I have had ponies on my own farm from the Yorkshire Exmoor Pony Trust for a while; they carry out a great role in managing the land. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I have done in previous sittings—I am a family farmer myself.
Most importantly, we should recognise the importance of game as an integral part of many rural economies and ecosystems. Some species, such as pheasant, may well be kept for part of their life, when they are reared in captivity, but once released, they become free to range far and wide. Many shoots—I would suggest the more enlightened ones—do not artificially rear birds and strive to create the conditions for wild birds to breed. Those birds are never kept, but the management of the necessary ecosystem and environment would certainly not be in conflict with the wider public goods we seek to create, using this Bill as a tool.
The same argument must certainly apply to grouse, which cannot be reared in captivity. Managing moorland for the benefit of grouse not only favours other ground-nesting birds, such as golden plover and lapwing, but also the sustainability of sheep farming on our grouse uplands. They can only go hand in hand together if the moor is managed correctly.
According to the BBC “Countryfile” website, the UK’s deer population is at its highest level for 1,000 years, at around 2 million deer of the various species. Numbers have doubled since 1999. That has an impact on crops, wildlife and, in particular, forestry. The Forestry Commission estimates that the damage to plantations and commercial woodlands in Scotland amounts to £4.5 million per annum. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals estimates that around 350,000 deer are culled each year. In the absence of natural predators such as lynx and wolves, culling has to be carried out to maintain a stable population and prevent damage. In the main, those deer are not kept, but managed, and they may range over more than one landowner’s property. Deer management is vital to meeting our objectives.
There was some confusion during the evidence sessions about whether game was within the scope of the Bill. I would argue that it is vital that the definition of livestock in the Bill must include game species, which produce some of the most sustainable and healthy food available to consumers. The amendment would clarify that, to encompass not only creatures that are “kept” in the strict definition of controlling virtually every aspect of an animal or bird’s existence, but the production of healthy and sustainable game products in an environment that is managed to produce many of the public goods that we wish to reward, and sustained economically by the income from that game.
Of course, I strongly criticise the situation that we have read about in the press where game is dumped and not eaten. In some cases, I understand that game had been breasted, so the breast meat had been removed, but from an environmental perspective and from a food waste perspective that is not an acceptable practice, and I would criticise it. We need more promotion of the healthy game produced in our country, and we need more websites, such as the one that my son went on recently—I think the wives of the people on small shoots got sick of plucking and drawing pheasants, and made the game available free of charge locally. That is just the sort of website that we want. I also pay tribute to YouTube, which has some excellent opportunities for people to learn how to skin rabbits and prepare game in their own kitchens.
I hope that the Minister will recognise what I have said, and reassure me that the amendment may be withdrawn. I look forward to hearing that game is food and should be within the scope of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
I was intrigued to discover the direction in which the amendment would take us; I probably should have known in advance. It gives me an opportunity to have a genuine disagreement with the right hon. Member, because I think many of our constituents would be astonished at the idea of sporting shooting being considered a public good, in terms of putting public money in, although I recognise that for some Members that would be legitimate.
Again, it points to the whole new world that has been opened up by taking the pot of money that used to go directly to farmers based on area. We are now facing up to some really quite hard decisions about the kind of world in which we want to live. I have to say to the right hon. Member that for many constituents, I suspect in my seat and many others, it would not seem an appropriate use of public money. Although that may cause disagreement, that is what we are here to resolve. I do not think that the Opposition will be able to support the amendment.
Victoria Prentis
I thank my predecessor and right hon. Friend for his amendment. I believe that he wishes to ensure that we are being comprehensive in our coverage of the word “livestock” in clause 1. I, too, am keen to ensure that we cover everything that we need to in the Bill.
Good management of livestock is a key part of delivering the public goods that we want to support in our future agricultural policy. That, of course, is reflected by the purposes listed in clause 1. Under subsection 1(f), the Secretary of State will be able to support action to improve animal health and welfare, reduce endemic disease and keep livestock well maintained and healthy. The plan is that not only will that deliver better animal health and welfare, which itself can be considered a public good, but through addressing endemic disease we can also deliver other public goods, such as lower antibiotic use and lower greenhouse gases, due to less intensive livestock production.
Subsection 1(g) will enable us to provide financial assistance for measures to support the conservation and maintenance of UK native genetic resources relating to both rare breed livestock and equines, into which category I suspect Chillingham cattle very firmly fall, and indeed Exmoor ponies, whether or not they are to be found in Yorkshire—that confused me somewhat, but there we are. The measures could be used to incentivise farmers to rear rare and native breeds and species. That is undoubtedly, to my mind, a public good and the sort of thing that we are trying to achieve.
Game such as wild pheasants and partridges, while kept in captivity, would come within the definition of livestock and could be eligible for support, where they are kept for one of the purposes mentioned in clause 1 and its definitions of livestock. As my right hon. Friend said, grouse are not reared in captivity, so I cannot see how they would be covered. However, once the birds are no longer in captivity, following their release into the wild, they are classed as game. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to class them as farm poultry or livestock.
That legal position is supported by the definitions used in animal disease control legislation and the Game Acts. Farmers, after all, cannot be considered responsible for birds that have been released into the wild.
Mr Goodwill
No one is suggesting that the game themselves should be subject to support in terms of subsidies or any other means of support that the Bill would lay out, but the environment that they inhabit would certainly be a public good. My amendment seeks to ensure that, where public money is going to support those environments, which may support sheep, game and other wildlife, the fact that game is being produced as a business should not exclude it.
Victoria Prentis
Forgive me, Sir David, I am a humble lawyer trying to define the word “livestock” rather than a farmer of great experience, such as my right hon. Friend, who is trying to go further. I am keen to define livestock according to what is set out in the Bill. The definition of livestock in clause 1 has its roots in the Agriculture Act 1947, which was the last major piece of agricultural legislation that this House decided. This definition has been used in more modern legislation, such as the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995.
Agriculture has, of course, changed since 1947. Because of that we have made the amendment to the definition of livestock to include additional products, such as fibres and oils, and have recognised the importance of the production of milk from livestock. That ensures that we cover all aspects of livestock production that I can think of.
The current definition refers to livestock that is kept. We do not see that the amendment would enhance that definition. I hope that I have done my best, despite my legal background, to assure hon. Members that the current definition of livestock ensures financial assistance can be given for the important purposes set out in clause 1.
If the land that my right hon. Friend has in mind comes within another of the purposes in clause 1, applications can be made for financial assistance for many other reasons. I, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the Minister for her explanation. As a humble farmer, I would not wish to have an argument with a lawyer on a legal matter. Her point makes sense. The land occupied by many of these game species will be subject to support through the Bill, not least because of the wish to restore natural habitats and environment, and preserve some of our fragile natural environments.
What is not in doubt is that when the animals have been shot, prepared and put on the supermarket shelves, they qualify as food. Therefore, it struck me that some points made in the evidence session were not prepared to look at this as a useful source of food. Having heard the Minister’s sensible and legally wise words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Kerry McCarthy
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 1, page 3, line 17, at end insert
““protecting or improving the quality of soil” includes the restoration of blanket bog and other peatland habitats.”
The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, and I served on the previous Bill Committee.
Kerry McCarthy
And the Whip. That makes four of us; are there any more takers? Those of who went through the Bill then will remember quite a debate on trying to include soil as a public good. That was opposed by the Government and I remember that the right hon. Gentleman spoke vociferously against it. Lo and behold, it has now made it into the new version of the Bill. That shows that it is worth persevering with an argument, even if it seems to have fallen on deaf ears in the first instance. Someone may go away and think about it and come back and think: “She was right after all”.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Lady for drawing attention to the importance of peatland and the peatland habitats that we are lucky enough to have in this country. The protection and improvement of all soil is key to a sustainable agricultural industry that helps in our commitment to tackle climate change and deliver on multiple public goods.
Peatlands have an important role in this commitment. That is why the Government have committed to publishing an England peat strategy and announced the creation of the lowland agricultural peat taskforce. These will focus on the protection and improvement of England’s peatlands. In addition, we are currently funding £10 million worth of peatland restoration in England between 2018 and 2021.
The current drafting of clause 1(1)(j) enables the Secretary of State to give financial assistance for “protecting and enhancing the quality of soils”. The clause is not restrictive and will enable all soil types to be included, not just peatland. Ample provisions in clause 1 will allow us to protect peatlands. For example, clause 1(1)(d) includes,
“managing land or water in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change”.
That could certainly allow support for peatland restoration. Such provisions would allow for the management of land to restore peatland habitats by more than just the soil if it is within the Government’s strategic priority to do so. This could be achieved through the new ELM scheme or research into other sustainable practices.
By specifying a habitat, rather than a soil type in the definition, the amendment extends the scope of clause 1(1)(j) beyond that of soil quality. Healthy peatland habitats are reliant on factors beyond soil, such as biodiversity and water. Therefore, DEFRA believes the inclusion of this definition is inappropriate and unnecessary. As I have just mentioned, promoting the health of these habitats as a whole is within the scope of an earlier section of clause 1.
Daniel Zeichner
I understand why the Department wants maximum flexibility, but we want some action, because we have been waiting a long time for these promises. In fact, I think on the last day of the last Parliament, at DEFRA questions, the Minister in the Lords promised action, so when are we going to get some action on banning peat burning?
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman is definitely getting action. I set out earlier what is being done to preserve peatland at the moment: £10 million of peatland restoration is definitely action, in my book. What I do not want to do is clog up—that is not a technical term; I am trying to find a soil-appropriate word—a definition of “soil” with something that happens in part above the soil, which is why I am resisting this amendment. The Government are committed to the importance of preserving peatland, but we need to ensure that all our soil types are protected by the part of the clause that is concerned with soil.
I hope I have reassured Opposition Members that we recognise the vital role peatlands play in helping to deliver on our agricultural and environmental commitments, and that there is no requirement to single out peatland in the soil provision of the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Minister for her response, and I take her point about habitat, but peatlands are so important that I still think they could be included in this provision. The Minister has sort of argued both ways, in that she said “soil” did cover blanket bog and peatland and then said that this amendment would widen the definition, but this is so important and we do need action. As I have said, the Minister in the Lords, formerly the MP for Richmond Park, has made it clear that he wants a ban on peat burning. That is not specifically what this provision speaks to, but obviously we are going to give—
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Lady agree that a distinction needs to be drawn between the blanket bogs—such as Saddleworth moor, where the fire got right into the bog—and the drier, heathland type of moor that we have in North Yorkshire? The North York Moors National Park Authority itself supports the traditional management of that moor, particularly for the benefit of sheep but also of grouse.
Kerry McCarthy
There is a whole argument to be had about the management of moors for the benefit of grouse, when grouse are imported into this country in their millions just so they can be shot by people on an away-day. I would not have thought that was a priority.
Given peatland’s carbon role, its importance in the area of flood mitigation and all the other environmental benefits I have mentioned, it is important that we spell this out on the face of the Bill. We argued in the last Committee about whether the definition of “soil” needed to be spelled out on the face of the Bill, and I am asking for it to be spelled out in greater detail this time around. As such, I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 1, page 3, line 21, at end insert “made by the Secretary of State”.
This drafting amendment makes clear that a “financial assistance scheme” is one made by the Secretary of State. It is intended (with Amendments 16 and 17) to clarify the distinction between financial assistance schemes and third party schemes as defined in Clause 2(5).
Victoria Prentis
Amendment 15 is a technical drafting amendment that makes it clear that a “financial assistance scheme” is one made by the Secretary of State. It is intended, with amendments 16 and 17, to clarify the distinction between financial assistance schemes and third party schemes as defined in clause 2(5).
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Agriculture Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 27th February 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 February 2020 - (27 Feb 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind hon. Members to switch electronic devices to silent mode and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. We shall now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room. Before we begin, I should tell the Committee that Sir David Amess and I have used our discretion to select amendments 63 and 64 and new clauses 23 and 24 for debate today, even though the usual notice was not given. We have done that because the circumstances were exceptional. A relevant policy paper was published by the Department on Tuesday, and we took the view that it was in the Committee’s interest to have the opportunity to debate amendments arising from that policy paper today. I am assured by the Clerks that our decision is well precedented.
Clause 2
Financial assistance: forms, conditions, delegation and publication of information
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 2, page 3, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for establishing any financial assistance scheme and setting out how it will be designed and how it will operate.
(1B) No motion may be made in either House of Parliament for the approval of any regulations under subsection (1A) unless—
(a) a draft of those regulations has been submitted for scrutiny by any select committee of either House of Parliament which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, has a remit which includes responsibility for scrutiny of financial assistance under section 1, and
(b) any such committee has expressed a view on the draft regulations.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 64, in clause 2, page 4, line 3, after “subsection” insert “(1A) or subsection”.
Daniel Zeichner
It is a pleasure to continue under you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank you and Sir David for exercising your discretion. I will make some points about that matter in a moment, but I shall start with amendment 63; amendment 64 is consequent to it.
The reason why we want to make this amendment and think it important is that we believe that the design and implementation of the environmental land management scheme that the Government have suggested should be subjected to proper scrutiny. Amendment 63, with amendment 64, would ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny by requiring the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations for establishing any financial assistance scheme and setting out how it will be designed and will operate. Under our amendment, those regulations must be considered and reported on by an appropriate Select Committee, of the Secretary of State’s choosing—we are very generous—before being brought to the House. Amendment 64 would ensure that a proper debate on the regulations could be held by subjecting them to the affirmative resolution procedure.
I apologise to you, Mr Stringer, and to the Committee for warning that I will speak at some length on this amendment to demonstrate why it matters. This goes back to our debate on Tuesday about the Government’s behaviour in relation to publication of the “Environmental Land Management: Policy discussion document”. I am sure that everyone has carefully read it and I advise everyone to have it to hand for the next hour or so, because I shall be referring in detail to various elements of it.
Just in case anyone thinks that this is somehow a diversion or distraction, the document itself says on page 7:
“The new ELM scheme, founded on the principle of ‘public money for public goods’, will be the cornerstone of our agricultural policy now we have left the EU.”
It would be very strange if the Committee were discussing that complicated new future and we did not have a chance to discuss what will be, in the Government’s own words, its cornerstone.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that it is a shame that we got the ELM document—as he says, the cornerstone—too late to make meaningful progress on it on Tuesday? It is also a shame that the Prime Minister decided to take it to the National Farmers Union, rather than bringing it here first.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I will say more about that, as she can imagine.
This discussion is hugely important, and I hope that we will be able to give it the attention it deserves. As my hon. Friend said, the document was delayed until half an hour after the Committee had started our sitting, although I am grateful to Ministers for having the grace to look a little sheepish and to be apologetic—not their fault, I suspect. Frankly, however, it was a poor way to behave, although ironically the desired outcome was not achieved—for reasons that I am not entirely au fait with, the Secretary of State went to the NFU the day after anyway, and I understand that he had a fairly traditional welcome. It is not unusual for Ministers to go to industry events and get a bit of a roasting. I am opposed to all forms of cruelty—we will come to that later—but he clearly had a tough day.
More importantly, I fear that this has skewed the way in which we are discussing the Bill. Had we had the document in advance, we would have framed a different set of amendments to the key clause 1. I am grateful to you, Mr Stringer, and to Sir David for exercising discretion, which allowed us to table amendments to clause 2. That would not normally have been possible within the timescale. I put on record my thanks to the hard-working staff in our offices, who were up until late at night working on that, and to the Clerks, who were also up late working on potential amendments. People were under considerable pressure, and I hope to do justice to their work this morning.
I have to say that something made me cross and, when I came to read the environmental land management policy discussion document that we are talking about, at times it made me even crosser. It is a mixed bag. Some of it is excellent, and we will be supportive, but my overriding impression was that, despite detecting some extremely hard work and thought put in by officials, they had been hampered by some basic contradictions in the Government’s thinking. That is a political failing—not a policy failing—which I suspect partly reflects changes in personnel and thinking over time. The original architects—the unrepentant sinners to whom I referred on Tuesday—have moved on, and others have been left to figure out how to make a complicated set of ambitions work.
The thing that made me cross—we do not have to read far—is virtually in the opening line, although I understand that the prefaces to such documents are often bolted on at the end, possibly by eager-to-please special advisers. I will read the opening sentence:
“For more than forty years, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy…has dictated how we farm our land”.
“Dictated”—think about that sentence. We were members of the European Union of our own free will—[Interruption.] I do not want to go over old ground, but I invite people to think about how that reads to those who might not share in support for the current situation, which is possibly half the country. It is a poor way to start the document.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
As a farmer, I can only describe the three-crop rule as dictating what I can grow on my farm. I cannot see any other interpretation.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure we will have a to and fro this morning. We will come to the three-crop rule later. I have a suggestion for a more conciliatory word: “framed” is a more accurate term, frankly. “Dictated” is highly contentious and in some ways designed to rile, and I can say to whomever did that, it succeeded. Some of us take exception to the idea that the Government of our country seems to have become a Vote Leave franchise operation.
To add evidence, I have a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs press release from 2013, when the then Farming Minister—different context, different time, obviously—who is now the Secretary of State, told us:
“The UK ensured that we have choices in how we implement the Common Agricultural Policy, rather than having to work with a one-size-fits-all approach from the European Commission…This gives us the flexibility to target funding in ways that will deliver real benefits to the environment, boost the competitiveness of our farming industry and grow the rural economy.”
I actually agree with him, but it does not sound like the policy has been “dictated” to us. I make a gentle plea to the Minister to change that one word, which might help people to be brought together.
Now that I have got that off my chest, we can move on to the substance of my argument. To be fair, there is something much more welcome a few lines later in the document, although it is not entirely reflected in the body of the document. It talks about the new system making it
“possible to meet the objectives of protecting the environment and producing food.”
That is a significant discussion within the document, and I will come back to that point. I appreciate that this is a framework Bill—as the Government constantly tell us—but there needs to be scrutiny as the framework is fleshed out. That is what we seek to do with our amendments.
As I will show in the next few minutes, these are complicated, interesting and important issues, which need scrutiny. I hope the Government will see sense and merit in our proposal. I hope the excellent Government Whip might consider allowing his side a little leeway, as we have considerable expertise present on the Government Benches today. Although he was gloriously successful in ensuring that people did not make contributions earlier in the process, it would be helpful if a little leeway could be shown at this point in our discussions on the Bill, because we are now getting into the real meat of it.
Some Members will have attended Second Reading of the Environment Bill yesterday. The interaction between these various Bills is really important, as was mentioned by the Chair of Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I think many of us have come to the same conclusion. As so often happens, the debate yesterday strayed into the Agriculture Bill by mistake at one or two points. That is no surprise, because the Bill is important.
There are number of puzzles and contradictions in the policy discussion document that are worthy of discussion. I will come to some of the positive aspects, but one or two sentences jumped out at me. On page 6 —I suspect this is by the same author who wrote the opening remarks to which I referred—there is a sort of eulogy to our wonderful system at the moment. The document quite rightly praises our farmers for the wonderful things they do. However, one of them is
“supporting our supply of clean water”.
I think that will jar slightly, particularly with some of the water companies, which know that one of the unintended consequences of our current agricultural system is that they, and as a consequence all our constituents, have to pay considerable costs to clean up some of the water. Obviously, the hope is that our new system will have ways to deal with that.
Later in the document there are some very positive proposals, but there are also some big unanswered questions about the interaction between the documents. Again, that point was raised yesterday in the discussion on the Environment Bill. This is a particularly pressing issue, given our current situation with flooding in this country. Some things look in danger of falling between the cracks, particularly overall land use policy. Our amendment is designed to allow proper scrutiny of how the proposals will be developed. Given that this is a very long-term set of pilots in development, things will change and lessons will be learned. Having proper parliamentary scrutiny seems to be well worth while.
The document—as I said, I suspect it had various authors—is littered with problems and quite a few internal contradictions. On page 7, there is a hopeful claim that environmental land management schemes will
“help us maintain our food security.”
That feels as though it is a bolted-on, pious hope, given the tension between environmental goods, which we all support, and food production. Indeed, in the list of public goods on page 7 there is no mention of food. There are some non-sequiturs here, although if I were to be generous, the fact that some of these problems have not been entirely reconciled may explain some of the delay in producing the document.
It actually gets worse. On page 7, at the end of the introduction, it says that the goal is to “improve” existing standards, but later in the same sentence it says it is to possibly maintain them. This is one of the key conundrums of the legislation—what are we actually supporting? The document goes on to say a bit more about that, which I will come to later.
The key issue is whether we should support people who have already made improvements to get to a high standard or target resources on lifting others. That is an important and difficult point—we could call it additionality, if we want to get into jargon—but it is a profound issue. Page 8 defines two strategic aims. I do not have any issue with them, but there is no strategic aim for food production, so this running internal contradiction continues.
The Chair
Order. I understand that this is not a completely satisfactory way for the Committee to proceed with what would normally have been a starred amendment. However, the wording of amendment 63 relates primarily to
“establishing any financial assistance scheme”.
I understand that the hon. Member is trying to relate that to the whole paper. I will be grateful if he could not turn this into a debate on the paper, but relate the paper to the amendment and the design of the financial assistance schemes.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful, Mr Stringer, but I am slightly perplexed as to how to proceed because the case I am making is about the need for proper scrutiny. I am trying to explain why we think that is so important, and to do that I have to delve into the detail of the paper, which we were not given sight of before. I will do the best I can and I will keep trying to refer back to the point about the need for scrutiny overall, if that is acceptable to you.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Member for that. It is not a satisfactory situation that the Committee has arrived in, so I am trying to be as flexible as possible while abiding by the correct rules of debate.
Daniel Zeichner
Thank you, Mr Stringer. I will try to take heed of that. I will not refer so closely to the paper and I will try to put my comments into the framework you suggest.
People would always want a more simplified financial assistance scheme. Looking back at parts of the common agricultural policy, I suggest that that has been an aim for a long time. From debates about the statutory instruments this week, some of us have had the opportunity to read closely regulation (EU) 1307/2013, in which paragraph 2 states:
“One of the core objectives, and one of the key requirements, of the CAP reform is the reduction of the administrative burden.”
So, in designing any financial assistance scheme, we are all trying to do that. The suggestions coming forward from the Government face exactly the same kind of problems we faced within the CAP now that we are without it.
As I have made clear, designing such assistance schemes and getting them right is a complex task. Any design will take time; to give the Government credit, they started on this path some 18 months ago. From our understanding, and from the National Audit Office report, it has not been an easy task. The suggestions about how financial assistance schemes should be developed make sense to me.
Referring back to the policy discussion document, there is a suggestion of a three-tiered approach that sounds remarkably similar to the system we already have. Looking at the suggestions for a financial assistance scheme set out under tier 1, many farmers—if they get that far in the document—would be encouraged because for those who do not want to see change, the scheme looks remarkably like the old basic payment scheme. Given that a three-tiered approach is suggested, what do the Government envisage to be the split between the three tiers? That is a reasonable question. It is similar to a pillar 1 or pillar 2 issue—12% or 15%—in that a lot could be put into either tier 3 or tier 1. It would help if we knew how that would be done.
It is correct that we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the CAP, but in designing any financial assistance scheme it is important to know what was the intention when the scheme was designed in the first place. The CAP was not designed as an environmental scheme but effectively as a food and rural support scheme, so we are undertaking a different task.
Clearly, the Government based those designs for a financial assistance scheme to some extent on the experience of the tests and trials. Of course, numbers are relatively low in tests and trials, but the National Audit Office—in a way, its report advises those of us who are trying to scrutinise the design of financial assistance schemes—was not particularly complimentary about progress so far. According to the NAO’s commentary on the numbers that DEFRA hoped would be signed up by different stages of the process, the Department initially wanted 5,000 to be signed up by the end of 2022, but that dropped to 1,250. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm what the numbers are now.
My contention is that such a system is not easy to create; it is hard. The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby made the important point that, sadly, under the three-crop rule, parts of the country are now underwater, and farmers are rightly arguing for a derogation. On the design of financial assistance schemes, it has been suggested that payments should be based on outcomes. Many of us would welcome that, but I wonder how difficult that might be in a time of floods. There are outcomes over which we have some control and outcomes over which, sadly, it appears we have much less control. I think that is worthy of discussion in the context of how we design financial assistance schemes.
There is a kind of irony on page 22 of the environmental land management document, where the authors, in asking themselves how to design financial assistance schemes, rightly ask how we should define what it is we want. Lo and behold: up turns our old friend the good agricultural and environmental condition—GAEC—standards from the CAP years. Again, that seems in effect to be the CAP coming back—I suspect the Vote Leave checker had lost the will to live by that stage and did not scrutinise that paragraph—through the back door. I do not criticise that. Anyone would struggle with that, because however they tried to design a financial assistance scheme, they would have to design some definition of how public money was to be allocated. I am sure we can change the acronym, but the same conundrums will arise.
The paper also contains—this is absolutely relevant to the design of the schemes—innovative, interesting suggestions about how payments may be calculated, including some market-based price-setting mechanisms using tendering or auctioning. I am not convinced that that is addressed elsewhere in the Bill. There is not much detail about it, and it is important that we tease out the Government’s thinking. Of course, they conclude that it would not necessarily be appropriate in tier 1. I can see why. If we are talking about thousands and thousands of agreements—this goes back to my question about distribution across the tiers—that would look like a very bureaucratic mechanism indeed. It may make more sense for the higher level, but any financial assistance scheme will have to deal with some of these points.
I return briefly to how the advice under these schemes will be funded. I have to say that tier 3 looks good. It has some similarities with the pillar two LEADER schemes. It is also the first appearance I can see in the Bill of the idea of devolving down a bit and involving local communities in designing financial assistance schemes. That is a really important point, which I will return to. However, bringing people together, which is really important, requires resource. In the past local councils played that role, but I am no longer convinced that many of them have that capacity.
If that is to work, we must answer the key question about any financial assistance scheme: where are the resources going to go? One assumption is that it will be derived from the savings that result from not making direct payments, or reducing them bit by bit, but that question needs a light shone on it. At what pace will this be done, and how will we do it? Unless those things are specified somewhere within a financial assistance scheme, it will be unclear who will have the resources to lead it. There is a potential danger that those who know how to make these systems work for them, and have the resources and wherewithal to do so, will be the ones who will take up the scheme. Its resources may not necessarily go where they are most needed, or where they will produce the best environmental benefit—as, to be fair, the Government have referenced.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Stringer. While dealing with some of the points that the hon. Member for Cambridge has raised, I will try to stick closely to the wording of the amendments.
However, I will start by saying that although this is a cornerstone document, as the hon. Gentleman was keen to point out, we are still at the beginning of this scheme’s development. We are planning a major change in the way that farmers receive money from the state. We have done a great deal of work, as he was kind enough to acknowledge, but we are currently running a programme of tests and trials. The priorities of that programme will become the building blocks for the national pilot, which does not start until the end of next year and will not conclude until 2024. At this point, we simply cannot answer many of the more detailed questions he asks, nor would it be right for us to fetter the development of policy by doing so. The national pilot will provide a real, living opportunity to test and refine the scheme design before we roll it out properly at the end of 2024. That is a careful, sensible way to make policy.
However, I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said. I know he thinks deeply about these issues, and it is important that, wherever possible, we work together on the development of these major changes. In that spirit, I thank him for the amendment he has moved, and agree that we must be transparent while establishing our future financial assistance schemes and make sure that Parliament can scrutinise the use of public money. We have introduced new duties into the Bill that do exactly that. As we said on Tuesday, these include the multi-annual financial assistance plans, which are a major change and, to my mind, an improvement—many thanks, once again, to those who sat on the Committee of the previous Agriculture Bill. We have agreed to provide an annual report setting out the financial assistance given under clause 1 and, importantly, reports on the impact and effectiveness of the schemes.
Those plans and reports give Parliament the ability to scrutinise the Government’s plans, to check that future funding decisions under the Bill powers are aligned with the Government’s strategic priorities as those develop, and to hold the Government to account on how much they are spending. Flexibility and collaboration are essential and we hope they will be embedded in future schemes. We do not intend to impose policy from the top down, but rather to work with farmers and land managers to develop schemes that can deliver achievable outcomes. The word the Secretary of State likes to use is “iterative”.
I fear that the amendment may unintentionally undermine that approach. Under the ELM scheme, we are planning a pilot that will enable us to learn and prepare for the full implementation of the scheme, once we have seen what works and what does not. Once the scheme is launched, we want to continue to have flexibility to improve the scheme and be responsive.
For example, our current thinking is that for tier 2 of ELMS, payments could initially be based on actions, potentially offering top-up payments when results are delivered. However, over time we might well want to move away from payments for actions and start giving results-based payments. We would want the scheme to be able to adapt to that as we see whether it is really achievable.
We also want the ability to improve the scheme as our understanding of the environment and technology develops. For example, we might wish to adapt how we monitor the delivery of environmental outcomes, taking advantage of new technologies such as remote sensing and geospatial data. Who knows where we will be going in the future? It is impossible for us to plan for everything at the moment.
The amendment as drafted would limit our ability to respond to what is effective and to what farmers and land managers tell us is working. It would put us back into CAP-type inefficiencies, where there was no opportunity to review or change things if they were not working. I am keen that we do not mirror that deficiency within our domestic policy.
When discussing these schemes, it is important to remind ourselves that farmers and land managers will be the people most affected by these changes. I would not wish them to be adversely affected by hold-ups in the parliamentary timetable. Looking at clause 1 as a whole, we are discussing the potential for a great number of financial assistance schemes.
If we were to pass the amendment, an appropriate Select Committee might need to consider a vast number of schemes in different areas, and then we would need to debate each one, no matter how broad or narrow they might be, which would place significant demands on parliamentary time. Should there not be enough time, I am concerned that farmers would ultimately suffer, as payments would not be made in a timely way. We will launch our pilot in 2021, as well as productivity grants and animal welfare grants. We do not want confusion, or farmers left in limbo for longer than necessary, because of problems with the availability of parliamentary time.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must allow Parliament the chance to scrutinise our plans for providing financial assistance under clause 1. I hope I have set out where the Bill already provides for that. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the Minister for her response and I fully appreciate that it is difficult to respond to a series of questions that are only loosely related to the amendment. I listened closely to what she said, but I still think there is a potential problem. I do not think our intention is that every single local scheme would be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny; it is the overall financial assistance scheme that we are concerned about. I fully appreciate the notion of iterative and learning processes, but the difficulty in which we find ourselves is that for farmers, the change effectively starts next year—we have seen the Government’s announcement about the 5% and so on—so real people will start losing real money quite quickly. Although it is wonderful to have theoretical discussions about how best to develop policy, people out there need some certainty, as the Government keep saying, which may partly be why the Secretary of State ran into problems with the NFU yesterday. In the 40 minutes of this debate so far, we have seen that, far from there being any certainty, there are a huge number of uncertainties.
Obviously, if one is trying to make change and be ambitious in moving to a different system, uncertainty is almost inevitable, but the Labour party feel that there needs to be a little more clarity on some of those points to give people better opportunities to plan ahead, which is a point that many people in this room, who know far more about practical farming than I do, have made. The timeframes are not always easy for people, because they have to plan and will make decisions fairly soon, so not knowing even the most basic point about a financial assistance scheme and whether the Government expect it to apply to 5% or 95% of those who have been in receipt in the past, is disappointing, to put it mildly. I very much hope that we will get more clarity at some point in the future, in discussion, correspondence or written answers.
The discussion has demonstrated a weakness in our processes; I am not sure that many of the questions that I have asked this morning have been answered. It would be much more helpful if the Government had been able to have an open discussion—perhaps not in Committee, but at some point—that would have been facilitated by the existence of the Bill.
The amendment is a long, probing one, and it has largely achieved what I wanted it to by establishing that there is no clarity on the schemes. I will not press the amendment to a Division, but I ask for an assurance from the Minister that we will get answers to our questions through one means or another. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 2, page 3, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) Financial assistance may not be given to any person who is not compliant with standards set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].”
This amendment and NC9 provide a duty for the Secretary of State to set baseline regulatory standards governing agricultural and horticultural activity, which must be met by any recipient of financial assistance.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 9—Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity—
(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework relating to agricultural and horticultural activity for or in connection with the following purposes—
(a) the management of land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment;
(b) public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland or woodland and better understanding of the environment;
(c) the management of land or water in a way that maintains, restores or enhances cultural or natural heritage;
(d) the management of land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;
(e) the management of land or water in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;
(f) the protection or improvement of the health or welfare of livestock;
(g) the conservation of native livestock, native equines or genetic resources relating to any such animal;
(h) the protection or improvement of the health of plants;
(i) the conservation of plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives or genetic resources relating to any such plant; and
(j) the protection or improvement of the quality of soil.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision about the standards to which activity for or in connection with all of the purposes in subsection (1) must conform.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision about enforcement, which may (among other things) include provision—
(a) about the provision of information;
(b) conferring powers of entry;
(c) conferring powers of inspection, search and seizure;
(d) about the keeping of records;
(e) imposing monetary penalties;
(f) creating summary offences punishable with a fine (or a fine not exceeding an amount specified in the regulations, which must not exceed level 4 on the standard scale);
(g) about appeals;
(h) conferring functions (including functions involving the exercise of a discretion) on a person.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
New clause 22—Consultation on regulatory framework: enforcement—
(1) The Secretary of State must, within one calendar month of this Act being given Royal Assent, open a consultation on what body should regulate and enforce the regulatory framework under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].
(2) The consultation shall seek views on whether an existing body should carry out the regulation and enforcement under subsection (1) or whether a new body should be created for that purpose.
(3) The Secretary of State must, in any consultation under subsection (1), consult with persons or bodies representing persons who he or she considers are affected by the functions of the proposed body.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) in summary form, the views expressed in the consultation held under subsection (1), and
(b) a statement of how the Secretary of State intends to proceed, with his or her reasons for doing so.
Daniel Zeichner
We are moving on to a complex set of issues on baseline environmental standards. Amendment 36 reads:
“(2A) Financial assistance may not be given to any person who is not compliant with standards set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].”
New clause 9 reads:
“(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework relating to agricultural and horticultural activity for or in connection with the following purposes—
(a) the management of land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment;
(b) public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland or woodland and better understanding of the environment;
(c) the management of land or water in a way that maintains, restores or enhances cultural or natural heritage;
(d) the management of land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;
(e) the management of land or water in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;
(f) the protection or improvement of the health or welfare of livestock;
(g) the conservation of native livestock, native equines or genetic resources relating to any such animal;
(h) the protection or improvement of the health of plants;
(i) the conservation of plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives or genetic resources relating to any such plant; and
(j) the protection or improvement of the quality of soil.”
Some will have noted that that reflects the wording elsewhere in the Bill.
“(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision about the standards to which activity for or in connection with all of the purposes in subsection (1) must conform.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision about enforcement, which may (among other things) include provision—
(a) about the provision of information;
(b) conferring powers of entry;
(c) conferring powers of inspection, search and seizure;
(d) about the keeping of records;
(e) imposing monetary penalties;
(f) creating summary offences punishable with a fine (or a fine not exceeding an amount specified in the regulations, which must not exceed level 4 on the standard scale);
(g) about appeals;
(h) conferring functions (including functions involving the exercise of a discretion) on a person.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
The Chair
Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reading out the whole of new clause 9, but all members of the Committee have the new clause before them, so it is unnecessary. I would prefer it if hon. Members did not take up the Committee’s time by reading out new clauses and amendments.
Daniel Zeichner
My apologies, Mr Stringer. I quite appreciate your direction.
The purpose of new clause 9 is to set baseline environmental standards across all farmed land, regardless of whether the land manager has chosen to receive financial assistance for any of the clause 1 purposes. To some extent, that follows on from the discussion about the previous amendment. There is a genuine concern about the systems—it was referenced in the document about the design of the schemes, to which I referred. Uptake is a key issue, as we saw in relation to stewardship. The worry is that if the systems are too complicated, difficult and onerous, there will not be the levels of uptake that we hope for. I asked the Minister about the numbers that the Government anticipate will take up under tier 1 because that is absolutely vital to our discussion. I do not want to press the point, but I cannot believe that there has not been some discussion in the Department about where we hope to get to. There must have been some discussion; there must be some idea of the scale that is expected. I would welcome a response on that point.
As part of the common agricultural policy, our farmers had to meet cross-compliance standards on EU environmental management, animal welfare and traceability to qualify for payments. Its onerousness and the fact that, to many, it seemed a bureaucratic system was the cause of justified complaint, but it is actually quite difficult to design compliance systems that do not end up in that situation. That is not to say that we cannot do better. Again, had we had the opportunity to discuss the ELMS policy paper in detail, we would have seen that there were some innovative suggestions in it. I will have to continue to try to refer to them tangentially.
We have left the European Union, and our worry is that there is a gap. We might well find that the Bill has unintended consequences that will leave much more of our countryside relatively unprotected. A point that I had hoped to make in the debate on the previous amendment, but which I will make now, is that there was an astonishing statement in that document about whether tier 1 payments should be dependent on regulatory compliance. I cannot think of any other sector in which there would be an issue about regulatory compliance. I may be missing something here—the Minister is a learned lawyer, so I shall be careful—but it seems pretty odd to be paying people to obey the rules. In any other sphere of life, I think people would find that surprising.
In the slightly odd world of the common agricultural policy, the payment was an accepted part of the way we did things, but it is certainly worth raising the question now, when looking at potential compliance issues, and debating it. All members of the Committee, depending on their point of view, either enjoyed or winced at George Monbiot’s evidence last week. He put it pretty forcefully. I think many of our fellow citizens and constituents would want to ask the question, too. It is a reasonable point.
The Bill includes provisions to move away from cross-compliance, with clause 14 giving Ministers the scope to simplify and amend the horizontal legislation that facilitated the operation of the CAP, including farmers’ compliance with EU laws on environmental and animal welfare standards—I apologise for diverting into eurojargon, but I am afraid the debate is constantly beset by it. I do not think that we have yet seen any long-term plan from the Government to replace that system, flawed though it may be, with the robust regulatory baseline that we believe we will need to ensure that environmental and animal welfare standards are met across the board in land management.
There is an irony in that. The Committee on Climate Change issued a report in January titled, “Land use: Policies for a Net Zero UK”, which is a useful document to inform our discussion. It includes a handy chart on page 80 that outlines the current proposals for the replacement of the common agricultural policy. If people want a one-pager, it is pretty good. The only problem is that its opening line says that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposes:
“The development of a new regulatory baseline reflecting the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”
I am not sure that that is, strictly speaking, accurate. We are looking for it, but we do not think that it exists, without our amendment.
The concern is that farmers may decide not to participate. When I first looked at this brief, one question that struck me was what percentage of people currently do. Most do, of course, because public money is on offer; it would be foolish not to. However, it was a simpler system—a direct payment system—and people were happy to take the money. If they are asked to do more to get the money, it will be a different decision. I suspect that some will decide that it all looks a bit difficult and complicated, going back to my point about uncertainty, and will operate outside it.
Returning to my point about numbers, a few farmers operating outside the system may not be a problem, but many doing so certainly would be. We would have to rely—this goes back to my point about the interrelationship between this Bill and the Environment Bill—on having some pretty strong legislation. Again, it is difficult for the Committee, because many would argue that the Bills are being considered in the wrong order. It might have been better to pass the environmental legislation first. We do not know what it will include. On the basis of what we have seen so far, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), the shadow Secretary of State, said last night on Second Reading, we support much of it. We did not vote against it, but we think it needs to be greatly strengthened. Not knowing whether it will be leaves us in a difficult position.
Some of a cynical disposition might say that the Government are left in almost a win-win position. They have burnished their green credentials, setting up a fantastic new environmental scheme, and have even got the money for it, which is quite unusual in politics; but the scheme is such that most people will not take it up. Far from being a greener, pro-environment Bill, it will therefore have the unintended—or possibly intended—consequence of saving the Government a lot of money and making them look good, but doing nothing to improve the environment. That is a really serious issue, which is why the amendment is so important.
Part of the solution relates to the points I raised about take-up in the ELMS document. If there is mass take-up, which is the suggestion, everything is possibly fine. If not, as I said, the downside is direct payments through the back door, and not getting the environmental lift we are looking for. I know the Government will not agree with that, but it is a risk. If we do not go that route and instead go the tougher route, there is also a danger of damaging the environment.
I do not deny that it is a difficult conundrum; it is one that I would love to be dealing with as a Minister, rather than as shadow Minister. I suspect that if I were in that position, the Opposition would be making exactly the same tough, robust points, because these are real-life conundrums. It is my job in the interim to make the points on behalf of our environment and our farmers.
We need to make sure that across all our agricultural land, the baseline is land management that recognises the huge challenge of climate change, protects our soils, guards against flooding, encourages resilience in biodiversity and prioritises high animal welfare. We believe that we have to set minimum standards across the board, so that the Bill—this goes back to a point I was making earlier—genuinely incentivises those that go above and beyond. I still think that that is probably what the Government want to do, but the contradictions and difficulties are being glossed over at the moment.
The Institute for European Environmental Policy, in its report, commissioned by a number of the witnesses that we heard from in the evidence sessions, said that there are a number of gaps in legislation, which will have real consequences, particularly for wildlife on our agricultural land. The interaction between EU retained law and our current legislation is tricky. The assumption that all these plans will necessarily work as we think they will could well be open to challenge. We will return to that wider point, but on this particular point we believe, and the institute believes, that there may be some gaps in legislation that will result in there no longer being protections for hedgehogs, nesting birds and hedgerow habitats, partly due to some of the potential changes in the 2 metre wide buffer strip rules. Given that we have already lost 97% of our hedgehog population since the 1950s—a point that was made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) in the Second Reading debate on the Environment Bill—there is genuine concern. That is why we need to make sure that we are covered.
There is also the point—I certainly would not say this about the current Ministers—that in future some of the financial assistance that is being redirected could be moving towards productivity rather than environmental protection, and that, too, could compromise our environmental safeguards. That goes to the heart of what the Bill is really all about. The “Health and Harmony” DEFRA consultation paper for the Bill outlined that the Government wanted to embed the “polluter pays” principle throughout. As I have said, the danger is that we could end up, as George Monbiot explained, paying the polluter not to pollute, which is the other side of the coin. We do not want that to be the outcome, and we have heard from a number of key witnesses how important that is.
In conclusion, new clause 9 outlines that it should be a duty for the Secretary of State to establish a baseline regulatory framework “for or in connection” with the listed purposes. It outlines that the regulations “may include” provisions about enforcement and would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure to ensure that we continue to have robust debate and scrutiny of the most appropriate baseline regulatory framework.
Amendment 36 would ensure that those who receive financial assistance under clause 1 public goods are meeting those baseline environmental standards as well, and will be rewarded for going above and beyond.
Victoria Prentis
The amendments would enshrine in the Bill a legal duty to make regulations that govern agricultural and horticultural activity and to restrict financial assistance to those who are compliant with those regulations. In our view, the amendments are unnecessary, because we already have a regulatory framework that manages agricultural and horticultural activity and protects the environment.
In our view, the amendments are unnecessary, because we already have a regulatory framework that manages agricultural and horticultural activity and protects the environment. With this Bill, we will enshrine in law our commitment to the environmental purposes that matter so much to us all.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the reasons why she does not believe we need the baseline. I neglected to make any comments about new clause 22 in my opening statement, so I shall weave those in to what I say at this point.
Of course we all agree that enforcement is critical. One of the things that has struck me in my relatively few years in this place is how often we pass legislation and then struggle with enforcing it. That does not do our reputation any good, and it certainly does not do our constituents any good. I have in the past reflected on the fact that all it does is to make good, law-abiding people cross. It does little to dissuade non-law-abiding people from their actions. As the Minister says, it is a conundrum.
I was impressed by Dame Glenys’s report on the farm inspection and regulation review and I echo many of the points that the Minister made. I am sure she did not need to know that Dame Glenys is her constituent to reach the conclusion she did. I will just point out one or two observations from the report that reflect what I have said. I think that she said that current enforcement is nowhere near effective, and I am told that of the 10,600 staff at the Environment Agency only 40 do farm inspections. That seems extraordinary to me. There is thus only a one in 200 chance of being inspected by the Environment Agency. Quite clearly it is pretty busy at the moment, so that is not a criticism of the agency, but it shows the scale of capacity that is needed. I gently go back to my earlier observations: it is great to be ambitious but the Government have to think through the enforcement mechanisms that go along with that, and ask themselves whether they are prepared to bear the costs.
Of course, there is quite a range of DEFRA-related bodies that deliver compliance with farm regulations, such as Natural England, the Forestry Commission, the Animal and Plant Health Agency and, sometimes, local authorities. It is not unfair to say that the Rural Payments Agency has not always covered itself in glory in the past. We congratulate it on its improvements in recent times, but we know the historical difficulties that it has had with, frankly, just doing the administration. I appreciate that it is assisted by others in that, and my understanding is that Natural England has a lot of the expertise behind it. Given some of the well documented pressures on that agency as well, however, the question arises of where the resource to make everything work will come from. Maybe it will come from the money that would have been going to farmers out of the direct payments scheme, but we do not know.
That is the problem with the entire debate. There is potentially £3 billion to spend: how will it be used? We need some clarity from the Government. Our suggestion was that the Secretary of State should, within a month of the Bill’s receiving Royal Assent, hold a proper consultation on the most appropriate body to enforce important baseline environmental regulations. We would then want to require the Secretary of State to bring before Parliament the decision on the consultation and tell us how it is intended to proceed.
We know from the Stacey report that the current punitive compliance measures often do not have the effect that we seek. We want not to punish people but to help them to do the right thing. One of the positive things in the paper “Environmental Land Management” was about finding a way in which help can be given. A common complaint about the previous system was that it was pernickety and that a minor transgression could cause a disproportionate response. Those are things we all agree on, and would all like to get changed.
The one thing I am nervous about is that a better system may require more people—or more technology, or whatever. The question is how it will be resourced. That is why we think we need a more comprehensive framework to deal with it. I appreciate what the Government have said about trying to implement the Stacey review’s recommendations, but we remain nervous that, without the resources needed, we may not be able to achieve what we are trying to do. We think that is key not only to supporting rural communities and people who work in producing food, but to achieving the environmental gains that we wish to see.
Our worry is that without a comprehensive compliance regulatory system behind it, this move could lead to unintended consequences and possible environmental degradation rather than improvement. We think that that is so important that we will press the amendment to a vote.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 48, in clause 2, page 3, line 30, at end insert—
“(3A) Financial assistance allocated to a scheme in a particular year but not spent within that year may be carried over to a future year for spending on one or more schemes.”
This amendment would enable Ministers to “carry over” any monies left unspent at the end of a particular budget year for spending in subsequent years.
This is a more probing amendment and one that we do not intend to put to a vote, so hon. Members can be at ease. Mr Stringer, you will be pleased to hear that I will not read out the amendment.
I may have misunderstood how DEFRA’s economics works, and I am ready to stand corrected. The Government have not put it in legislation but have indicated that the money will be available for the remainder of the Parliament. If not all that money is used in one year, what happens to it? All I am looking for is some explanation, as the amendment suggests, that it would be possible to carry over money into subsequent years. That point has been raised on a number of occasions by a number of people, and there may be a simple explanation.
When debating the statutory instrument on Monday and looking back at our old friend regulation 1307/2013, it struck me that the current system has quite complicated reserves that the CAP specifies for dealing with some issues around fines, compliance and so on. It goes into considerable detail about how that should work. A similar system may be envisaged for us. I asked some questions about the issue during the debate on the statutory instrument, so perhaps when there is a reply there will be some clarity.
Again, it has been said that this is a framework Bill. That is fine—we get that. But this is the opportunity for Parliament to ask these questions. The headline figure of money is a concern to some in rural communities, and it may not be available if is not within the right timeframe. I suppose I have a simple question.
Mr Goodwill
Is the hon. Gentleman talking about money allocated to a scheme in general that is then not used, or money allocated to a farm that is not used due to some situation on that farm? Is he talking about the specifics of money allocated to farms or the generality of money allocated to a scheme?
Daniel Zeichner
That is a good point. Some of this discussion has conflated the two things, which may not be helpful for people. Actually, no money is allocated nationally. It is a political promise; it is not in legislation. Of course, no Parliament can bind future spending allocations. We will watch with interest what happens in the coming weeks, but the political promise has been given.
Mr Goodwill
Is that issue not covered by clause 8, which allows for the extension of the scheme? When I come to discuss my amendment 9, we can explore the matter. One could possibly freeze the switch from the basic payment scheme to ELM schemes. I guess that the hon. Gentleman is discussing the situation in which the uptake of ELMS is not very high, because we are fairly sure that the uptake of the BPS will be pretty much 100%. Is this not already covered in that clause of the Bill?
Daniel Zeichner
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but I am not sure that the issue is covered; that is why I am seeking clarification. I am afraid these points are about a lack of certainty. We are looking ahead a long way—seven years, potentially—for the transition. We have some clarity on the 5% plus, capping and so on for the next year, but beyond that —I hate to go back to the ELMS document, but there are timelines in there—some of it looks a touch optimistic, frankly.
Given that the process was begun 18 months ago, I hope that it will become clearer through the trials and tests, but we would like to pin down the finances. That is what we are trying to achieve through the amendment. I understand why Government Ministers cannot concede, but I suspect that, as people look more closely, quite a lot of them would agree with this position; if we are going to embark on these ambitious environmental schemes, as we want to, we want as much money as possible to be drawn from the Treasury. It is a very unusual situation, politically, to have a pot of money that looks like it has been allocated before. Where does it go in the future? That is what we are trying to pin down.
Victoria Prentis
As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, I suspect that many people in this room agree with a great deal of what he told us. On this side of the House, we are determined that UK farming should not see a reduction in Government support at this important and exciting time in British agriculture. That is why we have pledged to guarantee the current annual budget in every year of this Parliament.
As I said on Tuesday and again this morning, in response to the previous feedback from the Committee’s last sitting, we have now included clause 4 in the Bill. It requires us to prepare a multi-annual financial assistance plan covering the seven-year transition period. That shows our commitment to planning our future expenditure, part of which will include minimising the likelihood of any underspend from our financial assistance schemes. I am more optimistic than the hon. Gentleman: I expect very high take-up of our new scheme—that is definitely the aim. However, I recognise that underspends can happen despite the very best financial planning.
Daniel Zeichner
I am sorry to press the Minister on this point, but will she define “very high”? I would say it has to be more than 50%; maybe it has to be more than 75% to be “very high”.
Victoria Prentis
For all the reasons I mentioned earlier, I cannot possibly give the hon. Gentleman any more detail than is in his favourite document, but I look forward to working with him over the next seven years or more while we develop this marvellous scheme. I thank him, because he is broadly supportive of many of the aims and objectives of the scheme, and he has been moderately polite about it. I agree with him: underspends can happen.
The concept that the hon. Gentleman describes in his amendment is, in principle, something beneficial that we would support. He has been kind enough to talk about my legal experience; I am not sure that this is a matter for primary legislation. I would rather discuss the matter first with the Treasury as part of the spending review process, which is the correct way to deal with it. I hope I have assured him of our interest in exploring the ability to retain financial spend across different financial years, and I therefore ask him not to push the amendment to a vote.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Agriculture Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 27th February 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 February 2020 - (27 Feb 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end insert—
“(4A) Financial assistance under subsection (1)(1)(f) for protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock shall only be given to a person who satisfies the Secretary of State that they—
(a) achieve, or have undertaken to achieve, standards of animal welfare which exceed the minimum requirements laid down by legislation governing welfare of livestock,
(b) raise animals in such a way that enables them to carry out their natural behaviours,
(c) do not subject livestock to any prohibited procedure (within the meaning of section 5 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006),
(d) do not kill livestock in any place other than in a slaughterhouse unless—
(i) a veterinary surgeon has certified that this is necessary due to the animal’s poor health, and
(ii) the method of killing is humane, and
(e) do not, after IP completion day, export animals for slaughter or fattening unless—
(i) the livestock is exported from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, and
(ii) it is made a requirement of sale that the livestock shall not be re-exported by the buyer.”
This amendment would set minimum baseline welfare standards for the receipt of financial assistance for protecting or improving the welfare of livestock.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 42, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end insert—
“(4A) Financial assistance may only be given under section 1(1)(f) for the purpose of protecting or improving the health of livestock if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State or of any person to whom functions relating to the giving of financial assistance are delegated under section 2(6), the protection or improvement effects a standard which is significantly higher than that required by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].”
This amendment would require a recipient of financial assistance for protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock to demonstrate that the protection or improvement would be of a significantly higher standard than the baseline required under NC9.
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 4, line 5, after “section” insert—
“‘fattening’ means the keeping of livestock for the purpose of the livestock gaining weight in preparation for slaughter,
‘humane’ shall be interpreted in accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015,
‘livestock’ has the meaning given in section 1(5) of this Act,
‘IP completion day’ has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2020, and”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.
Daniel Zeichner
Welcome back, everybody. Our aim with this group of amendments is to highlight the need for financial assistance in clause 1 to be provided for the purpose of protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock only if farmers go above and beyond current animal welfare standards.
I have already touched on this issue. We believe it is important to avoid a situation where public money is paid for current welfare standards being met. I think the public would find that curious, but it is a risk given the systems we have inherited. The nod of enthusiasm from the Minister confirms that the authors of the Bill rather agree, although we say that it is still not entirely clear. I think it is agreed that the taxpayer’s principal role should be to provide funding for public goods that the market cannot deliver or can deliver only partially, such as high environmental and animal welfare standards. The funds available should be used not for marginal welfare gains but to support best practice and farmers who are willing to go substantially beyond the legal minimum requirements.
Of course, there is a whole series of potential issues associated with that. How much improvement? Do we want to set standards to which we want people to move quickly? I am struck when I talk to people about this that I think the industry will do what it is asked to do. Clearly, however, if it is not directed and just responds to the market, people will produce to different price points. Again, that is an issue for the politicians to think about. We had a discussion the other day with the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby about whether labelling gets us there. There are different views, and this is our view.
There are clear ways of identifying significant steps up in welfare for different species of farm animals, and it is extremely important that we tailor our welfare standards appropriately to what would achieve those outcomes for each species. Let me make a few suggestions for the high standards we would like ultimately to be achieved across each sector.
For pigs, funding could be made available to farmers who achieve intact—neither docked nor bitten—tails. There are schemes along those lines in other countries. Getting pigs to slaughter with intact tails is recognised by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee as a good outcome-based indicator of high welfare. This morning, in our discussion of the environmental land management document—I am pleased to see it is now on the table for all to enjoy—we touched on whether payments should be for what is done or what is achieved. I think the debate about that is moving; many of us would like to see outcome-based payments. At least in this area, we can discuss the outcomes we are looking for, and I suggest they are more easily measured. I am told—we heard this from witnesses, too—that such schemes already exist in Germany.
As we outlined in a previous amendment, which sadly was not taken up by the Government, we believe that the Government should encourage a move to free farrowing systems. However, we acknowledge that there is extra cost involved and we believe some payments could be made to cover a proportion of the capital costs involved in making that change. It is a decision for us as a country, as well as for consumers, as to where we want to get to on these standards. This is a clear opportunity.
For laying hens, we would like to see funding made available for farmers who use the best free range systems, such as low stocking density, low flock size, mobile housing and provision of trees and bushes. Outcome measures that one could look at are not trimming hens’ beaks, achieving low mortality and good plumage scores. Such outcomes can be measured; that is a decision we could make. This Committee is a good place to have such discussions, which, over time, could attempt to lift welfare standards in this country.
For broiler chickens, the key issue is often substantial overcrowding. Many UK broilers are stocked at 38 kg per square metre. As chickens in the UK often weigh around 2.2 kg at slaughter, that means approximately 17 chickens are kept per square metre. Without going into the wider points, we know the British public want to see higher welfare standards and many would probably be shocked to see those conditions. As Government Members have pointed out, people want food at affordable prices. We agree with that, so there is a tension and a balance in this, but if one has £3 billion to spend, to some extent one has choices.
At such high densities, sadly broilers can have high levels of infectious pathogens, leg disorders, foot-pad dermatitis and mortality. We believe that to be granted financial assistance, the maximum permitted broiler stocking density could be reduced to a specific number. We have talked today about the long transition period, but on another day we will come to the more show-stopping amendment on standards elsewhere in the world. We have to make decisions about where we want to get to, and then make sure we do not disadvantage our producers.
Funding could support the use of slow-growing breeds and low stocking densities, as scientific research shows that these bring welfare benefits. As an outcome measure, receipt of funding could be contingent on achieving low foot-pad dermatitis scores, which could be measured at slaughter.
Moving to dairy cows, a key issue is those that are kept indoors. Around 20% of UK dairy cows are zero grazed—that is, they are kept indoors for all or nearly all of the year. Again, funding could be made available for farmers who keep their cows in pasture during the grass-growing season, except when the weather is too wet. Such schemes already exist in Sweden. Research shows that pasture-based cows have lower levels of lameness, hoof pathologies, hock lesions, mastitis and mortality than zero-grazed cows. A potential outcome-based funding opportunity could be made contingent on pasture-based farmers achieving low levels of lameness and mastitis. We believe grass-based beef and sheep farmers could receive support for achieving low levels of lameness and disease.
Different research projects sometimes produce different outcomes. It is vital to have effective research into the impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestock farming. We need that to contribute to a better understanding of what can improve animal welfare above the baseline and what better welfare practices can be promoted within the public goods element of the Bill. Therefore, we will be tabling an amendment to include a requirement for the Secretary of State to promote the conduct of research into the impact of highly intensive livestock farming practices on animal welfare, which, I believe, would be welcomed by many constituents and citizens.
Labour has argued in the past—and we continue to make the case—for an independent animal welfare commissioner, who would keep track of the most up-to-date and evidence-based science on animal welfare, in order to inform and update policy. We think that would be beneficial. We have proposed it in the past and I hope it is something the Government might consider. I am not aware that the Government have indicated thus far that they might do that, but let us see.
We back the great sections of the British public who call for an end to the use of cages on our farms once and for all. The Bill represents a real opportunity for the Government to get behind that call, if they can put in place the financial support needed for farmers to move away from high-intensity farming methods towards those that are significantly more supportive of animal freedoms and welfare. The Bill lacks detail on how financial assistance for improved animal welfare should be used. I hope the Minister has given due consideration to the careful planning needed to ensure that those receiving money for the clause 1(1)(f) public good are truly rewarded for achieving significant evidence-based improvements in animal welfare above the norm. Amendment 42 provides that financial assistance for the purpose of protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock would be given only if the recipient had exceeded a set of baseline regulatory standards, as established in new clause 9.
Amendment 4 provides an expanded alternative. We have a slight sense that the previous amendment may not be carried, so it is good to have a second string. It would put in place a provision that financial assistance would be provided for the public good of improving animal welfare and health only if the Secretary of State was satisfied that the recipient had gone beyond minimum requirements and followed a number of important measures to guarantee animal welfare, as set out in paragraphs (b) to (e). They include that the recipient has raised animals
“in such a way that enables them to carry out their natural behaviours”.
I suspect there would be considerable support for that among the wider public.
High animal welfare means taking into account scientific research that increasingly indicates that good animal welfare helps not only the prevention of suffering but the opportunity for animals to have positive experiences and exhibit their natural behaviours.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. Would he consider, as some animal welfare campaigners do, that natural behaviour would be to allow a cow to keep her calf with her for perhaps the first six months? It is quite difficult to be specific about what natural behaviour might be.
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman asks a probing question. I made the point earlier that there are many levels of welfare to which we can aspire. Some are even contentious, in the sense that not everything natural is necessarily something that we want to happen.
Responding to consumer demand is complicated. If consumers want the kind of standard of welfare that the right hon. Gentleman suggests, I would suggest that, in the business world, it is a good idea to give them what they want—normally the argument made by the other side—but that is costly. There is a dilemma, again, for this mythical £3 billion pot we are all busily spending—[Interruption.] Well, it may not be £3 billion, we will see. There is a dilemma about which sectors to support, which we will come back to, and what level of welfare is reasonable.
Beyond that, there is a further question. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, there may be things that lift to a very high standard, but who makes that decision? I suspect that, as ever, there will be a spectrum. There can be very high standards, which we see with the plant-based milk alternatives people are choosing. I choose them in my office, because my colleague does not drink dairy milk. We pay a premium, but we are happy to pay that. Consumers should be given the choice. That would be the answer to his intervention.
Pigs need space; they need a quantity of bedding and materials to fill a range of species-specific behaviours, such as rooting, foraging, nesting and exploring. Providing fibrous materials, including straw, brown wood, mushroom compost or natural vegetation, assists with comfort and can reduce aggression. Similarly, systems for laying hens should allow for species-specific behaviours such as nesting, foraging, dust bathing, perching and exercise, including walking, running and brief bursts of flying.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the reason we can discuss this practice is because we have left the European Union and have the freedom not to comply with single market rules?
Daniel Zeichner
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, as he well knows. At the very least, it seems evident that those involved in the live export trade should not be receiving public subsidy for good animal welfare. There is probably widespread agreement on that. Having said all that, there need to be exceptions for genuine cross-border movements from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, provided that the animals involved are not re-exported from the Republic. We provide such an exemption in amendment 4.
Other requirements for receiving money for higher standards should include that livestock are not subjected to prohibited procedures such as mutilations, as defined in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and that livestock are killed only in the controlled environment of a slaughterhouse unless a veterinary surgeon certifies it necessary due to the animal’s poor health, and the method of killing is humane. Amendment 5 provides definitions for the practices outlined in amendment 4.
Mr Goodwill
I will be brief. Under clause 1, which we discussed earlier in the week, the list of objectives for which financial assistance can be given includes, under subsection (1)(f),
“protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock”.
Therefore, much of what the hon. Gentleman talks about is already covered in the Bill. While I can understand his wish to incentivise less tail docking and castration of pigs, reduce the density of broiler chickens and phase out farrowing crates, the intensive pig and poultry sectors have not received funding through the common agricultural policy system. My worry is that he is looking at ways of switching support from the farms that have relied on it —particularly extensive farms in the uplands, those farms that are producing the habitats and environmental public goods that we want to protect—to the intensive sector, which already manages very nicely. Switching to some of these more welfare-friendly methods on a large scale could mop up quite large amounts of the money available.
My second concern is about amendment 4’s proposed new subsection (4A)(d) to clause 2 of the Bill, which talks about killing livestock
“in any place other than in a slaughterhouse”.
I am a little worried about the practicalities of how that relates to sick and injured animals on farms. The amendment states that a veterinary surgeon must have certified that the animal should be put out of its misery because of poor health, and that
“the method of killing is humane”.
I read that to mean that on every occasion when a farmer wishes to humanely put an animal out of its pain or misery, they must be observed by a vet. In our village, I have a neighbour whose farm has 16,000 laying hens. It is an extensive system; they go outside. They are barn-raised hens produced under the very best welfare standards, but from time to time a hen will be injured or, in some cases, attacked by other hens and my neighbour will need to euthanise it. I do not think it is realistic or practical to expect that the farmer will call a veterinary surgeon on every occasion that happens and incur a fee of maybe £40 or £50.
Similarly, on my own farm, until last Saturday we had four hens. Unfortunately, a pet dog got into our field on Saturday afternoon and killed two of them, and when I went on Sunday morning to let the two remaining hens out of the shed, one of them was obviously in a very bad way. The tail feathers that we thought had been pulled out by the dog were hiding quite a nasty injury, and I had to kill that hen myself. It would not have been realistic for me to take that hen to the vet, or to call a vet out. There are many instances in which an animal is in great distress, maybe because it has a broken leg, and waiting for a vet to come would not be practical, even if it were economically feasible.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not support his amendment, because I do not think he has looked into the practicalities of animal welfare on a farm when animals are sick. I think back to when we used to keep a load of sheep. Sometimes sheep were in a very bad way; perhaps they had had difficult lambing and were haemorrhaging. This might be taking place at 2 o’clock in the morning, so the most humane thing to do was to put them out of their misery straightaway, without any delay and certainly without waiting for a vet to come, even if that were practical. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come back with similar amendments on Report, I hope he will look at paragraph (d) again, because most practising farmers would look at it and say, “This is not going to help animal welfare. This is going to mean animals dying in suffering, particularly if by breaking these rules I lose all my subsidies.” I think many farmers would be very worried about that, so I hope the hon. Gentleman understands the practicalities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend, who as ever makes some very valid points. Animal welfare is important to us all, and I am proud that, broadly speaking, it is also very important to farmers in this country.
Touching briefly on the issue of live exports, as I imagine the hon. Member for Cambridge knows, the Government has a manifesto commitment to end excessively long journeys for animals going for slaughter or fattening. We have said to date that we are actively looking at this important issue, and I understand that a consultation is planned imminently for this spring, so that we can take it further as quickly as possible.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman very clearly, and not just by nodding, that there is no intention that payments will be issued to farmers for achieving basic welfare standards. The Government are world leaders in animal welfare, and are committed to retaining that status by maintaining and strengthening our standards, as part of a comprehensive series of measures to improve animal welfare. Using the powers in this Bill, we are developing a scheme that aims to improve welfare. As part of that, we are exploring a one-off grant system that will help farmers to improve welfare on farms, and might well include some of the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Cambridge, which we discussed earlier in our consideration of the Bill.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
For clarification, would that grant system be for capital expenditure to change the animals’ accommodation? If so, does the Minister envisage that there will be ongoing revenue-type subsidies to maintain the higher welfare standards, or is it just capital that is being looked at?
Victoria Prentis
I envisage the specific grants that I was just talking about as payments to enhance buildings, for example, or for other welfare issues. However, the hon. Member is right to mention other means of paying for welfare, and it is true that the Bill is currently flexible. I expect that we will get into the detail of that sort of issue as we progress with devising the schemes to improve animal welfare. She is right to highlight that issue, and should make whatever points she wants to as we devise the schemes. We are exploring a payment-by-results scheme, under which farmers could receive ongoing payments for delivering specific animal welfare enhancements that are valued by the public but, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said, not yet sufficiently valued by the market. The hon. Member for Bristol East is therefore right to continue to make whatever points she wants to in that space.
The amendment would restrict in primary legislation what will be included in the new scheme before those involved in the industry, as well as the Animal Welfare Committee, have had the opportunity to have their say. What defines enhanced animal welfare must be designed in consultation with those involved, so that the schemes deliver the best possible outcomes for consumers, the industry and, most importantly, the animals themselves. Our understanding of animal welfare today is far ahead of where it was when I was growing up on a farm, or 20 or 30 years ago. It would be short-sighted of us to set out requirements in legislation for payments, as it would restrict our ability to develop or amend schemes, such as the enhanced animal welfare scheme, when more evidence becomes available.
Turning specifically to amendment 42, improving the health of the national livestock, herd or flock, requires widespread co-ordinated action. We intend to launch the first schemes to improve the health of farmed animals from 2022 to 2023, concentrating on endemic diseases. We are co-designing schemes with farmers and vets, prioritising cattle—both dairy and beef—sheep, pigs and poultry, with the intention to widen participation to other species. Previous experience has shown that, without action being taken by the majority of farmers, efforts to control disease and improve health do not achieve very much.
That action does not have to be significantly above the legal standards to be very effective, but it does need to be part of a concerted effort on the part of farmers and others, which can, of course, include central Government. We are worried that the amendment would restrict us to providing financial assistance only, in effect, to better-performing farmers. Actions such as tackling endemic disease are best done when a large proportion of farmers and livestock owners are involved. If we limit the number of those who can benefit from a scheme, we will not be as successful in achieving our goals.
The hon. Member for Cambridge teased out the question of what constitutes a significantly higher standard of animal health. There is no single measure of animal health at the moment, and different actions to improve it will have different levels of public and private benefits. I am sure that we will continue to discuss such matters. At the very least, the amendment would make an important part of the financial clause difficult to work in practice, and could go so far as being counterproductive. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
That was an interesting and illuminating discussion that, as ever, probably raised as many questions as it answered, sadly.
I will start with the points made by the sharp-eyed right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. I am sorry to hear about his unfortunate incident with the dog at the weekend.
Daniel Zeichner
I am sorry to hear that. The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. I fully concede that this was not a drafting error; I am not sure we guided those doing the drafting in quite the right way. I accept that we could improve on that. What we are trying to tease out, however, relates to the questions and points that I have already raised about what the public want from the Bill. He implied that he was tempted to support one of the amendments. I would like to tempt him to support the other one, which does not have those objections attached to it, but I fear that I shall be disappointed.
We are pushing for a commitment to much higher standards. The Minister made a series of important points. On live animal export, we absolutely support using the opportunities available and we hope that the Government will get on with it. We would all like that to happen.
The point relates to some of the earlier tensions. I think the Minister said that there is no intention to pay for basic welfare standards, which I understand. Page 20 of the policy discussion document—I hate to keep referring to it, but it makes the point and has illuminated the discussion—asks what tier 1 could pay for and gives a wide range of examples. There is a tension between what she said and some of those examples, not least because what it could pay for depends on exactly what is being paid for on what unit. Farms are not all the same; some are mixed farms.
The cross-compliance regulations that we had under the European Union made it incumbent on the whole enterprise to conform to rules and regulations, but we do not know, frankly, how that will work in this new set-up and whether one part doing one thing disqualifies or qualifies. Those are exactly the reasons why we wanted a more detailed discussion, because we do not know the answers.
I understand the Minister’s predicament, but it is all very well for her to say, “Ah well, these things are difficult. It’s going to take time. The world’s going to change,” and all the rest of it, but it ain’t going to change for the people who are farming next year. They will have to deal with this, alongside the reductions that are coming, like the sword of Damocles over them, at an unspecified pace. I am afraid that I do not think that is good enough. We need to sort out some of the thinking behind it.
I hear the Minister’s point about the potential unintended consequences when one is trying to apply a measure to entire herds, but I am not convinced that it is impossible to frame it in such a way that we could do that and still insist on high welfare standards for public money. This is a matter of huge public interest, which is reflected in the amount of correspondence that most MPs get on the issue. If the Government want popular support for these policies, this is exactly the kind of amendment that they would do well to look at. On that basis, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Daniel Zeichner
I would like to press amendment 42 and withdraw amendment 4. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 42, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end insert—
“(4A) Financial assistance may only be given under section 1(1)(f) for the purpose of protecting or improving the health of livestock if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State or of any person to whom functions relating to the giving of financial assistance are delegated under section 2(6), the protection or improvement effects a standard which is significantly higher than that required by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].”—(Daniel Zeichner.)
This amendment would require a recipient of financial assistance for protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock to demonstrate that the protection or improvement would be of a significantly higher standard than the baseline required under NC9.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 2, page 3, line 32, at end insert—
“(4A) No more than 5% of the financial assistance given through a financial assistance scheme in any particular financial year shall be spent on administration or consultancy.
(4B) The Secretary of State may by regulations vary the proportion of financial assistance specified in subsection (4A).”
This amendment, along with Amendments 45,46 and 47 would place a 5% limit on the amount of financial assistance which can be spent in any year on administration or consultancy.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 45, in clause 2, page 4, line 3, after “subsection” insert “(4B) or subsection”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 46, in clause 2, page 4, line 4, at end insert—
“(10A) For the purposes of this Act, “administration or consultancy” includes money spent on “administration or consultancy other than in connection with the purposes in section [Financial assistance: duty to provide advice].”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 47, in clause 5, page 6, line 13, after “year”, insert
“, and (c) the amount of money spent on administration or consultancy, within the meaning of subsection (10A) of section 2”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Daniel Zeichner
Amendment 44 is another probing amendment. We are seeking to establish what protections there are against the financial assistance schemes’ administration costs being able to swallow large swathes of the budget. This is slightly difficult, since we still do not fully understand how they work; we are in a tricky position, but we think it is important that this issue be addressed.
We have talked already about the importance of having comprehensive enforcement measures in place that work to support compliance with the financial assistance schemes. However, I suggest that it is just as important to ensure that the bureaucracy associated with that does not take over the schemes at the expense of money going to farmers to deliver environmental public goods. The issue is clouded by the fact that we still do not know where the money is coming from—we can make assumptions, but it is not clear: how much will it cost and whose budget is it coming from?
There are plenty of unknowns, and we are trying to encourage the Government to share their thinking with us. We would not necessarily disagree with them, but knowing that would mean that we could query how everything should work. There is a worry that, given the ambition and complexity of some of the schemes, it could all end up costing a considerable amount of money.
If the system is not properly regulated and controlled, there could be opportunities for people for whom environmental goals may not be the chief concern. Even if that is not the case, employing people to carry out these complicated works could consume a lot of legal time and effort—many of those people do not work on the wages that farm workers do, so it would probably be quite expensive.
Of course, there is a delicate irony to all this: one of the chief complaints about the current system is the bureaucracy associated with it. I think we all probably share that frustration. The question is whether the bureaucracy has grown for reasons of its own, or whether there is actually a good reason for it. The Opposition think there is often a good reason for regulation and oversight, and we think there has been too much deregulation over the years. There will probably be a slight difference of opinion on this issue. I suspect that the world is changing a bit now that we have seen the dangers of just dismissing bureaucracy as somehow being a problem; many of us who have worked in bureaucracies think there is quite a good reason for enlargement in some cases.
The Opposition are looking particularly at the clause 3 measures on checking, enforcing and monitoring financial assistance. The Government want the Bill to be simple, but they also want a comprehensive system for checking that it is working. I suggest there is a tension there, which we would like to know a bit about. We are left with a lot of unanswered questions about how any of this will work. Again, it goes back to the detail in the environmental land management document. As I said earlier, it is laced with good intentions but also many questions.
The Minister will doubtless say, “Well, we’ve got seven years to sort it out and it’s an iterative process,” and so forth. I suspect that, among hon. Members who are still in Parliament in seven years’ time, some might well look back and say, “Maybe people should have asked a few more questions.” To cover my back against that possibility—not that I necessarily assume that I will be here in seven years’ time—I am trying to shed some light on this issue.
Looking at the complex web of organisations involved in all these processes—the Environment Agency, Natural England, DEFRA itself and so on—it is fair to ask whose budget any financial assistance will come from. I imagine that argument is going on behind closed doors. Everyone can see there is a pot of money, and presumably everyone thinks they will be given the resources needed. As I have already hinted, there is a real danger that the pot of money will diminish if everyone gets the budget necessary to do what they want. It could be the poor old farmer, or the local rural area, that finds the money has gone somewhere else.
The Government need to tell us a bit more about their estimates of how much all this will cost. We have suggested a 5% cut, which is not an informed figure—we can come up with an informed figure only if we have much more information on what the Government are thinking. Our concern is that, in the first year, it would look as though there is some headroom from the 5% cut. One would imagine that setting up some of these things will be quite expensive in the first place. We can envisage a situation in which the 5% in the first year does not go towards environmental improvements at all.
I used to be a software programmer, and I know how well most computer systems work. People are filled with confidence and enthusiasm but things do not work out in quite the way imagined, not least because the poor people designing the systems have the same problem: if it is not clear what we are trying to do, we cannot always provide a system that fits. My point is that a lot of money might need to be spent upfront. [Interruption.] I thought the Minister was about to intervene and tell me the answer, but she is not.
We certainly need clarity, which goes back to another fairly basic philosophical point: in other policy areas, we are familiar with the difficulty of targeted schemes in one way or another. The argument about universalism versus means-testing, be it for the BBC licence fee or any of the welfare payments, is well rehearsed. We know there is a considerable overhead with running these kinds of schemes. That was part of the reason for the reforms to the CAP some years ago—people had got frustrated with the costs, overheads and bureaucracy.
To return to EU regulation 1307/2013, on direct payments to farmers, we want to make the system simpler. Everybody wants to make it simpler until it comes to designing the system. These things have a habit of growing, so we want to tie it down and get a commitment from the Government. I am not wedded to 5%—I would be very happy to hear a different suggestion—but that is our starting point.
Victoria Prentis
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we pledged to guarantee the current annual budget to farming in every year of this Parliament. I want to make it completely clear that that commitment is separate from the funding that the Government requires to administer future financial assistance schemes, which itself is determined through Government spending reviews—behind closed doors, as he puts it. To make it crystal clear, the running costs for DEFRA and the DEFRA group are considered separately from the payments made to beneficiaries. I hope that clears up one of his questions.
As we continue to develop the future schemes, we may find that we need to include some administration costs for third parties, such as those incurred to run farm clusters or other groups that bring together multiple farmers and land managers to provide some of the schemes envisaged in the hon. Gentleman’s favourite new document. At this stage, we are unwilling to lock ourselves into saying how much will be spent on administration and consultancy. It will vary enormously from scheme to scheme.
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make sure that we remain transparent about the costs of running our schemes, and I reassure him that we are dedicated to remaining open and honest about our proposals and their costs. The purpose of the ELM document that we have heard so much about today is to start the discussion and to seek input from farmers, foresters and other land managers in co-designing the policy, and to give a demonstration of the open and transparent way in which we are going to be designing the schemes.
Similarly, the new clause we introduced that commits us to publishing annual financial reports on scheme expenditure will enable the public to examine how much we are spending. Those reports could include a breakdown of administration and consultancy costs, if the Secretary of State so desires—I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions on that. The public, and Parliament acting on their behalf, have a right to expect that public funds will be used wisely and so we will, of course, be following the rules under the Treasury’s “Managing public money” guidance.
I reassure members of the Committee that we recognise and are committed to delivering value for our taxpayers. Indeed, that is partly why we wish to keep such flexibility —to ensure that financial assistance is always delivered in the most streamlined and efficient way. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister has given a welcome clarification. The obvious rejoinder is: where is the headroom in the DEFRA budget for these very ambitious plans? I suspect we will return to that question. I was just flicking through my favourite document, but unfortunately could not find the appropriate line. [Interruption.] I know; it is a shame. I am pretty sure that there is a suggestion somewhere in there that some of the money saved from basic payments could be used for some of this work. We can return to that point another day.
I am grateful for the Minister’s helpful response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 17, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, leave out
“or operated on behalf of”
and insert “by”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This drafting amendment is intended to clarify the exclusion of financial assistance schemes made by the Secretary of State from the definition of a third party scheme and also to achieve consistency with other references in the Bill to things done by the Secretary of State. As a matter of legal interpretation a reference to something done by the Secretary of State will pick up things done by others acting in the name of or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(5A) Financial assistance shall not be given for any act or activity in pursuit of a purpose under section 1 if the land on which that act or activity is to take place is to be used by the applicant, or by a person acting with the consent of the applicant, for hunting of a wild mammal with a dog, whether or not that hunting is exempt under section 2 of the Hunting Act 2004.”.
Amendments 49 and 50 would provide that no financial assistance can be given for land which is to be, or has been, used for hunting (including exempt hunting), or on which an offence has been committed under the Hunting Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 50, in clause 2, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(5A) Financial assistance shall not be given for a purpose under section 1 if land on which any act or activity is to take place in pursuance of that purpose is land on which—
(a) an offence has been committed under section 1, 3 or 5 of the Hunting Act 2004, or
(b) exempt hunting, within the meaning of section 2 of the Hunting Act 2004, has taken place since 18 February 2005.”.
Amendments 49 and 50 would provide that no financial assistance can be given for land which is to be, or has been, used for hunting (including exempt hunting), or on which an offence has been committed under the Hunting Act.
Ruth Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to amendments 49 and 50. Mindful of the Chair’s previous exhortations, I will not read out the amendments, but I remind colleagues that both amendments ensure that no financial assistance can be given for land that is to be or has been used for hunting, including exempt hunting, or on which an offence has been committed under the Hunting Act.
These are important amendments. I hope the Minister will think carefully about the need for us to show leadership and for this Parliament to pass legislation that is bold and strong and enshrines our values. Those values mean that I am especially pleased to speak to the amendments.
Colleagues on this side will not need to be reminded, but I want to reiterate to the Minister and her Back Benchers that Labour is the party of animal welfare. The Conservative party likes to talk about the last Labour Government—so do I: we should remember that, when in government, Labour brought forward the landmark and history-making Hunting Act 2004.
Mr Goodwill
Is the hon. Member talking about the most recent Labour Government or the actual last Labour Government?
Ruth Jones
I will pass on the semantics, but I thank the right hon. Gentleman.
The Conservative party has an appalling record on animal welfare in government. Announcements are often piecemeal, weak and kicked into the long grass when it comes to the advancement of animal welfare in every sense, including providing financial assistance for land on which hunting takes place.
Many colleagues have repeatedly raised concerns about the use of trail hunting as a cover for illegal hunting. The weight of evidence from independent monitors and non-governmental organisations shows that trail hunting is not a genuine activity. Indeed, a poll commissioned by the League Against Cruel Sports found that only one in six rural residents believes that hunting with dogs reflects countryside values; more than nine in 10 think that observing nature reflects true rural values.
The Bill needs to show that we care, that we will lead by example and that legislation made in this House is relevant and sensible. Wildlife crime continues to blight many of our rural and green spaces, and many animal species across the country. There can be little confidence on the Government Benches that wildlife crime is being tackled effectively when the National Wildlife Crime Unit now has only 12 members of staff: they are required to cover the entirety of its UK operations. We need to get our house in order, and provide adequate resources to ensure that we can enforce legislation.
I mentioned the successes of the last Labour Government.
Ruth Jones
I will. This month marked 15 years since hunting with dogs was banned in England and Wales—two years after a ban was introduced in Scotland by the then Labour-led Government of my noble Friend, Lord McConnell, through the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. The 2004 Act, which banned hunting in England and Wales, was a landmark moment in the fight against animal cruelty, but there is still much to do to end the scourge of fox, deer and hare hunting in the British countryside.
I am sure that Members from across the House will have received pleas from constituents of all ages during the election that we continue to make progress on measures to tackle animal cruelty. In my constituency, I received numerous pleas that we take the matter seriously. I would go so far as to say that people in Newport West care more about animals than they do about—no, that is not true. It could be construed as such, but obviously they care equally for animals and people.
There are still 299 hunts active across Britain. Frankly, the sheer scale of the problem is shocking. The loopholes are widely exploited, and exemptions in the law show that we need to strengthen the ban. We can do that by supporting the amendments. The Government need to crack down on illegal hunting, and they can do that by strengthening the Bill and supporting the amendments. There is no real space for people to excuse away the chasing and killing of foxes as a mere accident, and what possible scientific research could justify chasing deer with dogs for hours across miles of countryside, only to shoot them at the end?
As the system of agricultural support payments shifts towards payment for public goods, we must ensure that public money does not support a cruel sport that should have been consigned utterly to history long ago. It cannot be right for public money, designated to fund real public goods such as animal welfare, could end up being be paid to places where land is also used for hunting with dogs. The amendments would rule that out, and should be accepted by the Government. Landowners are an important link in the chain. Hunts need land to operate on, and the more they are denied it the less opportunity there will be to flout the law.
If we make every effort to remove the temptations and opportunities to hunt, we will be doing what we can to stop the illegal killing of innocent animals. That was recognised by the Labour group of Nottinghamshire County Council, which passed a motion calling for the end of hunting, including exempt hunting, on council-owned land. I pay tribute to colleagues on the council for their activism and campaigning, and for standing up for what is right. By preventing support payments being paid to landowners convicted of knowingly allowing illegal hunting to take place, which we can do by supporting the amendments, we will ensure that landowners think twice before allowing hunting on their land, and provide added impetus to police and law enforcement authorities to pursue charges when they suspect landowners to have broken the law.
I am pleased that the new Minister has been appointed. I genuinely look forward to working with her on the Bill and working with her in the months and years ahead. When I was preparing this speech, I visited her website to see her views on hunting and what she said when she was an enthusiastic and conscientious Back Bencher. Like all good pupils, I found some interesting material. Under a section called “Victoria’s views”, the now Minister, then Back Bencher, noted that some of her constituents would disagree with her support for the repeal of the Hunting Act 2004. I confess that that applies to me too.
The Minister also said that she believes that her support for the repeal of the Act does not mean that she has no regard for animal welfare. I say to her today that she should show us how much she cares by supporting these important amendments. She went on to say that,
“the Government should work closely with rural communities, animal welfare experts and lawyers”.
She is now part of the Government, so she can listen to the experts and support amendments that demonstrate our commitment to strong, secure and effective animal welfare policies.
Opposition Members are committed to ending the hunting of animals with dogs once and for all. The end goal is clear, but it requires us to be on our guard and alive to the new opportunities that may arise to continue the chasing and killing of animals. Amendments 49 and 50 would be an important step on the way to meeting our end goal. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will support them.
Mr Goodwill
Again, I worry about the unintended consequences of the amendments that have been put forward for understandable and, for a large section of the community, well-meaning reasons. The explanatory statements say that the amendments,
“would provide that no financial assistance can be given for land which is to be, or has been, used for hunting (including exempt hunting), or on which an offence has been committed under the Hunting Act.”
When one interrogates section 2 of the Hunting Act 2004 and the exemptions listed in schedule 1 to find out what is defined as exempt hunting, one reads that that includes flushing using no more than two dogs, so that animals such as rabbits can be shot. In many cases, it says, that can be done to protect the biological diversity of an area or to obtain meat for human consumption.
My key concern is that there is a long list under exempt hunting—I am not talking about trail hunting—including using just one dog, whereas the Act refers only to using more than two dogs. Amendment 49 talks about using “a dog”. The hon. Member for Newport West can correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have read, if a terrier has killed a rat on a farm at any time since 2004, that farm will be exempt from getting any agricultural support. I would hazard a guess that that would cover at least 95% of the farmland in this country, if not 100%.
When the hon. Lady talked about land, she was not specific about whether she meant the bit of land where the offence may or may not have taken place, the entire farm or the land in the ownership of that particular farmer or landowner, or whether the exemption still applies if the land is sold or the tenant who controls that land gives in the tenancy and it goes to a new tenant. My worry is that the amendments leave us with more questions than answers. If they are taken at face value—the Minister is a lawyer, so she is good at taking things at face value—and adopted, we could end up with maybe 100% of land in this country being exempt from getting any support at all.
Daniel Zeichner
I was rather anticipating that we would have a discussion about this issue. This is public money for public goods. We are trying to reflect what we believe is the strong view of the British public that they would not want public money to be used to support hunting. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should try to reflect the will of the people?
Mr Goodwill
I will take the other intervention, which I suspect may be on the same subject, before I reply to them both, if I may.
Alicia Kearns
If this legislation is meant to be pragmatic —if it is there to support farmers and ensure they act in the right way to steward our environment and our communities—should we not therefore be doing pragmatic things, rather than virtue signalling? We should recognise that cats have every right to hunt down mice if that is what they want to do, and therefore restricting what farmers can do in this way is neither sensible nor the place of legislation; rather, it is the place of press releases.
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which answers the shadow Minister’s point very well. He has talked about the will of the people: the will of the people was expressed on 12 December last year, when they elected a majority Conservative Government.
I conducted an extensive survey of my constituents prior to my election. We got about 20,000 replies to that questionnaire, which asked lots of questions, including one about hunting. The Whitby part of my constituency was about 60/40 in favour of hunting; in the Scarborough part, it was about 60/40 the other way. I went to a primary school not long before the election, and as we all do when we visit schools, I talked about the issues that the children wanted to talk about. Hunting did come up, and one child who came from a farming family made it very clear that she took a dim view of foxes, and the fact that they had been in her family’s hen coop and were taking newborn lambs. She underlined the need to control foxes.
We are not revisiting the hunting legislation in this Committee; rather, we are looking at what the practical implications would be if this amendment were on the face of the Bill, with its provisions being retrospective and applicable to exempt activities such as one dog killing one rat or two dogs being used to flush a rabbit to be shot. If those exemptions were removed, almost every farm in the country would be covered by that retrospective application.
Daniel Zeichner
I fully accept that we can always improve the drafting. What I am trying to get at is whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that public money—taxpayers’ money—should be supporting hunting, in whatever form. We are trying to get at that to build on the landmark legislation that has been so popular. As we know, the Government are fairly reluctant to get back into this debate.
Mr Goodwill
My first point is that if the hon. Member for Newport West had drafted the amendment herself, she might have looked in a bit more detail at what schedule 1 of the Hunting Act 2004 actually says and what exemptions should be referred to, rather than making a general reference to exempt practices. We all rely on pressure groups and lobby groups to help with our work, but taking things at face value is not always the best way forward. Secondly, the objective of the Bill is not to support people killing rats with terriers, or people conducting legal activity within the context of the Hunting Act; it is to support our agricultural industry in a way that also achieves the green environmental objectives that we all want to meet.
The hon. Member for Cambridge will not be surprised to hear that I will not be supporting these amendments. Whether or not Members agree with hunting is almost beside the point, because the amendments are drafted in such a way as to destroy the objective of the Bill, which is to give support to farmers, particularly in some of the most challenging parts of our country—those areas where farming is most difficult to make economically attractive, where predation from foxes and rats are problems, and where other types of pest control need to be carried out. The exemptions within the Hunting Act exist to allow those legal activities to take place, and my guess is that using the amendments to take them out of that Act and make those farms exempt from support would take out nearly 100% of the farmland in the United Kingdom. Even farmers farming National Trust land where hunting is not allowed by the landlord will be carrying out rabbit and rat control, which is one of the exemptions that the hon. Member for Newport West is seeking to bring back in.
Victoria Prentis
Environmental land management will, as we said earlier, be most successful if the highest number of participants are enabled to join in. As my right hon. Friend has just made clear, I fear this amendment would limit uptake of our exciting new schemes, and therefore limit the environmental benefits that we all hope will flow from them. For example, under the suggested tiers 2 and 3 it will be vital for farmers and land managers to work together across a wide area, to deliver the environmental benefits we hope for, such as improving the status of habitats. Excluding some land from being eligible could prevent us from delivering those benefits.
I am concerned that the amendment might penalise legal activities. For example, exempt hunting is, by its nature, exempt from the Hunting Act 2004, and is a legal activity with clearly defined restrictions. No one should be penalised or have financial assistance withheld for carrying out or allowing lawful activities on their land.
Amendment 50 concerned me because it would exempt from financial assistance those on whose land hunting had been carried out without their knowledge. For example, hare coursing, which many hon. Members will have had difficulty with in their constituencies, is an offence under the Hunting Act, and is often undertaken without landowner or land manager consent, often by illegal trespassers.
I am also concerned that exempting land that has been used for hunting since February 2005, as my right hon. Friend said, including legal hunting activities, could mean that we are exempting financial assistance from being awarded to lawful landowners or managers, who had no control over what had happened on that land previously.
I hope I have made clear the difficulties in seeking to restrict financial assistance in such a way. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank hon. Members for their interventions and the Minister for her comments. I thank the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby for his advice about not taking things at face value. I promise him that I have spoken at length to farmers in my constituency about hunting, as well as pest control and vermin control, which are two very different things.
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the potential unintended consequences of the amendments. We are willing to work with others in this room to ensure that the amendments are drafted soundly and safely, but we wish to put forward the basic spirit of the amendments today. He has gone to extremes by suggesting that no landowner in the country would ever get any money again. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made the point about cats killing mice and rats. My cats killed mice and rats, but I am not seeking public money for public good. That is the difference.
Ruth Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that, but the point is, if one is not seeking public money for public good, it is not a problem.
We need to work together to ensure that these amendments come through. Everyone is aware of the pressure groups. There is the idea that hunting is a sport, and it has been taken up as a sport over hundreds of years. We, as a civilised society, should look to close that down. We have no problem with controlling vermin. The right hon. Gentleman made the point about foxes, which I completely understand, having had friends who have had chickens decimated by foxes, which, as he knows, do not eat them, but leave them.
We have no problems with controlling pests and vermin, but hunting is a massive game in the countryside and people do not want to see animals being put through this insecure and frightening sport. The evidence of the unintended consequences of hunting is clear: cats and dogs are killed as a result of trail hunting. It is important that we mitigate to stop that. While we are happy to work together on the wording of these amendments, it is important that we work together to ensure they are accepted. The spirit of them is very clear and I hope the Government will accept that.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I have not had any notice that the Opposition want to press amendments 50, 45, 64, 46 and 5. Is that correct?
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 18—Financial assistance: duty to provide advice—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to secure the provision of training, guidance and advice to persons receiving financial assistance under this Act, for the purpose of enabling those persons to deliver the purpose or purposes for which the financial assistance is given.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision for advice on matters which include but are not limited to—
(a) the impact of any practice upon the environment,
(b) business management, including the development of business plans,
(c) the health and welfare of livestock,
(d) the safety and health of workers in any agricultural sector,
(e) innovation, including alternative methods of pest, disease and weed control,
(f) food safety, insofar as it relates to the production of food or any activity in, or in close connection with, an agri-food supply chain,
(g) the operation of any mechanism for applying for, or receiving, financial assistance under this Act, and
(h) marketing of any product falling within an agricultural sector under Schedule 1.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision for training, guidance and advice to be made available to persons receiving financial assistance.
New clause 23—Consultation on financial assistance schemes and multi-annual financial assistance plans—
“(1) Prior to framing any financial assistance scheme under section 1 or to preparing a multi-annual financial assistance plan under section 4, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on the design of the scheme and how it relates to the Government’s strategic priorities for giving financial assistance.
(2) In the consultation under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) such persons, or representatives of such persons, as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of interests substantially affected by the scheme,
(b) such persons, or representatives of such persons, as appear to the Secretary of State likely to apply for financial assistance,
(c) any relevant authority under section [Consultation on giving of financial assistance],
(d) such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
New clause 24—Consultation on giving of financial assistance—
“(1) Financial assistance under section 1 may only be given to a person following consultation with—
(a) the relevant authority under subsection (3) for the area in which land for which financial assistance being claimed is situated,
(b) the owner, or representative of an owner, of any land adjacent to that for which financial assistance is being claimed,
(c) any water undertaker under section 6 of the Water Industry Act 1991 whose area includes land for which financial assistance is being claimed,
(d) such persons, or representatives of such persons, as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of interests substantially affected by the giving of the financial assistance,
(e) such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) The consultation under subsection (1) may seek views on—
(a) the amount of financial assistance to be given to a person,
(b) the purposes for which a person is to be given the financial assistance,
(c) the outcomes which the person in receipt of financial assistance should be expected to deliver, and
(d) the potential for giving financial assistance in connection with a third party scheme under section 2(5).
(3) For the purposes of this section and section [Consultation on financial assistance schemes and multi-annual financial assistance plans], a “relevant authority” is—
(a) a parish council, or
(b) where there is not a parish council—
(i) a principal authority in an area with a single tier of local government as defined by section 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, or
(ii) a district council or London Borough Council in an area other than in subsection (3)(b)(i).”
Victoria Prentis
Clause 2 establishes certain aspects of how financial assistance provided under chapter 1 may be administered. It provides for funding to be subject to conditions and makes it clear that funding may include conditions under which it can be recovered. We recognise that the expertise of individuals outside Government can play an important role in delivery. For that reason, the clause allows financial assistance to be given to those who operate their own schemes and enables the Secretary of State to delegate functions in relation to giving financial assistance. To ensure transparency, the clause also creates a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to require the publication of information about payments.
Turning to new clause 18, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the types of support that we will look to offer those in receipt of financial assistance under clause 1. This is an important topic.
We recognise that there must be an effective advisory service to support ELM and other schemes established under clause 1. In the discussion document, about which we have heard so much, we have invited contributions on key topics, including on advice and guidance, and some of our tests and trials are focused on this area. For ELM, the tier that farmers, foresters or other land managers take part in could affect the type of advice that they need. For example, some may need advice at the scheme application stage; others may need help and support in planning their interventions. How much advice and guidance they require may change, depending on their level of experience. Therefore, the advice and guidance framework for ELM will be flexible and able to adapt to the specific requirements of the participants and the outcomes that they are seeking to deliver. The new clause would restrict that necessary flexibility.
We are considering a range of approaches for delivering the advice—for example, one-to-one advice and support direct to land managers. That could include, as we have discussed, agronomists visiting farms to give specialist advice. We are also considering group training, telephone and online support, and peer-to-peer learning.
We are still exploring different mechanisms for providing advice for all our schemes, but we would not want to lock ourselves into providing advice that may become out of date in the future and we are keen to retain sufficient flexibility to adapt how we provide advice as we continue to learn. We want to break away from the common agricultural policy’s rigid and inflexible approach. We are firmly committed to offering a range of supportive measures to ensure that our farmers and land managers will have access to good-quality advice, guidance and training.
I come now to new clause 23. We recognise the importance of engaging with farmers, foresters and other land managers as we start to implement our reforms. Consultation and co-design are at the heart of what we will do. We have extensive plans for, and a track record of, working with industry, experts and other interested parties.
The Department published our consultation on proposed reforms to farming in February 2018 and received more than 40,000 responses, each of which was read and considered. We can see the effects of that consultation throughout the policy document that we produced earlier this week. We will also consult on the detailed ELM scheme design after the pilot has started. That consultation will build on what we have learned from the tests and trials, as well as the national pilot, and will help us to refine and finalise our scheme design before the launch of the full scheme in 2024. These activities, I hope, will do exactly what new clause 23 seeks to achieve. We will also seek additional views and opinions from farmers, foresters, land managers and other interested parties through various special events and roundtables held throughout the country.
New clause 24 would require us to consult in an inflexible manner before giving financial assistance. Requiring the Government to consult neighbouring landowners and local authorities before any payment is made could prove problematic and introduce significant extra administration and delay into the system. For example, in the case of our animal health schemes, there are around 67,000 registered livestock holdings alone. While we would not make payments to all these, consulting on every payment to a small proportion could make the delivery of the scheme burdensome and possibly unworkable.
Daniel Zeichner
This goes to the heart of the problem. We do not know how many of these schemes will be administered. Until we know, it is very hard for us to comment.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman and I have had this discussion several times today already. Having new duties to consult, such as this, could result in unintended consequences, which I am keen to avoid. For example, if we need to respond to an emerging environmental issue, such as a novel disease or tree pest blight, having to consult widely on a new financial assistance scheme would make the grant less useful and effective.
Daniel Zeichner
This is both interesting and important. It again goes to the intended relationship between the tiers. Tier 3 schemes, at the catchment-area level, could have a big effect on the local landscape. Even if the Minister does not like our suggestion for tier 1—I see her point, if it would apply to large numbers—surely there is a case for tier 3.
Victoria Prentis
There will certainly be a case, with the wider tier 3 schemes, to involve more people, because the aim is to cross farm boundaries in order to provide a public good over a wider area. However, we do not want to tie ourselves to an inflexible consultation. Believe you me, I have been involved in DEFRA for under two weeks and I am amazed by the level of consultation with which DEFRA is prepared to engage. I really think that we do not want to tie ourselves to inflexible amounts of consultation, or consultations of the type that do not enable us to react quickly when needed. Responding in a timely manner may be important, such as when dealing with a disease or blight to a particular plant. I am concerned that the new clause is too inflexible.
I agree that the new clauses raise important issues, but I think we should take a flexible but reasonable and proportionate approach to consultation, in line with the Cabinet Office consultation principles. Requiring engagement in legislation is not necessary or, indeed, appropriate, and could result in our going back to the difficult days of delays in payments, which we all worked so hard to get over.
The Government have proven our commitment to joint working and consultation repeatedly, and we intend to continue that. I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for Cambridge and the Committee that we will be taking appropriate action on engagement to ensure that financial assistance schemes are delivered in the best way possible. As such, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
Today’s discussions have been most illuminating and interesting and have shown the benefit of giving the proposals detailed scrutiny. To refer to my earlier comments, it would be so much easier with the detail before us. I think we are genuinely having a dialogue that explores some of the tensions and issues.
I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that there is a case for wider involvement. Earlier, she acknowledged that maybe tier 2 and certainly tier 3 had some similarities with some of the previous pillar 2 schemes. Those of us who have been involved in rural development over many years will be familiar with the European Union LEADER schemes. My understanding and recollection from when I was involved is that there was local authority involvement, and that is the bit I am worried is missing.
It does not seem to have come up in discussion much, but we are talking about public money being spent in rural, semi-rural and sometimes urban areas—my city of Cambridge has a farm—yet the bit that seems to be missing is the public voice, or even the voice of individual members of the local community. I get what the Minister is saying. I was a parish councillor. I started my glorious ascent many years ago on Dickleburgh parish council. As a district councillor, like many others, I used to regularly attend parish councils. In fact, my partner seemed to think that, as far as she was concerned, there was a parish council meeting for every night of the week. There are pros and cons for our parish councils.
My strong sense is that local councils are not party political, by and large. People there are absolutely motivated to ensure the best for their local communities. They are not always as representative as they should be, in my view—I do not think the farming community have to worry about that; in many cases they are well represented on those bodies—but they know their patch inside-out. I remember many discussions about gullies and culverts going long into the night. Sometimes it was hard to keep up. They know their local patch. If we are using public money for transformative schemes for local areas, I think these people have something to add.
I understand the tension with wanting to respond swiftly, but it is important that local communities are taken along in that, and I think there are dangers if they are not, frankly. It is not something that is easily resolved, but I hope that people will go away and think about some of that. To some extent, local councillors are an unused asset and an unused store of local knowledge. There are difficulties, because some of them might have conflicts of interest. In the end, the Minister’s suggestion that consultation is a bit slow and tedious—perhaps I am being unfair—is something we all struggle with, but that is what democracy is like. We are the country we are because we are prepared to spend that time having that discussion with people. I hope I have not misrepresented her.
Daniel Zeichner
Oh, I have. In which case, I withdraw that suggestion. I understand what the Minister is saying. She is trying to find a balance between an appropriate level of involvement without squandering the opportunity to act. I also have to say that a lot of the environmental goods we are talking about are not tackling an immediate crisis. In some cases, they are making long-term transformations, and it is important that local communities have their voice.
Going back to where I was going to start, I made it clear in my comments on a previous amendment that we are strongly committed to the advice-giving role. In fact, I just do not think that any of these things can be done without that offer of advice and help. On Tuesday, I did suggest that with slightly naive optimism. I am a naive optimist and perfectly up for that, some of this will be a bit more difficult than some of the policy papers suggest. We are asking people to change the way that many of them have operated for a very long time. The incentive we are giving them is basically a stick, by saying, “You are going to lose your money.” Some people respond positively to that, which is great—I am sure those are the farms that we are generally shown around.
3.30 pm
My recollection from my days as a district councillor in a very rural area is that there were also plenty of other farmers, and I am not sure that all of them will be quite so easy to work with. It will need advisers who have a whole range of skills, not just farming-related skills. In moving people from where they are now to where want them to be—this goes back to my earlier narrative, and we will probably pick this up when we debate the clause on delinking—there is a risk that a lot of people will just decide, “It’s not for me.” In fact, I have already heard people say that. That is another big decision we have to take and it could be the way we go, but is that we want to do? I am not convinced that it is.
We need to ensure that we have the resources now that the Minister has finally conceded that the budget will not come out of the moneys from direct payments. On one level, that is very welcome. Given that it is not particularly easy, however, it prompts questions about how much it will cost, where the money will come from, and whether we will have the skilled people to do it. I worry about smaller farms. Big farms, which have the resources and are used to dealing with the system, will probably be able to make the transformation. They might not all be enthusiastic, but they will be able to have a dialogue. I worry about smaller farmers, and I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that—going back to my earlier point—there might be a bigger plan. I wonder whether that plan includes smaller farmers in many parts of the country, because there is potentially a big social impact.
Looking back at the previous environmental schemes—which is one of the good bits of the document—the evidence clearly shows that having access to an adviser makes a big difference to their success. It is well worth providing advice to farmers on how they can meet environmental outcomes, navigate the often difficult paperwork—I suspect it is probably now done on a computer—and request money from these schemes, because such advice can help to address gaps in the skills, knowledge and motivation of farmers and land managers. It can help to build confidence, ultimately leading to better outcomes than for people who are not supported by advice. That is something we have heard from stakeholders and from witnesses in Committee.
We finally learnt from the aforementioned document—I think the Minister referred to it—that the Government are thankfully considering a range of different models for the provision of advice, including one-to-one support provided directly to land managers, group advice and training, telephone and online support, and facilitation of peer-to-peer learning. All of those are welcome, and we would strongly support them. It is also very welcome to read in the document that it is anticipated that there will be provision of extensive written information—I am sure we are delighted to hear that—both online and offline.
Daniel Zeichner
I will read it; I promise.
Guidance will be provided to everyone who participates in ELMS, including guidance on how to deliver the environmental outcomes that they will pay for. Having looked at the 139-page document on how to apply for the basic payment scheme, including the delightful colourful drawings of buffer strips and what a field looks like, I do not underestimate how complicated the previous system was. The challenge is to see whether it can be trimmed down. Based on previous experience in this country, it may be an ambitious hope, but I am sure that is where we all want to get to. As I said earlier, the difficulty is that we still do not really know how it will be paid for.
I want to pick up on an observation from the earlier discussion. A huge number of people would have been made ineligible by one of our previous amendments. There is nothing in the documents or the Bill to stop the entire budget going to one project, which it could do. It could be argued that that might be the most environmentally sustainable thing to do, but there lies the problem. The system being replaced is one under which people basically had almost an entitlement to public support by virtue of owning land—we were very critical of it, although if it had been applied properly and was subject to proper environmental improvement, there was a possibility to make it work—but we have no idea about the distribution of resources under the new framework. We do not even really know what the Government think would be a good outcome. Part of my worry about all this is that there is too much that we do not know.
Advice will need to be made available to farmers about a broad range of areas to incentivise take-up, which we hope to see, and to support them in delivering these environmental public goods. We will need really good information and explanations about why particular practices that people have perhaps been doing for a while are not approved of. We will need really good targeted help for people, with proposed innovations towards better animal welfare practices or alternative methods of pest, disease and weed control. We need clear guidelines on how the various financial assistance schemes work, and support with business management plans, to make the transition to ELMS work for each farming unit. I am still not clear about how we will make sure it is properly resourced and funded, or that we have sufficient people with the capacity to do this. To go back to the question of how many will be in tier 1, if advice is offered to all those people, that will be a big job. We will probably be pursuing the matter of how much that is likely to cost on another occasion through written questions.
If it is the Government’s intention to do all this, it would have been helpful to have a bit more detail in the Bill, rather than an ambitious but rather vague list of plans. That goes back to one of my themes: if we are trying to offer certainty to people in a time of change, we need a bit more than this.
With new clause 18, we propose including a requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide training guidance and advice to those receiving financial assistance to help to enable them to deliver the clause 1 public goods. I think we have outlined a decent range of activities. There are no restrictions on suggestions. The Minister says that it is too prescriptive, but she is free to add as many extra suggestions as she likes. That would be helpful. Given that the Government are clearly moving in this direction in general, I am sure the Minister would recognise the importance of sending a strong signal to farmers that the Government really are going to be there to support them. I hope that, on that basis, they will consider supporting that amendment.
New clause 23 says that, prior to framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on its design and consult the relevant authorities. I have already spoken about the potential role of parish councils. It does not have to be parishes, because there are areas that are not parished, but we want it to be the lowest tier of local government in order to ensure that the local community has a role. I have hinted that that must be the case for tier 3 and possibly for tier 2. Much depends upon how broad tier 1 actually is. On that basis, I support these new clauses, which I understand will be voted on later, Mr Stringer.
Victoria Prentis
No.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Multi-annual financial assistance plans
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 4, page 5, line 14, after “period” insert
“, and
(d) set out the budget for each financial assistance scheme under sub-paragraph (c)(i) or (c)(ii) for the duration of the plan period”.
This amendment and Amendments 38 and 39 provide that the Secretary of State’s multi-annual financial assistance plan must include a budget informed by the Office for Environmental Protection to be established by the Environment Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 38, in clause 4, page 5, line 38, at end insert—
“(9A) For each financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to any advice provided by the Office for Environmental Protection, after it is established, about the funding required to achieve the strategic objectives of financial assistance for the duration of the plan period.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 37.
Amendment 39, in clause 5, page 6, line 10, after “scheme,” insert—
“(aa) any opinion provided by the Office for Environmental Protection, after it is established, as to whether the financial assistance given was sufficient to meet the strategic objectives of the financial assistance,”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 37.
Ruth Jones
These important amendments call for the Secretary of State’s multi-annual financial assistance plan to include a budget informed by the Office for Environmental Protection, which is to be established by the Environment Bill.
The Environment Bill received its Second Reading yesterday and many important points were raised on the Floor of the House. They will receive their own scrutiny, and I will not touch on that legislation today—we certainly have enough to be going on with here. However, there are some important links to the Bill before us, particularly when it comes to the Office for Environmental Protection.
The fact that there are three big environmental Bills going through the two Houses at the same time shows that the Government have realised that they are running out of time to prepare for our ultimate departure from the European Union and that they need to get to grip with the challenges facing this important sector. They are running out of time to prepare our farmers, our farm workers and the agricultural sector more generally for the years ahead.
Our amendments call for the Office for Environmental Protection, for which the Environment Bill makes provision, to influence what Ministers do when it comes to the multi-annual financial assistance plan and the budget contained within it. We believe that the Office for Environmental Protection must be independent. It must be strong and it must be clear about its remit and the expectations upon it. It must push for higher standards, it must push for non-regression and it must push for measures to tackle the climate emergency. If it does those things, then it makes sense for the multi-annual budget to be informed by the scope, remit, strength and inspiration of the Office for Environmental Protection.
We hope that these probing amendments will encourage Ministers and Government Members to develop strong and clear mechanisms that make for long-term and organised funding structures. They are designed to fill the gap in the Bill’s proposal for multi-annual financial settlements. The Bill is silent on how the budget or funding envelopes are set in the first place. We have already had much discussion on that and I look forward to any clarification the Minister can give on those points.
Many stakeholders have raised concerns and called for clarity and further thinking on this point. Whatever proposals are finally agreed and provided for, let us be led by the facts and the experiences of those out there on the farms in our rural communities in all parts of the United Kingdom. That is why the amendments are so important.
The Opposition are giving voice to the concerns today, but it is not just we who are worried. Greener UK says that it wants to see a stronger and enhanced framework for long-term funding in the Bill, which will inspire confidence and demonstrate to the sector that the Government understand the pressure on it, and the need for us to support it wherever we can. The Nature Friendly Farming Network supports calls for greater certainty about long-term funding and notes the need for the Bill to be as strong and effective as possible. I say to the Minister that we should be listening to the experts. That is not just my view; it is the view of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He noted the other day that we need to listen to experts, and do you know what? I agree with him.
It is clear to me that the more certainty Members have and the more certainty the people out in our country have, the better. There are many people right now who are concerned that we do not have much certainty past 31 December 2020. Admittedly, there have been commitments to maintaining the current level of funding, but so far they are just commitments and they do not necessarily sit well with some of the comments and press coverage on payments to farmers that we saw in the weekend press. I am sure the Secretary of State would attest to the strength of feeling he encountered at his meeting this week.
Clarity, transparency and respect are going to be key now and into the future. Let us make it so and support these amendments today.
Victoria Prentis
It is always good to discuss funding for agriculture further. I begin with amendment 37. The Government faced a fair challenge from parliamentarians on the previous Agriculture Bill about the funding they were expecting to receive. The Government responded to that challenge and included what I am going to start calling the MAFA plan—the multi-annual financial assistance plan—in clause 4, which covers the seven-year agricultural transition period. This will describe the assistance schemes that are in operation or are expected to come into operation during that period.
Subsequent plans will run for at least five years, rather than seven, and the Secretary of State will have a duty to ensure that plans do not expire without a replacement in place, which is important. However, we recognise that the sector needs clarity on the budget, which is why we guaranteed the current cash total for each year of this Parliament, giving much-needed certainty for the next five years.
Daniel Zeichner
I welcome much of what the Minister says, but our concern and our reason for tabling the amendments is that, positive though her comments are, this is such a big change that we think it right and proper that there is more regular analysis of it, informed by the OEP. I fully understand why she does not want to rehearse the OEP discussion.
As I have said, our view is that the Bills have been introduced in the wrong order, which puts us at something of a disadvantage. However, if the prime, driving purpose of this legislation is to tackle the environmental crisis, as we think it should be, we do not think that the proposed structure—welcome though it is, and it is an improvement—quite matches that sense of urgency. I perhaps should have said more on this earlier. Seven years is a long time for a transition. While we understand why that is beneficial from the industry’s point of view, from my constituents’ point of view, some want it next week, frankly. People are pushing very hard. At the general election, my party committed to a much earlier net zero date, and we know that the NFU is pushing for a much earlier date than the Government’s. However, there is not that sense of urgency, which our amendments would help to bring forward.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West said, it is not only us saying this; many conservation organisations share our concerns and worries. Their worry is partly that a considerable sum of public money is available and, as I have alluded to before, we want to know how the prioritisation will work. Will it be done at a local or national level? The document that we have been referring to throughout the sitting hints at an issue about prioritisation.
I somewhat mischievously suggested that the money could all go to one scheme, but that is not actually impossible, which is why we want a structure where the Office for Environmental Protection could say, “This is where your big gains are going to come from. This is where you’re going to get the difference.” There is a tension, however, between what would get the best environmental gain, what is most effective, and what will, out there in the world, be perceived as fair in a transition phase from the current system to a new one. That is why we think our amendments would provide a better structure.
We understand that there is tension because the Department wants flexibility; I am sure that if we were running the Department, we would want the same. It is our job as the Opposition, however, to remind the Government that they voted to acknowledge the climate crisis and to try to hit net zero in 2050. In every piece of legislation that is brought forward, we want to see a real commitment to making that happen. We think the amendment would contribute to that.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her honesty about the current funding uncertainties and the issues. I appreciate that she has a massive job on. I am glad to be on this side of the room.
Ruth Jones
The Minister is quite right that there will be lots of new acronyms—OEP, MAFA—and we are frantically learning them, so she must bear with us. She is honest in the way that she has expressed her concerns.
We accept that there will be a lot of co-operation—hopefully—as the Bill progresses, because it is important that this is not about us and them. It is not adversarial; a lot of this should be consensual. We should work together to make sure that we get the best for the agriculture sector across the UK—in all four countries. We look forward to lots of probing questions not just from Opposition Members, but from hon. Members on both sides of the House. We look forward to developing and fully understanding the complexities and intricacies of the Bill. With that in mind, I thank the Minister for her comments and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Annual and other reports on amount of financial assistance given
The Chair
Two amendments to clause 5, amendments 39 and 47, have been debated. Do the Opposition wish to press either of them to a vote?
The Chair
If no, we move on to the clause stand part debate.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Annual assessment of funding for purposes—
(1) The Secretary of State must report on financial assistance for each purpose listed in section 1.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must be made for each financial year and must be laid before both Houses of Parliament no later than 31 October in the financial year following the financial year to which the report relates.
(3) The first report shall be made by 31 October 2021 and shall relate to financial assistance in the 2020-21 financial year.
(4) A report under this section must record, on the basis of best data available—
(a) the total sum of financial assistance for each purpose in section 1,
(b) the source of any element of financial assistance under subparagraph (a) which comes from public funds, and
(c) the sums from each source under subparagraph (b).
(5) The Secretary of State must include in each report under this section—
(a) a statement of their opinion on whether any sum recorded under subsection (4)(a) is sufficient to meet their policy objectives in relation to each purpose; and (b) a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions if, in their opinion, a sum recorded under subsection (4)(a) was not sufficient to meet their policy objectives in relation to a purpose.
(6) For the purposes of this section, “financial assistance” means financial assistance either allocated or given in any form listed in section 2(1).
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report annually on the financial assistance given or allocated to each of the purposes of the Bill, on its sufficiency to meet policy objectives and on the Secretary of State’s intentions if in their opinion funding for any purpose was not sufficient.
Victoria Prentis
Clause 5 places a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare a report each financial year, which I have spoken about extensively already. The report will detail the financial assistance given under clause 1. The financial reporting provisions seek to provide greater transparency and certainty about the amount of public funding allocated under clause 1. That includes information on the extent to which the financial assistance meets any obligations or commitments under the terms of each scheme.
Mr Stringer, perhaps you can guide me. Should I turn to new clause 2 now?
Victoria Prentis
Thank you, Mr Stringer. I am so sorry to have to keep checking such matters.
Turning to new clause 2, the introduction of the multi-annual financial assistance plans has been welcomed by agricultural stakeholders, including the National Farmers Union. Clauses 4 to 6 will ensure that public stakeholders and parliamentarians have plenty of opportunities to scrutinise the Government’s spending on agriculture, as well as the impact of that spending. Were the new clause to succeed, Ministers would have to return each year to report on every purpose under clause 1. That could have the perverse outcome of schemes being designed to meet the report, rather than activities achieving outcomes in the best way.
Instead, our approach will ensure that we look to meet the outcomes in the most beneficial way—for example, by planting trees, the positive environmental effects of which may not show up for many annual reports but would be felt over a much longer period. We recognise that farms and land managers need certainty over future funding arrangements. That is why we have committed to a seven-year transition, starting in 2021, and have introduced a legal requirement to set out our strategic priorities for the transition period before the end of the year. We have also pledged to continue to commit the same cash total that is currently spent for each year of the Parliament.
I recognise the need for certainty, and it is right that the general public should be able to scrutinise our spending; however, the Bill already gives plenty of opportunity to do that. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West not to press the new clause.
Ruth Jones
I am pleased to speak to new clause 2, which would require the Secretary of State to report annually on the financial assistance given or allocated to each of the purposes of the Bill, on its sufficiency to meet policy objectives, and on the Secretary of State’s intentions if, in their opinion, funding for any purpose was not sufficient.
This is an important part of our deliberations, because it is about how we ensure that funding for each public good is adequate and effective. We accept that the Government have a majority in the House, so we must ensure that whatever system they design will work for our farmers, planters, growers and all the livelihoods and communities dependent on a thriving and well-funded agricultural sector. The new clause is about certainty and predictability, ensuring that the Bill provides for a sustainable, effective and transparent funding structure that helps rather than hinders this important sector in our economy.
There is a degree of understanding that no Government can say how much money there will be and where it will come from, but we can have a mechanism that can be reviewed every year. In fact, the system should be reviewed every year, too. Now that austerity is supposedly over, the Government could say to our farmers that money will be available to do all the wonderful things that they promised them during the referendum. That is why it is so important that the new clause is added to the Bill.
If the Minister does not accept the approach set out in new clause 2, what approach will the Government take to providing clarity, to ensure that there is a transparent and genuine approach to funding, and maintaining a detailed annual update on the state of play? I recognise that times will change, and in the future a new Minister will sit on the Treasury Bench. There will be a new Prime Minister at some point, too. I know that the Government cannot commit to money that future Governments will spend, but the Minister can commit to the mechanism. We ask the Government to look closely at the new clause, and we hope that they listen to us, and all those crying out for clarity and common sense.
We have already learned that the British Government spent about £3 billion on the common agricultural policy in recent years, as members of the European Union. We are now starting the process of leaving the European Union, and are sitting in a transition period. I worry that the period will run out far sooner than the Government realise, especially given the announcement about the forthcoming talks concluding this June. We are now on the outside, and those funds can be diverted to delivering public goods to improve the quality of our soils and water; protect, maintain and enhance the natural beauty of our landscapes in all parts of the United Kingdom; and tackle the climate emergency and protect vulnerable communities and industries from the most brutal and deadly effects of climate change. The storms in the past couple of weeks are a very clear example of that.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady refers to the EU budget. May I ask her how many times in the past 20 years it has actually been signed off?
Ruth Jones
Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman has far more technical knowledge than I do on the subject. I will not give a figure for fear of its being wrong. I accept that he has a lot more information. All I would say is that we were actually at the table and were part of discussions. We were not excluded; we were very much included. Even Margaret Thatcher agreed that we were part of those discussions, so I accept that.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, but I cannot resist joining battle with the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who refers to an old canard about the European Union. Of course we all wanted the auditing to work better, but are we so sure that it works so well here? If he is confident that it does, he would support the amendment, which is an opportunity for us to show that we can do it so much better. I invite him to join us today.
The Chair
Order. We are straying some way from clause 5 and new clause 2, so I ask the hon. Lady to come back to them.
Ruth Jones
Thank you for your valuable advice, Mr Stringer. I intend to get back to the subject, without the sparring, which would be very interesting.
Our farmers deserve a funding and reporting system that they can understand and is fit for purpose. In fact, they deserve to have a system in place, full stop. Farmers across Wales, Northern Ireland, England and Scotland are very worried indeed. They have let us know in no uncertain terms exactly how concerned they are, and I share their worries. If a mechanism for reporting annually is not in place, a future Government of whatever colour or persuasion could in effect just say, “Well, there isn’t enough money, so we are making large cuts, including to all those wonderful schemes we talked about and told you we would keep.”
I say this to the Minister. This is a time not for empty words or—dare I say it?—hot air, but for common sense and for the Government to recognise that they have a responsibility to farmers and farm workers across our country. That is why new clause 2 should form part of the Bill, and I hope Members from across the House will reflect, consider and give their support to it.
Daniel Zeichner
My apologies, Mr Stringer, for straying slightly from the detail of the amendment. This is an important amendment, because it says that the public should be able to go through the list of extremely good aspirations in clause 1, on which there has been no disagreement, and see how much money has been allocated to each of those categories, including managing land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment—I will not go through the whole list. That begins to make it real for people. It is fair to say that it was pretty hard to see how the money that they were putting into the European Union was being spent.
This is a great opportunity for the Government. Imagine the Secretary of State or the Minister being able to stand up next year and say, “For each of these categories, this amount has been spent.” The Opposition will be able to do the opposite: we will be able to point to subsection (1)(f) and say, “Actually, it appears that no money at all has been allocated to protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock.” The goal is to make it simpler and more immediate, like the excellent moves made some years ago by, I think, Lord Whitty to get some transparency about how the money was spent through the CAP in the first place. That transparency allows any of us to look through the statistics on the DEFRA website and see just how much money is being allocated locally and to which organisations, and I am sure some of us have done so.
David Cameron always said that sunshine was the way to throw light on something—to open it up and make it more transparent. I should have thought that the Government would be keen to do so and trumpet their achievements in that way. However, it appears that we are still lost in this slightly opaque, internal world of money effectively being allocated behind closed doors. This amendment opens that world up, gives people the opportunity to ask questions, and gives the Government the opportunity to trumpet their achievement. I cannot for the life of me understand why they do not want to do that—other than that, of course, it is never what Governments do.
Victoria Prentis
No.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
The agricultural transition period for England and the termination of relevant payments
Mr Goodwill
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 8, page 8, line 5, after “extending” insert
“or pausing the transition process and”.
It is my pleasure to move this amendment, although I am hopeful that the Minister will be able to satisfy me that it is superfluous. As we have already heard, the Government’s plan is to switch over from the basic payment scheme, which pays farmers for being farmers, to a system of environmental land management that pays farmers for delivering public goods. That will be a seven-year graduated transition, which I hope will be smooth and go according to plan.
However, clause 8(3) allows a degree of flexibility if things do not go entirely according to plan. There are a number of reasons why that might happen—some within the Government’s control and some beyond their control. We have heard that the environmental land management pilots will be concluded by 2024. We have been slow getting started with those—partly because of the parliamentary inertia over the past three and a half years; I will not suggest who might be to blame for some of that—but we are now in a position where we can move forward. The British people have given us a majority and our marching orders, which are for a quick march towards the ambition of delivering these objectives for our farmers.
We may not have all the evidence we need to fully develop and deliver every aspect of environmental land management at the time we hope to start doing so. Therefore, this amendment will allow us to not waste public money on a scheme that has not been fully proven with the evidence, including scientific advice and ecological evidence, that we need. There may be some administrative glitches in the introduction of the new system; Governments do not have a good track record of delivering big IT systems on time—or, indeed, on budget. There may also be external factors relating to weather or disease and the impact they may have on farming, so it makes sense to have the flexibility that clause 8 allows for.
I hope the Minister can give me some clarity about how this may work in practice. If the process is to be extended and the seven-year transition ends up being, for example, a nine-year transition, will that take place in nine equal steps, or will we be able to—as my amendment allows for—pause the transition and start a little bit later? Could we stop the clock on the transition from BPS to ELM, and then resume after a one-year or two-year pause? I am sure that the Minister will be able to reassure me that that is perhaps not intended but allowed within the flexibility of the clause without my amendment. However, the reassurance would be very helpful to me, because I suspect that the existence of the clause in the Bill just might have something to do with the time that I spent at DEFRA last year.
Daniel Zeichner
I certainly would not want to intrude on a private argument on the Government side, but our view is that this is symptomatic of the problem of just how slow the process has been in coming forward. We have before us, of course, a Bill that has been delayed. The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby made suggestions as to where the responsibility might lie, and we can all argue about that one. I suggest that there would have been a simple solution, but I am sure that he would not agree. The trouble is that a huge number of questions are left unanswered, as we have been highlighting throughout the day, and the suggestion that there might be further delay is cause for great concern.
It is worth highlighting what the National Farmers Union says:
“The NFU believes that with less than a year to go, time is rapidly running out for the government to have all of the necessary legislation and implementation decisions and process in place for this timescale. There are still many aspects of the transition and the successor future farming support policy which remain unclear and the concern is that there will be a ‘gap’ before alternative and effective schemes are in place and the start of the phasing out.”
As I think has become apparent in this Committee, we very much share those doubts: we have been talking about the reasons pretty much all day. We understand how ambitious many of the things that the Government are trying to do are. In the document to which we have been referring for much of the day, there are timelines, although I have to say that they are a bit like Mr Barnier’s account of the trade position of various countries. The timelines are not entirely clear in terms of where we are likely to be at a particular point.
We would be worried about a further pause, because as I have said we just cannot afford it. We are in a climate and ecological emergency. There is no pause button there. The Bill has already been delayed. If we are to reach net zero more quickly than 2050—my suspicion is that the Government would like to do so, although that date is what they are committed to—we will have to move more quickly, so any pause or delay to a more sustainable and environmentally supportive system of land management is disappointing.
We recognise the delicate balance, because if what we are discussing proves as difficult as I am suggesting it might be, there is then a dilemma for the Government. One of the gaps in the explanations today has been about the period, probably post 2024, as we go through the next part. It is one thing to do tests and trials and then to move to a national pilot, but to then move it on to a national scale is challenging, for many of the reasons to which I have referred.
We would want to go more quickly—[Interruption.] The Minister enjoys the fact that I am in the privileged position of being able to say that in opposition, but basically this entire institution should be bending itself, at every opportunity, to find ways of moving more quickly to challenge the climate crisis. That is what we would be doing.
The Bill needs to be stronger and quicker. We need the clearer targets. I am therefore inclined not to support the amendment. I think the message that needs to go out after today’s discussions is that we need much more clarity, and providing more clarity would actually help the Government to achieve what we all want, which is to move to a new system more quickly and more efficiently and ensure that it works for all those in rural communities.
Victoria Prentis
Yes, speed is important, but so are certainty and good government. I know that many people in this room will agree with me that direct payments are poor value for money and untargeted and can and have inhibited productivity and environmental improvement in the past. We have therefore been clear in our intention to phase out direct payments in England. We know that farmers need certainty. That is why we have been clear about the length of the agricultural transition. As has been rehearsed many times today, we are pressing ahead with plans for our ELM scheme.
In the meantime, a simplified countryside stewardship scheme will continue to provide funding for farmers, woodland owners, foresters and land managers.
Victoria Prentis
I can anticipate what the hon. Gentleman will ask. It will be a domestic grant scheme with a more transparent administration process and regulation and enforcement regime, to encourage more applicants and simplify the application and payment process. It is designed to enable a smooth and efficient transition for land managers from CAP payments to ELM payments.
I also reassure hon. Members that phased reductions to direct payments during the transition period will be set in regulations under the powers in clause 11 for payments under the basic payment scheme and in clause 12 for delinked payments. There is no obligation in the Bill for reductions in every year of the transition. We have allowed for flexibility, as I have explained.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who was a great Minister in this role and has been enormously helpful to me during my speedy learning process as I have tried to get ready to take this Bill through Committee. I reassure him that if there are unforeseen exceptional conditions, such as those that he outlined earlier, that would have an adverse impact on farmers, clause 8 already contains the power to extend the transition period, if necessary. There is no need to make a decision now. There is sufficient flexibility in the Bill—we can make a decision later if necessary. But his point has been heard.
In conclusion, I hope I have demonstrated that the seven-year transition period set out in the Bill provides farmers with certainty and enough time to adapt to life without direct payments.
Daniel Zeichner
On this point, the Minister did not quite anticipate me. On the question of what happens when, I think I heard the Minister say that there is no guarantee that there will be further cuts to direct payments in any particular year. Surely there is a danger of our reaching a point where there will be a dramatic change. Things could be gently phased, but if this is not done in the first few years and we try to get to 100% in seven years’ time, the maths is obvious. There is a real risk here. If it is all backloaded, people will face a dramatic cliff edge at some point. Surely we want to smooth things out.
Victoria Prentis
That is why we are going slowly, or relatively slowly. That is why we have a seven-year transition period. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the back page of his favourite document and the policy document published on Tuesday, which gives an indication of the likely timeline. It is important that we retain some flexibility.
We have included in the Bill the ability to set reductions at an appropriate rate during the transition and, if circumstances deem it necessary, to extend the transition. I ask my right hon. Friend to withdraw amendment 9.
Mr Goodwill
I am conscious that I have broken my golden rule of not intruding on my successor’s policy areas for at least 12 months after leaving a Department, but we must thank the usual channels for the fact that I am here and able to participate.
I thought it a little ironic for the Opposition to be criticising us for the delay, given that they are, by and large, the architect of that delay—together with some of my former colleagues, who have sadly departed this parish following the general election. I have heard the Minister’s comments. I do not think my amendment will be necessary to maintain the flexibility I wish to see. She has reassured me in that regard.
The Minister has also underlined the fact that we already have very good stewardship schemes in operation, so it is not a case of having to wait for better environmental objectives to be met: we already have schemes in place that are delivering on a day-to-day basis. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Agriculture Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd March 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 March 2020 - (3 Mar 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we continue with line-by-line consideration of the Bill, I remind Members to switch off electronic devices or put them on silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Power to modify legislation governing the basic payment scheme
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Stringer. Clause 9 provides the Secretary of State with the power to modify, for England, the legislation governing the basic payments scheme, which includes the greening and young farmer payments. We will remove the unnecessary bureaucracy. From the responses to the extensive consultation that the Department undertook in 2018, and further consultation with stakeholders, we think that that will be welcomed by farmers up and down the country.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to continue our discussion with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I want some clarification from the Minister. The clause is obviously quite apposite, as it will give the Government powers to simplify the system, and it is topical, given that the three-crop rule is controversial and unpopular, and something on which many farmers would like urgent action.
Farmers Weekly reported that Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers Union, said at its conference last week that farmers were hugely frustrated:
“We have left the EU, half the country is under water and…we are still going to abide by the three-crop rule and process thousands of force majeure applications. It just seems absolutely extraordinary.”
The Secretary of State explained the complex situation we find ourselves in, but I ask the Minister to explain why we cannot move more quickly, given that we have now left the European Union.
Victoria Prentis
The situation is under consideration, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for the Department to consider the matter further. Farmers are undoubtedly suffering because of flooding in their fields and concerned about whether they will be able to plant their crops. There are, for them, many other mechanisms for asking—whether by force majeure or otherwise—for the three-crop rule not to apply.
The position is under active consideration and I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman outside the confines of the Agriculture Bill, which refers to future payments—so probably this is not the place to be having the conversation. I want him to be clear that the Department is looking carefully at the next steps for this year.
As to future years, it might help if I say that we intend to make some minor simplifications in 2020 on greening payments, if I can use that terminology, using our existing powers. We intend to simplify the penalties for small overclaims of land, for example. We are also removing some of the paperwork connected to the young farmers scheme, which I think will be widely welcomed. We plan to introduce further simplifications for the 2021 scheme, such as removing some of, or possibly all, the greening rules, so watch this space.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Power to provide for phasing out direct payments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to apply reductions to farmers’ payments under the basic payment scheme in England so that we can phase them out. We plan to start reducing payments in 2021. Clause 11 concerns reductions to be applied to direct payments under the basic payment scheme; de-linked payments are dealt with in clause 12.
We will apply the reductions fairly, with higher reductions initially applied to amounts in higher payment bands. All farmers will face some reductions from the start of the transition. That reflects strong calls from industry stakeholders and many farmers for the reduction to be shared across the sector.
We have set out the maximum reductions that we intend to apply in 2021. We will set the reduction percentages for subsequent years taking account of our detailed plans for future schemes—which, as we have rehearsed many times, we do not yet have—and the wider perspective of Government spending. I reassure the Committee that regulations setting out the reductions will be made using the affirmative procedure, so there will be an opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise and debate them carefully.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for that explanation. We had quite a discussion of some of these issues last week. Unfortunately, it appears that there is a second policy paper, which I am not sure every Committee member was entirely aware of last week. The Minister will be delighted to know that it is my new favourite document.
Daniel Zeichner
But before people start applying cold compresses to their heads, I assure the Committee that I will not subject that document to detailed scrutiny. Some of it would have been helpful in our discussions last week, but it is as it is.
The document, which is entitled “Farming for the future: Policy and progress update”, sets out at page 36 the approach that is going to be taken to phasing out direct payments. As the Minister said, the reduction will be 5% for payments up to £30,000, and so on up to 25% for payments of £150,000 or more, so there will be significant reductions.
I have a genuine question, which I would like to explore. It is not clear to me what constitutes a payment in this sense. Can one simply look at recipients? The database shows that some recipients get a £1 million payment. Do these figures apply to that amount or to all the smaller payments that go to make it up? There would be a significant difference between the two.
I sought advice from one or two people, who were also puzzled, so I do not necessarily expect the Minister to know the answer this minute. However, it seems to me that it makes a huge difference, both to the people who receive payments and to the amount of money available in the system. If we cannot get an immediate answer, perhaps we can come back to that point later in the day, because it is key to the discussion.
Victoria Prentis
I hesitate to behave like a lawyer, but it seems to me that what is specified under subsection (2) is the power to reduce basic payment scheme payments and, of course, any regulations made in the past under the basic payment scheme. I hope that is a sufficient answer for the hon. Gentleman. If not, perhaps we can take the conversation offline and I can talk him through what is planned. I accept that this is difficult. One of the problems with the common agricultural policy is that it has been accused of being not very transparent and difficult to manage, and it has different pillars, but I assure him that we are talking about BPS payments.
Daniel Zeichner
I understand the difficulty, but I think this is a pretty important point. This is a framework Bill, but people are looking for certainty over the next couple of years and will want to know how much they stand to lose. There could be a huge difference, depending on how the figure is calculated. Someone in the Department must know the answer to that question. I am not necessarily expecting it this minute, but it is important that we find it out.
Victoria Prentis
I am reassured by the departmental staff present that the reductions will be applied to the total basic payment, including the greening and young farmer allowance. That is my understanding of the scheme and I hope that is sufficient for the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that I fully understand his question, so this is possibly not the most productive place to have this conversation. We could discuss the matter on our own or exchange letters, if he is still confused.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Power to make delinked payments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to enable de-linked payments to be introduced in England for the remainder of the transition period. De-linked payments will remove the requirement to farm land. Once introduced, de-linked payments will replace the basic payment scheme for all farmers in England.
De-linked payments benefit from further simplification during the agricultural transition period. Farmers can access payments for the remainder of the transition without the bureaucracy of the basic payment scheme. Instead, farmers will have maximum flexibility to plan for the future, choosing to spend the money as best suits their circumstances. That should help those who wish to retire to do so, freeing up land for new entrants.
The clause allows us to introduce de-linked payments from 2022 at the earliest. Alternative enforcement mechanisms will be introduced before direct payments are de-linked, so that we can maintain agricultural and environmental best practice.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Power to provide for lump sum payments in lieu of relevant payments
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 13, page 11, line 8, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) Regulations under this section shall make provision for circumstances in which an eligible person may receive a lump sum under this section.
(4A) The circumstances under subsection (4) shall include a commitment by the eligible person to use the lump sum to—
(a) make a change or changes to practice in managing land in such a way as to deliver one or more of the purposes under section 1(1) or 1(2); or
(b) make land available to other persons or bodies who undertake to manage the land in such a way as to deliver one or more of the purposes under section 1(1) or 1(2).”
Before making my comments on the amendment, I would like to point out that I am not confused about the previous issue; the Government are the ones who have the confusion. We will seek that out, I am sure.
Daniel Zeichner
We will do that.
Turning to clause 13, de-linking is significant for our farmers and there is a worry around it. The House of Commons Library briefing talks about the effect and the responses to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs summary last year. A lot of respondents felt this was a less popular option than retaining and simplifying the existing scheme. More significantly, the DEFRA evidence and analysis paper, “Agriculture Bill: Analysis and Economic Rationales for Government Intervention”, says:
“Most farm businesses will be able to make modest cost reductions in order to improve efficiency, which will be required when Direct Payments come to an end.”
That is strong statement. A lot of people will feel that it is not going to be easy to make those changes.
The analysis that DEFRA published alongside the paper notes that the impact of the removal of direct payments on overall profit margins is likely to be “non-negligible”. That is a wonderful civil service word that can be synonymous with “considerable”. I urge the Government to be cautious. De-linking has some positives, but the reductions are challenging for many.
The Bill outlines the seven-year agricultural transition period during which direct payments will be phased out, which is a significant change. It means there will no longer be a requirement to farm the land in order to receive the payments. In some ways, that is the gist of the Bill. Some will remember that, on Second Reading, a Government Member said, “Surely not!” because the common agricultural policy used to reward people for not farming. This is CAP on steroids in that case, because it completely breaks that link and is a significant change, and it is something that needs to be thought about.
In clause 14, we also look at how someone who potentially wants to come out of farming can request to have their remaining de-linked direct payments put into a lump sum. We understand the attraction of that for some, giving some flexibility and, as the Government have said, a route out of farming and the possibility of setting up a new business or diversifying, if they do not want to transition into the new world of environmental land management schemes. As the Minister said, the Government’s policy statements have made it clear that the intention of that is to increase opportunities for new entrants. In a wonderful, idealised world, this is all one would hope to happen—but the world does not always work in the way one expects.
Without a condition requiring farmers to make their land accessible to new entrants or to encourage transition on their land to a more sustainable way of farming, we believe the Bill poses a risk whereby retiring farmers could simply take lump sum payments and possibly sell the land to a larger holding or move out of farming altogether. That may be part of the Government’s underlying intention, but there are significant consequences to it. It is not entirely obvious that that will lead directly to new entrants.
I have mentioned the additional policy paper we have discovered. I point to page 39, which Members will probably not have to hand but which I will quote:
“Receiving a delinked payment will not disqualify the recipient from applying for payment under our new schemes, including our Environmental Land Management system.”
I ask the Minister whether the intention of that is as it seems to me to be read. Many of my constituents on benefits would love to continue getting their benefits when they got a new job, but no one would think that remotely reasonable. There is potential for double payment here and I ask for some explanation on that.
Going back to where the de-linked system has been initiated, we could conceivably be left in a situation whereby the provision of de-linked lump sum payments had incentivised a reduction in the amount of land being farmed in accordance with the aim of securing environmental public goods. It takes the land, which we are hoping will be managed in a more environmentally friendly way, out of the framework. I am sure the Minister gets the drift of where I am going with this.
That concern was raised by a number of witnesses in Committee, particularly the Landworkers Alliance in their written evidence. We think that that would be not only a detrimental and unintended consequence, environmentally speaking, but an unjust and politically unacceptable use of public funds, as it would hand public money to farmers who might already have a large capital asset in the farm and the house.
I have already said that the double payment point is an issue. How are we making sure that land will be put to continued use and deliver the environmental public goods at the heart of the Bill? There is a danger that the land will be left to the market with no guarantees that new entrants will take over and farm in an environmentally conscious way.
That is why amendment 74 would help the Government to tackle this conundrum by making the receipt of a lump sum de-linked payment conditional on either transitioning the farm to being run according to purposes outlined in clause 1(1), delivering public goods, or in clause 1(2), improving productivity, or on making land available to new entrants or for community ownership to ensure it continues as farmland. We think that would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that stipulated that retiring farmers wishing to sell their land must offer it for sale to new entrants or the local community for a fixed period before offering it on the open market.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the spirit in which he made them. We will certainly all have to work together on perfecting the new schemes for the benefit of us all. The amendment seeks to apply conditions on those opting for a lump sum. Given the tenor of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, it would be helpful, with your leave, Mr Stringer, if I made a few comments about de-linked payments and the definition of de-linked payments and lump sum payments. It is important to be clear about that.
De-linked payments, once introduced, will replace the basic payment scheme for all farmers. They will not be paid as a lump sum. A lump sum payment will be completely optional for farmers; it is something they can apply for. Such payments will replace any future basic payment scheme or other delivered payments that they would have been entitled to receive under a previous payment regime. De-linking payments from the land will allow farmers to access their payments easily and, we hope, bring much simplification.
Along with the phasing out of direct payments, de-linking sends a clear signal that we are leaving behind the common agricultural policy. It will give farmers greater flexibility to plan for the future, because they will be able to choose how to use the money they receive to best suit their circumstances. Some farmers may choose to use it to contribute to their retirement from farming, which would help new entrants get into the industry, while others may use it to adapt or expand their business.
When clause 12 becomes effective and we introduce de-linked payments, those payments will replace the current basic payment scheme for all farmers in England and be paid each year during the remainder of the agricultural transition, rather than as a one-off lump sum. Separately, clause 13 provides the power to make regulations to offer farmers the option of taking a one-off lump sum payment in place of future payments, whether BPS or de-linked payments, during the agricultural transition.
On the hon. Gentleman’s points about regulation and the current cross-compliance regime, we have a strong domestic legal framework for enforcing environmental and animal health and welfare protections, but we will, of course, keep those powers under review to check that they are adequate. We will maintain strong regulatory standards and introduce a new approach to monitoring compliance and enforcement.
Currently, as the Committee has rehearsed, checking takes place in only a small number of cases. We hope to move to our new system as we go through the transition period. We hope for improved co-ordination between authorities, better data sharing and greater use of earned recognition. Enforcement will be proportionate and fair, and those who do not comply with regulations can expect to be sanctioned in future.
The Government want to see more public goods and farming to become more productive. The amendment is counter to the purpose that underpins lump sums: it would tie lump sums to financial assistance under clause 1, but the whole point of lump sums is that they are separate from that.
As the Secretary of State outlined in his speech to the National Farmers Union last week, we are looking to provide a means for older farmers to leave the profession with dignity. We are committed to phasing out direct payments and doing so in a way that helps those in the profession to adjust. Lump sums could bring many benefits. They could increase the ease for new entrants and those existing farmers who wish to expand and acquire land. They could also help those remaining in the industry to invest in their businesses.
The Bill gives the opportunity to move away from the highly bureaucratic and complex rules in the CAP. The amendment would go against the thrust of the desire to move to lump sum payments, by adding conditions to the receipt of funding without any consultation.
The clause would allow the Secretary of State to attach conditions on those opting for a lump sum, but we want to get it right. Therefore, it is important for the Government to consult the industry, so that a lump sum scheme is effective in achieving our aims, without introducing needless bureaucracy. I heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say about specific ideas. I would like him to rest assured that we will take those into account and that we are also very keen to discuss with him any further ideas he may have about the lump sum scheme.
Our commitment to the farming industry and to the provision of greater public goods is clear, but lump sum payments are different, as is this chapter. It is about phasing out direct payments. Lump sum payments are one way that we are going to help farmers during the transition, alongside our other plans to deliver real simplification of the scheme. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I have listened closely to the Minister’s response. Although I recognise some of the points she makes, she has not addressed our fundamental concerns. All Governments talk of spending public money wisely. There is a real risk that it will be hard to keep track of how the system is working, and that public money might not be used for the hoped for outcomes. That is why we are cautious and will press the amendment to a vote. It is important to get more clarity.
We keep coming back to the same point. The Minister wants to set out options for the future, go to an iterative process and learn from it. The truth is that, once it starts, unless there are protections in place, there are the risks we have outlined. There are also risks around taking away some of the cross-compliance rules. The irony is that it could inadvertently allow for lower environmental standards rather than the higher ones that we are all keen to achieve.
I do not underestimate the complexity and difficulty, and I understand why the Government would not want to be constrained by extra suggestions put at this point. However, it is not clear that we will be able to exercise much leverage further down the line. The Government are asking for a huge amount of trust to go and design these systems and schemes, taking away many of the protections, both regarding money and the environment.
I do not think I heard the Minister address the double payment issue, which I would like to know about. Many people outside will not necessarily be following this closely. I say to the Minister that Governments are rarely rewarded for the successful bits of policy but are tripped up on the bits that the media can alight on and ask why they are happening.
The Government might want to look at the issue and be ready to explain to the public why that might happen. We are facing huge pressures on public expenditure in general and this could look very generous to those outside. I have nothing against being generous; I would like the Government to be more generous in general. I just think there are potential problems in this area. On that basis, I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Victoria Prentis
I will say a few words, not least because I hope they will answer the hon. Gentleman’s point. Clause 13 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to give farmers greater choice, by offering them the opportunity to apply for a one-off lump sum payment. That lump sum payment would be instead of receiving basic payment scheme or de-linked payments during the remainder of the agricultural transition. I hope that answers his question. We feel that lump sums would provide extra flexibility and choice for farmers.
Daniel Zeichner
I am afraid that does not answer the question. I will repeat what the policy document says on page 39:
“receiving a delinked payment will not disqualify the recipient from applying for payment under our new schemes, including our Environmental Land Management system”.
It seems to me that there is a risk there. That is not to do with the lump sum, but with de-linking in general. I suspect we will go around in circles on this, and I do not intend to go any further now, but that is why I have raised a concern.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
General provision connected with payments to farmers and other beneficiaries
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 14, page 11, line 45, leave out “any”.
This drafting amendment removes an unnecessary word from clause 14(3) for consistency with other similar provisions of the Bill.
As the explanatory statement says, this drafting amendment removes an unnecessary word from clause 14(3) for consistency with other similar provisions in the Bill.
Amendment 43 agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Duty to report to Parliament on UK food security
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 17, page 14, line 20, leave out “five years” and insert “year”.
I am very happy to move this amendment; as keen-eyed Members might notice, it was originally tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), so this is probably a circumstance that neither of us would ever have predicted. We entirely agree with the proposal to make this extremely important change to the clause 17 food security provisions and amend the timing of the reports from once every five years to every year.
We are all glad that the Government paid heed to the warnings of stakeholders and our predecessors on the previous Bill Committee and included a duty in the revised Bill to report to Parliament on UK food security. It was widely commented at the time that it seemed curious that an Agriculture Bill’s purposes would not include producing food. I think that the clause is the Government’s response to that. It is unthinkable that food security provisions—particularly the Government’s intentions with respect to the proportion of food to be produced domestically or imported—should not be included in discussions of the post-Brexit future of our agriculture sector. Clause 17 is welcome, but the stipulation that the Secretary of State must prepare a report on an issue as important as the state of the nation’s food security only once every five years seems weak.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the five-yearly reports. There should be annual reporting. The guidelines in the Bill are not clear, so does he agree that there should be clear targets and actions, and that the Bill should say what needs to be carried out to look at food security?
Daniel Zeichner
I agree with my hon. Friend. We need much more clarity. The clause is clearly not strong enough, at a time when food security has the potential to become a major cause of uncertainty and concern as we leave the EU and negotiate our own trade deals. It is of course an extremely topical matter, given many of the discussions going on at the moment.
Our food security in terms of self-sufficiency is already in long-term decline. We now produce only 61% of our own food, which is down from 74% around 30 years ago. It is a matter of strategic national interest to ensure that our country can, as far as possible, feed itself. A reasonable level of domestic production in a volatile world is a critical aspect of food security. It is a hugely complicated and contested issue. The modern world that we live in is highly interconnected—something that, as we speak, is looking increasingly difficult, for reasons we are all aware of. Those things raise questions, and different approaches are taken in different countries, but this is a good time to be discussing them.
There is still a huge amount that we do not know about the impact that the Government’s new trade and immigration policies will have on domestic food production year to year. Last week I quoted the concerns from some sectors—particularly the poultry sector—about our ability to continue without the people to do the work. We do not know whether the Government will make good on their as yet empty promises and protect our domestically produced food from being swamped by imports of a lower standard. That is the—I was going to say “the elephant in the room”, although I am not sure that we are farming elephants. This is a huge issue, which we shall obviously be coming to in the next few days, and, I suspect, returning to on Report and Third reading. It is one of the top issues at the moment. We do not know what the impact will be of any outcomes with respect to trade deals, but I suggest that they should be informed by a view on what we are trying to achieve overall. This Committee is a place where we can have at least part of that discussion.
I guess that some of those advising the Government have rather let the cat out of the bag over the weekend. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby is not here, as he has had problems with cats in the past, although I was not going to tease him about it too much. The Sunday newspapers, of course, were full of the press scoop that one of the new Chancellor’s top economic advisers thinks that our entire food sector is not critically important to the UK.
I recognise that the comments of one adviser do not Government policy make, but for many of us it feeds into a concern about where these policies are going. It is also part of the argument I made last week—that there is a real risk that we are looking at a much smaller, albeit high-quality and environmentally friendly, food sector in this country than we have now. That is something on which we really need clarity from the Government.
It was not just agriculture; the adviser also talked about fisheries, and suggested that maybe we should follow the example of agriculture in Singapore. We are a very different nation from Singapore. We are hugely different geographically, because they do not have much arable land in the way that we do, so they rely almost entirely on imports of food. I would go further than that and say that this is part of the debate about what it means to be English or British. Our rural heritage is a key part of our country, and the suggestion that we do not need some of it is, frankly, deeply shocking.
I am sure the Minister will disassociate herself from that kind of comment, but, given the extraordinary turmoil going on within No. 10 at the moment, this seems a classic example of taking advice from weirdos and misfits. I am afraid that the frivolous musings of people in such positions have very real consequences on the good work that the Minister is trying to do on a Bill such as this, and I am sure she did not welcome some of the publicity over the weekend. I would gently impress on her the importance of paying heed to something that we on the Opposition side have been trying to warn her about throughout this Bill Committee: that this Bill needs to be strengthened to guard against exactly this kind of approach, which undermines many of the worthy intentions behind it.
Going back to the food security report itself, the danger in that, under this clause, we will not even see the first one until after the next election, when we will have been out of the EU for half a decade. To us, it seems extraordinary that we would wait so long. We believe it needs to be done much more frequently. Given the kind of dramatic changes we are seeing around the world with the climate crisis, flooding and so on, we think that having reports on our food security annually would be a vital tool in the Government’s toolkit, enabling them to react to trends as they develop year on year and to address them. A further weakness of the food security report approach is that we can have a report, but we then need some tools to respond to what the report is telling us.
There is considerable consensus, not just among the hon. Members who have signed the amendment previously and on this occasion, but across the sector. We have heard from the NFU and the Tenant Farmers Association, and from the environmental organisations Greener UK and the Nature Friendly Farming Network. It is unusual; we have seen remarkable consensus on a number of these points, but on this point there is real consensus. I hope that the Minister has been paying attention to the fact that the original proposal came from her Government’s own Back Benchers. There is now a cross-party effort to shift the Government on this.
This is the first time in more than 40 years that a Secretary of State has been directly responsible for the nation’s food security. It is vital that we get this right, so we welcome the cross-party support for the amendment—not necessarily from the Government, but from their Back Benchers. Five years is simply too long to wait for these important reports. I hope the Minister has noted the strength of feeling. It is not going to go away, and that is why we will push this amendment to a vote.
Victoria Prentis
Although the issue of standards is not entirely on-topic, I will deal with it briefly. I refer the hon. Gentleman not to leaks from Downing Street advisers but to a speech in the Chamber last night by the Secretary of State for International Trade, who said very clearly that
“we will not lower our standards. We will maintain our food safety and animal welfare standards and will not lower them as part of this free trade agreement. We decide which standards we abide by here in the UK. We have exceptionally high standards of animal welfare”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2020; Vol. 672, c. 649.]
I am sure we will come back to that later in our consideration of the Bill.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the amendment and its cross-party origins, and I understand why it may appear to be an attractive proposition. However, I will explain the clause’s proposed frequency of reporting “at least” every five years and why we think that will provide for both a more meaningful report on food security in the medium and longer term and a sounder basis for any relevant and appropriate policy response.
Food security is a complex issue that cannot be measured or defined by a single metric. The Government work closely with the food industry to ensure that we have a secure food supply. As the hon. Gentleman says, this is very important at this important point of change in our farming practices, and it may well be that it is appropriate to have a report before the five years is up. However, I would like to maintain the provisions in that allow the Government to decide that this is appropriate “at least” every five years.
I also ask the hon. Gentleman to view this in context. There has not been a food security report since 2010. I think we all agree that a report is a positive step. We are making an important new commitment to analyse and publish a regular report on this important subject. The report will use a set of core measurements for each key topic area, so that we can consider the trends over time. These will be drawn from a blend of national and international data sources. Sources that we expect to draw on include trade and domestic production data and statistics on energy, household expenditure, food and food safety. Many of those sources are in the public domain already and can be considered by anybody who wishes to consider them in between reports, but we propose that we do a really substantial report not on an annual basis but within a longer period, and at least once every five years.
The frequency of reporting every five years was included to balance the commitment to regularly report with the need to allow sufficient time to observe key trends from this vast variety of sources. I hope that explains why the clause is in the Bill. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister makes a fine attempt, but I am afraid that this is a basic issue of trust. Governments are rarely trusted, however hard they try. She asks us to take this on trust, and frankly we do not. As we will come back to time and again, we hear Ministers repeatedly say this, in which case they should put it in the Bill. That would solve the problems. Of course, we know that they will not, because this is all part of the new macho-posturing negotiating world that we now live in post Brexit. We used to have a civilised approach to the world, but no longer. This is the new world, but these questions are not answered.
Food security reporting is particularly interesting, and our further amendments will tease more of this out. The Government could reassure people by saying roughly what they expect the future to look like for food security. By not so doing, they absolutely stoke the scepticism of people who look at that adviser’s comments and think that that is actually where some of these people want to go. I invite Government Members to think hard about whether they are actually in the loop on this. I think some people out there have a very clear idea about where we should want to go. That is why the Government are reluctant to issue a food security statement. That would give some idea of what they hope for in future. If they do not have an idea, that is also pretty scary. There are plenty of reasons why Oppositions and the country do not always trust Governments. Sadly, experience often suggests they were right to be sceptical.
It is absolutely right to ask these hard questions, particularly because the Minister said that it would be at least once every five years. We are being asked to trust the Government. If the Government have stuff to hide, which I suspect they have, they are not going to do that very often. Five years is far too long. I agree with the Back-Bench Government Members on the side who tabled the amendment and clearly share my concerns. I want to see a much clearer outcome, which is why I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 17, page 14, line 25, at end insert—
“(aa) the impact of food production upon global resource sustainability (including global carbon emissions, impacts on biodiversity and water usage);”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 76, in clause 17, page 14, line 27, at end insert—
(ba) food poverty and progress towards achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goal on hunger, malnutrition and food poverty (SDG 2);”
Daniel Zeichner
We believe there are a number of missed opportunities to strengthen clause 17 to provide adequate reports on food insecurity. Very little has been revealed in the Government’s “Farming for the future” policy document about what those reports might involve. It merely repeats the provisions in clause 17 that the reports may include global food availability; supply sources for food, including the availability to the public of food from domestic and other sources; the resilience of the supply chain; household expenditure on food; and food safety.
All of those are important, but we believe there could be much clearer requirements relating to the degree of the nation’s food security derived from domestic production. That is a point I have already alluded to. There should also be a clear commitment to prevent any further decline in self-sufficiency. That prompts the question of whether one considers the current position to be the right one. I am happy to engage in a debate on that.
As a starting point, we believe that a further decline would be unwelcome. All I am trying to find from the Government is whether they agree, which they ought to be able to tell us. The clause could also have included a requirement to specify food security targets and to identify the actions to be prioritised if those targets are not being met. That goes back to my point that it is all very well to produce a report but, if it is to be used as a tool for change and action, levers will also be needed. We believe amendment 75 would help with that.
Entirely absent from this clause is the contribution of our agricultural workforce to food security, and how immigration changes will affect that. It is fairly clear to those of us who are close to the sector and know what it is talking about that, as it stands, there could be quite substantial changes. They could be unintended, but changes there would be, and we need to know how they will be dealt with.
I turn to amendment 76. It is disappointing that the remit of the proposed report does not include that aspect of food security: not just supply, but whether people can access that supply. It is worth noting that the Environmental Audit Committee’s January 2019 report “Sustainable Development Goals in the UK follow up” found that
“Food insecurity is a significant and growing issue in the UK, with…levels…among the worst…in Europe, especially for children.”
Avid watchers of “Countryfile” will have noticed that this weekend one of the lead reports was on food banks in rural areas.
The report—the Environmental Audit Committee’s report, not the “Countryfile” report, although “Countryfile” is more fun in some ways; I really should not ad lib when I have notes—explicitly highlighted how the
“Government has failed to recognise and respond”
domestically, allowing these issues fall between the cracks. The Committee recommended that the Government appoint a Minister for hunger, but they have not responded to that sensible suggestion. The fact is that, sadly, food poverty is now all too rife in this country. The stat frequently quoted is that there are now more food banks than McDonald’s outlets, and we know how many of those there are.
In “Countryfile” I was struck by the Frome community fridge. There is also an excellent one at the Edge Café in Cambridge. We did not previously have to concern ourselves with such things, because there was a presumption that policy in general would ensure that we had a plentiful supply of affordable food; that is, of course, part of the aim of the common agricultural policy. That goes to the heart of our discussion of the Bill, because for too many of our people that is not the case. Although it is wonderful that people make the effort to try to deal with this problem, in a rich country we should not be in such a situation. Food is an essential and basic human right, and it is shocking that the country is not performing better on that. It is therefore right that that aspect of reporting on food security should be included in the Bill.
The recording of household expenditure on food, as suggested in the Government’s new policy document, will not properly record the free, charitable provision of food that has become a core staple for so many people. I urge the Government to consider expanding their proposed report to include the prevalence of hunger and malnutrition among the population, and the extent and distribution of food bank demand and provision. I suspect that, not many years ago, many of us would have thought it highly unlikely that in 2020 we would have to be discussing the need to report on hunger and malnutrition. It does not reflect well on the Government’s record that we have to ask for that, but we must do so if we are to eliminate this problem.
The amendment seeks to address that by stipulating that UK food security reports include analysis of food poverty and our progress towards achieving UN sustainable development goal no. 2, which is to end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. The Government signed up to that goal, and they probably thought we would never seek to apply it here, because we had assumed that it would not be necessary. Sadly, it is, and we are signed up to it, so the Government should not have any problem including those provisions in their flagship post-Brexit Bill on their commitment to food and food production.
The themes that the food security reports will cover are remarkably similar to those of the UK food security assessment carried out by the previous Labour Government in 2009. In fact, it looks like much of that has been carried forward. In stipulating that the reports may include data about
“global food availability…supply sources for food…the resilience of the supply chain…household expenditure on food”
and “food safety”, the Bill and the recent policy document adopt every area covered by the previous Labour Government’s report on food security, except one: global resource sustainability.
Victoria Prentis
Self-sufficiency has only ever been one part of food security in this country. We supplement our produce with a range of other products from around the world that are difficult to grow and rear here. Our high degree of food security is built on access to a range of sources, including robust supply chains across a wide range of countries in addition to domestic production. It is important to view the debate on food security in that light.
I begin with amendment 75. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are planning to include in the food security report a theme relating to global food security and how it affects food security in the UK. I have a summary of some of the reports that we might consider in the section on global food availability, which may reassure him. However, I do not want him to think that what I will say is conclusive or relates to other issues that will be considered in the report; this is just about global food availability, which relates to amendment 75. We would expect to look at global output per capita, cereal yield per region, commodity price analysis, country consumption data and country commodity trade proportions. In addition, I suspect many other reports and factors will be considered, many of which will be publicly available between reports.
We will include consideration of the sustainability of global resources, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that we do not intend to list in the Bill all the indicators and data sources that we intend to use in the preparation of the report, because doing so would make the Bill unwieldy—one can imagine a situation in which one of those data sources becomes unavailable between reports. That is why the clause is structured as it is. It is not that we will not look at those sources; it is just that we do not want to list them. In producing the report, we will set out our analysis of the wide range of statistics relating to food security in the UK, from global UN data to UK national statistics. I therefore ask him to withdraw amendment 75.
On amendment 76, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we already intend to address food insecurity in the report. The Government are committed to achieving the principles set out in the UN sustainable development goals. We plan, under subsection (2)(d) of clause 17, to report on how the UK is performing against those goals. As part of that theme, we intend to consider all the key indicators that will help us to understand the impact of household food insecurity, including data from the Office for National Statistics.
As I said last week, food insecurity is an issue that we should all take very seriously, and the Government are committed to having a strong safety net for those who suffer from food insecurity. I will politely say again that the £95 billion welfare budget is the first port of call for people who suffer from food insecurity. It is proper that we consider food insecurity as part of this report—we have said that we will do so—but the welfare system is the place for people with food insecurity, and that is where they should go. I do not denigrate in any way the efforts and the great achievements of food banks and food fridges around the country.
I hope that I have suitably clarified our intentions and explained why it is not necessary to include specific text in the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
We will not withdraw these amendments. I hear what the Minister says about the welfare system, but the welfare system is failing. That is why people are hungry. It did not use to be the case and it does not have to be the case, but that is the case. That is why it is right that the Government set out their position and the Opposition say, “Frankly, you are wrong, and we will not accept this.”
This is a Bill about agriculture, which many of us still think is as much about food as environmental protections, although we want to ensure we do that they are of the highest standard. Those things should not be contradictory. If we are talking about food, we must talk about access to it. It was striking to see people on “Countryfile” who are on such low wages that they can barely afford to buy the food that they are producing. There is something seriously wrong here. We do not think this is a big ask, given that the Government have signed up to the sustainable and millennium development goals.
I am afraid it is, again, a question of trust. The Government want a vague framework. I am grateful to the Minister for making some points about global food production, because they are now on the record, so when we come to rehash this argument, when we do get some of these food reports, we will hold her to that. In the meantime, it is essential to press this amendment to a vote, because too many people across this country—thousands every week—use food banks. It would be a dereliction of duty on our side not to press this to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 62, in clause 17, page 14, line 32, at end insert—
“(f) food insecurity.
(3) For the purposes of this section ‘food insecurity’ means a person’s state in which consistent access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money and other resources at times during the year.
(4) Before laying a report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, the relevant Northern Ireland department, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and
(b) have due regard to international best practice on food insecurity, including but not limited to the United States Household Food Security Survey.
(5) A report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) an assessment of trends in food insecurity, broken down by different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England, and
(b) a summary of actions to be taken in areas of high food insecurity by the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive.
(6) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland department before preparing a report under subsection (1).
(7) In this section—
‘parts of the United Kingdom’ means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
‘regions of England’ has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
Amendment 62 was initially tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck), but it has support from at least three parties. I pay tribute to her and the work she did on the all-party parliamentary group on hunger with the former Member for Birkenhead, which led to the establishment of Feeding Britain and its offshoots, such as Feeding Bristol. I am pleased to have been involved in that.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields introduced a private Member’s Bill a while ago, and as a result of that pressure the Government agreed to measure household food insecurity as part of the family resources survey. The first data will be available in 2021. In a recent press release, she referred to the amendment saying that
“there is no commitment…that the measure will continue for future years, nor that the results of the survey they are conducting will be laid before Parliament for scrutiny.”
The point of amendment 62 is to try to give some certainty. As she says, we have seen
“devastating levels of hunger right across the UK”
and the UK has been
“dragged kicking and screaming into agreeing to measure food insecurity”
but we do need a degree of certainty about it.
As to the Minister’s comments on the welfare system, a Department for Work and Pensions Minister in the House of Lords said yesterday that there is “no doubt” at all that universal credit has driven people towards using food banks. Many people who use food banks are experiencing in-work poverty. We have had examples of people who work for Tesco selling cheap food but who are still not being paid enough, particularly if they are casual workers or on zero-hours contracts, and the welfare system is not flexible enough to adapt to that. Clearly we have a crisis. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields says:
“It is clear urgent action is needed. To keep ignoring this issue is a shameful dereliction of duty.”
We need firm data. Amendment 62 would give the Government the tools they need to identify the key drivers of food bank use in detail, as well as which groups in our society are most likely to request emergency food parcels. It will shine a light on the number of people who, year-on-year, go several days without food, as well as on others who skip meals due to lack of money or parents who sacrifice their own meals to feed their children—not all of them will be food bank users. In the past, the Government have been sceptical of data produced on food bank use by, for example, the Trussell Trust. That is all we have been able to rely on. It has become a proxy measure for hunger and food insecurity, but there will be many families who rely on broader programmes of support. Feeding Bristol had a holiday hunger programme to compensate for the fact that children do not get access to free school meals during the long summer holidays. That would not necessarily be picked up by the food bank data, because food distributed with play schemes and so on.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I would like to speak in favour of amendment 62, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields . I commend her tireless work on food poverty and insecurity, and her considerable knowledge and expertise in the area.
In February last year, the Government agreed to measure household food insecurity and to report on it by March 2021. I welcome the fact that the Department for Work and Pensions has included food insecurity measurement questions in the family resources survey, but this breakthrough, and the duty to report on the survey results, must be enshrined in law. We have an opportunity to do just that, so that the measurement happens routinely.
As it stands, the Government’s commitment fails to ensure that the measurement will continue for future years, or that the results of the survey will be laid before Parliament for scrutiny. Amendment 62 would also serve to make the Government’s pledge more comprehensive, by expanding the definition of food insecurity to consider whether everyone in the UK can get access to or afford the food available.
The definition of food security in the Bill currently covers only global food availability, where food comes from, the resilience of the supply chain and data on household food expenditure, food safety and consumer confidence. It does not include any measure of food poverty or household food insecurity, contrary to an internationally agreed definition of food security. Year after year, charitable food banks have provided evidence of the gigantic increase in the number of our constituents running out of money for food. Teachers tell us of children in their classes struggling because they are going hungry. Local authorities are cancelling meals on wheels services due to unprecedented cuts in their budgets.
For too long, the problem of food insecurity, which affects children and adults in all corners of the UK, has been overlooked. It leaves lifelong scars on health and wellbeing. Food banks and other food aid providers cannot be left to continue to pick up the pieces and distribute increasing numbers of emergency food supplies. We need the Government to commit to regular food insecurity measurements and to the resulting data being scrutinised.
Victoria Prentis
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady, and I welcome her to her place. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East for the amendment, and I recognise the commitment of the hon. Member for South Shields in her important work around food insecurity and in ensuring engagement with the devolved Administrations on the amendment.
We are planning to include a theme on household food security, which is clearly set out in subsection (2)(d). As part of that theme, we will be considering the key indicators that help us take a view on food insecurity and why it happens. I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol East will understand that we do not intend to list in the Bill all the data sources we will use in the report, as it would make the Bill unhelpfully unwieldy.
As I said on a previous amendment, our purpose in producing the report is to set out our analysis of the widest relevant sets of statistics relating to food security in the UK, ranging from global UN data to UK national statistics. Many of those data sets are only published at UK level, so breakdown to the devolved Administration area or regional level will not be available in all instances. We will not commit at this stage to the precise data we will use, but all available relevant data will be considered, including breakdown by devolved Administration area if appropriate.
It is our intention that the report will inform discussion and debate about UK food security, both across Government and with wider stakeholders—that is why we are doing it. I assure the hon. Lady that we will of course consider the themes covered in the report, and the analysis, evidence and trends within it, with all sorts of stakeholders, including the devolved Administrations. We have well-established forums for discussion of that nature. Introducing a more formal requirement for a consultation for Ministers with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland before the report is even laid is therefore unnecessary.
I hope that clarifies the intention of the clause and provides the hon. Lady with sufficient assurance. I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Kerry McCarthy
The problem with subsection (2)(d) is that it just talks about
“household expenditure on food (including in comparison to expenditure on other items)”.
As we have outlined today, that does not go anywhere near looking at the scale of the problem and the many factors that contribute to food insecurity. I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Victoria Prentis
In the health and harmony consultation, the majority of respondents suggested that Government intervention is essential in extreme circumstances, identifying market interventions in times of extreme price volatility as an area of particular concern. However, a high proportion of responses argued that farmers should self-manage risk. While the Government understand that there are events that even the most resilient of farmers cannot provide for, the agricultural industry must be sufficiently dynamic and self-reliant to survive in a free market. The clause tries to balance those two factors by creating new powers for the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to farmers in England and to run public intervention and private storage schemes during exceptional market conditions.
Daniel Zeichner
Before speaking on the clause, I give the Minister advance notice that I will also say a word on clause 22, on data. I draw attention to paragraph 170 of the explanatory notes to the Bill. This is potentially a big issue and goes back to our philosophical discussions last week on what the common agricultural policy had been for, to some extent. Of course, it was there to deal with extreme volatility and difficulty and so on. The Government make the fair point of questioning whether that is appropriate in a modern, more complicated world. However, I urge a slight note of caution to those who imagine that this is pretty much a carry-over of the current system.
There is a pretty clear cautionary note in paragraph 172 of the explanatory notes, where the Government say:
“Analysis suggests that public intervention and private storage aid are not required to enable farmers to manage their risks.”
That is quite a strong sentence. The notes continue:
“They can have negative effects, encouraging more risky farming practices and crowding out the development of futures markets, innovative contracts and private sector insurance products. Such market intervention schemes, if available routinely rather than in genuinely exceptional circumstances, run counter to the image of a dynamic and self-reliant agriculture industry.”
That could lead to many an academic paper, because it is a huge subject for discussion and debate. Many of us will think that it is probably fair enough that risk should be transferred on to the agriculture sector itself. During the foot and mouth crisis almost 20 years ago, many commentators made exactly that point. In particular, those from the manufacturing sector, who had seen their sector decimated by market forces, wondered why it was different for others. The reason is that food is a basic human need. This goes almost back to the discussion we were just having about food security. We may be able to live without some widgets, but we cannot live without food.
This is a really big, substantial issue, but is tucked away in a subsection. I suspect that some farmers will look at it and think not only that the future will hold no support and a much more complicated—in the view of some us—move to environmental land management systems, but that they will also have to deal with
“futures markets, innovative contracts—
I think a lot of us know what “innovative” often means—
“and private sector insurance products.”
I raise that just to sound a warning note. I am not sure that the matter has been discussed sufficiently.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s points. The Tenant Farmers Association highlighted the same matter in its written evidence, saying that the clause mentions only “‘acute’ hardship or difficulty” and would not be invoked for “‘chronic’ or long-lasting difficulties”, which, as has been mentioned, would include foot and mouth disease or epidemic diseases. In the current climate, we should look at that and make sure that agricultural producers are extremely resilient, and that they have that level of support, particularly when such crises happen, because they are expensive. There could be a big impact, particularly on the agricultural community and on consumers, especially in the face of the economic challenges of Brexit.
Daniel Zeichner
That is an important intervention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the evidence of the Tenant Farmers Association. There is a bigger debate to be had—the Minister is nodding—although I am sure that we can leave that for another day. The issue is important and I hope that it will be looked at more closely.
Victoria Prentis
By creating a new power we are moving away from the crisis measures that were designed with the EU market in mind and allowing schemes to be created that are tailored to our domestic conditions. It is important that farmers feel the Government are able to help where necessary. However, it is equally important that those financial assistance and intervention powers will not be seen as a panacea for any issue in agricultural markets. They are intended for use in exceptional situations.
The discretionary nature of the power will, I hope, reassure the sector that the Government will be able to help should extreme circumstances come to pass, by taking action and tailoring it to those exceptional circumstances. It will also ensure that intervention in the market and financial assistance will be limited to occasions when they are really necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Meaning of “agri-food supply chain”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
I apologise, Mr Stringer, for not listing the clause earlier as one on which I wanted to make an observation. I should declare—I am a bit of a data person—that I run the all-party parliamentary group on data analytics. The Minister sighs, but the data is important and has huge potential. We are in an era of precision agriculture where we seek to be able to provide, now and in the future, the correct nutrients for the individual Brussels sprout plant. That is an exciting possibility and many people in Cambridge are working on it. Agri-tech East is a powerful force for innovation and, I hope, good—but alongside all the politics with data there are one or two caveats.
The House of Commons Library briefing says—I imagine this has been deduced from the Bill:
“Data would normally be published in anonymised form”.
Evidence from elsewhere suggests that data anonymity is really hard to achieve. What we have seen with artificial intelligence and all the rest of it suggests that the power is there to trace anything back, so I urge a word of caution on that.
The reason I am cautious is that my reading of clause 22(4), dealing with people who are “closely connected”, raises a few anxieties in my mind about whether data is going to be collected on people working in agriculture. That is not always a force for good, I am afraid, and I want to make sure there are proper protections for people.
The Bill mentions vets, and there may well be good reasons for that related to animal health. However, we already have a workforce who are, in my view, often poorly paid and who face some serious and relentless challenges. I worry that further scrutinising them through a monitoring and data system would create a series of further problems, so I would welcome the Minister’s observations on that, and ask whether she shares my concerns. I am not sure there is much we can do about this issue in the Bill at the moment, but monitoring is clearly being set out as a way forward, and I hope we can make sure that we protect the people involved.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I do not wish in any way to make light of his concerns about data. How we obtain and hold data is extremely important, and I am very happy to answer any concerns that he has on this subject.
The clause seeks to provide clarity about who might be required to provide information. A fairly broad scope has been outlined within the clause, and I think the drafters were trying to take a common-sense and down-to-earth approach to what sort of people we might need to get data from. For example, farmers, abattoirs, vets, wholesalers and retailers might well be in scope, but would not by any means always need to be in the frontline of data collection; it depends on the circumstances. It is important to note that those connected to the agri-food supply chain include people undertaking activities capable of affecting the health of creatures and plants in that food chain, or the safety of products.
Daniel Zeichner
I appreciate how difficult it is to frame these things, but that would include pretty much everybody who is involved, as far as I can tell. I cannot think of anybody who is not going to be caught by that definition, which is really my concern. Obviously, we all hope these powers will be used for the right purposes, but it is easy to see how they could become a new tyranny if every tractor had a camera in its cab and people were being monitored.
Victoria Prentis
That is not at all the intention. The intention is that where it is necessary to collect data from those in the food chain, the clause gives us the ability to do so. That is not at all to say that we will routinely connect data from all these actors, only that the power is there to enable us to do so when required. For example, with the coronavirus outbreak, it is possible—although I very much hope this is not the case—that further down the food chain, we will need to know who is touching the food that we eat or is responsible for various areas of it. I can foresee a situation in which it might be possible to ask people who seem far away from the farm gate to provide their data, although I very much hope that does not happen.
Before any data requirements are imposed, a draft proposal must first be sent to all relevant parties. If a supply chain member believes that such a request is not appropriate, they will be provided with at least four weeks to notify the Secretary of State of their reasoning.
Daniel Zeichner
Will the Minister confirm whether those interested parties include the relevant trade union?
Victoria Prentis
I am not sure that under the drafting of the clause trade unions would be included; in fact, I think they would not. However, it is open to members of a trade union to consult that union as necessary, and I would not seek to stop them doing so.
The idea is that an actor will receive the draft proposal. One example is that if a small-scale blackberry grower does not think it appropriate for them to provide data on productivity, which it may well not be, they will be able to submit that in response to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will then review whether it is necessary to carry out the initial requirement for data collection.
It has been difficult to draft this clause. The hon. Member for Cambridge understands that the need for public safety and food security along the supply chain has to be balanced with the need to protect people’s privacy and not to overburden them with regulation. I hope he feels we have broadly got the balance right.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 23 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Agriculture Bill (Tenth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd March 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 March 2020 - (3 Mar 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 27, page 22, line 4, leave out lines 4 to 7 and insert—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, make regulations—
(a) imposing obligations on all business purchasers of agricultural products in relation to contracts they make for the purchase of agricultural products from all qualifying sellers;”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 78, in clause 27, page 22, line 11, after “fair” insert “dealing and fair”.
Amendment 79, in clause 27, page 22, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may also make regulations for the purpose set out in subsection (2) in relation to the purchase of agricultural products in one or more of the sectors listed in Schedule 1 by business purchasers from qualifying sellers.”
This amendment would ensure that there is an overarching requirement for fair dealing across the whole agricultural industry, with the ability to develop sector specific regulations to address any particular areas of unfair practice.
Ruth Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir David. I am pleased to speak to these important amendments.
Over recent weeks, as we have worked our way through the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and I have moved and spoken to a number of amendments, and I have noted not only the importance of this legislation, but the potential that accompanies it. As we approach this stage in our consideration of the Bill, it is time that we reminded ourselves of the motives and headlines around it.
Before she was sent to the Back Benches, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), said that the Agriculture Bill
“will transform British farming, enabling a balance between food production and the environment which will safeguard our countryside and farming communities for the future.”
I am sure Members will agree that those are aspirational and noble aims—a vision that nobody could disagree with. I just wish that the content of the Bill matched the media lines published by officials at the Department. However, I say to the Minister that we can deliver that vision together on a cross-party basis if the Government accept our ideas, our advice and our suggestions. There is no better time to start doing so than now, by accepting amendments 77, 78 and 79.
The amendments reflect a great deal of interest from many of the relevant external bodies, and we have received many thoughtful and reflective commentaries from organisations including the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers Association and Greener UK. I am grateful to them all for the hard work they are doing on behalf of their members and sectors, which includes a collective welcoming of the fact that fairness is required in the supply chain; we need to ensure that there is transparency and openness, too. The Bill is particularly weak in those areas.
The Government need to rethink and revisit the supply chain provisions designed to secure a fairer price to farmers for the food they produce. Those provisions have been broadened in this iteration of the Bill, but there is still no duty to use them, and the Government have not published anything about how they intend to use the powers and who would be enforcing, using and safeguarding them. Our amendments would provide some clarification on those questions.
We note that the NFU believes there should be an obligation on a Secretary of State to introduce regulations to ensure a baseline of fair dealings between business purchasers and producers across all sectors, and that those regulations should be brought forward within 12 months of the Bill’s coming into force. They are right to call for speedy implementation of the measures that would give effect to the fairness we all want, so I support those calls from the NFU.
We have heard from a number of stakeholders about the need for a strong and meaningful overarching body, and they are right. We need the Minister to provide some clarity about who that regulator will be, how it will work, and what it will look like. It is clear to us on the Labour Benches that the Government have a vital role to play, and our amendments will help ensure that this role is carried out. We should nail down today the fact that the regulator should be the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The Bill as it stands leaves hanging the question of who the regulator should be, and the last things anyone in the real world needs at this time are uncertainty, indecision and confusion.
The elephant in the room—we spoke earlier about one elephant in the room, but this is another elephant—is our departure from the European Union. There will soon be tough and competing demands on the Government for resources, focus, scrutiny and implementation, but I hope that in the weeks ahead, this Bill will receive the strong and guaranteed focus of Ministers on the Treasury Benches.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that there are some areas in the agricultural trade, such as the grain market, where there is no market failure? There are lots of buyers and lots of sellers in that area, and it operates very well.
Ruth Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course, he is an expert in this area and I bow to his superior knowledge, but what we are saying is that we need to clear the matter up for the whole industry, not just for certain sectors that already work well. However, I appreciate his intervention.
I hope that the amendments have shown the Government that there is widespread support for this action. They are about not partisan advantage, but clarity for the sector and an improved set of circumstances and conditions. I am proud to have tabled them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
What a pleasure it is to have you back with us, Sir David! I thank the hon. Lady for the amendments, which reflect an obvious desire to ensure that all farmers and producers are spared from unfair trading practices. We absolutely share that goal; our only disagreement is the means proposed to achieve it.
Essentially, we believe in the principle of a targeted solution for a specific problem, and we are keen to take the time to get the solution right. No two agricultural sectors are the same, and neither are the contractual issues that they face. Certain sectors, such as the poultry and grain sectors, may, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby reminded us, be so well integrated that contractual problems do not often arise.
We should have targeted solutions where they are needed, but we need to avoid burdensome new requirements where they are not. To ensure that, the specific detail of each code will be developed in consultation with industry and set out in secondary legislation. Enforcing a time limit on the creation of fair-dealing obligations would prevent regulations accounting for the complex nature of our agricultural market.
Turning to amendment 78, I assure the hon. Member for Newport West that all types of agreement to purchase agricultural products can already be protected by the clause, and the position of farmers in the supply chain will be protected under the current drafting. The clause allows us to regulate for the purposes of fair contractual dealing. That goes beyond a formal, written contract. As the hon. Lady no doubt knows, a contract constitutes any agreement of sale, whether it is formally written down or not. In the dairy sector, it is commonplace to write things down; in other sectors, there are more informal, word-of-mouth arrangements, particularly in the red meat world and parts of the arable world. However, the clause covers all agreements, written or otherwise.
On amendment 79, we deliberately designed the clause to be as flexible as possible. That is a change since the previous iteration of the Bill. Having listened to comments made at the time, we severed the link to the list of sectors in schedule 1 so that future regulations are no longer bound by it. It remains very much our belief that each sector is different and requires a tailored approach. We intend to be forensic in establishing what the needs of each sector are. That will include detailed engagement with industry.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I am thinking back to our earlier discussion on data throughout the entire system. Why do some sectors need to be treated differently here, but did not when it came to the collection of data?
Victoria Prentis
During our earlier conversation, it was clear that we will have to be forensic and tailored in our approach to data collection. This is very much part of the same theme. We do not want to treat all sectors the same when they raise different issues and come to us with very different current practices.
If issues that are consistent across multiple sectors are revealed, and if they could be addressed under new, comprehensive regulation, we absolutely have the power to deliver that. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
I listened very carefully to the Minister. I agree that we do not disagree on the broad principles, but I am seeking to get the regulations tied down so that they are clear and comprehensive for everybody in the agricultural sector. It seems reasonable that the Groceries Code Adjudicator should be the regulator. I do not see any dissent from that, but it would be helpful if we could tie things down in writing rather than, as the Minister says, in verbal agreements.
I must apologise to the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby—I misheard his earlier intervention; I thought he was talking about the “grey” area, not the “grain”. I misunderstood completely. I apologise, and will wash out my ears.
I welcome the Minister’s assurances—she is listening and wants to make things run as smoothly as possible. However, given this time of general unclarity, as we leave the EU, with all the uncertainty that is throwing up, we need things set in writing now for the months and years ahead, to prevent any misunderstandings or anything going wrong in that respect. I accept that the Minister has described the Bill as a new iteration, and we accept that it is improved, but at the same time we still need clarity, transparency and openness. We will therefore press the amendment to a vote.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 27, page 22, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under this section containing provision that extends to Scotland may be made only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment would require that regulations containing provisions that extend to Scotland may be made only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 20, in clause 27, page 23, line 27, at end insert—
“(10A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult persons—
(a) who are representative of—
(i) qualifying sellers of, or
(ii) business purchasers of,
the agricultural products to which the regulations will apply, or
(b) who may otherwise be affected by the regulations.”
Deidre Brock
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
It might help the Committee if I lay out briefly a little of the SNP’s reasoning behind our approach to the Bill and to the amendments. Scottish agriculture has always followed a different line from UK agricultural policy. Different circumstances—very different, in many cases—demanded that. Agricultural policy had administrative devolution long before the modern era of democratic devolution.
In the days before the Scottish Parliament was reconvened, the old Scottish Office, which I am sure you remember, Sir David, had responsibility for agricultural policy in Scotland, just as it did for many other areas of policy. It was administratively devolved, and the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 simply democratised that devolution. In fact, stories tell of Scottish Ministers of old doing battle with their UK counterparts on such issues, arguing the case for that devolution settlement to be respected, way back as far as Mrs Thatcher’s Government and George Younger’s ding-dongs with colleagues.
The SNP is simply seeking to protect the decision-making powers of the Scottish institutions in the Bill, to ensure that the policies applied can be the best fit for the farmers and crofters concerned. That is why we have argued and continue to make the case for the Scottish Parliament and its Ministers to hold the powers for Scottish agriculture and food production. That is why I am in Committee now: I will make a case that some present might not give two hoots about. Despite all that, I will continue to argue it.
Amendment 19 specifically mandates that Scottish Ministers retain their devolved powers and that when, and only when, regulations made under the clause extend to Scotland, the Scottish Government will have to consent to them. I have been following the Tory leadership election in Scotland; I understand that the current Scottish Tory leader intends to be the next First Minister, so enshrining that principle in legislation would clearly be a big help to him. Perhaps the Minister will bear that in mind. It would also have the benefit of being the right thing to do, and it respects the devolution settlement. I certainly hope the Government will support the amendment.
Amendment 20 would sensibly ensure that the businesses most closely affected by the regulations are consulted before the regulations are created. That is an extremely sensible way to conduct Government, and it helps to ensure that unintended consequences are kept to the bare minimum and that the industry buys into the regulations. It seems to be a sensible and measured amendment, and I hope the Minister will support it.
Victoria Prentis
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s clear desire to ensure that any statutory codes are fit for purpose, and we are equally committed to ensuring just that. We want to see consistent protection against unfair trading practices for farmers wherever they are in the United Kingdom. We continue to consult widely and meaningfully with everyone who will be affected by our new codes of conduct, including the devolved Administrations and producers in those territories. Their views will be listened to and respected.
Amendment 19 is designed to require the consent of Scottish Ministers in respect of the regulations, thereby potentially preventing the UK Parliament from developing codes of conduct that would apply across the UK. We do not think it appropriate, nor is it in line with the devolution settlement. The objective of clause 27 is to promote fair contractual dealing and to prevent the abuse of a dominant market position. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs sought a view from the Competition and Markets Authority on whether that is a devolved matter. The CMA’s view is that the purpose of promoting fair contractual dealing is definitely related to the regulation of competition. Competition is a matter reserved to the UK Parliament. As such, clause 27 is reserved and we should not be seeking legislative consent to exercise powers that are reserved to the UK Parliament. Amendment 20 deals with the obligation for broader consultation, and we are committed to using those powers in the most effective and least burdensome way possible.
We fully acknowledge that it is crucial for any new codes to be the product of a deep partnership between Government and industry. Thorough consultations will be conducted prior to the design and introduction of the new statutory codes. However, placing a requirement to consult in primary legislation would be burdensome, especially for regulations that make only minor and technical changes. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Deidre Brock
I thank the Minister for her response, but I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree. It is very much the SNP’s view that these competencies rest with Scottish Ministers. Where common frameworks are to be decided on, they should be agreed, not imposed. That lies at the heart of what we are talking about. I appreciate the Minister’s honesty on this issue, but I will ask for the amendments to be pushed to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 27, page 23, line 15, leave out “a specified person” and insert “the Groceries Code Adjudicator”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 83, in clause 27, page 23, line 23, at end insert—
‘(8A) The Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013 is amended, by inserting after section 2 (Arbitration)—
“2A Fair dealing: determination of complaints alleging non-compliance
(1) If a complaint relating to alleged non-compliance is referred to the Adjudicator under section 27(8)(a) of the Agriculture Act 2020, the Adjudicator must determine the complaint.
(2) In determining any allegation of non-compliance under subsection (1), the Adjudicator must act in accordance with any regulations made under subsection (1) of section 27 of the Agriculture Act 2020 which make provision for investigation of complaints, imposition of penalties or a requirement to pay compensation, as specified by subsection (8) of section 27 of that Act.”’
Amendment 80, in clause 27, page 23, line 25, after “any” insert “competent and appropriate”.
This amendment would ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts is given to a body which is competent to undertake qualitative assessments; for example, the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office.
Amendment 81, in clause 27, page 23, line 26, after “provide for a” insert “competent and appropriate”.
This amendment would ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts is given to a body which is competent to undertake qualitative assessments; for example, the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office.
Ruth Jones
I will speak to all the amendments together. Being mindful of time, I will not read out the wording of the amendments. I know that hon. Members are grateful for that.
The amendments would ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts is given to a body that is competent to undertake qualitative assessments, such as the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office. That sensible suggestion would ensure that effective and authoritative oversight and assessment takes place.
External organisations such as the Tenant Farmers Association believe that the Government have a vital role in the face of significant market failure in agriculture and food supply chains, but it is concerning that the Government do not see that as forming part of an expanded role for the Groceries Code Adjudicator. It has been proposed instead that the Rural Payments Agency would be an appropriate regulator. The Government need to explain why they think that the RPA has sufficient expertise in that area; I look forward to the Minister’s explanation on that specific point. There seems to be no reason why the responsibility should be placed anywhere other than with the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
The Government have previously decided not to broaden the scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Those decisions suggest that, without a clear duty, they will come under pressure from retailers to row back on the provisions. We need to be focused and tenacious in how we monitor the assessment process, including the criteria used. Importantly, the amendments would provide the clarity and certainty that are desperately needed by our farmers and the agricultural sector more generally.
We need to drill down to the detail and explicitly identify which regulatory body will be in charge and what expertise and experience the Government expect it to have. When will the Government see fit to provide a clear answer on that? I look forward to the Minister’s response to these probing amendments.
Victoria Prentis
We are committed to tackling supply chain injustices, and an effective enforcement regime is a crucial part of that process. It is important to state that no decisions have yet been made about the nature of enforcement or the body responsible for it. We intend to listen to the ideas and concerns of the industry before any decisions are made, and we will of course exercise due diligence in designing the enforcement regime when we appoint the regulator.
I understand the attraction of replicating the success of the GCA elsewhere in the food supply chain, but it is important to recognise that the GCA works so well because it has a very targeted focus on the behaviours of extremely large retailers that deal with their direct suppliers and have a good understanding of how that particular supply chain works.
A 2018 Government review found insufficient evidence of widespread problems further down the groceries supply chain to justify extending the remit of the GCA to indirect suppliers. The issues that the review identified were sector-specific and are best addressed with the proportionate and targeted interventions contained in the Bill.
No decisions have yet been made about enforcement. Although the RPA has undoubtedly had difficulties with direct payments in the past, it has a wealth of experience in the agricultural markets. We will take a measured approach to arrive at the best possible decision. I ask the hon. Lady not to press the amendment to a vote.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her explanation. Obviously, external bodies and stakeholders will be actively encouraged to lobby the Government on the matter, and I hope that they will take the opportunity to do so. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 20, in clause 27, page 23, line 27, at end insert—
“(10A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult persons—
(a) who are representative of—
(i) qualifying sellers of, or
(ii) business purchasers of,
the agricultural products to which the regulations will apply, or
(b) who may otherwise be affected by the regulations.”—(Deidre Brock.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 28, page 23, line 42, leave out
“to the Secretary of State”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 22, in clause 28, page 24, line 12, leave out
“to the Secretary of State”.
Amendment 23, in clause 28, page 24, line 20, leave out
“to the Secretary of State”.
Amendment 24, in clause 28, page 24, line 38, at end insert
“(6A) An application under subsection (1), (3) or (5) is to be made to and determined by—
(a) the appropriate authority for the part of the United Kingdom in which the applicant has its registered office or principal place of business, or
(b) where the applicant is made up of producers, producer organisations or, as the case may be, businesses operating in more than one part of the United Kingdom, the appropriate authority for any of those parts.”
Amendment 25, in clause 28, page 25, line 5, leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert
“The appropriate authority to which an application is made under this section”.
Amendment 26, in clause 28, page 25, line 24, at end insert
““appropriate authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, Wales or Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State,
(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;”
This amendment, together with Amendment 25 would require organisations of agricultural producers, associations of recognised producer organisations, and organisations of agricultural businesses to apply for recognition to the appropriate authority in the country of the UK where the applicant is principally based.
Amendment 27, in clause 29, page 26, line 9, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert
“an appropriate authority (within the meaning given in section 28(13))”.
This amendment would require the delegation of functions to require permission from the appropriate authority.
Amendment 28, in clause 30, page 26, line 16, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert
“an appropriate authority (within the meaning given in section 28(13))”.
This amendment would allow regulations to give the power to delegate functions to be made by an appropriate authority.
Deidre Brock
I will speak to all of these amendments very briefly; they are completely self-explanatory. Again, they are about respecting the devolution settlement and the current powers of the Scottish Parliament and Government. Ensuring that Scottish organisations apply in Scotland rather than in Whitehall would help to keep the task off Whitehall’s desk, saving unnecessary effort on the part of UK Ministers and officials, which the Minister might want to keep in mind.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtful desire to progress with these amendments, to ensure that Scottish farmers are effectively and appropriately supported. We are committed to ensuring that the provisions are applied effectively in all the nations of the United Kingdom.
Recognition as a producer organisation, association of producer organisations or inter-branch organisation automatically activates exemptions from competition law. That has been the case under the EU regime since the omnibus regulation, which amended several CAP instruments at the beginning of 2018.
That approach will continue under the new domestic PO regime. The act of granting recognition therefore relates directly to competition law, which, as I said earlier, is reserved to the UK Parliament. However, I will take this opportunity to assure both the hon. Lady and Scottish Ministers that this merely reflects the status of competition law as an area reserved to the UK Parliament. The PO regime will continue to operate as it always has. We have no intention of introducing jarring changes that will undermine its functioning. It will continue to be administered by the RPA, as is currently the case. We will consult thoroughly, both with the devolved Administrations and with farmers, in every part of the UK, during the development of our bespoke UK regime. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
A number of these amendments relate to wider devolution issues; my comments are applicable to a number of them, in particular those that we are discussing at the moment.
We are going to need clarity on how we will work together in the future, because the structures being set up are quite complicated. For some, it would be entirely reasonable for the powers to be passed to the devolved organisations, but there needs to be a detailed discussion about the merits in each case. At the moment, I am not convinced in this instance. I was actually persuaded by the Minister’s arguments about whether, as we stand, passing these matters down to the devolved nations would be the right way to go. Although I certainly would not rule out considering doing that further in future, because we want to ensure that we devolve as much power as possible, there are issues around competition law—we will come to further amendments where is some interaction with World Trade Organisation rules, general agreement on tariffs and trade rules and so on, which make it difficult to do that. While supporting the Government on this occasion, I want to put down a marker to say that in future we would want to devolve where possible.
Deidre Brock
I am very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Clearly, there are discussions to be had—before Report, perhaps—on this and many other issues. However, I am afraid this still comes back to the point that, in our view, these decisions are more properly reserved to Scottish Ministers, and so we will be pushing the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 30, page 26, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under section 28 or 29 containing provision that extends to Scotland may be made only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations under section 28 or 29 containing provision that extend to Scotland may be made only with the consent of Scottish Ministers.
This amendment would ensure that the Scottish Administration is involved in decisions on devolved areas, which seems sensible—I would be interested to hear support from Labour in certain regards. The Minister would surely approve of the amendment, given how much Ministers have worked with Scottish Ministers on the Bill so far, so I look forward to seeing her support for the amendment.
Victoria Prentis
The amendment seeks to give Scottish Ministers discretion in respect of the regulations, potentially preventing the UK Parliament from creating a UK-wide producer organisation scheme. As I noted previously, the act of granting producer organisation recognition relates directly to competition law, which is reserved to the UK Parliament. We absolutely look forward to working collaboratively with our colleagues from the devolved Administrations when designing the new UK-wide domestic scheme, but given the circumstances outlined, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Deidre Brock
The amendment gets to the heart of the issue. This is designed to be a common framework. As many will recall from when we heard evidence, and from the previous Agriculture Bill Committee as well, where common frameworks were to be agreed across the UK, all the NFUs were in favour of decisions being agreed, not imposed. I see this as part of that outlook, which is not one that we are willing to support, so we will push this amendment to a vote.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 31, page 28, line 48, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
Section 2 of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 (2020 anaw 1) changes the name of the Welsh legislature to “Senedd Cymru or the Welsh Parliament”. This amendment and Amendments 52 to 61 are consequential amendments and they follow the new practice in the English language version of devolved Welsh legislation of using the Welsh name only when referring to the Welsh legislature.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 57 to 60, 52, 53, 61, and 54 to 56.
Victoria Prentis
Section 2 of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 changes the name of the Welsh legislature to “Senedd Cymru”—I hope the hon. Member for Newport West will correct me if got that wrong, although my Welsh relatives would not forgive me—or “the Welsh Parliament”. Amendments 51 to 61 are technical consequential amendments. They follow the new practice, in the English language version of devolved Welsh legislation, of using only the Welsh name when referring to the Welsh legislature.
Ruth Jones
These are simple amendments that reflect the strengthened importance of Wales as an equal partner in the four-way relationship that makes up the United Kingdom. Labour will support them, as they are clearly a tidying-up exercise. However, we should not be clearing up on matters of respect, so I caution all Ministers to be mindful and respectful.
Amendment 51 agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Identification and traceability of animals
Amendments made: 89, in clause 32, page 30, line 5, after “England” insert “or Wales”.
This amendment treats Wales in the same way as England in terms of the future application of section 8(1)(a) of the Animal Health Act 1981, once the provisions of European law mentioned in clause 32(3) and (4) cease to apply in England and Wales.
Amendment 90, in clause 32, page 30, line 7, leave out “Wales or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 89
Amendment 91, in clause 32, page 30, line 10, leave out from “under” to end of line and insert
“subsection (1)(a) made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers”.
This amendment limits the proposition inserted in section 8 of the Animal Health Act 1981 by clause 32(2)(b) to provision made under section 8(1)(a) about the means of identifying animals. It also secures that the Welsh Ministers, as well as the Secretary of State, can make provision under section 8(1)(a) that binds the Crown.
Amendment 92, in clause 32, page 30, line 16, after “England” insert “or Wales”.
This amendment alters the words inserted in Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 by clause 32(3) in order to treat Wales in the same way as England in disapplying Title 1 of that Regulation.
Amendment 93, in clause 32, page 30, line 16, at end insert
“, and
(b) in Article 22 (compliance)—
(i) in paragraph 1 at the end insert—
‘The fourth, fifth and sixth subparagraphs do not apply in relation to England or Wales.’, and
(ii) in paragraph 2 at the end insert—
‘This paragraph does not apply in relation to England or Wales.’”
This amendment makes changes to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 which are consequential on the disapplication by clause 32(3) of Title 1 of that Regulation in relation to England and Wales.
Amendment 94, in clause 32, page 30, line 21, at end insert “or Wales”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment alters the words inserted in Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 in order to treat Wales in the same way as England in disapplying that Regulation.
Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Red Meat levy: payments between levy bodies in Great Britain
Deidre Brock
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 33, page 31, line 32, at end insert—
“(10) The first scheme under this section must come into force no later than 1 April 2021.”
The amendment is basically all about ensuring that equitable distribution of the red meat levy moneys is made timeously. I want that to be done as early and smoothly as possible. It has been waited on throughout the UK for a considerable time, but I certainly imagine that Ministers in the various Administrations have discussed it. If the Minister could assure me that that is happening, and that we are looking at an implementation date in April next year, I would not see any need to press the amendment to a Division.
Victoria Prentis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the issue of the red meat levy with her amendment. I recognise that there is an inequality arising from the current system of producing the red meat levy. Indeed, our Parliamentary Private Secretary has been assiduous in bringing that to our attention.
The clause is designed to provide a permanent solution to this long-standing issue. In the meantime, the three levy bodies—the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Quality Meat Scotland and the HCC, which I will not even begin to pronounce—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newport West must bear it in mind that I have a vast number of Welsh relations who would not appreciate it if I did not get my pronunciation perfect. The three levy bodies are working collaboratively, using the interim fund, to benefit the red meat industry across the whole of Great Britain. Adequate time must be allowed for the full and careful development of a redistribution scheme, allowing for due consideration and consultation in order to provide a workable solution.
The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith would provide a short timeframe in which to create a new scheme. Imposing such a deadline is not appropriate, because it is important that we consult properly on how the redistribution of the red meat levy is delivered, and the Administrations must have time to agree the scheme. The interim fund continues to be available in the meantime. I therefore apologise that I cannot give her every assurance she seeks at this point, but she knows that we have worked hard to put right this wrong, and will continue to do so. In that spirit, I ask that she withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I will be brief, but the clause is something that we can all welcome. There has been a long-running difficulty and it reflects changes in the availability of local abattoirs in particular. Many of us would like to see measures elsewhere to try to redress that. In the absence of that, the world has changed and it is welcome that the Government are responding positively. If it is pressed to a vote, we will be happy to support the SNP’s position.
Deidre Brock
I confess that I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, because this situation has been ongoing for years. Many people have been waiting patiently, for the most part, to get a decision taken on this. It is extremely disappointing to hear that we cannot even get an assurance that this will be available and implemented in April 2021. In the light of that, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Victoria Prentis
The clause will address the current inequality in the distribution of the red meat levy within Great Britain caused by the complex movement of pigs, cattle and sheep when animals cross from one country to another for further rearing and finishing and for slaughter. The levy is collected at the point of slaughter and can only be spent to benefit that country’s industry. The clause will allow for a scheme to redistribute some producer red meat levy between the levy boards of England, Scotland and Wales. It will sit beside the current legal framework and allow the transfer of levy.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Agricultural tenancies
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 87, in schedule 3, page 50, line 15, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 88, in schedule 3, page 50, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert—
“the landlord’s consent to a matter on which the landlord’s consent is required,”.
Ruth Jones
Amendment 87 is designed to make it a requirement for the Government to bring forward regulations to provide a framework for tenants to object to their landlord’s refusal to allow them to enter a relevant financial assistance scheme. As drafted, the Bill provides the power for the Government to introduce regulations, but it is not a requirement. There is a trend in the Bill for the Government to use the weakest language possible or to take the most timid of approaches. In our view, it is essential that tenant farmers are given full certainty in this situation.
Tenant farmers have welcomed the recognition that they require and deserve additional measures to protect them, and this is one of the areas that we highlighted during discussions on a previous version of the Agriculture Bill. We are pleased that our probing has produced a framework of protection for tenants, but it is essential that the provisions are used. If they are not used, what is the point of having them in the Bill? If it is the Government’s intention to use the provisions, it will not be a problem to change them from a “may” to a “must”. That is one of our big points on the Bill—we would strengthen the weak wording. We want to strengthen up, not level down.
The Minister’s predecessor, now the Secretary of State, has shown a willingness to listen, engage and reflect on Opposition amendments. I hope that the Government will go further, listen harder and deliver for tenant farmers.
Amendment 88 is about action. It would close a potential loophole in the Bill about the consent of the landlord. Currently, it sets out the circumstances where any regulations will apply in respect of a landlord’s consent. They are defined as circumstances where either the agricultural tenancy legislation or the contract of the tenancy requires the tenant to have the landlord’s consent. What that appears to have missed out—I am sure it is inadvertent, but it has done so—is where the provisions of the financial assistance scheme itself require the tenant to obtain the landlord’s consent.
As an example, the current countryside stewardship scheme requires all tenants occupying land under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 to have their landlord’s consent, even though those tenants will have security of tenure. The amendment would ensure that tenants have recourse to the regulations in every case where the landlord’s consent is required. I am sure the Minister would not want any of the provisions or effects of the Bill to create difficulties for tenants in accessing public money for public good, which is obviously the Government’s favoured system for replacing the basic payment scheme.
I place on record my thanks to all those organisations that have made representations on the issue. I think of the Tenant Farmers Association and their chief executive George Dunn as an example of strong and effective campaigning.
These are simple, arguably technical, but important and empowering amendments. The Government have demonstrated a willingness to listen and engage to a degree, but I call on them to go further—to take the plunge and deliver on what is a cross-party and all-UK commitment to empowering and supporting our farmers. The Bill needs to be joined up, it needs to be smart and it needs to be fit for purpose. The amendments help in that purpose. I hope the Government, and indeed the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, will support them.
Victoria Prentis
Agricultural tenancies are a vital part of our farming industry, accounting for nearly a third of all farmland in England and Wales. I want to see a thriving tenant farming sector in the future. That is why we have included provisions in the Bill to modernise agricultural tenancy legislation.
Turning first to amendment 87, the Committee has already considered at length the use of the words “may” and “must” in legislation. I do not intend to go over those arguments again. As I said last week, the use of the word “may” is entirely consistent with other legislation in this sphere. I assure the hon. Member for Newport West that there is absolutely no doubt that the Government intend to use the powers to make these important regulations and that we will move quickly to do so. Plans are already under way to meet industry representatives for discussions on their scope and content.
I understand the drive behind amendment 88, which seeks to broaden the scope of the dispute provisions to cover any situation where the tenant may need the landlord’s consent to undertake an activity. However, the intention of these provisions is to provide tenants of the older Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 agreements with a mechanism to challenge outdated restrictions in those agreements. In some cases, they were written 30 or 40 years ago, when there was a very different policy and commercial environment. That is why it is important that the procedure for referring requests to dispute remains clearly linked to the terms of the tenancy agreement. To broaden the scope further to include any issue or activity where landlord consent is required risks unintended consequences and opens up the potential for misuse of the provisions, which could damage landlord-tenant relations.
The provisions in schedule 3 had broad support in our public consultation. They have been shaped to ensure that the interests of both tenants and landlords are considered. We will continue to consult the industry generally, including members of the tenancy reform industry group, as we develop the supporting regulations. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
Again, the Minister and I share the same broad aims and principles, which is great. However, we have not changed our minds about “may” and “must”, and the need to strengthen this legislation and beef it up to give people the protection they require. I am glad that the Minister has agreed that stakeholders will have the opportunity to lobby and that she will be consulting widely as the Bill is developed. I accept the history of the tenancy agreement Acts, but we will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 85, in schedule 3, page 55, line 20, at end insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (1) leave out “section” and insert “sections 28A and”.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 86, in schedule 3, page 55, line 31, at end insert—
26A After section 28 insert—
“28A Disputes relating to requests for landlord’s consent or variation of terms
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a tenant under a farm business tenancy has made a request to a landlord for the purposes of—
(a) enabling the tenant to request or apply for relevant financial assistance or relevant financial assistance of a description specified in regulations under subsection (2), or
(b) complying with a statutory duty, or a statutory duty of a description specified in regulations under subsection (2), applicable to the tenant,
and the request meets such other conditions (if any) as may be specified in regulations under subsection (2).
(2) The appropriate authority may by regulations make provision for a tenant under a farm business tenancy to refer for arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 a request under subsection (1) if no agreement has been reached with the landlord on the request.
(3) Subsections (2) and (4) to (6) of section 19A of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (as inserted by paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Agriculture Act 2020) shall apply to any regulations made under subsection (2) of this section.
(4) In this section—
“appropriate authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;
“relevant financial assistance” means financial assistance under—
(a) section 1 of the Agriculture Act 2020 (powers of Secretary of State to give financial assistance),
(b) section 19 of, or paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to, that Act (powers of Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to give financial assistance in exceptional market conditions), or
(c) a scheme of the sort mentioned in section 2(4) of that Act (third party schemes);
“statutory duty” means a duty imposed by or under—
(a) an Act of Parliament;
(b) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru;
(c) retained direct EU legislation.””
Ruth Jones
I will speak briefly to both amendments. Like all the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me, they are important, and I hope they will receive a fair hearing. They cover the elements of the Bill that look at powers available to tenants, succession rules and guidance around rent reviews. Anybody who has been to a farm or has a farm in their constituency will know that, although those areas are niche, they are incredibly important.
Amendments 85 and 86 would ensure that tenants renting land under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 can object to a landlord’s refusal to allow access to financial assistance. The Bill currently omits cover for those tenants and we need to address that. That lack of protection is odd, given that, as the Minister has said, nearly half the land in the tenanted sector in England is now let under 1995 provisions. In Wales, the figure is more than a quarter of the land.
Over time, that area of land will grow and it will be important to ensure that those tenants are protected as much as those under the 1986 Act. Given that these are more modern agreements, which will have had the full attention of the legal profession in their drafting, they are more likely to include more restrictive clauses than those under the older legislation. That will cause problems for tenants if they do not have adequate recourse to object to the use of those restrictive clauses within the new policy framework.
It will be a significant failure if we cannot provide the same level of protection to tenants under the 1995 Act as we are seeking to provide to tenants under the 1986 Act. That is a simple but important point. I hope that the Minister will receive it warmly, in the spirit that it is intended.
Victoria Prentis
I receive all the hon. Lady’s amendments warmly. She has again raised an important issue. Farm business tenancies are a vital part of our farming industry. They provide a flexible way for established farmers to expand their business, by renting additional parcels of land. Crucially, they also open the way for new entrants, with no family connection to the land, to get a foothold in the sector.
As I have already stated, I want a thriving tenant farming sector. That is why we have included provisions in the Bill to modernise agricultural tenancy legislation. Although I recognise concerns that the new dispute conditions do not include farm business tenancy agreements, there are very important reasons for that.
Victoria Prentis
Shall I set out some of my reasons first? Then, if necessary, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. First, evidence from the public consultation on this issue in England does not support extending the provision to include farm business tenancies. That is because, as the hon. Member for Newport West said, they are more modern, commercial agreements, negotiated more recently than agreements under the 1986 Act. They are shorter term and reviewed more regularly, so that tenants have the opportunity to renegotiate and vary the terms to fit changing commercial conditions, and ensure that they can access future financial assistance schemes.
Secondly, the legal framework governing farm business tenancies already provides for enabling the parties to agree terms, so that the tenant can continue to deliver diversified activities, such as environmental schemes, alongside farming. Thirdly, extending the provisions to include farm business tenancies risks undermining landlord confidence in tenancy agreements that had been freely and relatively recently entered into by both parties. That could lead to landlords withdrawing from the let sector in favour of contracting or farming in hand, which would reduce opportunity for tenant farmers.
The aim of the provisions is to provide a dispute mechanism specifically for tenants of 1986 Act agreements, because those are lifetime agreements that were negotiated 30 to 40 years ago in a very different world. They often contain outdated restrictions that could act as a barrier to tenants meeting modern statutory requirements and, in England, accessing future farming schemes that we are setting out.
Daniel Zeichner
This is a complicated set of issues, and I seek clarification. Some lack of clarity about post-1995 holdings has been raised with me. The question is, going back to the financial assistance schemes, who would make the decision to de-link? Who would get the lump sum? Is it the tenant in post-1995 cases?
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman and I have undertaken to have a specific conversation later about de-linking and lump sum payments. I tried to set out the position this morning. Once a decision has been made to de-link payments, they may continue to be paid to the tenant. Indeed, the person farming the land—so the tenant—would apply for any lump sum. However, the two are separate, as I set out this morning. I hope that answers his question.
The provisions in schedule 3 had broad support in the public consultations in England and Wales. They have been shaped to ensure that the interests of tenants and landlords are considered. We will continue to consult industry widely, including members of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, as we develop future regulations. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to a thriving tenancy sector—that is great news. I thank her for the explanation and for her commitment to have an ongoing dialogue with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. I look forward to the outcome of those discussions. We still have reservations about this important area, but we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35
Marketing standards
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 35, page 31, line 38, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would make it a duty for the Secretary of State to make regulations as to labelling as to method of production.
We welcome the fact that subsection (2)(g) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations on marketing standards regarding farming methods. We believe that it opens the door to looking properly at the labelling of farmed products. Under the clause, however, the Secretary of State once again has a power rather than a duty and so has no actual obligation to take the matter forward. That bothers us.
We therefore believe that the Bill should be strengthened to require the Secretary of State to make labelling regulations requiring meat, milk and dairy products, including those produced intensively, to be labelled as to farming method. That would be an important development and helpful to consumers. A great step forward for consumers would be to know what they are purchasing across the board in terms of animal products. Consumers could then make decisions based on those higher animal welfare and environmental considerations.
I am reaching back to find my favourite document, or this week’s favourite document—never to hand when I want it, of course—[Interruption.] I am delighted—the Minister obviously loves the document too.
Daniel Zeichner
Of course. Last week, we had an interesting discussion about labelling. I take Members back to that because on page 16 of the document is a theoretical discussion of the effect of labelling. The Government tell us:
“Tapping into the consumer willingness to pay begins with understanding the value-action gap”—
which I am sure is being discussed on every omnibus around the country—and that
“it is possible for someone to derive positive value from the fact that animals are being well cared for as a result of another’s purchasing decision. Those not buying animal products should be included in any assessment of public value, one person’s holding of this value does not detract from another’s.”
I find that a puzzling suggestion. I tried it out on my partner—I will not say what she said, but she was not convinced that, basically, other people buying poorly produced food somehow does not detract from the wider public good. That is a theoretical discussion the Government may want to go back to. The following page states:
“Addressing consumer understanding, and understanding how purchasing decisions are made in practice in the retail environment and online, are also key elements…It is important to note that improved transparency alone can only address information asymmetry, and does not capture the public value held by non-consumers.”
I am not sure what any of that means, and I am sure that the public have little idea of what it means. I think it shows that labelling is not simple; there is a big discussion to be had. Is it enough to use labelling? The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby and I had an exchange on that last week; there are sincerely held differences of opinion about it.
Back in the simpler, empirical world, we have seen the positive impact that labelling can have on eggs. Since 2004, when EU law began to require eggs and egg packs to be labelled to highlight production method, there has been a considerable move in the market towards free-range eggs and away from caged egg sales. I am told that around 52% of all UK eggs come from cage-free systems, which is welcome.
It is not the same in other sectors. Consumers are still very much in the dark about the production of meat and milk. It is hard to find meat or dairy products that have a labelled method of production. For meat, there is some labelling of free range and organic, but not much else. There is even less information about the farming methods of milk. Most milk is pooled together, making it difficult to distinguish between pasture-based and intensively produced milk. From personal experience perusing the supermarket shelves, it seems the world is becoming more complicated these days; there is a greater range, but we need to go further. I find it confusing. It is confusing for consumers and it does a disservice to farmers who are already producing to higher standards but do not have any means of distinguishing their products because of labelling ambiguities.
A lot of marketing and packaging borders on the misleading. Intensively produced meat and dairy products, where animals may have seen very little of the outside world, are packaged in pretty green packets featuring rolling hills and what looks like a welfare-friendly world. That does not help consumers make informed choices, and it does not help producers extract the higher value that they deserve from their products. Proper labelling would work in everyone’s interests.
The production methods highlighted would differ for different products, but mandatory labelling could be used to indicate on the packet whether the product has been produced intensively indoors or extensively outdoors, with the full range of production methods in between, so that consumers can make a decision in the shop about what they want. That is something that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended twice to the Government in 2018, and it makes a lot of sense.
At the moment, any consumer demand for less intensively produced meat and dairy is impeded by the lack of clear information at the point of sale about how the products have been produced. Informing consumers about methods of production allows them to make that choice. We could see important shifts in the market towards the production of food that is less intensive, more environmentally sustainable and based on higher animal welfare.
A good labelling system could also play an important role in further incentivising farmers to take up environmental land management schemes and deliver the public goods that we discussed last week under clause 1, particularly those who seek to promote higher animal welfare measures, by giving them the recognition they deserve for using less intensive production methods. If the consumer has no idea what farmers are doing, it stands to reason that farmers will see the benefits of making positive changes only in the direct payments they receive, rather than in any changes in consumer demand. There needs to be a way for farmers to demonstrate that they are delivering food in a way that consumers may choose to pay for.
International debate is moving quickly in this area. We heard evidence of the number of schemes that are being looked into across Europe. The Government have talked big talk about using the new opportunity post Brexit to improve our animal welfare standards and modernise our farming processes. It is important that we do not miss key opportunities to adopt mechanisms that can help support that. A relatively simple change of wording would give this clause the strength it needs to deliver the Government’s aim of achieving an impact we all support.
Mr Goodwill
I note that the amendment would substitute “must” for “may” in subsection (1), but all the other subsections contain the word “may” too. Has not the hon. Gentleman made an omission by not seeking to insert “must” in all the others? Surely having “must” in subsection (1) would be completely counteracted by all the “may”s in the rest of the clause.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who unfortunately was out of the room this morning during one of my earlier attempts to bait him. He never fails to please. His deft and diligent examination of the wording may well have identified a minor drafting error from our point of view, but I am sure he gets the thrust of the argument. On that basis, I very much hope he supports us on this occasion.
Victoria Prentis
Again, we broadly share the same values and principles, but—I am sorry to be tedious about the law and the drafting, not that I would ever accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby of being tedious—it is important that we look at what the amendment would actually do.
I welcome this opportunity to further clarify the purpose of the clause. The proposed amendment seeks to change the wording of the clause to include “must” instead of “may”. We have been through this many times in the past week and I do not propose to do so again. There is no need to add a duty here, as regulations concerning the marketing standards already exist in EU law. Using powers in the withdrawal Act, we will retain the current EU marketing standards and roll them over into UK law, ensuring continuity for farmers and the farming industry.
The power in subsection (1) will provide an opportunity for the current standards to be amended when it is appropriate to do so, to ensure that they deliver domestic standards. It will also allow us to introduce new standards should that be deemed necessary. We anticipate that the power will be used to respond to developments in production. The amendment could create a situation in which new marketing standards regulations must be made, regardless of whether they were needed.
I should add that marketing standards do not apply to all food products and so would not be the appropriate vehicle for any general changes to food labelling rules, such as those about stating allergens on labels. That is already covered by existing food information and food safety laws.
I hope I have given some explanation of why the clause is drafted in the way it is. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
That is so disappointing. The Government should have more ambition to do these things. That is why we are pressing and encouraging them. This is such an opportunity; to us, it seems like a win-win.
I fully accept that there may be some points of drafting or direction—I do not blame the people who drafted the amendment—on which we could improve, but it would be wonderful if the Government accepted the thrust of the argument. This is a bit like hustings events during a general election campaign: by the time we come to the end, we all know one another’s lines. What the Minister said was not a surprise to me, and it will be no surprise to her to hear me say the same thing again.
This is partly a question of trust, I am afraid. It is also a question of wanting to move quickly to take up these opportunities. I think there is real desire out there among consumers to make informed choices, despite the slight difference of opinion expressed by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby last week about the role of labelling in making the changes we want. If we are going to go down the labelling route as the driver for change, for goodness’ sake push on with it. Do it soon. The Government should tie themselves to it. If they accepted our amendment, they would be bound to do it and there would be no backsliding. My guess is that we will be discussing this in many months’ time and we will find it has not moved as quickly as many of us would have hoped. On that basis, I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment; we will press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Victoria Prentis
The clause will allow the Government to modernise organic regulations. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few brief words to clear up previous misunderstandings.
The Committee should note that the EU will bring in new organics regulation 848/2018 on 1 January 2021. Since that is after the end of the transition period, the current organics regulation, 834/2007, will form part of retained EU law. The clause allows us to amend organics regulations so that they work for our producers, exporters and consumers. The organics sector is at the forefront of sustainable agriculture. The powers in the clause will ensure that the sector can continue to thrive, while enhancing our precious environment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Organic products: supplementary
Amendments made: 52, in clause 37, page 35, line 15, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51.
Amendment 53, in clause 37, page 35, line 16, leave out “that Assembly” and insert “the Senedd”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51.
Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Agriculture Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Thursday 5th March 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 March 2020 - (5 Mar 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning everyone for what might be the last day of consideration in Committee of the Agriculture Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room.
Clause 40
Power to make regulations for securing compliance with WTO Agreement on Agriculture: general
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 40, page 36, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under this section containing provision that extends to Scotland may be made only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment would require that the power to make regulations extending to Scotland can only be exercised with the consent of Scottish Ministers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 99, in clause 40, page 36, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the Secretary of State has consulted each devolved authority on a draft of the regulations.”
Deidre Brock
I will be brief, because this is basically a rerun of arguments I have made in Committee on earlier amendments on Scottish Ministers getting a say over areas of devolved competence. We are concerned that the views of Scottish Ministers might be overlooked or overruled in future. In our view, the agreement of Scottish Ministers should be sought in all areas of devolved competence. Again, I cannot see why it is possible in other Bills being scrutinised by this Parliament to insert that the agreement of the devolved Administrations is required, not simply that their views will be taken into account, only for that perhaps to be subsequently ignored by this or future Secretaries of State. I will leave it there, but our views on the issue are particularly clear. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a pleasure to be back for a busy day in the Agriculture Bill Committee.
We do not dispute that agriculture is a devolved matter. However, this particular provision is about ensuring UK-wide compliance with an international agreement. That responsibility is, rightly, reserved to the UK Government. This is not about whether the devolved Administrations have the competence to implement and observe international agreements; it is about ensuring UK-wide compliance in an international sphere.
We therefore maintain that the clause is reserved, and we cannot concede that the regulations may be made only with consent from Scottish Ministers, because that would impinge on our powers to ensure our compliance with the World Trade Organisation agreement. We recognise that devolved Administrations have significant interests in these matters, and we are working closely with those Administrations on the draft regulations. We have made a firm commitment to consultation now and in future in the making and operation of the regulations.
Turning to amendment 99, the clause underpins the Government’s commitment to continued compliance with WTO regulation following European Union exit. The UK is a founding member of the WTO, but, as a member of the EU, was bound by the regulations of the common agricultural policy, which ensured compliance by all member states with WTO obligations. Outside the common agricultural policy, we will have to have a new regime and a new approach to ensuring compliance with our continuing WTO obligations.
Agriculture is devolved in the UK, so each Administration will decide their own future policy on farm subsidies. The clause allows each Administration to do that, but it gives the Government powers to ensure UK-wide compliance with WTO obligations. We will continue to work closely with devolved Administrations officials, as we have been doing for more than a year. I am assured that the relationship is good and that that work is going well. It is important to ensure that all parties’ views are properly considered.
An agreement between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Government contains commitments that the draft regulations will be presented to the UK’s four Agriculture Ministers with the aim of securing agreement, followed by an exchange of letters. In that context, I ask that the hon. Lady withdraw her amendment.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I rise to speak—I am double hatted—not as a Whip, but as a shadow Minister with responsibility for European affairs, formerly Brexit, which I still am at the moment.
I shall speak to amendment 99, which I hope will offer a balance. The Minister obviously understands that we recognise that WTO compliance is a reserved matter, but also that agriculture is devolved. We therefore feel that placing requirements on the devolved legislatures, without a corresponding requirement on the Government to at least consult them, is not fair. This is a delicate balance to strike, and we feel that amendment 99 is a balanced way forward.
It is interesting that clauses 40 to 42 will mean that we have to adhere to WTO rules—specifically, the agreement on agriculture. They bind us to supranational rules, which is an interesting take on where we are as a country, given that so many Ministers and Brexit-supporting MPs have for many years made the Brexit case by stating, and in fact restating, their devotion to sovereignty and their desire for the UK Parliament to have complete control of our laws, borders and money, to use a phrase, which they appeared to want. However, here we are putting into legislation the requirement to adhere to a supranational, unelected body, with its own court of dispute resolution, the findings of which we will all be bound by. I want to make sure that Government Members are aware of that.
Thangam Debbonaire
Good. Excellent. We have that on the record. I happen to like supranational rules—provided that nation states have debated and agreed to them—which advance the course of human wellbeing, equality, sustainable development, animal welfare, biodiversity and all those other wonderful things that the Bill will put into law. I would like us to amend the Bill with amendment 99, so that the way we do that balances out the responsibilities between the nations of the United Kingdom.
Signing up to an international treaty is not a loss of sovereignty—clearly the Government agree in relation to the WTO, which is quite interesting—but an exercise of it. We believe that co-operation with other nation states is good. Contrary to what some have said, nations do not do better when they isolate themselves from supranational co-operation; I definitely heard a Minister say that recently.
I am curious, because it appears from these clauses—I might have this wrong—that the Government seem to want to take back control not to share that control with the nations of the UK, but to concentrate power in ministerial hands. We would like to make sure that that power is properly shared with our elected representatives in the regions and nations.
Clauses 40 to 42 are perfect examples of that concentration, because they give Ministers the power to make demands of the elected legislatures on a devolved matter, but with no reciprocal requirement on the Government to involve or even consult those legislatures. Given that the previous Government found that the WTO-only option was most damaging to the economy, and that the current Government do not seem to want to release any more recent assessment of the impact of downgrading our ambition to the much inferior WTO-only agreement, we think it even more necessary to make sure that our devolved legislatures are properly consulted.
WTO means tariffs on some products and a regime for which our farms are not ready. The amendment cannot fully ameliorate the potential damage to our economy and farms from reverting to a WTO-only deal, but it would at least mean that the devolved legislatures were properly involved.
During the evidence session, I asked the Welsh Government’s director of environment and rural affairs whether he wanted a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the devolved legislatures on the operation of those provisions. I said:
“This is about classifying domestic support in so far as it affects the agreement on agriculture and relates to our position in the WTO. It is a very specific question: do you think that Wales—and Scotland and Northern Ireland—should be consulted, as well as required to provide information?”
He said:
“This is an issue that we had extensive conversations with the Minister about”—
I am absolutely sure that that is true—
“regarding the equivalent text in the previous version…we would love a consent provision”.
He also said that
“in the context of the last Bill we came to a bilateral agreement between the UK Government—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and the Welsh Government on how the provisions would be operated in practice. The Minister”—
that is the previous Minister, who is now Secretary of State—
“has confirmed to us that that agreement will be carried over with this Bill. We look forward to him”—
presumably, this now means the new Minister—
“making that statement again during this stage of the Bill or at a later stage in the House, about how we would work together on that, about the advice and about, were there to be disagreement, our opposition being formally presented to the House of Commons to be part of your decision-making process.”
He wanted there to be a way that any opposition by a devolved legislature could be presented to the House of Commons. He said:
“We have agreed a way of working to ensure that that voice is heard effectively.”
I do not doubt that, but when I asked him again about what that agreed way of working was, saying that it was not in the Bill, he confirmed that it is not in the Bill, but said:
“It is an exchange of letters”.––[Official Report, Agriculture Public Bill Committee, 13 February 2020; c. 94, Q145-46.]
Exchange of letters is a good thing, but it is not legally binding. Bilateral conversations, again, are a good thing, and I have absolutely no doubt that DEFRA, the Welsh Government and other devolved Administrations are consulting properly, but we want this in the Bill, because an exchange of letters is not adequate. It relies on the good will of Ministers. I have no doubt that the Minister has good will towards all the devolved nations, but we want to ensure that that good will is bound into law with a modest requirement to consult the devolved legislatures.
I ask Government Members, and the Minister, to note that the backdrop to these clauses is that the WTO now appears to be no longer just the backstop, but the frontstop—I do not know whether there is such a thing as a frontstop, but this seems to me to be a problem, because that is the worst of all the possible options identified by the previous Government. At the very least, we should be ensuring that our devolved legislatures are properly consulted.
Victoria Prentis
Very briefly, the hon. Lady has made an entertaining speech, in which, I politely suggest, she is trying on this particular issue to have her cake and eat it. The reason we cannot agree to these amendments—though we share her views on the importance of talking to and consulting with devolved Administrations; I do not think there is any doubt in this room about that—is that we keep as a reserved matter compliance with WTO rules. We are absolutely part of the WTO; she is right on that. I take on the chin her sharper comments about whether that is fully understood, but it is certainly understood by those on the Government Benches, and she should be in no doubt about that.
On the hon. Lady’s specific point about what Mr Render said in evidence and the assurance given by my predecessor, who is now Secretary of State, I am happy to look at whether we should restate that commitment, and I undertake to do so.
Thangam Debbonaire
I completely understand that agriculture is devolved and compliance is reserved. That is why our amendment would require consultation to take place. It would not be a veto on the part of the devolveds, which I understand others might wish to have. I would like the Minister to consider that as a compromise.
Victoria Prentis
We need to ensure that the provisions made under the clause are fair and proportionate. We want to involve devolved Administrations and I have set out how we intend to do so. In my view, that is adequate, so I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to withdraw her amendment.
Deidre Brock
I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol West that power is being concentrated under this clause towards the UK Government and the Secretary of State. Once again—when there is a common view among the four National Farmers Unions of the four nations that any common frameworks covering anything to do with agriculture must be agreed, not simply consulted upon—I fail to see why this quite reasonable suggestion is continually disagreed with by Ministers.
I speak here, I suppose, on behalf of the Scottish Government, rather than every devolved Administration, because I would not presume to do that. However, I assume that they feel exactly the same and follow the views of their National Farmers Unions as well. The possibility exists within this clause and others for our Ministers’ policy choices to be constrained. Those policy choices reflect closely the conditions of their own nations, and they must be taken into account. Their views must be listened to and their agreement sought.
That is why, although I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Bristol West has said, properly involving the devolved Administrations means respecting their wishes and seeking their consent, rather than simply seeking to consult with them but ultimately, perhaps, ignoring them. I will therefore push the amendment to a vote.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 42, page 38, line 17, leave out from “support” to end of line 19.
This amendment would remove the role of the Secretary of State as final arbiter in dispute resolution.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 33, in clause 42, page 38, line 20, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
This amendment would remove the requirement to provide information to the Secretary of State.
Deidre Brock
These amendments once again go to the heart of the devolved settlement, and the question of whether for Scotland, “taking back control” means actually taking back control. The principle is that Scotland should be the arbiter of her own schemes and provisions, and should decide what is covered in them. There should be no role for a Secretary of State in the UK Government to be an overlord for Scotland’s agricultural sector, or for its support schemes. It makes sense for Scottish Ministers, overseen by the Scottish Parliament, to make those decisions.
I appreciate that, as we have already heard, the opinion of the UK Government is that compliance with the WTO agreement is an international obligation, and that the final decision should rest with them. I remind them that the Scottish Administration have had cases where they have been held liable for infringements of international agreements. I argue that Scotland’s Government should not be reliant on the UK Government to get those decisions right in order to avoid being stung by the consequences. Scotland is more than capable, I assure all hon. Members, of getting these things absolutely right on its own.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
It seems somewhat ironic that with all those policies, the Scottish National party would abdicate the decisions to Brussels; certainly on agriculture and fisheries policies, particularly those involving trade, Brussels would be making the important decisions.
Deidre Brock
I am not really inclined to rehearse all the arguments of the Brexit situation back and forth—they have been ongoing for some time. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the Scottish Government’s views on these issues, as well as those of the SNP group at Westminster.
I will refrain from pointing out that the WTO is falling apart at the moment, unfortunately, as a result of the actions of the US President, because that would be beneath my dignity, but it should be borne in mind that without a tribunal system, the WTO simply does not function. The point of the amendments is simply to ensure that Scotland has the freedom of movement to ensure that it complies with the agreements, whether or not the UK does. That seems a very fair and equitable way to do things. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration and agree to my proposals.
Thangam Debbonaire
I wish to make a few remarks on amendments 32 and 33. We will not support amendment 32 because it provides a veto for Scotland on the reserved matter of WTO compliance. The hon. Lady is right about the WTO; we could have a whole discussion about why and how we have ended up with the WTO and where we seem to be going, but today is not the day for that.
On amendment 33, we still feel that our amendment to clause 40 would have provided a good compromise of a consultation process, whereas the SNP amendment removes the requirement on the devolved Administrations to provide that information. It would have been better to be more balanced. We will not vote against that amendment, but we wish the Minister to take into account the fact that we offered a compromise in amendment 99, and we urge her to consider that at a later stage.
Victoria Prentis
Starting with amendment 32, now that the UK has left the EU, we have become a fully independent member of the WTO. That means that the UK Government are responsible for ensuring that the whole of the UK complies with its obligations. In fully federal countries such as the USA and Canada, the WTO always insists that agricultural trade is reserved—that is how the WTO functions with federal states. One of the UK Government’s obligations under WTO rules is to notify the UK’s use of agricultural support to the WTO membership. It is essential that the nations of the UK take a consistent approach to classifying agricultural support in accordance with those requirements.
Clause 42 provides for a decision-making process that will, quite properly, involve all four nations of the UK. That will be set out in regulations made under the clause. Where a decision cannot be reached through that process, the UK Government, as the hon. Member for Bristol West said, must ultimately be responsible for the final decision, but we hope that agreement can be reached. The amendment would remove the safeguard of final decision making from the Secretary of State and potentially impede our ability to comply with WTO obligations where we cannot reach agreement, although we hope that we will.
Turning to amendment 33, the whole clause must be read in the context of “securing compliance” with the WTO agreement on agriculture, which is incontrovertibly a reserved matter. We need to be able to reassure WTO members that, despite the unusual degree of agricultural devolution in the UK, we have the means to ensure that we will have the relevant data to be able to comply. The amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations for securing, from any part of the UK, the information necessary for the UK Government to meet those international obligations. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to withdraw the amendment.
Deidre Brock
I heard what the Minister said and we are clearly having great difficulty in coming to an agreement between the two Governments and between us on the Committee. From my point of view, decision-making powers that allow not for agreement but simply for consultation do not seem fair or equitable, so I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Aristolochia spp. and preparations thereof Chloramphenicol Chloroform Chlorpromazine Colchicine Dapsone Dimetridazole Metronizadole Nitrofurans (including furazolidone) Ronizadole Thyrostatic substances Stilbenes, stilbene derivatives, their salts and esters Oestradiol 17β and its ester-like derivatives Beta-agonists Substances having oestrogenic (other than oestradiol 17β or its ester-like derivatives), androgenic or gestagenic action.
New clause 4—Import of agricultural goods after IP completion day—
‘(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods imported under a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to—
(a) animal welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health.
(2) The Secretary of State must prepare a register of UK production standards, to be updated annually, to which goods imported under subsection (1) would have to adhere.
(3) “Agricultural goods” for the purposes of this section, mean—
(a) any livestock within the meaning of section 1(5),
(b) any plants or seeds, within the meaning of section 22(6),
(c) any product derived from livestock, plants or seeds.
(4) “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.’
New clause 7—International trade agreements: agricultural and food products—
‘(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the agreement—
(a) includes an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement, and
(b) prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of agricultural and food products in relation to which the relevant standards are lower than the relevant standards in the United Kingdom.
(2) In subsection (1)—
“international trade agreement” means—
(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—
(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
“relevant standards” means standards relating to environmental protection, plant health and animal welfare applying in connection with the production of agricultural and food products;
“SPS Agreement” means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time);
“WTO Agreement” means the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.’
This new clause would ensure that HMG has a duty to protect the quality of the domestic food supply by ensuring that imported foodstuffs are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are held to.
New clause 30—Prohibition on the sale of certain animals and animal products: substances—
‘(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), no person shall sell or supply for human consumption any animal—
(a) which contains or to which there has been administered—
(i) a Class I prohibited substance listed in paragraph 1 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
(ii) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
(iii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3 of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or
(iv) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
unless that substance was administered in accordance with subsection (4);
(b) that is an aquaculture animal to which—
(i) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
(ii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3 of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or
(iii) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
has been administered;
(c) which contains a substance specified by the Secretary of State in regulations under subsection (5)(a) at a concentration exceeding the maximum residue limit; or
(d) to which a medicinal product has been administered if the withdrawal period for that product has not expired.
(2) No person may sell or supply for human consumption any animal product which is derived wholly or partly from an animal the sale or supply of which is prohibited under subsection (1).
(3) Nothing in paragraph (1)(d) shall prohibit the sale before the end of the withdrawal period of any high-value horse to which has been administered allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist in accordance with regulation 5 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits)(England and Scotland) Regulations 2015, provided that the type and date of treatment was entered on the horse’s passport by the veterinary surgeon directly responsible for the treatment.
(4) The prohibitions in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to the sale of an animal, or of an animal product derived wholly or partly from an animal to which has been administered a compliant veterinary medicinal product—
(a) containing testosterone, progesterone or a derivative of these substances which readily yields the parent compound on hydrolysis after absorption at the site of application, if the administration is in accordance with regulation 26 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015;
(b) containing allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist, if the administration is in accordance with regulation 27 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015;
(c) having oestrogenic action (but not containing oestradiol 17β or its ester-like derivatives), androgenic action or gestagenic action, if the administration is in accordance with regulation 28 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015.
(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations—
(a) specifying for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) maximum residue limits for pharmacologically active substances, and
(b) adding one or more substances to any of the classes of prohibited substances in Schedule [Prohibited substances].
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) shall be made by statutory instrument, and any such statutory instrument may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(7) For the purposes of this section—
a veterinary medicinal product is a compliant veterinary medicinal product if it complies with the requirements of Regulation 25 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015), and
“withdrawal period” shall have the meaning given in Regulation 2 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015).
(8) Regulations 9 and 10 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015 are revoked.’
New clause 31—Prohibition on sale: hygiene—
‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any animal which has been treated for the purposes of removal of surface contamination with a substance other than potable water.
(2) No person shall sell or supply any animal product which is derived wholly or partly from an animal which has been treated for the purposes of removal of surface contamination with a substance other than potable water.’
New clause 32—Prohibition on sale: stocking densities—
‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any chicken, any part of a chicken or any product which is partly or wholly derived from a chicken unless the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition is that the stocking density in any house in which the chicken was reared—
(a) did not exceed 33 kilograms per m2 of usable area, or
(b) did not exceed 39 kilograms per m2 of usable area if the requirements of subsection (3) were met.
(3) The requirements of this subsection are that the keeper must—
(a) maintain and, on request, make available to the Secretary of State, documentation in the house giving a detailed description of the production systems, in particular information on technical details of the house and its equipment, including—
(i) a plan of the house including the dimensions of the surfaces occupied by the chickens;
(ii) ventilation and any relevant cooling and heating system (including their location), and a ventilation plan, detailing target air quality parameters (such as airflow, air speed and temperature);
(iii) feeding and watering systems (and their location);
(iv) alarm and backup systems in the event of a failure of any equipment essential for the health and well-being of the chickens;
(v) floor type and litter normally used; and
(vi) records of technical inspections of the ventilation and alarm systems;
(b) keep up to date the documentation referred to in subparagraph (a);
(c) ensure that each house is equipped with ventilation and, if necessary, heating and cooling systems designed, constructed and operated in such a way that—
(i) the concentration of ammonia does not exceed 20 parts per million and the concentration of carbon dioxide does not exceed 3,000 parts per million, when measured at the level of the chickens’ heads;
(ii) when the outside temperature measured in the shade exceeds 30°C, the inside temperature does not exceed the outside temperature by more than 3°C; and
(iii) when the outside temperature is below 10°C, the average relative humidity measured inside the house during a continuous period of 48 hours does not exceed 70%.
(4) In the case of a chicken reared in a house which is not in the United Kingdom, it shall be a requirement upon the importer to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that—
(a) documentation equivalent to that specified in subsection (3) was maintained by the keeper and was available for supply to the appropriate regulatory authority, and
(b) the conditions under which the chicken was reared were equivalent to, or better than, those set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(5) For the purposes of this section, “chicken” shall mean a conventionally reared meat chicken.’
New schedule 1—Prohibited substances—
1 Class I prohibited substances
2 Class II prohibited substances
3 Class III prohibited substances
4 Class IV prohibited substances
Daniel Zeichner
It is a pleasure to continue serving under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am afraid that we will not be rattling on at quite the pace you have managed so far.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will be delighted that today we are going to unleash, as the Prime Minister would say, the full talents of the shadow Front-Bench team and Labour Back-Bench Members. Again, I encourage the Government to do the same. Yesterday morning, while eating my porridge, I enjoyed a thoughtful contribution on the “Today” programme—territory currently uninhabited by Ministers of course—from the hon. Member for Devizes. It is an odd world where Back-Bench Members are free to speak on national media but are constrained on detailed scrutiny. The Government love power but may be less keen on responsibility.
A document relevant to our discussion has once again been released in the middle of a morning. This time, it is a 109-page document on bovine TB. Although it is another favourite document of mine, hon. Members will be grateful that I will not subject it to rigorous scrutiny, but one of my hon. Friends will talk to it this afternoon.
Let me get to the core business. Throughout the Committee, we have said that it is crucial that, in any future trade deals, imported agricultural goods meet our animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards to protect our consumers and prevent our farmers being undercut by lower-standard imports. The Bill improves the standards that we set ourselves by reducing environmental impacts and incentivising public goods, such as high welfare standards. If we do not have coherency between our agricultural and trade policies, however, the Government might as well make the entire Bill null and void.
Hon. Members will have noticed in the oral evidence sessions that I asked almost every witness the same question. Although they put it in different ways, they all gave similar answers and agreed that it is the key issue. The Government have said that they are committed not to allow future trade deals to weaken our food standards—I anticipate the Minister’s response—but the problem is that we have yet to find anyone who believes that. I suspect the same goes for most Government Members. There is a simple solution, which we will say again and again: put it in the Bill. I am tempted to follow the Prime Minister’s lead and get Opposition Members to chant, but I think that is a bit naff, so we will not do that. We will try to do better.
We are sceptical because the actions of the Government and the Prime Minister seem to point in a different direction. On Sunday, the Secretary of State had the opportunity, but again refused to rule out chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef being imported from the US under a new deal.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that we have put it into law that we cannot import chlorinated chicken? We would require primary legislation for that to be removed once we have left the EU, so it is not up for discussion. It is in the legislation. All hon. Members will have a chance to vote on that.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are giving all the signs of having no interest in protecting standards, but did he not note Liz Truss’ announcement of our red lines, which are standards? That has reassured my farmers locally, who are very happy for all amendments on trade standards to go into a trade Bill, not the Agriculture Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
I am delighted that we are getting some rumbustious debate. I will come to the point later of the exact legal position on the current status, which I suspect is not nearly so clear. I am not convinced that many are as reassured by the Secretary of State for International Trade’s document, which I have started reading, as the hon. Lady has, but I am glad that some of her constituents are satisfied, because many are not.
We know that the Prime Minister will not prioritise alignment with EU standards in the upcoming EU trade deal. When asked last month about lower-standard American products coming to the UK, he described such fears as “hysterical” and “mumbo-jumbo”. Given his past record, as I take that as, “Yes, we should be very worried indeed.”
If the Minister is in any doubt about the need to include a safeguard for our production standards in the Bill, I point to the comments made by a Government adviser on food strategy at the weekend, which reveal that the iconoclasts running the show have little regard for protecting our farmers and the domestic production of food. The Mail on Sunday article was a classic of its type, including comments such as
“Britain doesn’t need famers,”
according to the adviser, and
“the food sector is not ‘critically important’ to the economy.”
It concluded with the memorable message from the Mail on Sunday to the Government:
“Britain doesn’t need farms? Find another box to think outside!”
Alicia Kearns
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that email was sent in a personal capacity by an adviser? It is MPs and Ministers who make legislation, not advisers—I am pretty sure about that. [Interruption.] I do not know who that individual adviser is, so clearly he is not advising my views. The Secretary of State for International Trade, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Prime Minister have all made it clear that the points the adviser makes are not Government policy. We can either listen to nonsensical personal emails or pay attention to what those on the Front Bench are saying. I think they have been clear that the Mail on Sunday story was complete nonsense. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
The Chair
Order. I remind hon. Members that when they refer to other hon. Members they need to use their constituency titles.
Daniel Zeichner
I have to say that I do not normally find myself in agreement with the Daily Mail, but on this occasion there may be something in it. The important point is that there are clearly people close to Government who have dramatic views that seem different to those of the vast majority of Conservative Members, as well as Labour Members. It is a question for the Government to decide who they choose to seek advice from, but it can hardly be denied that it is out there.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in an earlier evidence session George Monbiot advocated for precisely those points, and argued for desisting in the production of sheep and cattle on the uplands and planting them with trees? Does he subscribe to that view, as espoused by The Guardian?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but there is a subtle difference between witness evidence and the evidence that has been given in the important Dimbleby review on our future food policy. I think there is a difference, but, as always, I respect his observation.
Moving on from jousting about newspapers, it is important that to have a discussion about levels of food security, as I have mentioned. It is an intellectually plausible position to say that we do not have to produce our own food and that we could become like Singapore. That is an important political debate that should be had transparently, not in private emails between advisers. Without proper legal protection in place, many people will feel that whatever the Government say will just be warm words.
To go back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, at the last DEFRA questions the previous Secretary of State said pretty much what she just said. She said:
“Our high environmental, animal welfare and food safety standards are already in law, including legislating to prevent the importation of chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef”.—[Official Report, 6 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 438.]
We were interested by that statement. Can the Minister clarify further the statement that they are “already in law” by providing the details of the legislation where those standards can be found? Can she explain what mechanism would be used if the Government are required in a trade negotiation to amend or remove any of the standards and describe, in that scenario, the level of parliamentary scrutiny that would apply?
That should be good ground for the Minister as she is an esteemed lawyer. I am neither esteemed nor a lawyer, so I was grateful that, after the exchange at DEFRA questions, the shadow Secretary of State sought advice. We have advice from the House of Commons Library and—guess what?—it is complicated. Inevitably, trying to unravel the complexity of bringing EU law into domestic law and the overlaps is difficult. I suspect the law would need to be tested and, as ever, different lawyers would give different advice; that tends to happen. Some think that EU-derived domestic legislation covering these matters could, in some circumstances, be changed by the Government using delegated powers in the Food Safety Act 1990, without the need even to seek parliamentary approval, let alone primary legislation.
We are questioning the Government on this. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State queried it with the previous Secretary of State, and we await a response with interest, because it is an important point. However, the seeming lack of clarity hardly fills us with confidence, because this is such an issue. Clearly, in the interests of certainty and clarity—which, in fairness, we can agree we do not have—we should put this in the Bill. We should agree an amendment to create a proper legislative guarantee that future trade deals will not allow imports of agricultural goods used to lower environmental, public health, and animal welfare standards. This is that amendment.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that it is strange that the shadow Minister wrote to the now Minister on 19 February on the specific question of standards already in law and, as of today, we have still have had no response?
Daniel Zeichner
It is, because it was made clear that there would be a clear response. I suspect that the issue is complicated and people are working on it, but I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern. This is something we need clarity on.
Mr Goodwill
I absolutely understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s objectives. His new clause talks about “agricultural goods”, which presumably includes animal feed. It is pretty much accepted that environmental standards in Brazil, Argentina, the United States and Canada are lower than ours. Would the new clause ban the importation of all agricultural feed, including soya beans and maize, into the United Kingdom, should the exporting country’s environmental standards not be as high as ours, given that those products are mixed, so it could not be done on an individual farm basis?
Daniel Zeichner
I fully accept that the provision would need to be thought through and worked through in future. My point is that in general we must be careful about such changes, because I do not want our agriculture sector to be put at a disadvantage.
We do not want what I have just been outlining to happen. I suspect that the Minister and the vast majority of her colleagues do not want it to happen either. I mentioned the chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, and it is worth spending a moment to remind ourselves of the exact nature of the kinds of low-standard food imports that we need to guard against.
When it comes to a trade deal with the US, we know that by and large its regulations on farm animal welfare are substantially lower than those of the UK. My understanding is that the US has no federal regulations at all in many of the areas in which the UK has enacted detailed regulations. The RSPCA raised, in evidence, the fact that 55% of the pork meat and bacon that we eat is imported. Virtually all of it comes from the EU, which follows comparatively high standards of production.
If we start going to the US, where they still use sow stalls and inject pigs with ractopamine, both of which are rightly illegal in UK pig farming on animal welfare grounds, we completely undermine our moral commitments against those practices, and allow undercutting of our farmers, who are committed to such higher standards. I remind members of the Committee that ractopamine is a feed additive used to manipulate growth in pigs, which has been shown to be highly detrimental to pig welfare, causing lameness, stiffness, trembling and shortness of breath. There is a reason we do not use it. It is the same for hormone-treated beef, which is produced in the US by injecting cattle with growth hormones to generate greater mass more quickly. That is banned in the EU on animal welfare and public health grounds.
The issue with the chlorinated chicken produced in the US is that the chickens have been kept in such dismal and intensive conditions that the chlorine is required to wash off the pathogens that they have become infected with during rearing and slaughter. The principle is animal welfare, but there is also a real question over food safety. Of course, we heard evidence on that. It is fair to say that there is dispute about the comparative rates of food-borne illnesses in the US and the UK but, as we heard from Professor Keevil of the University of Southampton, there are now studies that suggest that chlorine washing is not as effective as was once thought, and can make pathogens undetectable without actually killing them, so that they may remain capable of causing disease.
I feel strongly that those are not products that we want on our shelves or in our freezer cabinets. I will echo the words of the president of the National Farmers Union, who last week delivered this statement to a clearly discomfited Secretary of State:
“To sign up to a trade deal which results in opening our ports, shelves and fridges to food which would be illegal to produce here would not only be morally bankrupt, it would be the work of the insane.”
I might not have used exactly the same words, but I agree with the sentiment, and I think that the Secretary of State was discomfited because he knows that she is right.
It is crystal clear that we need a safeguard. How on earth do the Government expect to negotiate their way out of this, when the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has clearly said that chlorinated chicken must be part of any UK-US trade agreement? Why not come clean and admit that in the negotiations there will be trade-offs, one of which, sadly, could be selling out our farmers and our environment?
New clauses 30 to 32 are particularly interesting, and members of the Committee who have read them will note that they are detailed. They may think, “Gosh, what a clever bunch they are on the Labour side.” They may not—but it is actually better than that. Let me explain where the new clauses came from. I suspect that some Members already know, and I hope that the Minister was warned when she took the job. The new clauses—the exact words—were tabled to the previous Bill by none other than the current Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). That Bill never reached Report and there was no opportunity to debate the new clauses. I am grateful to eagle-eyed experts from an organisation that shall remain nameless—they know who they are—for drawing them to our attention.
We judge that it would be of use to the Committee to consider the new clauses. They are deeply probing and have an illustrious pedigree, because they first saw the light of day during the brief, tricky period when the current Secretary of State was on the Back Benches, having resigned his post over a difference of opinion with the then Prime Minister about our relationship with the European Union. To some extent, we are slightly puzzled that those amendments have not been re-tabled by the Government for this version of the Bill. It would be useful to hear the Minister explain why the Government apparently now feel that these worthy proposals, tabled then, are not worth revisiting now. I will choose my words carefully, because the Secretary of State is clearly not part of the Committee. I ask the Minister, why does she not agree with the proposals? Perhaps she does.
We were particularly struck by what these new clauses seemed to be looking to achieve. Members of the Committee will agree that they deal with complex and technical matters on which a degree of expertise is needed in matters of animal health and veterinary pharmaceutical practice. Our understanding is that the aim here was to place in primary legislation many of the protections and safeguards on food safety and animal welfare that already currently exist in secondary legislation, both retained EU and domestic. The force of the proposals would be to ban the sale of animals or products from animals that have been treated with a range of compounds whose use is currently illegal in this country, except in restricted circumstances where they are being used under veterinary supervision for veterinary therapeutic purposes, and only then if residues are acceptably low.
It is truly a fascinating read to see what these compounds include. Schedule 1 lists testosterone, progesterone, oestradiol 17β, stilbenes and trenbolone, which are all hormones permitted as growth promoters in US beef production. The beta-agonists listed are used as growth promoters, more commonly in pig production, and I believe that ractopamine, which I mentioned earlier, would be classified under that category.
Most interestingly, new clause 31 would prohibit the sale, for hygiene reasons, of any animal product that comes from animals being treated with any substance other than potable water for the purpose of removing surface contamination. By my understanding, that would essentially preclude the sale of chlorine or oplactose-acid washed chicken in this country.
Mr Goodwill
New clause 31 does not actually refer to post-slaughter use and, as it is sloppily drafted, would apply to the washing of show animals at shows, the use of saline solution for washing eyes or, indeed, the use of diluted sheep dip after docking of sheep. Does the hon. Member recognise that the new clause needs tightening up? It refers to an animal during its entire lifecycle.
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, I am hugely grateful to the right hon. Member, whose drafting skills I would happily draw on in trying to improve the amendments. He will reflect that the new clause was sloppily drafted not by Opposition Members, but by the current Secretary of State. We are very happy to work with the right hon. Member on improving it, but I think he knows what was being referred to in those circumstances.
It seems to us that the Government are currently refusing to include in the Bill a ban on food imports produced to lower standards than our own. They have also dodged amendments to the Bill that were suggested previously by the current Secretary of State himself, which seemed to aim to ensure the exact same thing—banning the sale of animal products in this country that had been subjected to chemicals and processes that we do currently allow here.
What exactly has been going on? The Minister needs to come clean on this. The Secretary of State did not include these prohibitions either in the previous Bill or in the current Bill, even though he was the Minister in charge of both Bills. What came over him when he briefly left the Government? What conditions was he made to accept when he agreed to come back and then to become Secretary of State? Does this whole episode not show that, in his heart of hearts, he probably agrees with us that the only way to safeguard our animal welfare and food safety standards and to prevent our hard-pressed British farmers from being undercut by cheap, sub-standard imports, is to put these provisions in the Bill?
We believe that new clause 1 is the crucial amendment. It would not just strengthen the Bill but safeguard its core aims. We make no apology whatever about pressing it to a vote. I urge the Minister to listen closely to the unanimity of voices on this amendment and to recognise the need for this addition to the Bill. I appreciate that this is a tough moment for Government Members. As they vote, they must be aware that the future of many of their constituents is on the line. I want to safeguard their future, our countryside and our food safety.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I rise to support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has said on new clause 1. I shall also speak to new clause 4, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), with the support of many of his Conservative colleagues. At the moment, I am the only Labour Member whose name has been added to it, but I am sure that many others would join me on Report.
Some of us sat on the Committee that considered the first draft of the Agriculture Bill in the last Parliament. I was also on the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, as well as part of as various all-party parliamentary groups, and there were also debates on these matters in the Chamber and at oral questions. Ministers, including the then Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Farming Minister and, at various points, the International Trade Secretary, gave us verbal reassurances.
There was a bit of a trajectory, because in the early days, we could get Ministers to say only that UK standards would be protected. Eventually, after lots of prompting on our part, some of them—although certainly not on the International Trade side—said that that also applied to imported goods. The Minister needs to reflect on why it is very clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, that those assurances are not believed. The absolute fact of the situation is that everyone, from the NFU to environmental and consumer groups, wants those things enshrined in law, as do the Conservative Members who have signed the new clause.
The Minister has talked about including those assurances in a trade Bill, but when the Trade Bill was introduced to Parliament, we were fobbed off. We tried to get something in there, but were told that it applied only to current trade agreements and not to future ones, although some legal opinion said that it did. When we tried to discuss that during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and all the discussions about Brexit, we were told that it would pop up somewhere else. That game of musical chairs just does not wash with people. We want to see this measure in the Agriculture Bill because it specifically relates to food standards and animal welfare, as we have heard in detail.
I remember trying to bring the matter up during arguments about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, way before Brexit. The then Member for Streatham, who was our shadow Business Secretary, made great play about the NHS being at risk under TTIP. When I started trying to talk to him about chickens, he looked at me as if to say, “What on earth is she on about now?” Now, the chickens have come home to roost—metaphorical chickens—and everyone knows about the issue, but nobody is convinced that the Government are willing to support preventive measures.
We spoke earlier about articles in the Daily Mail and The Guardian. I will quote a Guardian article from 6 March—hon. Members are probably ready to sneer at it—which said:
“Agriculture in the US remains quite backward in many respects. It retains a position of resisting more information on labels to limit consumer knowledge and engagement.”
The vested interests involved in the US food sector are absolutely immense, with huge lobbying efforts and huge amounts of disinformation and press work. The article continues:
“Its livestock sectors often suffer from poor husbandry, which leads to more prevalence of disease and a greater reliance on antibiotics”,
which we know is an issue.
“Whereas we have a ‘farm to fork’ approach to managing disease and contamination risk throughout the supply chain through good husbandry, the US is more inclined to simply treat contamination of its meat at the end with a chlorine or similar wash.”
The article continues:
“In the US, legislation on animal welfare is woefully deficient.”
That article was penned by the now Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, during the brief hiatus after he left the Government in February 2019. He immediately turned to The Guardian to make known his views on just how worried he was about US animal welfare.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Lady understand that the US actually consumes most of its own beef? Only about 13.5% of its beef is exported, mainly to Japan and the far east. There is not a great stockpile of American beef looking for a market, either in the UK or the EU.
Kerry McCarthy
I am not sure that that is particularly relevant. At the moment there is a ban on hormone-pumped beef entering our markets. The UK is the third biggest market in the world for food imports. It is clear that if the doors were open, there would be a potential market here and the US would be very keen to get into it. Most of the discussion on trade deals so far has not been about the beef sector anyway.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has already said, at about the time that the now Secretary of State wrote that article, he also tabled what are now new clauses 33, 34 and 35 to the then Agriculture Bill. Why would he do that? He had made the arguments in public. He did a sterling job trying to defend the Government’s position during the first sitting of the Agriculture Bill. He came across as reasonably sincere, but the moment he had the freedom to say what he really thought, he went to the press and wrote an article in The Guardian outlining clearly and eloquently what his concerns were. He did not seek verbal reassurances from the Government; he sought legislative reassurances. So if it is good enough for the Secretary of State when he is allowed free rein to say what he feels, I am sure the Minister can understand why many of her colleagues on the Conservative Back Benches and Opposition Members also agree with him.
Deidre Brock
I agree with much of what the previous speakers have said. New clauses 1 and 4 are grand in their way and I will support them, but we have to go further. I want to see the standards of the EU maintained, but perhaps that is for a different debate. However, it is possible to write it into domestic law that imports have to match the sanitary and phytosanitary standards of the WTO.
The WTO agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures is clear that science has to underpin the standards to protect human, animal or plant health. The agreement allows states to protect their food supplies and the imports of supporting products to the benefit of citizens. I know the argument will be that Ministers seek to protect citizens, but we do not know that that will always be the case. We should seek to ensure that citizens have the confidence to believe in this measure and in future Governments, and in the commitment to protecting foods and health. Citizens should also have the right to understand how Governments intend to do that and should have the ability to challenge them if necessary.
The SPS agreement allows standards to be set, so we should have them set. That would have allowed Ministers to assure the public that animal welfare and plant health would be maintained, and that imported food would be of a standard that we could rely on for health and the protection of life. As NFU Scotland recently pointed out, assurances around priorities in negotiations work only if the US upholds its side of the bargain. It stated:
“After all, there’s no point having a level playing field if the two sides are playing to different rules.”
I therefore support new clause 7.
Thangam Debbonaire
I will make a few brief remarks on behalf of the shadow European affairs team. As we leave the European Union, we want to make sure we do not lose anything in terms of our high standards and that we try to spot the places where there is potential for loopholes, which I hope none of us wants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East admirably made the case that the Secretary of State’s real views are in alignment with ours. We therefore present the Government with an opportunity to vote for the Secretary of State’s actual views. We in the European affairs team feel we are here to make sure that the transference of Europe-wide rules to UK standards is not undermined by trade agreements with other parts of the world. We simply want to safeguard that. So, on behalf of the shadow European affairs team, I want to add my support to the case made by Opposition Front and Back Benchers, which, after all, reflects the Secretary of State’s views.
Victoria Prentis
I thank hon. Members for tabling these new clauses. I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to talk once again about the importance of food standards. The hon. Member for Bristol East will never find me sneering at or questioning the importance of food standards. This is an important debate, and it is right that we have it here, and while considering other Bills, as we move to a new world where we have left the EU and hopefully have free trade agreements with many other countries.
I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the Government’s commitment to not lowering our standards as we negotiate new trade deals. The Prime Minister has consistently stated that we will not compromise our high environmental, food safety or animal welfare standards now that we have left the EU. We made that commitment in our manifesto, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade reaffirmed that commitment to the House earlier this week in respect of a US trade deal.
Victoria Prentis
I will give way, but I have a long speech and a lot to cover.
Kerry McCarthy
I am sure the Minister does, but the problem is that I suspect I know what she will say. To cut to the chase, given that it would make everybody so much happier if that commitment was in the Bill, what is the reason for its not being?
Victoria Prentis
I will set out the Government’s position on that. The hon. Member for Cambridge was kind enough to say that I was an esteemed lawyer. I do not know whether that is true, but I am certainly a very experienced Government lawyer, and I gently say that the purpose of primary legislation is not about making people happy, although the purpose of the policy behind it might well be that. We come at this from the same place: we all like high standards in British agriculture and want to support our farmers. However, I will set out why the Government have come to this conclusion, which will take some time, I am afraid, and I will deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol East.
To deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol West, we are retaining existing UK legislation, and at the end of the transition period, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will convert on to the UK statute book all EU food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards. That will ensure that our high standards, including import requirements, continue to apply.
The hon. Member for Cambridge said I was an esteemed lawyer—who knows?—and also that he was waiting for a letter from the Department. I am certainly an experienced enough lawyer not to wish to interfere in that process. If a letter is being drafted, I will make sure to look at it. However, he asked specifically about hormone-treated beef and washed chicken. I will give him the directives and the way they are transposed into British law as I see it. The top line is that all EU law on food safety standards was carried over by the 2018 Act.
EU Council directive 96/22/EC, as amended, which bans the import and production of hormone-treated beef, was transposed into UK law through national legislation. It is found in various regulations, including the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015; Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Wales) Regulations 2019; and the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that, because I do not expect him to take a note of all those, or the Secretary of State will write to the shadow Secretary of State. I do not want to interfere in that letter-writing process.
On the washing of poultry, European Union controls on the surface decontamination of poultry—regulation 853 /2004—will be retained through the 2018 Act, and have been made ready to be carried over into UK law immediately after the transition period through the Specific Food Hygiene (Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which will maintain the status quo that no product other than drinking water is currently approved in the EU to decontaminate poultry carcases. That will remain the same in the UK. I will write to the hon. Gentleman properly about that, so that he has the details. It is complicated, as he says.
The regulations I have mentioned include artificial growth hormones for domestic production and imported products, and we would require legislation to change those regulations. Both hormone-treated beef and washing of poultry are covered. The Government have said that any future deals must respect our regulatory autonomy, which means that we will not sign agreements that threaten our ability to set our own high standards, of which we are proud. Our standards are driven by consumer and retailer demand and frequently go above current regulatory standards; most of us would welcome that. The Agriculture Bill will help to ensure that we continue to maintain those high standards in line with the needs of our farmers, retailers and consumers.
Thangam Debbonaire
Is the Minister not making my case that the WTO is therefore the lowest common denominator? It is a real problem that we have ended up heading in this direction.
Victoria Prentis
I feel that the hon. Lady was partly making my point: we have to stick to WTO rules. I think she and I agree that we want to comply with WTO rules. As a lawyer with many years’ experience, I am explaining my concern that the new clause would possibly not comply with WTO rules—I put it no more strongly than that.
Prior to the start of negotiations for each new free trade agreement, the Government will publish—indeed, we have done so this week—our approach to negotiations, including our negotiating objectives and other explanatory material. We did so on 27 February ahead of the start of negotiations with the EU, and on Monday this week for the US negotiations. Right hon. and hon. Members, and the general public, have a chance to scrutinise those documents and the Government will rightly be held to account. Once negotiations are under way, we will continue to keep the public and Parliament informed. We believe that that approach strikes the right balance of allowing Parliament and the public to scrutinise the trade policy, while maintaining the ability of Government to negotiate flexibly in the best interests of the UK.
I turn to new clause 30 and new schedule 1. As several hon. Members have said, the provisions were tabled when the previous Agriculture Bill was before the House during the last Session. The hon. Member for Cambridge will recognise that domestic legislation already provides for a prohibition on the use of substances listed in new clause 30, and for maximum residue limits for substances to be specified. My response to the comments about the new clauses that were tabled by the current Secretary of State is this: are we not fortunate to have a Secretary of State who is a champion of standards in our food and agricultural sector? Quite frankly, to turn around the words of the hon. Member for Bristol East, the Secretary of State wholly supports the Agriculture Bill as drafted. He has been reassured that this is not needed in primary legislation, and if it is good enough for the Secretary of State, it is good enough for me.
To go into detail, as the hon. Member for Cambridge did, new clause 30 does not refer to the operability amendments and other provisions in the exit legislation made last year—obviously, because it was drafted before that. That legislation deliberately took a flexible approach to the specification of maximum residue limits, rather than the more onerous scrutiny that the new clause would lead to. The legislation will come into force at the end of the transition period. Setting a maximum residue limit for a particular substance does not overturn the legislative prohibition on the use of substances as growth promoters.
Parliamentary scrutiny is, of course, important. But, as was explained in debates on the exit statutory instruments last year, a non-legislative approach when setting maximum residue limits is more efficient and likely to avoid unnecessary delays, which might have financial implications for industry and make the UK less attractive to pharmaceutical companies looking to market veterinary medicines. If that were to lead to a reduction in available medication, it could have a significant impact on animal welfare. As such, although we recognise that there are arguments for increasing the level of parliamentary scrutiny, the Government prefer to maintain the approach set out in our exit legislation—of course, it was not around when the amendment was drafted—that was considered and approved by Parliament at the end of last year.
Turning to new clause 31, I hope the hon. Member for Cambridge can agree that there are instances in which substances other than drinking water are already deemed appropriate for the specified purposes, having been subject to rigorous risk analysis processes. In fact, the EU has approved lactic acid for treating beef carcases, recycled hot water for carcases of certain species and clean water—not drinking water—for fishery products. I hope we can agree that it would be regressive to undo what are already considered safe practices. The unfortunate effect of the new clause would be to stymie any process for considering new substances for use in the UK in future. It could restrict the potential for innovation to realise new hygiene benefits.
The wording of new clause 31, whether intended or not, goes much further than existing restrictions—I do not want to talk about sloppy drafting, but I am concerned that such a provision could result in serious animal health and welfare implications. Live animals could no longer be effectively washed or treated with antiparasitic treatment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby said, such as sheep dips. Udder washing is a perfectly normal practice to stop mastitis, and we would not want to interfere with that. Maintaining safety and public confidence in the food we eat remains a high priority for the Government, and the current regulatory framework ensures that.
New clause 32 would prevent meat and other products from conventionally reared meat chickens from being sold or supplied in the UK unless they are produced to a stocking density no greater than 39 kg per square metre, which is our current maximum in Great Britain. Northern Ireland has set a maximum stocking density of 42 kg per square metre. As such, the new clause would mean that meat chicken legally produced in Northern Ireland over 39 kg per square metre could not be sold in the UK. I am sure that was not the intention when the new clause was drafted.
Further, although we have a strong domestic sector producing around £2.4 billion of poultry meat per year, in 2018 we imported £2.1 billion of chicken meat and chicken products. Some of those, including imports from some EU member states, do not meet our stocking density requirements. Imposing a restriction of this kind on imports might result in food security issues, and it would certainly impact cost. We all want to move in the same direction on animal welfare, but we may not be able to do so by means of new clause 32.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to restate the Government’s commitment to standards and to highlight Parliament’s role in scrutinising our negotiation approach to free trade agreements. However, as I mentioned, we have retained EU legislation for existing protections on food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards, and I therefore the Opposition to withdraw the new clause.
Daniel Zeichner
I have listened very closely to the Minister addressing a range of complicated issues. In responding, I will work backwards.
We fully accept that drafting the detail in these proposals was a complicated process, and we pay tribute to the current Secretary of State for the work he did in attempting to deal with this conundrum. I have to say that I think the Bill—this is the part the Minister was not really able to address—in effect takes apart what the Secretary of State was trying to do, which we think was really important. I invite the Minister to reflect on whether it would be possible to work cross-party before we get to the next stage of the process to amend some of the detail. That would seem to me to be a good way forward, and it would reflect what I suspect we can probably all agree on. Knocking this down on the basis that there are problematic points of detail—I do not dispute that it is complicated and difficult—is not the right way to go.
That leads us to the Minister’s point about our relationships in the WTO. We know that the WTO is a troubled organisation at the moment, but we also know that there is plenty of opportunity all the time for people to challenge. The question is why they do it at some times and not others. That goes back to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West.
There is a political set of questions about how trading blocs deal with disputes. The sad truth is that we are now outside one of the big trading blocs and we do not have the power of an umbrella that would probably prevent others from making challenges that we might not think reasonable. We have seen that in the new world order, with Trump and so on, quite spurious challenges may be made that generate a whole raft of legal procedures, which take time and are difficult to deal with. A small player is much more vulnerable than a big player to being picked off, because big players have more resources in their armoury to fight back with.
I am afraid that is the difficult situation that the Government have got us into. On the WTO rules, I recognise that there is some potential for challenge, but that is where we are at. We must ensure that we do everything we can to protect our people in this new world. The clearest and most helpful way of doing that in negotiations would be to put what we have proposed in the Bill; if we did so, the others in the negotiations would know it was non-negotiable.
That goes back to the basic point that the Minister made at the beginning of her speech. I am afraid the harsh truth is that when the Prime Minister makes a series of promises, they are not believed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East made some excellent points: for all the reasons we have heard about today, including the piece that the current Secretary of State wrote all those months ago, how can we believe the Prime Minister when—
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(James Morris.)
Agriculture Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Thursday 5th March 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 March 2020 - (5 Mar 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following: Aristolochia spp. and preparations thereof Chloramphenicol Chloroform Chlorpromazine Colchicine Dapsone Dimetridazole Metronizadole Nitrofurans (including furazolidone) Ronizadole Thyrostatic substances Stilbenes, stilbene derivatives, their salts and esters Oestradiol 17β and its ester-like derivatives Beta-agonists Substances having oestrogenic (other than oestradiol 17β or its ester-like derivatives), androgenic or gestagenic action.
New clause 4—Import of agricultural goods after IP completion day—
‘(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods imported under a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to—
(a) animal welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health.
(2) The Secretary of State must prepare a register of UK production standards, to be updated annually, to which goods imported under subsection (1) would have to adhere.
(3) “Agricultural goods” for the purposes of this section, mean—
(a) any livestock within the meaning of section 1(5),
(b) any plants or seeds, within the meaning of section 22(6),
(c) any product derived from livestock, plants or seeds.
(4) “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.’.
New clause 7—International trade agreements: agricultural and food products—
‘(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the agreement—
(a) includes an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement, and
(b) prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of agricultural and food products in relation to which the relevant standards are lower than the relevant standards in the United Kingdom.
(2) In subsection (1)—
“international trade agreement” means—
(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—
(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
“relevant standards” means standards relating to environmental protection, plant health and animal welfare applying in connection with the production of agricultural and food products;
“SPS Agreement” means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time);
“WTO Agreement” means the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.’.
This new clause would ensure that HMG has a duty to protect the quality of the domestic food supply by ensuring that imported foodstuffs are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are held to.
New clause 30—Prohibition on the sale of certain animals and animal products: substances—
‘(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), no person shall sell or supply for human consumption any animal—
(a) which contains or to which there has been administered—
(i) a Class I prohibited substance listed in paragraph 1 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
(ii) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
(iii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3 of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or
(iv) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
unless that substance was administered in accordance with subsection (4);
(b) that is an aquaculture animal to which—
(i) a Class II prohibited substance listed in paragraph 2 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
(ii) a Class III prohibited substance listed in paragraph 3 of Schedule [Prohibited substances], or
(iii) a Class IV prohibited substance listed in paragraph 4 of Schedule [Prohibited substances],
has been administered;
(c) which contains a substance specified by the Secretary of State in regulations under subsection (5)(a) at a concentration exceeding the maximum residue limit; or
(d) to which a medicinal product has been administered if the withdrawal period for that product has not expired.
(2) No person may sell or supply for human consumption any animal product which is derived wholly or partly from an animal the sale or supply of which is prohibited under subsection (1).
(3) Nothing in paragraph (1)(d) shall prohibit the sale before the end of the withdrawal period of any high-value horse to which has been administered allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist in accordance with regulation 5 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits)(England and Scotland) Regulations 2015, provided that the type and date of treatment was entered on the horse’s passport by the veterinary surgeon directly responsible for the treatment.
(4) The prohibitions in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to the sale of an animal, or of an animal product derived wholly or partly from an animal to which has been administered a compliant veterinary medicinal product—
(a) containing testosterone, progesterone or a derivative of these substances which readily yields the parent compound on hydrolysis after absorption at the site of application, if the administration is in accordance with regulation 26 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015;
(b) containing allyl trenbolone or a beta-agonist, if the administration is in accordance with regulation 27 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015;
(c) having oestrogenic action (but not containing oestradiol 17β or its ester-like derivatives), androgenic action or gestagenic action, if the administration is in accordance with regulation 28 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015.
(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations—
(a) specifying for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) maximum residue limits for pharmacologically active substances, and
(b) adding one or more substances to any of the classes of prohibited substances in Schedule [Prohibited substances].
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) shall be made by statutory instrument, and any such statutory instrument may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(7) For the purposes of this section—
a veterinary medicinal product is a compliant veterinary medicinal product if it complies with the requirements of Regulation 25 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015), and “withdrawal period” shall have the meaning given in Regulation 2 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015).
(8) Regulations 9 and 10 of the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (England and Scotland) Regulations 2015 are revoked.’.
New clause 31—Prohibition on sale: hygiene—
‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any animal which has been treated for the purposes of removal of surface contamination with a substance other than potable water.
(2) No person shall sell or supply any animal product which is derived wholly or partly from an animal which has been treated for the purposes of removal of surface contamination with a substance other than potable water.’.
New clause 32—Prohibition on sale: stocking densities—
‘(1) No person shall sell or supply any chicken, any part of a chicken or any product which is partly or wholly derived from a chicken unless the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition is that the stocking density in any house in which the chicken was reared—
(a) did not exceed 33 kilograms per m2 of usable area, or
(b) did not exceed 39 kilograms per m2 of usable area if the requirements of subsection (3) were met.
(3) The requirements of this subsection are that the keeper must—
(a) maintain and, on request, make available to the Secretary of State, documentation in the house giving a detailed description of the production systems, in particular information on technical details of the house and its equipment, including—
(i) a plan of the house including the dimensions of the surfaces occupied by the chickens;
(ii) ventilation and any relevant cooling and heating system (including their location), and a ventilation plan, detailing target air quality parameters (such as airflow, air speed and temperature);
(iii) feeding and watering systems (and their location);
(iv) alarm and backup systems in the event of a failure of any equipment essential for the health and well-being of the chickens;
(v) floor type and litter normally used; and
(vi) records of technical inspections of the ventilation and alarm systems;
(b) keep up to date the documentation referred to in subparagraph (a);
(c) ensure that each house is equipped with ventilation and, if necessary, heating and cooling systems designed, constructed and operated in such a way that—
(i) the concentration of ammonia does not exceed 20 parts per million and the concentration of carbon dioxide does not exceed 3,000 parts per million, when measured at the level of the chickens’ heads;
(ii) when the outside temperature measured in the shade exceeds 30°C, the inside temperature does not exceed the outside temperature by more than 3°C; and
(iii) when the outside temperature is below 10°C, the average relative humidity measured inside the house during a continuous period of 48 hours does not exceed 70%.
(4) In the case of a chicken reared in a house which is not in the United Kingdom, it shall be a requirement upon the importer to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that—
(a) documentation equivalent to that specified in subsection (3) was maintained by the keeper and was available for supply to the appropriate regulatory authority, and
(b) the conditions under which the chicken was reared were equivalent to, or better than, those set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(5) For the purposes of this section, “chicken” shall mean a conventionally reared meat chicken.’
New schedule 1—Prohibited substances—
1 Class I prohibited substances
2 Class II prohibited substances
3 Class III prohibited substances
4 Class IV prohibited substances
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Sir David, you will be glad to hear that earlier I was mid-sentence but close to my conclusion. All I was going to say was, when we come to conclude our discussion, the simple answer is to put it in the Bill.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The important point about new clauses 1, 4 and 7 is that they would allow us to set standards high to protect the food chain and therefore the consumer. The Minister might, and indeed I am sure she does, have a commitment to maintaining high standards, and she might even believe that her colleagues have a similar commitment. However, as we all know, Governments change—we are still within five years of David Cameron’s last election victory, after all—and the current Ministers will not always be in post. I would hate to think of the Minister, in the far-off days of her declining years, staring at a plate of questionable food in front of her, wishing that she had taken steps to guard against it when she could have done. We should take those steps to safeguard our food standards, protect our food producers and maintain the health of consumers, who are, after all, the people who send us here. The SNP therefore supports new clauses 1, 4 and 7.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 26—Smallholdings estates: land management—
‘(1) A smallholdings authority which immediately before the commencement of Part 1 of this Act holds any land for the purposes of smallholdings shall review the authority’s smallholdings estate and shall, before the end of the period of eighteen months beginning with the commencement of Part 1 of this Act, submit to the Secretary of State proposals with respect to the future management of that estate for the purposes of—
(a) providing opportunities for persons to be farmers on their own account;
(b) providing education or experience in environmental land management practices;
(c) providing opportunities for increasing public access to the natural environment and understanding of sustainable farming;
(d) contributing to a mitigation of climate change, including a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions,
(e) providing support for innovative food production techniques (including techniques which do not involve management of land), and
(f) providing opportunities for innovation in sustainable land management practices.
(2) No land held by a smallholdings authority as a smallholding immediately before commencement of Part 1 of this Act is to be conveyed, transferred, leased or otherwise disposed of otherwise than—
(a) in connection with the purposes listed in subsection (1); and
(b) in accordance with proposals submitted under subsection (1).
(3) For the purposes of this section, “smallholdings authority” has the same meaning as in section 38 of the Agriculture Act 1970.’.
This new clause would limit the disposal of smallholdings (“county farms”) by local authorities and would require local authorities to review their holding and submit proposals for future management to provide opportunities to extend access to farming, education, and innovation.
Kerry McCarthy
This revisits something that we discussed when the previous Agriculture Bill Committee met, but there have been some positive moves from the Government in respect of county farms since then. I am pleased that there have been quite a few indications of support, but we could do more, which is why I have tabled the new clause.
County farms are an undervalued national asset, and they could play a significant role in the future of UK farming. I have the support of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Sustain and the Landworkers Alliance for the new clause, which is aimed at rejuvenating the county farms project and improving the information that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs holds on the estate. It would require councils to submit a report to the Secretary of State within 18 months of this Act’s becoming law, saying how they would make best use of their smallholdings to support new entrants to farming. We have heard, and it is generally accepted, that the price of land in particular can act as a real deterrent to new entrants.
The new clause also looks at promoting sustainable land management practices, sharing knowledge of those practices, and increasing public access to the natural environment and farming. The new clause is needed because there has been a steep decline in the county farm estate over the past 40 years, and that sell-off appears to be continuing. Between 2010 and 2018, the size of England’s county farm estate fell by more than 15,000 acres, with 58% of that sold between 2016 and 2018. If we want to reverse that trend, it is clear that we need a fresh approach, rather than business as usual, and I hope that the new clause will kick-start that.
There was a session—I think it was of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, but I get confused sometimes, because we also discussed this at the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology for sustainable food and farming—where Cambridgeshire County Council was spoken of. It does really good work on this front. Its estate generates a substantial income for the council of more than £4 million each year, and since 2009, the 109 new tenants who have joined the estate have an average age of 30, which is half the UK average.
We spoke earlier—I think it was when we were talking about de-linked payments and other things—about the average age of farmers in this country and how we really need to bring a new generation on board. County farms seem to be doing that in Cambridgeshire. The estate is also supporting a pioneering agroforestry farmer, Stephen Briggs.
At the very least, I hope the new clause will encourage councils to look favourably on including enhanced management and environmental obligations as part of the tender process and management. This is about not only allowing access to land through the county farm movement, but encouraging people to farm in a certain way. CPRE’s recent report on county farms highlighted the fact that a number of councils already view their estates as a crucial lever in responding to the climate emergency.
As I said at the beginning, we have had some promising words from the Government, but we have not had action yet, and the Bill is still completely silent on this. The now Secretary of State told us in the Agriculture Bill Committee back in October 2018 that he was considering whether to use funds under the productivity strand of the Bill to refresh the model. In January 2019, I chaired a session at the Oxford Real Farming Conference, interviewing the then Secretary of State on stage. It must be said that all the promises he made then went down very well.
One of those promises was to announce a new package of financial support for county farms in the coming months. He reaffirmed that promise in a letter to the EFRA Committee in March 2019, stating his desire to
“create a financial incentive for local authorities who want to invest in their council farms”.
In September, that promise was repeated, this time in response to a written question that I asked the current Secretary of State.
While I warmly welcome the statement in the “Future for Food, Farming and the Environment” policy statement published last week that the Department
“will offer funding to councils…who want to invest in creating new opportunities for new-entrant farmers”,
when can we expect some firm detail on the timetable of financial assistance that will be offered? In the meantime, based on the language in the policy statement, I see no reason that the new clause, which is designed to encourage new entrants and sustainable farming, would not help the Government to achieve their desired outcome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East for tabling the new clause and look forward to working with her on how we can support smallholding authorities to invest in, and commit to, their county farms. We want to help them to provide more opportunities for new entrant farmers and to continue to offer the wider environmental and public benefits.
I am concerned that the new clauses would constrain smallholding authorities’ ability to manage their estates effectively and would create an additional administrative burden. Rather than legislating, I would prefer to work collaboratively with smallholding authorities. We want to support them to manage their estates so that they can provide more opportunities for new farmers and existing tenants, as well as for the benefit of the wider public.
I hope that the hon. Lady is assured by the document published last week and that she will continue to talk to me. We will continue to talk to smallholding authorities about how we can take things forward. I therefore ask her to withdraw the motion.
Daniel Zeichner
New clause 26 is broadly similar to new clause 5, which my hon. Friend has just moved. She spoke powerfully about the plight of our county farms. She did mention, of course, successes in Cambridgeshire. I rarely find reason to praise Cambridgeshire County Council, but on this occasion, I think that it is doing good work.
As farms owned by local authorities that can be let out at below-market rents—I suspect that there is agreement on this—they are a vital means to encourage young and first-time farmers into the sector. They provide a key way in for those who have not had the good fortune to inherit or are lacking the capital required to buy or rent. As well as offering a sustainable income stream for local authorities, these farms have been recognised as particularly well placed to deliver locally driven social and environmental goods, ranging from tree planting and local education initiatives on farming to public procurement of locally produced food.
As we have heard, however, county farms have been left in serious long-term decline. An investigation last year by Who Owns England? showed that the acreage has halved in the past 40 years—first driven by the privatisation drive and cuts to county budgets and powers under the Thatcher and Major Governments, and by the austerity agenda in recent times. Cash-strapped local authorities making difficult decisions have been forced to take cost-saving measures, and 7% of England’s county farms estate was sold off between 2010 and 2018, with three quarters of all smallholding authorities having sold parts of their estate.
As we have heard, some authorities, such as my own in Cambridgeshire, have recognised the importance of county farms and have increased the number of acres in the past decade. Interestingly, they are now bringing in a sustainable income for the authorities. I am told that, in Cambridgeshire’s case, that is in excess of £4 million each year. However, the situation is not so good elsewhere. I am told that Herefordshire, for instance, has sold many of its county farms; there has been a decline of 89%.
The Government’s recent policy document on farming for the future mentions that funding will be offered to councils with county farm estates, but we still have no clear detail on how much that would be and whether it would be sufficient. It is rather surprising that in a flagship Bill on reforming our agricultural system—
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Are there any examples of where local authorities have sold the farms but to the tenants so that they can become owner-occupiers—a sort of right-to-buy scheme —or are the farms being sold off outside the sphere of those tenants?
Daniel Zeichner
I do not know the answer, but I am happy to go away and look for it, because that sounds like an interesting idea.
Let me explain what our worry is. We are here discussing major, flagship legislation for the future of the sector, and to us it would seem sensible to ensure that there was provision for this very important part of the sector, particularly when there was such an opportunity, through the local authorities, to deliver a range of public goods, including land management practices that mitigate climate change; public access; and even the promotion of innovative food production systems, such as vertical farms or city farms. If local authorities were to build into their management practices for their smallholdings the aims of aiding nature recovery and carbon sequestration and of promoting biodiversity, county farms could be a very useful tool for local communities, particularly in areas such as mine, where we have such interest in environmental issues being promoted.
It is important that we stop the loss and refresh the purpose of our county farms. I am not sure that that makes it easier for local authorities, because they are making difficult decisions, but it would make it harder for them to make that particular decision.
Mr Goodwill
What does the hon. Gentleman think about the example of Staffordshire County Council? When selling off farms, the council has given tenants the first opportunity to buy, but if that has not happened it has sold the farms with sitting tenants. The tenants continue their tenancies, but the council can use the money to spend on other priorities, such as schools, getting homeless people into housing and all the other local authority priorities.
Daniel Zeichner
I appreciate what the right hon. Member says. We are not seeking to stop that kind of process. We are trying to make it more difficult for councils to respond to funding cuts by selling county farms, which in some ways I do not criticise because they face difficult choices. If that practice is not stopped, then, frankly, it will go on happening, unless there are significant changes in funding for local authorities.
In recognition of the key role that local authorities can play in incentivising these farms to be environmental public goods, we would also require local authorities to submit proposals on how they intended to manage their smallholdings in a way that contributed to those various public goods, including the mitigation of climate change and reducing gas emissions. As discussed, our new clause would also limit the continued disposal of farms by stipulating that no local authority smallholding would need to have its ownership transferred unless that was clearly in accordance with those purposes.
Victoria Prentis
I have already responded fairly fully to the hon. Member for Bristol East and I feel that the Labour Front-Bench amendment is strikingly similar. I have said all I need to say on this subject.
Kerry McCarthy
I hope we can continue the dialogue about county farms and that we can see some concrete action from the Government. Given what the Minister has said, for once I will take her at her word that she has leapt upon this and I will not push the measure to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs
“(1) Subsection (2) applies to any function of the Secretary of State under—
(a) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (“the EU Regulation”),
(b) the delegated and implementing Regulations,
(c) any regulations made by the Secretary of State under the EU Regulation, and
(d) any regulations made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 relating to the enforcement of the EU Regulation or the delegated and implementing Regulations.
(2) The Secretary of State may exercise the function only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.
(3) In subsection (1), the “delegated and implementing Regulations” means—
(a) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 supplementing the EU Regulation with regard to the establishment of Union symbols for protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed and with regard to certain rules on sourcing, certain procedural rules and certain additional transitional rules,
(b) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2014 supplementing the EU Regulation with regard to conditions of use of the quality term “mountain product”, and
(c) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 laying down rules for the application of the EU Regulation.
(4) The references in subsection (1) to the EU Regulation and the delegated and implementing Regulations are to those instruments—
(a) as they have effect in domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and
(b) as amended from time to time whether by virtue of that Act or otherwise.”—(Deidre Brock.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is about protected geographical indictors. They are a vital part of the business plan of many of Scotland’s top food producers and many food producers in other nations. They are a guarantee of quality and of the care and skill that goes into their production.
I am sorry to say that I remain to be convinced that a UK system would be any kind of replacement or match for the EU system, but the UK Government still intend to create their own new system instead of sticking with the EU system, as I understand they could have done. It therefore seems sensible to me to make sure that the new scheme properly serves producers who have the full protection under the current scheme, and any new producers wishing to get geared up for it.
To protect Scottish producers, it seems sensible to ensure that there is input from the Scottish Government to the new scheme. The new clause would simply ensure that the views of Scottish Ministers are properly considered in the exercise of functions under the scheme. It reflects and respects the devolution settlement and is measured.
Victoria Prentis
I see the good intentions behind the new clause, and I understand the desire to ensure that Ministers’ decisions on geographical indicators are made in the best interests of all stakeholders across the nations. However, that is not quite what the new clause would do. It would give Scottish Ministers a veto over Government decisions, even when there was no Scottish interest in those decisions. GIs are a form of intellectual property law and are therefore a reserved matter, so it would not be appropriate to go down the path proposed in the new clause.
Nevertheless, even though GIs are reserved, the Government recognise that the devolved Administrations have always played an important role in these schemes—Scottish salmon, for example, is an important export—and I am keen for that to continue. I assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith that my officials have worked closely with colleagues from the devolved Administrations to agree a working-level arrangement to underpin very close co-operation in the new domestic schemes. That was agreed and signed by senior officials in the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government, on 4 October last year. The arrangement ensures that the devolved Administrations will be included in the assessment of GI applications and will have a say in the development of scheme rules. I believe that this arrangement does what the hon. Lady seeks with her new clause.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I rise to say on behalf of the shadow European affairs team—in the spirit of transitioning from one state of affairs to another—that Labour Front-Benchers have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and the SNP are trying to do. Of course, we want to protect GIs and people’s ability to trade using them, which is a strength. We particularly want to make sure that, given that—I have to reiterate this—the prediction that moving to World Trade Organisation trading rules will be the worst-case scenario, we do everything we can to protect our specialist food producers. However, the Labour party cannot support the new clause as worded because of subsection (2), which would give Scottish Ministers a veto. I will not go over old ground, but it is consistent with Labour policy that we could not support it because of that part, but we support the spirit of what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve.
I urge the Minister to work with all parties and producers across the whole United Kingdom so that we can protect our GI products. They are dear to us and to our sense of who we are, and as we leave the European Union, they may matter even more. There are Members across the Committee who feel very strongly about GIs in their own constituencies.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Work is ongoing on this exact issue. I encourage Labour Members to join the all-party parliamentary group on geographically protected foods, at which we will discuss this, so that we can hold the Minister to account.
Thangam Debbonaire
What a wonderful invitation. I was mentally running through Government Committee members and trying to think of a geographical indicator in the constituency of each one, and I think I did pretty well, actually. Probably all of us have a product in our constituencies whose GI status we want to protect, so the hon. Lady’s offer is useful.
In that spirit, as I said, we support the sentiment behind the new clause. We cannot support subsection (2), but in every other way we support making this law, because we need to do everything we can to protect our GIs. I am sorry if that disappoints the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, but that is where we are at the moment.
Deidre Brock
I appreciate the words of the hon. Member for Bristol West. There is that veto word again. I think it is more a matter of respect for the devolved Administrations and their knowledge of the conditions that apply in their areas, rather than seeking to override their views of Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Ministers, as the Bill potentially allows for.
Leaving that aside for the moment, I stress how incredibly important protected geographical indicators are in Scotland and to those producers and areas fortunate enough to have been awarded membership of the scheme. There are many questions outstanding about the replacement scheme. There are fears that it will be in no way strong enough to stand up to the US tendency to prefer a trademark system, which is a lot weaker than the European PGI scheme. Previously, a producer who came across a good that made use of their brand inappropriately had the whole of the EU standing behind them when they took action against the offender. We are not entirely sure what we will have instead.
This is something I feel very strongly about. I have done quite a lot of work on PGIs. We have taken a lot of evidence about them in the Scottish Affairs Committee, and I know how important they are, particularly particular to some of the further flung areas of Scotland. I hate to use the word fragile when talking about rural areas because I know how it sometimes offends people who live up there, but there is no doubt that PGI status is crucial to maintaining people’s ability to stay in some of those areas, to work there and to keep the countryside alive with people. I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would ban the import of foie gras in the UK. As I am sure many here will be aware, foie gras is a product made from the livers of ducks or geese that have been repeatedly force-fed, by having a metal tube inserted down their throats several times a day, when they are just 12 weeks old. It is effectively produced by rendering the animal diseased.
While the production of this so-called delicacy has been banned in Britain since 2000, the fact that imports to the UK are allowed is an effective green light to the continued suffering and mistreatment of these animals. Shockingly, the UK imports around 200 tonnes of foie gras each year from mainland Europe. Today we have an opportunity to put a stop to that once and for all.
Some members of this Bill Committee may recall that the Labour DEFRA team tabled an amendment banning foie gras imports during the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill in 2018. It was extremely disappointing and embarrassing that the then Government chose not to accept that reasonable and common-sense amendment. I sincerely hope that they will not choose to repeat the mistake today in voting against new clause 10.
We know that the Secretary of State has spoken favourably of a ban. He is on record saying:
“When we leave the European Union, we do indeed have an opportunity to look at restrictions on sales”.—[Official Report, 13 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 1052.]
That opportunity is today, and the time is now.
Deidre Brock
I support the new clause simply because it is the right thing to do. I appreciated the speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham East very much, and I hope the Minister will see her way clear to coming to some sort of agreement on this, because many of us are very disturbed by this trade and would like to see it stopped.
Victoria Prentis
While allowed under EU law, the Government have made clear that the production of foie gras from ducks or geese using force-feeding raises serious welfare concerns, as the hon. Member for Nottingham East outlined. The production of foie gras by force-feeding is banned in the UK, as it is incompatible with our domestic legislation. After the transition period, there will be an opportunity to consider whether the UK can adopt a different approach to foie gras imports and sales in this country. I am afraid the time is not quite now; the time is after the transition period.
I understand the strength of feeling on the issue, but this Bill is not about making provisions prohibiting imports. I reassure hon. Members that the Government will use the opportunities provided through future free trade agreements and, of course, our wider international engagements to promote high animal welfare standards among our international trading partners. I am afraid the time is not yet, and I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Nadia Whittome
I must say I am disappointed in the Minister’s response. What she says on animal welfare is at odds with what is in the Bill. Therefore, I will move this new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to continue under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am pleased to speak briefly to the new clause, which is about standards, animal welfare and what is right. It is about who we are and what we eat, although I am mindful of my hon. Friends from Bristol, so the last part applies only to some of us.
Sir David, we know that many people in Southend West, Newport West and right across the United Kingdom are concerned that Britain’s departure from the European Union could lead to laws on the quality of meat standards being relaxed to the point of impotency, purely so that a deal can be struck between the Prime Minister and the United States Government. Many Opposition Members have loudly made the case that we cannot sell out or trade off our high standards and practice, and many on the Government Benches make those points in private too. This morning, the Secretary of State for International Trade made a strong comment in response to my question in the House. She said that the Government would walk away from any US-UK deal that did not protect our high standards. Obviously, we will watch that very closely.
I commend Unison for commissioning a recent survey that looked at the wider issues of meat standards. It is important for representative bodies such as Unison to take the lead in highlighting those issues. In Labour’s 2019 manifesto, we pledged to introduce a formal whistleblowing procedure through the Food Standards Agency, to enable employees to report bad behaviour and practice in abattoirs. The new clause would make good on that pledge, but more importantly ensure that malpractice and impropriety had no place in abattoirs across the country. The new clause is sensible, and essentially self-explanatory. Surely the Government will have little issue accepting it, and I call on them to do so.
Victoria Prentis
Whistleblowing is already protected in legislation in Great Britain through the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, and the Food Standards Agency already has robust procedures in place to process whistleblowing in relation to animal welfare offences committed in abattoirs. The Act provides procedures to support staff and workers to raise concerns regarding possible past, current or future wrongdoing during the course of their work. That includes abattoir workers who are concerned that animal welfare offences might have been committed by their employer. That legislation and the FSA procedures provide a clear framework to handle whistleblowing and encourage disclosure—not just within abattoirs, but across the scope of work carried out by the FSA.
Following the 2013 review into the integrity and insurance of food networks, the National Food Crime Unit was established in 2015, which allows anyone to report any suspected food crime by calling Food Crime Confidential on a dedicated number. That crime unit is strengthening its capabilities and will be opening a fully functioning in-house criminal investigations unit by April 2020. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport West will agree that this is progress, so I ask her to withdraw her proposal.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her comments and her affirmation of what is already going on. However, if this is already in law, it could do no harm to enshrine and reaffirm it in the Bill, so we will not withdraw the new clause; we will push it to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 14—Livestock farming practices: duty to promote research—
“The Secretary of State must promote the conduct of research into the impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestock farming practices in England.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to promote the conduct of research into the impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestock farming practices in England.
Daniel Zeichner
These two new clauses would require the Secretary of State to conduct or commission research into the impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestock farming practices in England. We know that effective research into the impact of highly intensive farming practices is going to be vital to contributing to a better understanding of what we can do to improve animal welfare and what better welfare practices can be promoted within the public goods element of the Bill, which we will of course support.
As I outlined during the debate on some previous amendments regarding the need for baseline animal welfare standards, we think much more could be done to improve the lives of animals on our farms, looking particularly at species-specific needs. We think research has a big role to play in that, but unless that research is properly co-ordinated and incentivised by the Government, we will be leaving it largely up to market forces to keep the science up to date. We believe the welfare of our farm animals is too important to be neglected, and we want to see action now. I appreciate that there is a question whether such a provision would be covered by the Bill’s money resolution, so we have helpfully provided two versions. I very much hope that the Government might find it in their heart to support one of them.
Victoria Prentis
The Government are committed to animal welfare. I reassure Members that high-quality research and evidence from a range of sources will always inform our animal welfare policy. Using the powers set out in the Bill, we are developing a scheme, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that aims to improve farm animal welfare in England. As part of that, we are exploring one-off grants that will help farmers to improve welfare on farms, as well as a payment by results scheme through which farmers could receive ongoing payments for delivering specific animal welfare enhancements.
New clause 13 would make it a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to conduct, commission or assist the conduct of research that specifically considers the impact on animal welfare of highly intensive livestock farming practices in England. Although the new clause is well intentioned, it fails to recognise the unintentional consequences that could occur as a result. Farm animal welfare relies primarily on good stockmanship. The Animal Welfare Committee frequently concludes that good stockmanship is more important than the system in which animals are kept when it comes to meeting their welfare needs. In addition, it is difficult to be clear about what constitutes a highly intensive farming system, because the term is not defined.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs already conducts internal and external research into farm animal welfare, and is supported by a range of evidence committees, such as the Animal Welfare Committee. Although new clause 14 does not state what is meant by “promote” and is ambiguous on what would fulfil that requirement, I reassure Members that DEFRA already promotes animal welfare research in a number of ways. However, we do not wish to be restricted to focusing only on intensive farming systems, however defined. DEFRA publishes details of current research and development online, as well as the final reports from internal and external research projects.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government share the public’s high regard for animal welfare, and recognise the need for animal welfare policy development and implementation to be very well founded in evidence. That will ensure that we remain at the global forefront of animal welfare policy. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw the motion.
Daniel Zeichner
I anticipated the question on the definition of highly intensive farming when I reread the new clause over lunchtime. I rather thought that it would be the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby who raised that query, but the Minister got in there first. I am pleased by her response. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 15
Grouse shooting and management: review and consultation
“(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) commission an independent review of the economic, environmental and wildlife impacts of driven grouse shooting, and
(b) consult on regulation of grouse moor management.
(2) The Secretary of State must make available the services of any person or other resources to assist in the conduct of a review under subsection (1)(a).
(3) The Secretary of State must publish a summary of responses to the consultation under sub-section (1)(b).
(4) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months from the day on which—
(a) the review commissioned under subsection (1)(a) is received, or
(b) the consultation under subsection (2) closes,
whichever is the sooner, publish a statement of future policy on grouse shooting and grouse moor management.”—(Ruth Jones.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a review of the economic, environmental and wildlife impacts of driven grouse shooting and publish proposals for regulation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 16—Grouse shooting and management: review and consultation (No. 2)—
“(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) undertake a review of the economic, environmental and wildlife impacts of driven grouse shooting, and
(b) consult on regulation of grouse moor management.
(2) The Secretary of State must publish a summary of responses to the consultation under sub-section (1)(b).
(3) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months from the day on which the consultation under subsection (2) closes, publish a statement of future policy on grouse shooting and grouse moor management.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the economic, environmental and wildlife impacts of driven grouse shooting and publish proposals for regulation.
Ruth Jones
I am pleased to speak to new clauses 15 and 16. We know that our planet and climate are experiencing huge change, and the effects of the climate emergency are becoming an increasing feature of the world in which we live, affecting not just humans, but our natural world and our wildlife. The new clauses call on the Government to think about biodiversity, the uplands, the fragile and insecure rural economy, and the many people who live and make their way of life in our green and open spaces. The new clauses are also about the welfare of our wildlife. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East has campaigned on such issues over many years, and I pay tribute to her tenacity and commitment to animal welfare and our environment.
The weight of the scientific evidence before us is such that we can see that driven grouse shooting damages habitats, pollutes our water, increases greenhouse gas emissions, and involves the illegal persecution of birds of prey. The practice also increases the risk of floods, which damage properties and green spaces and lead to devastating deaths of people and animals alike. Right now, flooding is an issue of real concern for many people up and down the country. Those of us who were present for yesterday’s Opposition day debate on flooding heard powerful stories illustrating the need for upstream land management to prevent downstream flooding. As shadow flooding Minister, I was delighted that the Opposition motion received support from both sides of the House, including the Government Benches. By voting with us, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) showed that, sometimes, politics does not need to win but common sense can.
The new clause addresses the effects of a practice that cuts across many different and important issues, and the Minister can surely support it. It would allow us to look at specific areas such our soil, drainage and hydrology, conservation, wildlife crime, and the wider concern about sustainability. As legislation such as this Bill passes through the House, we have the chance to address the many issues that have fallen off the to-do list. Let us take the opportunity new clauses 15 and 16 offer to commission a review so that we can methodically, clearly and carefully work our way through those important issues. The future of our planet and our natural world is in our hands, so let us get on and save it.
Mr Goodwill
My North Yorkshire constituency includes about two thirds of the North York Moors national park and vast areas of heather moorland, which is a glory to behold in late summer when the heather is in flower. Indeed, many people flock to the area to see the natural beauty of the landscape and to enjoy all the activities that take place there.
A grouse moor is a fragile environment. Historically, much of the area was forest. It was only when the trees were cut down for domestic fuel or to turn into charcoal to smelt with the limestone that was mined in the area that the forest disappeared. If we do not look after the heather in the right way, we will not keep it for very long. It needs managing not only for grouse, which cannot be reared artificially—it is an indigenous species in this country and needs to be reared in the wild—but for other species, particularly ground-nesting birds such as golden plover and lapwing, which rely on that fragile environment.
I join hon. Members who condemn the illegal persecution of raptors, but it is the case that by managing the moorland, the small mammals, birds’ eggs and other prey that the raptors feed on are facilitated. When we consider how to maintain those areas, it is important to listen to the experts. In an article, the North York Moors national park ranger David Smith said:
“Controlled burning is used to manage the heather better. After 15 to 20 years the heather gets old and leggy and you need different age structures for the wildlife that lives on the moor.
Grouse shelter underneath the older heather and the fresh new heather is more palatable for both sheep and grouse. What people don’t realise is that the North York Moors is a managed moorland. If you don’t stay on top of it, it would turn back to woodland, with birch and rowan trees quickly re-establishing themselves.”
The article continues:
“Cutting the heather, the alternative to burning, does work, but on very stony ground or uneven ground…it’s impractical”.
David Smith says:
“If you only cut the heather, you leave smaller vegetation close to the ground, it doesn’t destroy everything which is needed to give the new growth a fresh start.
Controlled burns flash across the top of the moor. They don’t destroy the seed bank. If you cut the heather, brash is left behind and smothers what’s underneath. It stops it from regenerating and slows down regrowth.”
The article concludes:
“Another reason for controlling the heather is to allow the sheep to move about more easily”
and to provide tender young growth for the sheep, particularly the young lambs, to graze.
We have obligations regarding CO2 and we need to protect our peat areas, but the deposition of new peat is glacial in pace. If we want to use those areas as a carbon sink, we should follow the advice of George Monbiot and plant more trees. Perhaps we should plant more trees, but not at the expense of our traditional moorland. We should also make a distinction between blanket bog, such as the bog on Saddleworth moor, which tends to occur in the west of the country, and the dry heathland found in other parts of the country, particularly in the east. We saw on the news the apocalyptic scenes on Saddleworth moor when it was on fire in February 2019. During the recent fires in Australia, much criticism was made of the absence of what they called back burning. I maintain that the controlled burning of small areas of the moorland, at a time of year when those fires are unlikely to get out of control, means that we have natural fire breaks. I suggest that the new clause is not needed.
I suggest that there are those in this country who oppose grouse shooting for reasons that are not particularly environmental, but are to do with animal welfare or with the people who go shooting, whom they may not like. We should not use a false environmental argument to stop the traditional management of the moorland. My wife’s grandfather managed a moor at Troutsdale until he retired. That moor is not a moorland now; there are no grouse, there are no lapwings; it is brash and trees are growing rapidly. If it is not kept on top of and managed, that type of habitat, which is unique in Europe, is not preserved. We need to protect it.
Victoria Prentis
It is a genuine pleasure and honour to be surrounded by so many knowledgeable and committed environmentalists. The Government consider that shooting activities can bring many benefits to the rural economy, and in many cases are beneficial for wildlife and habitat conservation. We recognise that it is vital that wildlife and habitats are respected and protected. We will continue to work to ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between shooting and conservation. There is no need for a commitment to review driven grouse shooting, as defined in the new clause, because we are already considering these issues. If there were to be a review, it might be more efficient and effective to consider other forms of grouse shooting and wider moorland management where there are no grouse, alongside driven grouse shooting.
The Government are already addressing rotational burning associated with grouse moor management on protected blanket bog. We have always been clear of the need to end burning on protected blanket bog to conserve vulnerable habitats, and we are actively looking at how legislation could achieve that. Our intention has always been to legislate if a voluntary approach fails to deliver. Real progress is being made in promoting sustainable alternatives, including consent for cutting of vegetation as an alternative to rotational burning, and removing or modifying consents to burn as higher level stewardship agreements are renewed. We have urged landowners to adopt those measures and continue to work with them constructively.
The recently released Werritty review addresses those issues in Scotland. The group’s report recognised the socioeconomic contribution that grouse shooting makes to Scotland’s rural economy, but made a number of recommendations that are currently being considered by the Scottish Government. We will watch closely to see how they respond. We do not rule out the possibility of a wider review into grouse moor management in the future, but I would not want to restrict that just to driven grouse management. Once Scotland has announced its plans, we will consider the benefits or otherwise of regulatory alignment between the two jurisdictions. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clauses.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister and the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby for their comments. I bow to the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area; I accept his comments and I am pleased that he agrees with us at least in part.
The burning of heather is an emotive issue, and there are many different expert opinions on it. It is certain that careful land management is crucial to ensure that we achieve our environmental standards. That is why we tabled our new clauses. We all agree that tree planting is essential; the Government are already missing their own targets by at least 70%, so we must keep pushing.
I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments that this is a false animal welfare issue—it is not. It is a very real issue, which is why we have tabled the new clauses, following advice from outside organisations. I am pleased that the Minister is considering driven grouse shooting legislation, but let us start now and put it in the Bill.
Question put, that the clause be read a Second time.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Briefly, what new clause 17 boils down to is ensuring that Scottish farmers can plan ahead. It would ensure that the resources that will be made available to support Scottish farmers are known about in advance of the implementation period completion day. To be honest, I am not sure that a month is long enough notice, but it would at least be notice.
I am sure that the Minister could give that commitment today, but I think we would all agree that it would be much better written into the Bill. The Minister can think of the new clause as a sort of love letter to Scottish farmers, Parliament can think of things being done in the right way, and I would just be glad to have it confirmed.
Farmers, just like any other business, do best when they have some clarity on their long-term planning—we have heard the Secretary of State say that on several occasions. Providing that certainty and clarity—that honesty and transparency—is the work of the Government in this instance, and that is what new clause 17 asks for. Scottish farmers need that certainty and therefore the Scottish Government need certainty on funding. I would prefer farmers, crofters and Ministers to be told earlier whether funds will be made available that are at least equivalent to the cash that has been available to farmers and crofters up to now, but I look forward to the Minister telling us that the Government agree that farmers and crofters need that certainty and that they accept the new clause.
Thangam Debbonaire
We on the Labour Front Bench would say that the new clause makes a reasonable request. There are lots of ways in which we could try to deal with the problem of divergence and the tension between devolved and reserved matters and protecting regional interests, which we wish to do. There are various alternatives that the Minister could commit to. Having something from her on the record today, in Hansard, will be helpful.
Regardless of whether the new clause is agreed to, I am sure that all of us on the Opposition Benches will hold the Minister to her word; she is a woman of her word. If she makes a commitment on the record that there will be some form of report, we will put it in our diaries to follow that up. If the new clause falls, but she has made that commitment, we will be coming back to this point a month before the implementation period is over, at the beginning of December. I hope that, in that spirit, the Minister will consider making the commitment and therefore, when the time comes, the relevant statement can take place. It is completely reasonable that farmers across the whole of the regions and nations—not just Scotland, but the whole of the United Kingdom—can have that continuity and some certainty at least.
I may be wrong, but I am guessing that the Minister might be about to say that it is not necessary to add the new clause to the Bill. We have heard that before, and I understand the argument, but it would be good to have some recognition on the record that we can hold her to.
Victoria Prentis
In my experience, farmers would much prefer a cheque to a love letter. Maybe I have met the wrong ones. In that spirit, the only commitment I am going to make is the important one, which is a commitment to guarantee the current annual budget in every year of this Parliament, giving real certainty over funding for the coming years. That is worth a great deal more to farmers than a new clause that would merely require the Secretary of State to make a statement on agricultural funding for Scotland.
I reassure the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith that in recognition of the perceived injustice felt by Scottish farmers over convergence funding, the Scottish Government will receive an extra £160 million over two years in 2019-20 and 2020-21. All Members will know that Her Majesty’s Treasury is ultimately responsible for financial matters across UK Government. Treasury colleagues lead on discussions on all funding matters with Finance Ministers in the devolved Administrations. DEFRA will continue to work closely with the Treasury and the devolved Administrations on funding arrangements, but the Government have committed to year-on-year funding, and I am afraid that is the best I can do.
Deidre Brock
I cannot say that I am not disappointed by the Minister’s response. Yes, the convergence funding was welcome, but that was after many years of tussling over it, as Members will be aware. In our view, that money was returned to us after it was wrongfully taken away by the UK Government. We are delighted we have it now, as are the many farmers and crofters who will benefit from it, after it not being with them for some years.
I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity over this, but I want to hear that the funds made available will be at least equivalent to the cash. That includes such things as inflation, and I do not feel that her words are sufficient to provide that surety. Forgive me, Sir David, but—this is a commonly held view in this place—I do not have a great deal of faith in the Treasury and what it will decide in the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol West for her kind words of support, because this important principle applies not solely to Scotland, but to all the devolved Administrations. She is right about that. That surety is vital for all our farmers and crofters, and even being able to put that into words in Committee would have been a helpful start. With that in mind, I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I preface my comments by declaring that I am a member of Unite, the trade union that represents many agricultural and rural workers. Given that the Bill is on agriculture, and we have been speaking about it for many hours, it is disappointing that we have got so far without talking about the people who work in the industry. In 2017, 474,000 people were working in agriculture across the UK, so the Bill will affect almost half a million people. It is disappointing that we have had so little mention of workers so far, and no consideration of the current challenging conditions that many of them face, or of what impact the new provisions may have on employment conditions—let alone how we will ensure that we have the workforce to keep our farms running.
Our discussion so far has been in marked contrast to the excellent report last year by the Food Farming and Countryside Commission of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. That report is elegantly and beautifully produced, and many of the top-line quotes are about the impact on rural workers.
Many of those working in the sector face particularly challenging mental health issues. I suspect that the Government will say that the Bill is about agriculture, but in my view it must also be about the people who work and live in our countryside. We need an impact assessment for the Bill’s provisions to help to ensure that new policies affecting workers will result in making working in farming an attractive prospect for workers of all skill levels, from here and from overseas.
That is vital economically, because currently just 0.6% of those who harvest the UK’s crops are British. Owing to the toxic atmosphere and uncertainty around Brexit, our farmers are already seeing a significant shortage of workers from overseas. Last autumn, we saw fruit crops rotting in fields due to farmers not having enough people to pick them. We know that the Government’s seasonal workers pilot, limiting farmers to hiring up to 10,000 workers this year, will not provide the labour needed, even if it is increased a little.
Our farms require around 80,000 seasonal agricultural workers every year. According to the Office for National Statistics, 99% of those workers come from countries within the EU. The Government have spent a long time working out the detail of an Agriculture Bill that may become rather academic if we do not have the labour to work on our farms. We need to look seriously at employment rights and conditions, because the agricultural sector presents some particular challenges for workers. Many jobs in farming are physically hard, seasonal, low paid and precarious, with too few of the employment benefits that people working in other sectors take for granted.
The national minimum wage simply does not cover the specific and unique conditions associated with land-based workers, who are often in isolated rural situations, face significant mental health challenges, and need specific issues covered such as accommodation, living standards, sick pay, and even extra tools. Agricultural workers are also among the most vulnerable to being paid below the minimum wage, as so many workers are from abroad. If their English skills are not particularly strong or they are unfamiliar with the law, they are unlikely to bring claims against employers about underpayment. Yet in England, agricultural workers now lack any efficient and effective collective sector bargaining body to improve those conditions.
The agricultural wages board that the Labour Government introduced in 1948 was scrapped by the coalition Government in 2013. I remember those campaigns very well. I was often there on the marches, and the warnings that the trade unions and others made about the consequences have been largely borne out. That act of coalition vandalism—the Liberal Democrats were entirely complicit; my recollection is that the measures were actually driven through by a Liberal Democrat Minister—broke a career structure with six clear pay grades linked to skills, qualifications and experience, and ended a history of pay and protections with statutory underpinning.
Those protections covered the many thousands of workers on which the industry has depended. Indeed, DEFRA’s 2012 impact assessment of the abolition of the AWB identified that workers would lose more than £140 million in wages, £97.8 million in annual leave, and £8.7 million in sick pay. Predictably enough, surveys show that since the abolition of the wages board there has been a reduction in pay awards and increased working hours. Workers have seen worsening terms and conditions, including the absence of sick pay.
The fact is that England is now the only country in the UK without an effective collective bargaining body for our agricultural workers to have a voice over their pay and working conditions. Wales has an agricultural advisory panel, and both Northern Ireland and Scotland have agricultural wages boards, although their functions are relatively limited and focus on rates of pay. We believe that this cannot be right, and it is disappointing that a Bill on our agricultural sector does not even propose to look into this. I am afraid it speaks volumes about Conservative attitudes to workers in general.
Victoria Prentis
It is a key priority of the Government to ensure not only a successful and effective agricultural sector, but one in which workers are treated fairly. In recent years there has been enormous change to wider employment legislation, which protects and benefits workers in all sectors of the economy. Given that the national minimum wage has started and the new national living wage has been introduced, we continue to believe that there is no justification to have a separate employment regime for agricultural workers.
The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, working with partner organisations, already investigates serious cases of labour market exploitation across the whole of England and Wales. We remain absolutely committed to monitoring the impacts of the Agriculture Bill across relevant sectors, including on workers. That will be achieved through a mixture of Government and third-party evaluation. We therefore believe that new clause 19 is unnecessary.
Daniel Zeichner
I have to say, I am very disappointed by that reply. It is complacent about what is going on in the countryside, and it does not address the very real issues that employers will face if we are unable to attract more people to the industry. It is to everybody’s benefit that agriculture becomes a higher-paid, higher-skilled industry. One of the ways we do that is by ensuring that people have proper rights and the confidence to look after not only themselves, but their colleagues.
I am also disappointed that we have not found any provision in the Bill to tackle the mental health crisis in the agricultural sector. People are working on their own or under pressure, and it is a real issue. We could have addressed it through new clause 19, and I can assure the Minister that we will come back to this in the future. I wish to push new clause 19 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Picture this: it is a lovely sunny day and everyone is outside. Kids are playing in the park, with their mums and dads looking on. What we do not often think about when we picture these happy scenarios, because we do not look for them, are herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. They may well be blowing in on spores and from nearby crops or, more directly, kids may be playing on grass in a park that has been treated with pesticides or weed-killing chemicals.
Quite rightly, we are now being told every day because of coronavirus that we need to wash our hands and not touch our mouths, eyes or nose. In more usual times, we are perhaps a bit more slack about possible transference of dangerous substances into our bodies—and these substances can be dangerous. A selection of the labels on pesticide products used in the UK contains warnings such as “Very toxic by inhalation”, “Do not breathe spray/fumes/vapour”, “Risk of serious damage to eyes”, “Harmful: possible risk of irreversible effects through inhalation”, “May cause cancer by inhalation”, and even “May be fatal if inhaled.” Cornell University’s work on pesticides points to the risk of deformities, mutations, cancer and poisoning of the nervous system. These are dangerous chemicals, and we need to keep a close eye on their impact.
Children and pregnant mothers are more exposed to the potential impact of pesticides than most of us, because they have a higher exposure rate. Children absorb pesticides more easily through their skin: not only is a child’s skin more permeable than an adult’s, but their skin surface area is higher relative to their body weight. That makes it easier for them to absorb higher rates of pesticides; in fact, infants will absorb around three times more pesticides than adults from similar exposure episodes. Children take in more air, water and food than adults relative to their body weight, which also increases their exposure. As an example, the breathing rate of a child in its first 12 years is roughly double that of an adult, and as a result the amount of airborne contaminants reaching the surface of the lung can be much higher.
Not only is exposure likely to be higher, but that child’s ability to cope with pesticide poisoning will differ from that of an adult. The systems in our bodies used to deal with toxins are less well developed in children, which can make them less able to cope with such substances than adults. As they grow, children’s brains and bodies undergo complex changes that affect tissue growth and organ development. Incidents of exposure that would be tolerated by adults can cause irreversible damage to unborn babies, infants and adolescents. What is worrying about this Bill is that not only does it completely omit any requirement for the protection of human health and the environment from pesticides, but it does not make a single recommendation for simply monitoring pesticides or their effects.
Mr Goodwill
One of the ways in which farmers can reduce their reliance on pesticides is by using new varieties derived though gene editing. Potatoes can be engineered to be resistant to blight, for example. Do Labour Front Benchers support that innovative technology that will reduce our reliance on pesticides?
Daniel Zeichner
Aha! As ever, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has touched on a subject that is of some interest to me, as I chair the all-party parliamentary group for life sciences. I look forward to having a detailed conversation with him about CRISPR-Cas9 and other exciting techniques.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, we are absolutely interested in looking at ways in which we can reduce pesticide use. As I indicated earlier, I am well aware that farmers do not use pesticides without due caution, or without bearing in mind the current safety regulations and the costs involved. Having said that, we believe there should be additional measures in this Bill. We fully accept that pesticides are needed in some situations, but other new technologies might be available, including drones and satellite images that have the potential to make the application of these chemicals much more targeted and less damaging. I am told that those techniques are already being used in other countries, but if we are not monitoring pesticides and their impact, there is no way that we will be able to encourage or assist farmers to adopt more selective and less damaging techniques.
All Members present have been repeatedly promised by Ministers that when we left Europe, we would bring in stronger human and environmental protections, or at least equivalence. The Labour party believes that that is an absolute minimum, we should monitor what impact pesticides are having; where that impact is concentrated; and whether children, mothers and babies have been affected, especially in rural communities where exposure is likely to be higher. This amendment does not ban anything. It does not stop any farmer who needs to use safe pesticides on their crops, or to use them to increase their yields, from doing so. It simply states that we are not averting our gaze, but keeping our eyes open to the known risks; that we look to reduce those risks; and that we will particularly protect women and children in rural communities. On that basis, I ask that the clause be read a Second time.
Victoria Prentis
I assure the hon. Gentleman that our eyes are very open when it comes to ensuring that the use of pesticides is minimised, and that pesticide usage and its effects are carefully monitored. Current policies address these points already. Strict regulation only allows pesticide use when scientific risk assessments predict that there will be no harm to people and no unacceptable effects on the environment. Existing monitoring schemes cover each of the points proposed in the amendment. They report on the level of usage of each pesticide and on residue levels in food. They also collect and consider reports about possible harm to people or the environment.
The Government support good work to research, develop and promote means to move away from pesticides, which I am sure is our collective aim. These include: plant breeding for pest-resistant varieties; the use of natural predators; the development of biopesticides; and the use of a variety of cultural methods to reduce pest pressures.
The Government intend to continue to develop and refine our approach to pesticides. The 25-year environment plan is where the hon. Gentleman will find most of these details. The plan emphasises the importance of integrated pest management. That means not only that pesticides are used well, but that the approach to farming minimises the need for pesticides and that alternative methods are used wherever possible. Where these practices are shown to help to deliver public goods, they may well be funded under the new environmental land management schemes. We will determine in more detail which ELMS will pay for what as we develop the schemes in the future.
The approach set out in the 25-year environment plan is the right one and we hope that it will minimise pesticide use, help to reduce risks and strongly encourage the uptake of alternatives to pesticides. Alongside the maintenance and development of effective monitoring, this approach will deliver the main outcomes sought by the hon. Gentleman’s amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I listened closely to the Minister and there was much that I probably agree with. However, I would have predicted that we would return to the vexed question of which piece of legislation this proposal would sit in, and we believe that it would be inappropriate to have a piece of major agricultural legislation without reference to it. On that basis, I will push the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Thank you, Sir David—[Interruption.] There is some confusion on this side; I apologise. I blame the late publication of the 109-page document.
Daniel Zeichner
Why does it take the Government so long—since 2018—to respond, and why do they finally respond on the day that we discuss this issue in Committee? We probably all know the politics behind these things, but it is disappointing when it involves such an important subject, discussion of which has been so eagerly awaited by so many people, because it is a highly controversial subject. The science involved is complicated.
In the spirit of sharing the responsibilities across the shadow team, I will pass over to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East in a moment—I hope that she will be called to speak. However, the Labour Front Bench welcomes the Government’s belated response. We also find some things in the response helpful, and we think the Government are changing direction, but not quickly enough. We will make a more considered and detailed response when we have had time to consider it in detail, but our belief is that far too many badgers have been unnecessarily killed. The science is not clear and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there is as much transmission from cattle to cattle. It is not a simple issue. We fully recognise the huge damage, economic cost and distress that bovine TB causes in many areas. As I say, we welcome the direction of travel, but we believe that it should be much swifter.
Nadia Whittome
The Government’s much-delayed response to the Godfray report, published this morning, finally concedes to implement more effective methods of containing bovine TB, such as cattle and badger vaccinations. Of course, scientists, activists and politicians have been saying that for years. Can the Minister explain why it has taken the culling of an estimated 130,000 badgers for the Government to come to the same conclusion that most of us came to years ago? Will she provide an estimate of the number of badgers that will be killed before the switch to vaccinations and other non-lethal preventive measures?
The Government’s U-turn on the badger cull is welcome. I would like to think that it is because the Prime Minister knew that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and I were going to speak to the issue, but I suspect there is someone else he listens to more. It is simply inexcusable, however, that further inhumane killing of this iconic species will continue for several years, especially as the Government have conceded that that is not the most effective strategy for containing bovine TB.
The former Government adviser Professor Ranald Munro recently said that a large number of badgers are likely to have suffered “immense pain” during culls. It is evident that the correct thing for the Government to do would be to bring forward the ban and start implementing non-lethal alternatives without delay.
Mr Goodwill
Is the hon. Lady not aware that we do not yet have a vaccine that allows us to identify the difference between a vaccinated animal and an infected animal? Until we have that type of vaccine, it will not be possible to make the switch.
Nadia Whittome
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but the state of the science does not prevent the new clause from being made. New clause 21 provides the Government with an opportunity, on the day that they released their long-awaited response to the Godfray review, to urgently put an end to the inhumane and ineffective badger cull, rather than allowing it to continue for another five years.
Victoria Prentis
Bovine TB is one of our most difficult animal health challenges. It costs the Government about £100 million a year and industry around £50 million a year. Tackling it is important. It imposes a tremendous pressure on the wellbeing of our cattle farmers and their families. Many Committee members, including me, represent constituencies that are exposed to the misery of bovine TB on a daily basis. Left unchecked, bovine TB also poses a threat to public health although that is, to a large extent, mitigated today by milk pasteurisation. My grandfather died of tuberculosis, so I have always taken a close personal interest in the subject. It is a peculiar and complicated disease that it is important for us to take seriously.
No single measure will achieve eradication by our target date of 2038, which is why we are committed to pursuing a wide range of interventions, including culling and vaccination, to deal with the risk from wildlife. Of course culling is a controversial policy, but we have scientific evidence to show that, to a certain extent, it is working. The new review is clear that the evidence indicates that the presence of infected badgers poses a threat to local cattle herds. The review considers that moving from lethal to non-lethal control of disease in badgers is desirable. Of course, we would all go along with that. We have reached a point where intensive culling will soon have been enabled in most of the areas where it has served the greatest impact. As announced in the Government response today, we will be able to develop measures to make badger vaccination, combined with biosecurity, the focus of addressing risks from wildlife as an exit strategy from intensive culling. Our aim is to allow future badger culls only where the epidemiological evidence points to a reservoir of disease in badgers.
Nobody wants to cull badgers inappropriately, but nor can we allow our farmers, their families and our wider dairy and beef industries to continue to suffer the misery and costs caused by the disease. That is why it is right that we take strong and decisive action to tackle the problem effectively, while always looking to evolve towards non-lethal options in future. I therefore do not think the new clause is appropriate.
Daniel Zeichner
I listened closely to the Minister’s comments. I suspect we will come back to this issue. We have been discussing it for the past 10 or 20 years. I fully appreciate what a serious issue it is and how it directly affects both her family and many others. However, at the general election we stood on a clear pledge to end the badger cull. We stand by that and the new clause would put it into law. The direction of travel of the Godfray report today reflects that the Government, on the basis of scientific evidence, are beginning to move in that direction. I suspect it is still partly about costs, because culling is more expensive. The vaccination question that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned is important, but it is important that we follow the science as it develops. We want to eradicate and defend and protect. The issue is of considerable public interest, so I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to hold a consultation on whether an existing agency, such as the Rural Payments Agency, or a new body should administer payments and other functions delivered under the Bill. This is an important juncture in our consideration of the Bill. This will probably be, in the words of our former colleague David Drew, “the most popular part”, as we are giving the opportunity to those who wish to be consulted to get rid of the Rural Payments Agency. But, as is always the case, things do not have to be that way. The Government could ensure that we have a strengthened and effective payments agency, but that agency will likely have to be a new body with a strong and effective mandate to do its work. We cannot rely on an existing agency that has a reputation for wrong payments, late payments and no payments at all.
The new clause is not meant to be confusing; it is very clearly about charting a realistic way forward that has the support of those who will be seeking support and funding from Her Majesty’s Government in the years ahead. We would welcome it if the Minister stood up and announced a strong and empowered agency, but if she cannot do that today, we want the new clause to stand part of the Bill. We are entering uncharted waters—as the shadow Minister with responsibility for water, I know all about that—and we have the chance to take stock, reflect and start anew.
Much has been made of the future and the new way of doing things. The Government have made a great many promises to our farmers and agricultural workers. If we take the Bill and the Government press lines as they stand, we are entering a new and glorious world, but I caution those on the Treasury Bench to make good on their pledges and promises to our farmers and all those working in the agricultural sector. The demands on those people and workers are great, and the potential to increase support is huge, so let us take it.
The new clause will ensure that things are done properly when it comes to the many financial provisions in the Bill and the passing on of vital payments, that the powers and resources are exercised effectively, and that we do our best for our farmers going forward. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully and respond accordingly.
Victoria Prentis
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members in all parts of the Committee that we will consult extensively on the use of the various powers in the Bill. We know that the delivery of the previous CAP scheme was not as good as we wanted it to be, or as good as farmers deserved. Therefore, we will design new arrangements that will make it as simple as possible for people to apply for funding. We want to ensure that payments are prompt and accurate.
In the short term, the Rural Payments Agency will continue to administer direct payments and countryside stewardship payments, and considerable progress has been made in their delivery and achievement in recent years. We have seen a significant increase in performance and are putting in place further improvements to delivery.
As discussed last week, there will be a public consultation on ELM. Stakeholders will be able to provide us with feedback across all elements of the schemes. We use such feedback to inform decisions on who will be best placed to provide the service for the ELM and other financial schemes going forward. Before consulting on how we deliver future schemes, we will want to refine our policies further. Once we have established who is best placed to deliver the reform, we can take views on how to roll it out. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her comments and for her honesty in accepting that there have been flaws and deficiencies in the previous system. We all share the same aim: we want payments to be made accurately and promptly. We look forward to the promised improvements at the RPA and will therefore not press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 27
Agriculture Co-ordination Council
“(1) There shall be an Agricultural Co-ordination Council composed of—
(a) the Secretary of State, or representatives of the Secretary of State,
(b) Scottish Ministers, or representatives of Scottish Ministers,
(c) Welsh Ministers, or representatives of Welsh Ministers, and
(d) DAERA.
(2) The Council shall establish a common framework to monitor any disparities within the United Kingdom—
(a) in standards of food production;
(b) arising from the exercise of powers to give financial assistance for any purpose which may be specified;
(c) arising from the power to make payments under the basic payment scheme or to make delinked payments; and
(d) in marketing standards.
(3) The Council shall review any framework established under subsection (2) at least once in each calendar year, and may amend a framework.”—(Thangam Debbonaire.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Thangam Debbonaire
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
On behalf of the Labour Front Bench—both the shadow DEFRA and European affairs teams—this is an offer. The new clause is probing, as I am sure the Minister will have noticed. We seem to have got a bit stuck in Committee on the question of how, as we leave the EU, we resolve tensions between devolved powers and duties in agriculture and the reserved powers and duties on WTO compliance.
As we said on WTO compliance, it is a sad state of affairs that we have got to, but none the less we have. The new clause makes the modest suggestion of creating a route to assist in resolving that tension. Establishing an agriculture co-ordination council does not undermine either UK sovereignty or devolution, but it attempts to provide a forum for discussing and addressing any possible differences that might affect compliance, undermine the consistency of standards, or involve various other matters listed in the new clause.
We are not being particularly prescriptive. We have suggested elected Government Ministers or their representatives, so that the council is democratically accountable, but we have left open the timetable and the process. The new clause is a suggestion—not one that we will press to a vote, but one that gives the Minister the opportunity to tell us what she believes the alternatives to be. If not this, then what?
Victoria Prentis
I am reminded that the Government Whip and I both read English at university, and “A Modest Proposal” can mean something quite different. However, I thank the hon. Lady for her new clause seeking to establish an agriculture co-ordination council. I accept that she is asking me generally to explain our plans.
The UK Government have been collaborating closely with all devolved Administrations on a UK-wide framework for agricultural support based on Joint Ministerial Committee principles over the past two and a half years. The framework is planned to cover policy areas such as agricultural support spending, crisis measures, public intervention, private storage aid, marketing standards, cross-border farms and data collection and sharing.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Minister for responding to our probing amendment with more information, as I had hoped she would. I reserve judgment on her assertion that what she described all works very well, because that is a matter for the devolved Administrations to comment on, and I expect that they will in due course, possibly in the final stages. I am happy not to press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 28
Agricultural co-operatives
“(1) The Secretary of State must promote agricultural co-operatives by—
(a) offering financial assistance for the creation or development of agricultural co-operatives, and
(b) establishing bodies to provide practical support and guidance for the development of new co-operatives.
(2) The Secretary of State shall examine any proposal for primary or secondary legislation to assess—
(a) its impact upon agricultural co-operatives, and
(b) whether that impact is disproportionate in relation to its impact upon other producer organisations or interbranch organisations.
(3) Financial assistance under subsection (1) may be given by way of grant, loan or guarantee, or in any other form.
(4) An organisation shall be recognised as an agricultural co-operative if it meets the conditions in subsections (5) and (6).
(5) Condition 1 is that the organisation—
(a) is registered with the Financial Conduct Authority as a co-operative, or
(b) is constituted under the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014.
(6) Condition 2 is that the organisation—
(a) operates in a sector which is listed in Schedule 1 to this Act, and
(b) includes at least one member which is an agricultural or horticultural producer.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision specifying the criteria under which financial assistance under subsection (1)(a) may be offered.
(8) Regulations under subsection (7) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to promote agricultural co-operatives.—(Daniel Zeichner.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We believe it important that the Bill properly supports co-operative models of farming, as they contribute greatly to a fairer and more resilient agricultural sector. By working together, farmers can benefit from mutual protection, access to new markets, cost savings and efficiency, and a louder collective voice for the industry, all of which will be particularly important in the light of the uncertainty caused by our withdrawal from the European Union.
As our countryside is likely to become increasingly commercialised with, I fear, bigger farms and possibly bigger profits, co-operative approaches also provide a counterbalance to the growing consolidation of ownership of farms and food manufacturing in the hands of a few big agribusinesses or international conglomerates. Many players in our agricultural sector already belong to co-operatives. They may not be as strong as in other countries, but more than 140,000 British farmers are members and co-owners of more than 400 agriculture and farmer co-operatives that work across many levels in the supply chain, from milk marketing and processing to arable crop storage, produce marketing and retail supplies.
The Bill is missing clear provisions to make it easier for current and new co-operatives to succeed in farming by providing practical support, funding and protection from the inadvertent impact of future legislation or regulation. The new clause would therefore lock into the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to promote agriculture co-operatives by offering financial assistance for their creation and development and to establish bodies to provide practical support and guidance for their development. That support could come in the form of grant or loan funding and through the creation of organisations similar to the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, which I understand provides practical support such as advice, networking, shared services and linking agriculture co-operatives to potential opportunities.
The clause would also guarantee that the impact of proposed legislation on agriculture co-operatives is considered. That would ensure that future legislation does not inadvertently make it harder to be a co-operative than any other form of business. That is particularly important in the short to medium term, as much of the detail of the post-Brexit settlement for farmers will come in secondary legislation, to which I am sure we are all hugely looking forward.
The Bill is short on detail, and it is important that any undue impact on co-operatives is mitigated against as the detail is fleshed out. That would also help to future-proof the sector against inadvertent undue harm as policy develops over the long term. We hope that the Government will recognise the contribution of co-operatives and the merits of our proposals. It is important that we properly safeguard that sector within farming and that co-operatives are properly supported and encouraged.
Victoria Prentis
I absolutely agree that farmers can benefit in many ways by co-operating and working together. Co-operation provides opportunities to cut costs and achieve economies of scale, whether through purchasing resources or processing and marketing produce. Co-operatives can gain control and hold a stronger position in the supply chain than people who work alone. By working together, farmers can share knowledge and best practice and support each other to improve productivity and spread innovation.
Clause 1(2) already allows us to provide financial assistance to help farmers to improve productivity. We would like to be able to help farmers to invest in equipment and infrastructure that will help them to benefit from working together. Furthermore, there are provisions elsewhere in the Bill that allow us to create a bespoke UK producer organisations regime, which we will tailor to the needs of UK producers who are interested in collaborating further together.
I hope that that provides some reassurance that we are already supporting, and will continue to support, farmers who want to come together to share knowledge, reduce costs, and strengthen their position in the supply chain.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister, and I think I have had sufficient reassurance on that. On that basis, I am happy not to proceed and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 29
Carbon emissions: net-zero
29‘(1) When considering the provision of financial assistance under sections 1(1) and 1(2) of this Act, the Secretary of State shall ensure that the likely impact of that funding is compatible with the achievement of any emissions reduction target set out in subsection (2).
(2) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to—
(a) within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, publish greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for agricultural soil, livestock, peatland and machinery, for the year 2030, which are consistent with an emissions reduction trajectory that would eliminate the substantial majority of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and
(b) ensure that the targets are met.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, publish a statement of the policies to be delivered in order to meet the emissions reduction targets published under subsection (2).
(4) In this section “soil”, “livestock”, “peatland” and “machinery” shall all relate to that used, owned, or operated in the process of farming or any other agricultural activity.”’—(Daniel Zeichner.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for the agricultural sector.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I think everyone will be pleased that we are getting towards the finishing straight, but, in the meantime, we believe that the Bill needs to have far stronger net zero commitments. As I have said, it is essential that the climate crisis should be front and centre of the Bill, which will be one of the most important pieces of legislation we have had in the past decade to help to meet the climate emergency. Yes, the Government have said that they are committed to reaching net zero by 2050, but the National Farmers Union has demonstrated much more ambitious leadership by setting a closer target—for the agriculture sector to reach net zero by 2040.
Sadly, we know that the Government are currently not on track to meet their carbon emission goals in the 2030s, let alone to reach net zero by 2050, and the 2040 target remains a voluntary one for the agriculture sector. The fact is that the Committee on Climate Change’s 2019 progress report has shown that UK agriculture is not on track with any of its indicators, and there has been little progress in reducing emissions from agriculture since 2008. As only 30% of direct payments are currently secured through meeting greening requirements—an improvement on the previous system, but still not good enough and way short of what is needed—we can see that a lack of financial incentives or legal requirements for farmers to adapt their practices to reduce emissions is part of the problem. That is why it is so important that the Bill should set out clear targets and a proper plan for how agriculture will be expected to reduce its emissions and by what date.
As things stand, all that the Bill does, effectively, is stipulate that the Secretary of State may—not even “must”, to go back to where we started—provide financial assistance under clause 1 for the purposes of climate change and adaptation, as well as other public goods that will have positive impacts on carbon storage, such as good soil management. We have no assurances about how much priority those clause 1 elements that could deliver reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be given by the Government when funding the measures in the Bill. There are no guarantees that farmers will even take up the new environmental land management schemes in the first place to deliver those vital agricultural adaptations to reduce carbon emissions, and there is no plan for how agriculture is expected to meet any net zero target, be that by 2050, 2040 or earlier.
For the Government to say that they are truly committed to transforming our agricultural and land management systems in order to reduce emissions and avert climate catastrophe, the Bill needs to be much strengthened with a coherent, joined-up approach. That has been the purpose of many of our amendments, which we have discussed over the past few weeks. I think I am correct in saying that, sadly, they have been rejected in their entirety by the Government—so far: there is always hope, right to the end. [Laughter.] I do not think there is—but anyway.
The Bill needs binding emission targets for all the key areas of agricultural emissions—soil, livestock, peatland and machinery—for a given date, with clear direction from the Secretary of State on how it is intended to reach them. The NFU suggests 2040. We believe that the target should be in line with that, but that it has got to be even more ambitious if we are to properly address the climate emergency. We propose setting targets that are in line with eliminating the substantial majority of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
We heard of the need for proper targets in the Bill from numerous witnesses in the evidence sessions. That would be the best way to give the legislation some teeth and proper direction and ensure that the Government’s proposed aims for the Bill of reducing agricultural carbon emissions are actually delivered to a timescale that will make those emission reductions effective for averting the climate catastrophe. The urgency of the climate crisis is too real and too important for any less than that.
New clause 29 would align agriculture with the emissions reduction trajectory that would eliminate the substantial majority of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, to publish emission reductions targets for agricultural soil, livestock, peatland and machinery for the year 2030 that are consistent with this aim, to publish a statement within 12 months of the Bill becoming an Act of the policies to be delivered in order to meet the emissions reduction targets, and to ensure those targets are met. The new clause would also ensure that, in providing financial assistance for the clause 1 purposes, the impact of that funding is compatible with the achievement of the target of reducing the substantial majority of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
There can be no more important point on which to conclude our deliberations today. It is a simple test for the Government: are they up to tackling the climate crisis or not? I fear we are about to hear a lot of noes.
Victoria Prentis
Yes, the Government are up to dealing with the climate crisis and are determined to do so, and yes, we agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no more important thing that we should be doing as a Government.
I am really proud that the UK became the first major economy in the world to set a legally binding target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from across the UK economy by 2050. We already have a strong foundation of action and leadership to build from, having cut our emissions by 42% since 1990 while growing the economy by 72%. That does not mean that we are complacent or that we do not recognise that there is a great deal more to do, urgently.
Victoria Prentis
I am going to make some progress.
Climate change is a global challenge, requiring action across the whole economy. We do not have sector-specific targets. That is to ensure that we meet our climate change commitments at the lowest possible net cost to UK taxpayers, consumers and businesses, while maximising the social and economic benefits to the UK of the transition.
We have set out a range of specific commitments, in the 25-year environment plan and under the clean growth strategy, to reduce emissions from agriculture. That includes strengthening biosecurity and control of endemic diseases in livestock, and encouraging use of low-emission fertilisers. However, we know that, to achieve net zero, more is needed from the sector. We are looking to reduce agricultural emissions controlled directly within the farm boundary with a broad range of cost-effective measures, primarily through improvements to on-farm efficiency and land use change.
The new ELM scheme will help us to contribute to our net zero commitment by providing farmers with an opportunity to receive financial reward for delivering a range of public goods. We already report on climate change performance under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the convention on biological diversity. Additional reporting as required by the new clause would place an unnecessary burden on the Government without delivering significant new information to Parliament.
Daniel Zeichner
So, we come full circle, back to where we started. I listened closely to the Minister and I end up being disappointed, sadly. I point out that the Government were dragged unwillingly to the 2050 target. It was the Leader of the Opposition who led on that, and it will be Labour in the future that will deliver us from the climate emergency. I did hear a “yes” at one point in the Minister’s speech, and I hope she might just be able to say yes in a moment, when we come to the vote.
This all comes back to the balance between cost and possibility. I kept hearing the words “lowest possible cost”. This is not something that can be done at low cost. The climate emergency is absolutely real, immediate and urgent. There is a fundamental difference between the two sides here on how we approach it. The Minister mentioned environmental land management schemes. We talked much about that last week. There are no guarantees in the Bill that they will achieve the uptake or the outcomes that we are looking for.
There has been a clear division of opinion throughout the discussions on the Bill. It does too little. It is not strong enough. It does not guarantee the way forward that we need. Agriculture is still a major contributor to the climate crisis. We need to find a way of taking the sector to a much better place. This new clause would help us to do that.
Victoria Prentis
On a point of order, Sir David. I understand that now is the right point to thank you very much for your chairmanship. I also thank the other Chair who has helped us with the proceedings, all the Clerks and the civil servants, who have helped us enormously with the production and the taking through of the Bill. I very much thank the Committee members and the Government and Opposition Whips, who have steered the Bill so seamlessly and with a certain amount of agreement and jollity around the edges.
Daniel Zeichner
On a point of order, Sir David. I expect that I will say something remarkably similar. I particularly thank you and Mr Stringer for your excellent chairmanship. I thank the Whips for making the Committee run so smoothly and efficiently. As we approach International Women’s Day, I look around the room and notice that all my team appear to be women, and there appears to a majority of women on the Government side, too. I think that reflects an important step forward in this place. I suspect that this has been a more gentle and consensual discussion than one might have had otherwise, although I have been chided from my own side for being insufficiently dressed on occasion.
I thank the Clerks, who have been extraordinarily helpful in translating not always clear instructions into workable amendments. I thank all the staff working across the shadow teams; it has been a particularly difficult time. I particularly thank the adviser Rob Wakely and my assistant Rafaelle Robin. We probably expected far too much from them in a short period of time, and I am eternally grateful. All the mistakes are my responsibility.
Deidre Brock
On a point of order, Sir David. Briefly, I thank you and Mr Stringer for your good-humoured chairmanship of the proceedings, and the Clerks, who have been tremendously helpful to my colleague and me. I thank Hansard, who sit there patiently recording our every word, and the Officers, who have had to get up and down frequently to close the doors and open them again. My thanks to all the Committee members for interesting proceedings. I look forward to the Bill reaching Report and to further discussion on many important points.
The Chair
Mr Stringer and I would like to thank all hon. Members for their generous remarks. We thank Hansard and officials for all their support. We particularly wish to commend the Doorkeepers. One had to cope with a key breaking in the door while he was locking it; another was opening the windows at the same time as closing the doors—there is an example of multitasking. Most of all, I thank our Clerks. Without them and their wise counsel, the Committee would not have run so smoothly. I congratulate hon. Members on the way that they dealt with the proceedings, in spite of my many stumblings.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Agriculture Bill
Wednesday 13th May 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 May 2020 - large font accessible version - (13 May 2020)
Mr Speaker
We now come to the remaining stages of the Agriculture Bill, designated for remote Divisions. My provisional determination is that remote Divisions will take place on any new clauses relating to agricultural imports on which a decision is called for, new clause 7, amendment 39 and Third Reading, and that the Question that Government amendments 20 to 22 be made will not be subject to a remote Division.
New Clause 1
Import of agricultural goods after IP completion day
“(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods imported under a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to—
(a) animal welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health.
(2) The Secretary of State must prepare a register of UK production standards, to be updated annually, to which goods imported under subsection (1) would have to adhere.
(3) ‘Agricultural goods’ for the purposes of this section, mean—
(a) any livestock within the meaning of section 1(5),
(b) any plants or seeds, within the meaning of section 22(6),
(c) any product derived from livestock, plants or seeds.
(4) ‘IP completion day’ has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”—(Simon Hoare.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—International trade agreements: agricultural and food products—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 that contains provisions relating to the importation of agricultural and food products into the UK unless they have first made a statement confirming that—
(a) the agreement contains an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, and
(b) any agricultural or food product imported into the UK under the agreement will have been produced or processed according to standards which are equivalent to, or which exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to—
(i) animal health and welfare,
(ii) plant health, and
(iii) environmental protection.
(2) A statement under subsection (1) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
(3) Before the first statement under subsection (1) may be made, the Secretary of State must by regulations specify—
(a) the process by which the Secretary of State will determine—
(i) that the standards to which any agricultural or food product imported into the UK under a trade agreement is produced or processed are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to animal health and welfare, plant health and environmental protection, and
(ii) that the enforcement of standards in relation to any product under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) is at least as effective as the enforcement of the equivalent domestic standards and regulations in the UK;
(b) the “relevant domestic standards and regulations” for the purposes of subsections (1)(b) and (3)(a)(i).
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending any regulations made under subsection (3).
(5) Regulations under subsection (3) or (4) shall be made under the affirmative procedure.
(6) In this section—
“international trade agreement” means—
(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—
(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
“World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement” means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time);
“WTO Agreement” means the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.”
New clause 3—Groceries Code Adjudicator—
“The Adjudicator established by the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013 shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with Part 3 of this Act.”
New clause 4—Agriculture: duty to promote exports—
“(1) The Secretary of State must take steps to increase opportunities for any person carrying on agriculture to export an agricultural product.
(2) Steps under subsection (1) may include measures to seek to secure the lifting of any—
(a) ban on export of an agricultural product,
(b) tariff or other form of barrier to trade,
(c) excessive regulation, or
(d) controls at national borders, local content rules or other barrier to entry for an agricultural product.
(3) The Secretary of State must, no later than twelve months after Royal Assent has been given to this Act, lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out measures taken under subsection (2) and the impact of such measures.
(4) The Secretary of State must within twelve months of laying a report under subsection (3), and once every calendar year thereafter, lay a report setting out measures taken under subsection (2), and the impact of such measures, in the period since the previous such report was laid.
(5) In this section—
“agricultural product” shall mean anything produced in the course of carrying on agriculture, and
“agriculture” shall have the meaning given in section 22(6) of this Act.”
New clause 5—Application of pesticides: limitation on use to protect human health—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for prohibiting the application of any pesticide for the purpose of agriculture near—
(a) any building used for habitation,
(b) any building or open space used for work or recreation, or
(c) any public or private building where members of the public may be present including, but not limited to, schools, nurseries, and hospitals.
(2) Regulations under this section may specify a minimum distance to be maintained during the application of any pesticide between the place of application and any place under subsection (1)(a) to (c).
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“agriculture” has the meaning given in section 15(6), and
“public building” includes any building used for the purposes of education.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would have the effect of protecting members of the public from hazardous health impacts arising from the application of chemical pesticides near buildings and spaces used by the public.
New clause 6—Import of agricultural goods after IP completion day (No. 2)—
“(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods imported under a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to—
(a) animal health and welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health.
(2) The Secretary of State must prepare a register of standards under UK law relating to—
(a) animal health and welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health which must be met in the course of production of any imported agricultural goods.
(3) A register under subsection (2) must be updated within seven days of any amendment to any standard listed in the register.
(4) “Agricultural goods”, for the purposes of this section, means anything produced by a producer operating in one or more agricultural sectors listed in Schedule 1.
(5) “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”
This new clause would set a requirement for imported agricultural goods to meet animal health and welfare, environmental, plant health, food safety and other standards which are at least as high as those which apply to UK produced agricultural goods.
New clause 7—Coronavirus emergency food plan—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of Royal Assent being given to this Act, prepare and lay before Parliament a document (a “coronavirus emergency food plan”) setting out measures to address the impact of coronavirus and coronavirus disease, and action taken in response, upon the supply of food.
(2) The coronavirus emergency food plan must assess and address—
(a) the matters listed in section 17(2);
(b) the following matters—
(i) the incidence of hunger, malnutrition and food poverty measured (a) nationally and (b) by local authority area;
(ii) the level of demand for emergency food aid and the adequacy of services to meet that demand;
(iii) the availability, distribution and affordability of nutritious and healthy food;
(iv) the ease of access to nutritious and healthy food across different socio-economic groups and communities;
(v) the functioning of the food supply chain, including stock levels of individual food items and any cross-border issues impacting upon the import and export of food; and
(vi) the level of any financial assistance provided by a public authority to farmers, growers and the fishing and fish processing sectors as a result of coronavirus or coronavirus disease.
(3) The plan may take account of information provided in response to a requirement under section 25 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (power to require information relating to food supply chains), subject to the restrictions on the use and disclosure of information set out in section 27 of that Act (restrictions on use and disclosure of information).
(4) In this section—
“coronavirus” means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2;
“coronavirus disease” means COVID-19 (the official designation of the disease which can be caused by coronavirus);
“financial assistance” means assistance provided by way of grant, loan, guarantee or indemnity, and any other kind of financial assistance (actual or contingent).”
Member’s explanatory statement This new clause would require the Secretary of State lay before Parliament a coronavirus emergency food plan, within six months of Royal Assent.
New clause 8—Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity—
“(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework relating to agricultural and horticultural activity for or in connection with the following purposes—
(a) the management of land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment;
(b) supporting agriculture and horticulture businesses in enabling public access to healthy food that is farmed in an environmentally sustainable way, including food produced through whole farm agroecological systems;
(c) public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland or woodland and better understanding of the environment;
(d) the management of land or water in a way that maintains, restores or enhances cultural or natural heritage;
(e) improving public health;
(f) the management of land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;
(g) the management of land or water in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;
(h) the protection or improvement of the health or welfare of livestock;
(i) the conservation of native livestock, native equines or genetic resources relating to any such animal;
(j) the protection or improvement of the health of plants;
(k) the conservation of plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives or genetic resources relating to any such plant; and
(l) the protection or improvement of the quality of soil.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision about the standards to which activity for or in connection with all of the purposes in subsection (1) must conform.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision about enforcement, which may (among other things) include provision—
(a) about the provision of information;
(b) conferring powers of entry;
(c) conferring powers of inspection, search and seizure;
(d) about the keeping of records;
(e) imposing monetary penalties;
(f) creating summary offences punishable with a fine (or a fine not exceeding an amount specified in the regulations, which must not exceed level 4 on the standard scale);
(g) about appeals;
(h) conferring functions (including functions involving the exercise of a discretion) on a person.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 30.
New clause 9—Duration of provision in relation to Northern Ireland—
“(1) Section 45 and Schedule 6 expire at the end of 2026.
(2) Regulations made under paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 6 (power to modify retained direct EU legislation relating to public market intervention and private storage aid) cease to have effect at the end of 2026 (so that any amendment made by them ceases to have effect and any enactment repealed by them is revived). But see subsections (4) and (5) for saving provision.
(3) Otherwise, subsection (1) does not affect the continuation in force or effect of any regulations made, or other thing done, by virtue of Schedule 6 before the end of 2026.
(4) Despite subsections (1) and (2), paragraph 7 of Schedule 6, and regulations made under paragraph 8(1) of that Schedule, continue to have effect in relation to any period which ends after the end of 2026 and for which DAERA is giving, or has agreed to give, financial assistance under paragraph 7 of Schedule 6.
(5) Subsection (2) does not affect the lawfulness of anything done in accordance with retained direct EU legislation as modified by regulations made under paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 6 before those regulations cease to have effect.
(6) DAERA may by regulations make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with this section.
(7) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (6) includes provision modifying primary legislation, retained direct EU legislation or subordinate legislation.
(8) Regulations under this section which contain provision modifying primary legislation (with or without other provision) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
(9) Other regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.”
This new clause is designed to introduce a sunset clause so that provisions relating to Northern Ireland are timebound, whilst allowing suitable time for the for the development of bespoke legislation within the next Assembly term and taking into account disruptions in future planning as a result of the Covid19 crisis.
New clause 10—International trade agreements covering agricultural goods: standards and approval—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the agreement meets the conditions in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) The condition in this subsection is that the agreement prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of any agricultural product unless the standards to which that product was produced were as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to—
(a) animal welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) employment rights, and
(d) food safety.
(3) The condition in this subsection is that—
(a) upon conclusion of the negotiations on the agreement, the text of any element of the agreement which concerns trade in agricultural products has been laid before Parliament,
(b) the House of Commons has approved by resolution a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown which approves the text of any element which concerns trade in agricultural products, and
(c) the House of Lords has debated a motion in the same terms as that approved by the House of Commons.
(4) A motion under subsection (3)(b) shall be framed in terms which permit amendment.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
“agriculture product” shall mean any product which falls within an agricultural sector listed in Schedule 1 or which is derived from any such product,
“international trade agreement” means—
(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—
(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 (the WTO Agreement) (as modified from time to time), or
(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.”
New clause 11—Mandatory labelling of animal products as to farming method—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring meat, meat products, milk, milk products and egg products (including those produced intensively indoors) to be labelled as to the method of farming.
(2) The labelling required under subsection (1) shall be placed on the front outer surface of the packaging and shall be in easily visible and clearly legible type.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) shall (among other things) lay down—
(a) the labelling term to be used for each product;
(b) the conditions that must be met for the use of each labelling term.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may exclude from the labelling requirement products containing meat, meat products, milk, milk products or egg products where the total proportion by weight of one or more of these items in the product is less than fifteen percent.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make labelling regulations that require meat, meat products, milk and milk products, and egg products, including those which have been produced intensively, to be labelled as to farming method. Eggs are not included as legislation already requires eggs to be labelled as to farming method.
New clause 12—International trade agreements: agricultural and food products (No. 2)—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the agreement—
(a) includes an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement, and
(b) prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of agricultural and food products in relation to which the relevant standards are lower than the relevant standards in the United Kingdom.
(2) In subsection (1)—
“international trade agreement” means—
(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—
(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in subparagraph (i) or (ii);
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
“relevant standards” means standards relating to environmental protection, plant health and animal welfare applying in connection with the production of agricultural and food products;
“SPS Agreement” means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time);
“WTO Agreement” means the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.”
New clause 14—Carbon emissions: net-zero and interim targets—
“(1) When considering the provision of financial assistance under sections 1(1) and 1(2) of this Act, the Secretary of State shall ensure that the likely impact of that funding is compatible with the achievement of any emissions reduction target set out in subsection (2) or (3).
(2) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to—
(a) set an emissions reduction target for the net UK carbon account for agriculture and related land use for the year 2050 which is at least 100% lower than the 1990 baseline, and
(b) ensure that the target is met.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, publish interim emissions reductions targets for agriculture and related land use that align with budgetary periods as they relate to carbon budgets.
(4) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for agriculture and related land use for a budgetary period does not exceed any interim emissions reduction target published under subsection (3).
(5) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, publish a statement of the policies to be delivered in order to meet the interim emissions reduction targets published under subsection (3).
(6) In this section—
(a) “net UK carbon account” shall have the meaning given in section 27 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(b) “budgetary periods” and “carbon budgets” shall have the meaning given in section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”
This new clause would set a target of net-zero green-house gas emissions for agriculture and related land use in the UK by 2050 at the latest. It would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish interim emissions reduction targets – and policy proposals to ensure those targets are met.
Amendment 26, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert—
“(aa) supporting agriculture and horticulture businesses in enabling public access to healthy food that is farmed in an environmentally sustainable way, including food produced through whole farm agroecological systems.”
This amendment would add to the purposes for which financial assistance can be given that of ensuring access to healthy food produced sustainably including through whole farm agroecological systems.
Amendment 27, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(ca) improving public health;”
This amendment would add “improving public health” to the list of purposes for financial assistance given under clause 1, with ‘improving public health’ defined in Amendment 29.
Amendment 3, page 2, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—
“(g) protecting or improving the management of landscapes and biodiversity through pasture-fed grazing livestock systems including the conservation of native livestock, native equines or genetic resources relating to any such animal;”
Amendment 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(k) protecting or improving the health, well-being and food security of citizens.”
Amendment 18, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(k) establishing and maintaining whole farm agroecological systems.”
Amendment 36, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(k) supporting upland landscapes and communities.”
Amendment 28, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
“‘environmentally sustainable way’ means in a way which employs factors and practices that contribute to the quality of environment on a long-term basis and avoids the depletion of natural resources.”
This amendment defines “environmentally sustainable way” for the purposes of clause 1(4) and Amendment 26.
Amendment 29, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“‘improving public health’ includes—
(a) increasing the availability, affordability, diversity, quality and marketing of fruit, vegetables and pulses,
(b) reducing farm antibiotic and related veterinary product use, and antibiotic resistance in harmful micro-organisms, through improved animal health and welfare,
(c) providing support for farmers to diversify out of domestic production of foods where there may be reduced demand due to public concerns over issues such as health, environment, and animal welfare, and
(d) reducing harm from use of chemicals on farms, and reducing pesticide residues in food;”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 27.
Amendment 19, page 3, line 17, at end insert—
“‘whole farm agroecological systems’ include any whole enterprise system for farming or land management which is designed to produce food or fuel while delivering environmental and social benefits, and may include organic farming.”
Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) In every case such conditions shall include the following restrictions to the eligibility of a recipient of financial assistance—
(a) financial assistance may only be made to individuals or groups of individuals, natural or otherwise, operating land where the predominant use is agricultural as defined by section 96(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; and
(b) financial assistance may only be made available to individuals or groups of individuals, natural or otherwise, who are—
(i) in occupation of or with rights of common over the land for which the financial assistance is being claimed;
(ii) taking the entrepreneurial risk for the decisions made in relation to the management of the land for which the financial assistance is being claimed; and
(iii) in day-to-day management control of the land for which the financial assistance has been claimed.”
Amendment 30, page 3, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) Financial assistance may not be given to any person who is not compliant with standards set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].”
This amendment and NC8 provide a duty for the Secretary of State to set baseline regulatory standards governing agricultural and horticultural activity, which must be met by any recipient of financial assistance.
Amendment 17, page 3, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) Financial assistance may only be given for or in connection with a purpose under section 1(1) or (2) if the owner of the relevant land takes the action described in subsection (4B).
(4B) The action is that the owner of the relevant land will not restrict access for any person on any inland waterway or lake which forms part of that land for the purposes of open-air recreation, if and so long as the person—
(a) exercises that right of access responsibly, and
(b) observes any restrictions which are imposed in—
(i) section 2 of,
(ii) Schedule 2 to, or
(iii) Chapter II of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
(4C) A person does not exercise a right of access responsibly if their conduct while exercising that right is not in accord with the provisions of any code of conduct issued under section 20 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
(4D) For the purposes of subsections (4A) and (4B), “relevant land” means land which includes the land or premises on which the activity for which financial assistance is given under section 1(1) or (2) of this Act takes place or is to take place and includes any inland waterway or lake.”
Amendment 42, in clause 3, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
“(e) development of a target or targets for the uptake of Integrated Pest Management based upon agroecological farming practices, including organic farming, and a robust system for monitoring progress towards such targets.”
This new amendment would enable the Secretary of State to set and monitor progress towards targets for the uptake of Integrated Pest Management based on agroecological farming practises, including for organic farming, in order to ensure that financial assistance granted under the Agriculture Bill is meeting its objectives in terms of environmental outcomes.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 5, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) set out the budgeted annual expenditure to be used to achieve each of the aforementioned strategic priorities for the plan period.”
Amendment 6, in clause 8, page 7, line 40, leave out “2021” and insert “2022”.
Amendment 1, in clause 16, page 12, line 42, at end insert—
“(ba) making provision for future contributions to existing rural socioeconomic schemes;”
This amendment would safeguard the availability of financial provisions to continue the socioeconomic programmes under Rural Development Programmes in the event of delays in the introduction of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.
Amendment 23, in clause 17, page 14, line 20, leave out “five years” and insert “year”.
This amendment would make the Secretary of State’s report on food security annual instead of five-yearly.
Amendment 24, page 14, line 27, at end insert—
“(ba) food poverty and progress towards achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goal on hunger, malnutrition and food poverty (SDG 2);”
This amendment would add food poverty and progress towards the achievement of UN Sustainable Development Goal 2 to the matters to be covered by the report.
Amendment 25, page 14, line 32, at end insert—
“(f) food insecurity.
(3) For the purposes of this section “food insecurity” means a person’s state in which consistent access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money and other resources at times during the year.
(4) Before laying a report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, the relevant Northern Ireland department, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and
(b) have due regard to international best practice on food insecurity, including but not limited to the United States Household Food Security Survey.
(5) A report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) an assessment of trends in food insecurity, broken down by different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England, and
(b) a summary of actions to be taken in areas of high food insecurity by the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive.
(6) In this section—
“parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This amendment would add food insecurity to the matters to be covered by the report.
Amendment 7, page 14, line 32, at end insert—
“(3) As part of the report, the Secretary of State must set out food security targets and specify and implement any actions required to ensure that those targets are met.”
Amendment 8, in clause 18, page 15, leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert—
“(a) there is an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets or a serious threat of an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets caused by economic or environmental factors, and”.
Amendment 31, in clause 27, page 23, line 15, leave out “a specified person” and insert “the Groceries Code Adjudicator”.
This amendment is intended to ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts is given to the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office.
Amendment 32, page 23, line 23, at end insert—
“(8A) The Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013 is amended, by inserting after section 2 (Arbitration)—
‘2A Fair dealing: determination of complaints alleging non-compliance
(1) If a complaint relating to alleged non-compliance is referred to the Adjudicator under section 27(8)(a) of the Agriculture Act 2020, the Adjudicator must determine the complaint.
(2) In determining any allegation of non-compliance under subsection (1), the Adjudicator must act in accordance with any regulations made under subsection (1) of section 27 of the Agriculture Act 2020 which make provision for investigation of complaints, imposition of penalties or a requirement to pay compensation, as specified by subsection (8) of section 27 of that Act.’”
This amendment would specify the process to be followed by the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office in determining a complaint made under the Agriculture Act 2020.
Amendment 33, page 23, line 25, after “any” insert “competent and appropriate”.
This amendment is intended to ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts is given to a body which is competent to undertake qualitative assessments; for example, the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office.
Amendment 34, page 23, line 26, after “provide for a” insert “competent and appropriate”.
This amendment is intended to ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts is given to a body which is competent to undertake qualitative assessments; for example, the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office.
Amendment 38, in clause 33, page 30, line 44, at end insert—
“(2A) The scheme must be made by 1 April 2021.”
Amendment 39, in clause 42, page 38, line 28, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
Amendment 12, in schedule 3, page 50, line 15, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 11, page 50, leave out lines 25 to 36 and insert—
“(3) A request falls within this subsection if—
(a) it is a request for—
(i) the landlord’s consent to a matter which under the terms of the tenancy requires such consent, or
(ii) a variation of the terms of the tenancy, or
(iii) the landlord’s consent to a matter which otherwise requires such consent.
(b) it is made for the purposes of—
(i) enabling the tenant to request or apply for relevant financial assistance or relevant financial assistance of a description specified in the regulations, or
(ii) complying with a statutory duty, or a statutory duty of a description specified in the regulations, applicable to the tenant, or
(iii) to secure either or both of the full and efficient farming of the holding or an environmental improvement, and”.
Amendment 13, page 51, line 34, at end insert
“, or
(d) a scheme of financial assistance in whatever form introduced by Welsh Ministers;”.
Amendment 16, page 54, line 20, at end insert—
“Succession on death of tenant
21A In section 35, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) In sections 36 to 48 below (and in Part I of Schedule 6 to this Act)—
“close relative” of a deceased tenant means—
(a) the wife husband or civil partner of the deceased;
(b) a brother or sister of the deceased;
(c) a child of the deceased;
(d) a nephew or niece of the deceased;
(e) a grandchild of the deceased;
(f) any person (not within (b) or (c) or (d) or (e) above) who, in the case of any marriage or civil partnership or other cohabitation to which the deceased was a at any time a party, was treated by the deceased as a child of the family in relation to that marriage or civil partnership or other cohabitation;’”.
Amendment 15, page 54, line 20, at end insert—
“Succession on retirement of tenant
21B In section 49, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) In this section and sections 50 to 58 below (and in Part I of Schedule 6 to this Act as applied by section 50(4))—
“close relative” of the retiring tenant means—
(a) the wife husband or civil partner of the retiring tenant;
(b) a brother or sister of the retiring tenant;
(c) a child of the retiring tenant;
(d) a nephew or niece of the retiring tenant;
(e) a grandchild of the retiring tenant;
(f) any person (not within (b) or (c) or (d) or (e) above) who, in the case of any marriage or civil partnership or other cohabitation to which the retiring tenant has been at any time a party, has been treated by the latter as a child of the family in relation to that marriage or civil partnership or other cohabitation;’”.
Amendment 14, page 54, line 24, at end insert—
“Termination of tenancies of 10 years or more
22A Before section 8 insert—
‘7A Termination of tenancies of 10 years or more
(1) Where a farm business tenancy has been granted for a fixed term of 10 years or more without any provision for the landlord to terminate the tenancy on a specific date or dates during the fixed term, the landlord may serve notice to quit on the tenant of the holding using the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 Schedule 3 Parts I and II in accordance with the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 Schedule 4 and all Orders introduced as mentioned in that schedule in respect of the following cases—
(a) Case B
(b) Case D
(c) Case E
(d) Case F
(e) Case G
(2) In addition to any compensation required to be paid to the tenant by the landlord following the termination of a tenancy using Case B, the landlord shall pay additional compensation to the tenant at an amount equal to ten years’ rent of the holding or attributed to the part of the holding upon which notice to quit has been served at the rate at which rent was payable immediately before the termination of the tenancy.””
Amendment 10, page 55, line 19, at end insert—
“Requests for landlord’s consent or variation of terms
25A Before section 28 insert—
‘27A Disputes relating to requests for landlord’s consent or variation of terms
(1) The appropriate authority must by regulations make provision for the tenant of an agricultural holding to refer for arbitration under this Act a request made by the tenant to the landlord where—
(a) the request falls within subsection (3), and
(b) no agreement has been reached with the landlord on the request.
(2) The regulations may also provide that, where the tenant is given the right to refer a request to arbitration, the landlord and tenant may instead refer the request for third party determination under this Act.
(3) A request falls within this subsection if—
(a) it is a request for—
(i) the landlord’s consent to a matter which under the terms of the tenancy requires such consent, or
(ii) a variation of the terms of the tenancy, or
(iii) the landlord’s consent to a matter which otherwise requires such consent
(b) it is made for the purposes of—
(i) enabling the tenant to request or apply for relevant financial assistance or relevant financial assistance of a description specified in the regulations, or
(ii) complying with a statutory duty, or a statutory duty of a description specified in the regulations, applicable to the tenant, or
(iii) to secure either or both of the full and efficient farming of the holding or an environmental improvement, and
(c) it meets such other conditions (if any) as may be specified in the regulations.
(4) The regulations may provide for the arbitrator or third party on a reference made under the regulations, where the arbitrator or third party considers it reasonable and just (as between the landlord and tenant) to do so—
(a) to order the landlord to comply with the request (either in full or to the extent specified in the award or determination);
(b) to make any other award or determination permitted by the regulations.
(5) The regulations may (among other things) make provision—
(a) about conditions to be met before a reference may be made;
(b) about matters which an arbitrator or third party is to take into account when considering a reference;
(c) for regulating the conduct of arbitrations or third-party determinations;
(d) about the awards or determinations which may be made by the arbitrator or third party, which may include making an order for a variation in the rent of the holding or for the payment of compensation or costs;
(e) about the time at which, or the conditions subject to which, an award or determination may be expressed to take effect;
(f) for restricting a tenant’s ability to make subsequent references to arbitration where a reference to arbitration or third-party determination has already been made under the regulations in relation to the same tenancy.
(6) The provision covered by subsection (5)(e) includes, in the case of a request made for the purpose described in subsection (3)(b)(i)), conditions relating to the making of a successful application for assistance.
(7) In this section—
“appropriate authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;
“relevant financial assistance” means financial assistance under—
(a) section 1 of the Agriculture Act 2020 (powers of Secretary of State to give financial assistance),
(b) section 19 of, or paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to, that Act (powers of Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to give financial assistance in exceptional market conditions), or
(c) a scheme of the sort mentioned in section 2(4) of that Act (third party schemes), or
(d) a scheme of financial assistance in whatever form introduced by Welsh Ministers;
“statutory duty” means a duty imposed by or under—
(a) an Act of Parliament;
(b) an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales;
(c) retained direct EU legislation.’”
Amendment 40, in schedule 4, page 56, line 21, at end insert—
“Pigmeat
Products falling within the table in Part XVII of Annex 1 of the CMO Regulation, but excluding any entry in the table for live animals”.
This amendment adds “pigmeat” to Schedule 4. Clause 35 enables the Secretary of State to establish marketing standards in relation to products that “fall within a sector listed in Schedule 4”. Sectors listed include beef and veal, poultry and poultrymeat, milk and milk products, and eggs and egg products, but not pigmeat.
Government amendments 20 to 22.
Amendment 9, in schedule 5, page 61, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—
“(a) there is an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets or a serious threat of an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets caused by economic or environmental factors, and”.
Amendment 37, in the title, line 17, after
“with the WTO Agreement on Agriculture;”
insert
“to require animal products to be labelled as to farming method;”.
This would amend the long title to enable the Bill to require the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring animal products to be labelled as to farming method.
I call Simon Hoare, who is asked to speak for no more than eight minutes.
Simon Hoare
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I welcome this Bill. It is the first piece of agricultural legislation to come before our country since 1947, and what a glorious opportunity it is to set out what is important to us both in what our policies should be and how we can help to shape and lead future thinking.
The events of the past few weeks have given our country pause for thought as we have evaluated what is important to us—what we value, what we stand for, who we are. While covid has presented that as an opportunity, this Bill does the same with regard to agriculture: what does a global Britain in a non-membership of the European Union world look like? Just as this country has been a trailblazer against female genital mutilation, modern slavery and the trade in ivory, so I believe we can be in our high standards that prevail in agriculture today with regard to animal welfare, food production, agricultural practices and environmental standards. So important are these issues that they were writ large in the Conservative party manifesto of only December last year. Every Minister—the Prime Minister, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary and others—when questioned on these important issues before, during and after the referendum campaign has asserted their absolute, cast-iron guaranteed support for them.
Our farmers and food producers work under those high standards of regulation willingly. They understand their importance and the consumer confidence that they bring. They understand that they add value to the provenance of our food and drink exports. I was therefore not very pleased to have to table new clause 1. The thrust that lies behind it says, in essence, that any food product imported into the United Kingdom under a free trade agreement should be raised to standards either equal to or greater than those that prevail within the UK, and that the Secretary of State should annually update a list of standards. That would not force countries that have entered into an FTA with us to change all their practices. It would simply be up to producers to work out if they were not hitting our standards and then, if they wished to access our lucrative markets, to change their practices in order so to do—the ordinary operation of the market.
My new clause is not about stymieing free trade agreements, and neither is that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—we understand the huge potential benefits that can accrue from them. But this is not about firing the starting gun for a race to the bottom. There is no merit in deliberately setting out in Government policy the creation of an unlevel playing field. Food imports to this country would be cheap for no reason bar the fact that they were raised to lower standards. Anybody can look at a variety of websites and realise some of the pretty horrendous ways in which livestock is raised in a number of countries across the world. We should shun that and be a beacon for excellence and high standards.
Those cheap food imports would remain cheap only while there was a viable scale of domestic production to create some sort of viable competition. As soon as it was choked off or choked down—reduced to a scale no more than meeting the artisan market or a farmers’ market—those prices would start to rise, and we would have lost our agricultural sector. I represent the constituency of North Dorset, where agriculture and farming is absolutely pivotal. My manifesto in the 2015, 2017 and 2019 elections was very clear that I would speak up and stand up for farmers, understanding the importance that they play in our economy.
The new clause is not anti-free trade or anti-American, but pro our standards being a beacon and pro ensuring that there is a future for our agricultural sector and for our consumers to purchase securely and safely. The new clause has attracted support from across the House and from both wings of my party: people who voted to leave the European Union and people who voted to remain. Anybody trying to dress this up as some sort of closet attempt to remain within the European Union does so at grave peril.
The new clause is also supported by a host of radical crypto-anarchic organisations: the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; the Country Land and Business Association; the Soil Association; that well known anarchic group the Wildlife Trust; LEAF—Linking Environment and Farming; the Tenant Farmers Association; the National Farmers Union; and, worst of all, that Leninist organisation the Woodland Trust.
This is not a crypto-communist move against capitalism; it is about trying to create a level playing field. It is not a coercive approach to those who might enter a free trade agreement, but an invitation to meet our standards if they wish to trade. If one accepts that food production and food security are important, it would require an incredibly brave Minister of the Crown, and an incredibly brave Parliament, if our farmers came to us and said, “Look, we are just about on the brink. You will have to lower our standards and change our regulations in order to allow us to compete.” I do not want to see that, and nor does my party.
Our Prime Minister takes animal welfare very seriously, as do the Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and the Secretary of State. However, most countries in the world value their food production, value their food security, and seek out and adopt policies in order to ensure that they have a viable future. New clause 1 does just that, and I hope that either the Minister will be in a position to accept it this afternoon, or we will see what the House has to say about it later.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State, Luke Pollard, who is asked to speak for no more than eight minutes.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak to the amendments that stand in my name and that of the Leader of the Opposition. Food policy has been overlooked and sidelined in our politics for far too long. Empty shelves, crops underwater in flooded fields, food bank growth and the growing obesity crisis demand that it enjoys more of our focus in the next decade than it had in the last. I want to see a greater focus on the quality and resilience of the food that we eat and the quality of the air that we breathe. Our new focus on food is for life and not just for coronavirus.
I place on record my heartfelt thanks to all the food heroes—the hidden heroes—who have kept the nation fed throughout the coronavirus crisis. From the fishers and the farmers, the distributors and the drivers, the processers and the pickers, to the shelf stackers and the supermarket workers, these people are finally getting the recognition that they deserve as key workers. The pay, conditions, pensions, protections and political focus on them must now follow. In declaring my interest, may I remind the House that my little sister is one of those key workers, as a sheep farmer on her farm in Cornwall?
At the very heart of this debate today is a very simple question, which the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) mentioned in his opening remarks. What kind of country do we want to be—one where farm standards are a pawn in a trade deal with our values traded for market access, or a nation that says Britain is a force for good in the world and upholds our high standards for food grown locally and food imported alike? At a time of climate crisis, we must choose to rebuild a better, greener, more sustainable and fairer Britain than we had before.
The path ahead of us is uncertain, but we must learn the lessons of those who came before us. We must not trade away the values that make us British and make us proud to be British: high environmental standards in food production; decent pay for those who tend our fields—at least, they should be paid well; animal welfare standards that increase, not slide; and a determination that we will never, ever again be held hostage by our inability, by choice or natural cause, to feed ourselves.
The Agriculture Bill is not a trivial matter; nor is food production. The Bill will fundamentally change the system of farm support, so it deserves our attention. However, an Agriculture Bill without a focus on food is an odd beast. It almost entirely omits food, and therefore does not even begin to solve all the problems that the virus has both caused and revealed. I would wager that the Environment Secretary and the farming Minister did not have the whip hand in the timing of this Bill, and that it is down to Downing Street and its free marketeer agenda, seeking to see off a rebellion of Tory MPs rightly unhappy and uneasy about leaving the door open to imports of food produced to lower standards, that we are here today on a contentious piece of legislation in the middle of a national crisis.
The new clauses in the names of the Chairs of the two Select Committees—the hon. Members for North Dorset and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—and those in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and me all seek to do one very simple thing, which is to put Government promises into law. The promise from the Conservative manifesto says:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
These words are meaningless unless they are backed up by law. The amendments today reflect a cross-party concern that the promises of high standards will not be kept unless they appear in black and white in the Bill. The right place to deal with farm standards is a Bill about farming. Indeed, the Leader of the House has just said from the Dispatch Box that he is about delivering on the manifesto and that this is essential. I agree on this point: those standards are essential, and they must be delivered on in law.
I suspect the Minister will shortly say that the subjects of these amendments would best be dealt with in the Trade Bill. I disagree with her on that and, unfortunately, so do her own Government. It seems the Government’s trade team are arguing that the Trade Bill is actually not for setting up trade architecture. They argue that it is a continuity Bill for rolling over existing agreements that Britain is a party to as part of the EU, so we will need another trade Bill that has not been published, written or designed yet to deal with matters such as democratic oversight of trade deals. There is zero chance, as the Minister knows, of such a Bill appearing or passing before the 31 December deadline, so we come to the necessity of this issue being dealt with in this Bill, where it can be discussed and implemented ahead of the 31 December deadline. It must not be parked or lost in the long grass of future Bills that have not yet appeared.
These amendments are being opposed, to my mind, simply because they would make it harder to have a trade deal with nations for which lower food and farm standards are the norm. The inescapable truth of Ministers refusing to put these sensible amendments into law is that allowing British farmers to be undercut by cheap imported food is part of the Government’s plan, and it should not be. Labour has tabled the amendments because we will not allow British farmers to go out of business because they are being undercut by cheap imports that would be illegal if they were grown or produced in the UK.
There is no urban-rural divide on high farm standards or on animal health and welfare, no divide when it comes to wanting high environmental standards preserved and no divide between feeders and eaters when it comes to food safety and food quality. This Bill is, by and large, a reasonable Bill.
DEFRA officials and Ministers have worked hard to get the detail right, but the political handcuffs placed on the Environment Secretary and his Ministers to tie them to oppose these reasonable, sensible, necessary and essential amendments betray the bigger political agenda at play here. Both the Environment Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who has responsibility for farming, have good agricultural pedigree, and I am reassured that those with experience are at the helm of the Department, but if orders are coming from the Department for International Trade, they have my sympathy for being caught in the invidious place of choosing between what is right and what they are told to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I now call Minister Victoria Prentis, who is asked to speak for no more than 15 minutes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should start by declaring my interest: my family has farmed on the Oxfordshire- Northamptonshire border for many years, and I am also a keen smallholder. This is a very important moment for agriculture in this country. This Bill is the first of its kind for more than 70 years and it will allow us to shape farming for the future. This Bill is about farmers, and sets out a framework policy for rewarding them as they produce food and provide public goods.
I thank all Members who have tabled amendments. I apologise if the hybrid nature of the debate prevents me from engaging fully with every point—it is not ideal. I am, however, reassured that the Bill has been thoroughly scrutinised by not one but two Public Bill Committees. I am keen to continue to engage with Members across the House as we develop the details of the policies. I must also record my thanks to those who have worked so hard to ensure that we have all been fed in these frightening times: farmers, manufacturers and retailers. They are food heroes, and they have worked together and struggled on despite workforce shortages and social distancing measures. I hope that a lasting legacy of this pandemic is that we all think a little more about where our food comes from.
The feeding the vulnerable taskforce, which I chair, has worked hard to ensure that those parts of society on whom this crisis falls the hardest can access food. On Friday, we announced £16 million of funding for food charities. Measures in this Bill would have been very useful two months ago. I commend in particular the powers in clauses 18 and 19, which would have made it easier and quicker to support farmers during these difficult times. Under Clause 17, for the first time, the Government will have a duty to take a regular, systematic view of our overall food security at least every five years, giving time to observe trends. That is not to say that we have to wait five years between reviews at all. The majority of data covered will, of course, be available between reports, and we certainly have no intention of waiting until the end of the five-year period to publish our first report. That report will, of course, take into account what we have learnt from the current pandemic.
This is a domestic Bill. It is not about trade. However, I have heard colleagues across the House—I am sure I will hear them again this afternoon—voice concerns about the effect of future trade agreements on UK agriculture. Some are concerned about a reduction in standards, particularly those for animal welfare. Others are concerned that there will not be a level playing field between our products and those coming from abroad.
Like the rest of my colleagues on this side of the House, I was elected on a very clear manifesto commitment—one that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has reiterated since—that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. This Government will stand firm in trade negotiations to ensure that any deals live up to the values of our farmers and consumers. We are keen to ensure that parliamentarians, consumers and businesses have access to the information they need on our trade negotiations. Trade talks with the US opened formally last Tuesday. Ahead of that, the Government set out the negotiating objectives and associated documents, and a similar process will be replicated in the coming months as we do the same for deals with Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
I am grateful for the continued contributions of the National Farmers Union and others who sit on our expert trade advisory group, which helped shape this trade policy and feeds straight into the negotiating team. I assure the House that we are actively exploring how to build on that industry participation.
I reassure colleagues that all food coming into this country will be required to meet existing import requirements. At the end of the transition period, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will convert all EU standards into domestic law. That will include a ban on using artificial growth hormones in beef. Nothing apart from potable water may be used to clean chicken carcases, and any changes to those standards would have to come before this Parliament. We will be doing our own inspections to ensure that those import conditions are met.
While we all want to support British farmers, if passed, the well-meaning amendments would have unintended consequences. The supply of food would be significantly disrupted if goods that meet our current import standards were blocked. New clauses 1 and 2 would affect UK exports to countries with whom, as part of the EU, we currently have trade agreements. I am concerned that the extra conditions in the two new clauses could result in countries refusing to enter into continuity agreements. For example, accepting new clause 2 would risk whisky exports worth £578 million. Another example is the impact on potato exporters. Some 22% of potato exports went to countries with whom a continuity agreement has not yet been signed.
If the amendments were passed, an assessment of our current UK production standards, followed by an assessment of all relevant standards in a third country, followed by an assessment of how those compared with UK legislation and UK production standards would be required to make sure that any FTA complied with them. That would all have to be done by the end of December.
I understand that Members want to ensure safeguards for our farmers. However, I have serious concerns about the unintended consequences of the amendments for our producers and exporters. Our manifesto commitment is clear that the Government will support farmers and protect our standards. All the rules, regulations and robust processes are already in place for that.
On labelling, I am looking forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on her labelling amendment. I understand that she will be championing consumer choice in the domestic market, which is very important. Other colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), and my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for West Dorset (Chris Loder), have asked us to explore whether labelling approaches could be used to differentiate products that meet domestic production standards from those that do not. This would include exploring mandatory labelling. Any scheme could not be devised until we have completed the transition period and would of course need to recognise World Trade Organisation obligations, but I assure Members from across the House that this is something we will consider closely and on which we are prepared to consult.
We all hope that UK food producers will benefit from increased export opportunities as we open up foreign markets. For example, in the last year, we have seen the lifting of a 20-year ban on the export of UK beef and lamb to Japan. Our “Food is GREAT” campaign targets consumer audiences abroad and is boosting global demand for our food and drink.
I turn now to amendments relating to financial assistance. I defy anyone to maintain that the common agricultural policy was good for either environmental protection or the productivity of British farming. It has held us back. It has paid those with more land more subsidy, regardless of what they did with it. It has favoured some parts of the industry over others. We are really keen that that changes now. We have an exciting opportunity to reset and plan for the future.
Passing the Bill will give farmers and land managers a clear direction. In England, it will enable us to deliver direct payments, simplified countryside stewardship schemes and productivity grants next year. I assure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) that that is why this Bill is top of the queue. The gradual seven-year transition will allow farmers and land managers time to prepare for the new environmental land management scheme, which is currently being tested. Upland farmers, for example, will be well placed to benefit from it. We will also create a UK shared prosperity fund to address the needs of rural businesses and communities. Delaying the start of the agricultural transition to 2022 would just delay the many benefits of moving away from direct payments. To provide reassurance again, for 80% of farmers, our maximum reductions for 2021 will be modest at under 5%.
Improving the health of our environment as set out in the “25 Year Environment Plan” is a priority. The measures in the Bill will help us to combat climate change, but the Bill is not the place for targets. Environmental land management will be critical in helping us to deliver against our legally binding target to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. We recognise that for these policies to be effective, they need to be properly funded. In our manifesto, we committed to maintain current agricultural spending for each year of this Parliament. Of course, this is a framework Bill, and this is only the beginning. I look forward to working with colleagues across the House and with groups such as the NFU to develop the policy that will flow from this legislation.
I turn now to amendments tabled on agroecological farming practices, and on reducing the use of pesticides. We are already testing how ELM can support farmers to take a whole-farm holistic approach. We have 50 tests and trials in progress, with many more planned before the national pilot starts in 2021. We are considering innovative solutions such as integrated pest management, which aims to reduce pesticide use on farms. We absolutely agree that pesticides should not be used where that use may harm human health, and we have a robust regulatory system in place to ensure that.
I turn now to the many benefits that the Bill will bring farmers in the devolved Administrations. Clause 33 tackles an unfairness in the red meat levy system and will allow the levy collected from animals that have crossed a border for slaughter to be returned to where the animals were reared. The levy boards are working very hard to devise a scheme, and our aim is to have one in place by April 2021. New Clause 9 is for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister to consider. I understand that he has no plans, at this stage, to introduce a sunset clause. The UK Government will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations. I reiterate our commitment to consulting with the devolved Administrations on our proposals for regulations to be made under the WTO clauses.
I turn to the amendments on fairness and transparency in the supply chain. No decisions have yet been taken on the subject of the appropriate enforcement body. We are exploring options with the industry first before designing the enforcement regimes and appointing a regulator, but I will keep the House up to date on that.
I turn to the amendments on tenancies. Tenants should be able to benefit from our new payment policies, and we will continue to work closely with the industry—we had a large consultation last year—as we develop these policies further.
Finally, three minor technical Government amendments have been tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the request of the Welsh Government. These are needed in order to bridge the gap until new powers are provided by Welsh legislation in the Senedd.
The Bill provides a framework for an exciting future for farming. It will ensure that those who produce our food are properly rewarded, and that farming efficiently and improving the environment will go hand in hand in the future. I very much look forward to working with colleagues across the House to develop the environmental land management policies, and to working out how they will work not only on the ground, but above and beneath it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Deidre Brock, who is asked to speak for no more than eight minutes.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
I will speak to amendment 39, which is in my name.
This is a strange beast of a Bill—a hybrid that covers reserved and devolved competences, and a Lazarus that has had to rise again after that odd election in December. It now looks as if it will be the first UK Bill to be passed under the new hybrid procedures, and therefore the first UK legislation to be passed using electronic voting—so even Westminster can look a bit modern when it needs to. Perhaps electronic voting and other good developments might be retained after this pandemic is over.
Of course, the Bill is only needed because we are leaving the EU, so it is a case of cauterising a self-made wound. The Bill will pass because farmers—our food producers—need to be provided with the support they need to keep going. I will say it again, because it bears repeating: farmers are good stewards of the land; they take good care of it. It is, after all, one of their biggest assets, and it is essential to their ongoing businesses and livelihoods. Good farmers manage the land well and improve it.
I urge the Government to offer farmers more immediate support to help them get through this crisis, so that they can come out the other side with working farms and productive land. There might even be opportunities for them to use this time to innovate—to adapt their farming and business practices to a new model with an eye to future operations. We recently passed legislation that set up a new payment system. I do not see any reason why the Government should not use that to support farmers now.
We have a few choice selections on the amendment paper, and the SNP will be backing sensible improvements to the Bill. We support writing the need for high standards in imported foods into the legislation, and will be voting for that. It is of great concern to farmers, fishers and other food producers that any low-quality, mass-produced, low-price rubbish from elsewhere might be allowed to flood the market and squeeze them out. Our food producers have high-quality, high-standard and high-welfare products that provide consumers with excellent nutrition. We would be doing the food producers, the end consumers and the retailers a disservice if we allowed those high-quality products to be squeezed out by any low-quality products that have to be, for example, dipped in bleach to kill pathogens before they are dumped on the shelves. It is also a massive concern for consumers, who do not want to see their choices shut down by low-grade products.
Save our farmers, save our cooking and save our families. We must support continued high standards in animal welfare, plant hygiene and end product quality. Do not dump rubbish in our kitchens and on our plates. Let us have standards on imported food that are as high as the standards on food produced on these islands. I noted the Minister’s commitment in her speech to maintaining those standards, but I cannot understand why it is not on the face of the Bill. I look forward to her explaining that a little further later, because I am afraid that her explanations were not sufficient for me.
We also support the principles the shadow Secretary of State has written into new clause 7. Food poverty in these wealthy nations was always a disgrace, but the pandemic has brought that inequality and inhumanity into sharp relief. Action is needed to address that. I can only hope that the Government take that under advisement and look to extend the principle in the long term. People should not go hungry, or have to rely on charity to feed their children; decency and humanity are not too expensive.
Public Health Scotland looks at the effects of poverty on health, including food poverty, and analyses possible solutions as part of its work. I would imagine that Public Health England must be doing something similar, so the preparation for this would not be as big a task as it might seem, and Scotland might also offer a template you can adapt to serve England better. The “Fairer Scotland” action plan seeks to address gross inequalities. Recommendations from an independent working group on food poverty informed the creation of a fair food fund, which is now part of a larger fund investing in communities. A large lesson from that is that you cannot address food poverty properly unless you address poverty properly, and you have to roll back austerity fully if you are going to do that. You also need to ensure that there is nutritious and untainted food available, which brings us back to the principles underpinning the need to keep import standards high. There is not, however, a recognition of the devolved Governments in the amendment and it is a devolved competence, which leaves us unable to support it.
I turn now to the amendments we have lodged, including mine on import standards. I want to mention the timeous commencement of the proper operation of the red meat levy. I understand that the boards themselves are in agreement about the way forward and have been for some time, and it is incumbent upon the Government to accommodate the ambition they are showing by making sure that the machinery of the scheme is up to scratch and ready to rock ‘n’ roll as soon as possible. Scotland’s farmers have already waited far too long to get their money back so that their investments can support their businesses. I note the Minister’s commitment on this, but we will be continuing to press the Government on their commitment to April delivery.
The amendment I would like to put forward for a vote today is a bit technical. It is explained in some detail and at length in Holyrood’s Sewel memo, or legislative consent memorandum to give it the fancy title, if anyone needs the background, but it concerns the reporting to the WTO. My amendment 39 addresses the concerns in the Sewel memo and would remove the scheme that renders the devolved Administrations subject to the whims of the Secretary of State. It is surely a central principle of devolution that the devolved Administrations should be free to operate in devolved policy areas without interference from the UK Government. As the Bill currently stands, the power to determine how farming support is treated for the purposes of WTO reporting, and therefore the ceilings in each classification of support, are reserved to the UK Government rather than the devolved Administrations, which will still be tasked with providing the support to farmers. I must stress that this is a new reservation; it is a centralisation of function that does not currently exist, so I urge Members to support amendment 39 to remove that from the Bill.
I am conscious that we have a restricted timetable for these proceedings, so I will end my contribution there.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Thank you. I am now introducing a time limit of five minutes, and advise hon. Members speaking virtually to have a timing device visible.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. Given covid-19, I want to pay my great tribute to all the health workers across the country, and also the food producers, farmers, deliverers and those who process the food to get it into our shops and to consumers. It has never been so important to have home production and good-quality food in this country. It is not only farmers and growers who want that; so do the supermarkets and other retailers and the consumers. We are all working together to deliver higher and higher standards, better welfare and better environmental conditions.
The whole raison d’être of the Bill is to move us in the direction of higher welfare and environmental standards, looking after our land and soils, holding back water and having better flood protection—all of this working together. But farming, and especially commercial farming, needs to be able to produce food and to do so competitively. As Government and Opposition Members have said, there has never been more of a need to deliver sustainable, good, affordable food in this country than there is today.
I very much support new clause 1 from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and, naturally, new clause 2, which is in my name and the names of the EFRA Committee members. This is about having equivalence of production on imported food, so that it is WTO-compliant, and it is very much about getting very good trade deals in future. I want to see British lamb and more cheese go into America. I want to see everything being exported to America, and I am very happy to have imports from America in a new trade deal, but they cannot undercut our present production methods and animal welfare.
I will say this clearly to the Americans: if we look at American poultry production, we see that they use chlorine wash for about 25% or 30% of that—for the lower end of their production, where the chickens are more densely populated and there are much poorer welfare and environmental conditions—to literally clean it up so that is safe to eat, and of course, in doing that, they reduce the cost of production, but they also reduce the welfare of that poultry. I would say clearly to the Secretary of State for International Trade that she should spend her time going out and dealing with a trade deal that has equivalence and making sure that we export our very important animal and environmental welfare. And I would say to the Americans, “Why don’t you upgrade your production? Why don’t you reduce the density and population of your chickens? Why do you not reduce the amount of antibiotics that you are using, and then you will produce better chicken not only for America: it can also come into this country?”
Let us not be frightened of putting clauses into the Bill that protect us, with the great environmental and welfare standards that we want the whole Bill to have, and that farmers want to have. I think we all accept that the common agricultural policy has not been a huge success. Therefore, we can devise a better Agriculture—and food—Bill, and that is what we have to remember: agriculture is about food, and it has never been more important than now to have high-quality food. If I get the opportunity, I will most definitely push new clause 2 to a Division and I will most definitely support new clause 1. There are also Opposition new clauses that I am also prepared to look at, because I think we have to make this Bill good. It is no good being told, “Don’t put it in the Agriculture Bill; put it in the Trade Bill.” When we try to put it in the Trade Bill, it will be out of scope. We are being led down the garden path—we really are —and it is time for us to stand up and be counted.
I want great trade deals. I am not a little Englander who will defend our agriculture against all imports—quite the reverse. I think competition is good, but on a level playing field that allows us to produce great food and allows our consumers to have great food, and makes sure that we deliver good agriculture and environment for the future.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
I would like to speak to amendments 23 to 25 and record my support for new clause 7. That I am speaking to these amendments should come as no surprise to the House since they are the contents of my Food Insecurity Bill.
Since 2017, I have been pleading with the Government to introduce a simple, cost-neutral measurement of food insecurity into the household surveys that they already conduct. Each time hunger is raised in this place, various Secretaries of State and Ministers have denigrated statistics from charities, researchers, food banks and colleagues, claiming that the figures are not robust enough or that the information is not reliable enough to inform Government policy. Denying the accuracy of the data or simply turning a blind eye allows them to pretend that the problem does not exist, but it does, and it is only by knowing the true scale of UK hunger that we can start to mitigate it.
When I introduced my Bill, the United Nations had estimated that 8 million people in the UK were food insecure—that is 8 million people who could not afford to eat and who did not know where their next meal was coming from. More than 2,000 food banks that we know of have become an embedded part of our welfare state and are the only port of call for those experiencing the harsh and unforgiving welfare state cultivated by this Government.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) (V)
It is a great pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. I draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I come from a long family of farmers, have interests in farming and food production, and represent a very successful rural constituency producing some of the finest food in the world, with absolutely top-class farmers and food producers.
I strongly welcome the Bill, and look forward to it going through today. It will free us from the constraints of the common agricultural policy, which held us back for many years—it will let us give freedom to farmers. When I was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, time and again farmers said, “Get out of our hair!” The Bill will allow farmers to concentrate on what they are good at, which is producing food. I entirely echo the comments made by the Minister and others earlier in the debate about the tremendous efforts of farmers and food producers to cope with the extraordinary circumstances of corona.
The first thing I want to say is that there is no conflict between wanting to have freedom for farmers and wanting free trade around the world. I see a great opportunity for farming to benefit from any free trade deals. That is absolutely clear. There is a narrative out there that the sad price of free trade arrangements will be some sort of cost to the farming industry. I just do not buy that.
We have huge export opportunities—the Minister touched on exporting beef to the United States, which must be worth over £60 million over three years. When I was at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs we began to get beef on the bone back into Hong Kong, and there are enormous opportunities. For example, in the lamb industry, China and America are neck and neck as world leaders in lamb consumption. They each consume twice as much as France or Germany, so there are great opportunities for our exporters. Given the constraints we experienced under the common agricultural policy, I really see opportunities with new technologies—CRISPR gene editing and so on—to enable us to catch up.
There are some interesting figures from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Against a metric of 1 in 1961, the EU is still producing a given amount of food at 0.55; we are at 0.43; the world is 0.29; and the world leader is 0.03. That is the lesson—if we free up agriculture, people can take advantage of the benefits of free trade and technology.
Turning to the new clauses, I take exception to the proposals from my hon. Friends the Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). We agree on many issues regarding oversight, but I do not agree with this. We already have high standards, and the Minister has made it clear that we are not going to reduce those standards. The new clauses are unenforceable. Let us take the great vexed issue of chlorinated chicken. As my hon. Friend for Tiverton and Honiton said, people do not use very much chlorine—they use pathogen reduction treatments, which have been cleared by the US, the EU authorities and by Codex Alimentarius. When we look at the regulations, we see that stocking densities are similar to those that pertain in Europe. The outcomes on health grounds are better. Americans eat roughly twice as much chicken as Europeans, and their outcomes on campylobacter and salmonella are significantly better.
What would we do if this condition went through? It would completely block any hope of a US free trade deal, with catastrophic consequences for large parts of our economy. Would we go after the individual chicken plant? Would we go after the state? Would we go after the whole US nation, which would come straight back and say, “Sorry guys, our product is healthier.” It would be much better if we resumed our full seat on the Codex Alimentarius Commission on food standards, on the OIE on animal welfare, which is important to many citizens, and on the international plant protection convention on plant health, working with allies and pushing to improve world standards.
When I was at DEFRA I went to New Zealand and was struck by the fact that, freed up, it had reduced massively the number of sheep but increased the volume of meat exporting while conforming to religion protocols for minorities. Everything that it exported to the middle east was stunned before slaughter. We talk about standards a lot. What goes on in many of our slaughterhouses does not bear inspection. I challenge Members to look at videos—or, better, go along—and they will be horrified when they see what many of our livestock go through. Much of this volume of material is not required by minorities—it is absolutely fine to provide it for them—but we could copy New Zealand. We could work with it at a high level, pushing for higher standards. I am afraid I do not support the amendments, but I do support the Bill.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson). First and foremost, I want to put on record my thanks to the local farming community in my constituency and to farming communities up and down the country, as they have been vital in helping to maintain the food supply to communities throughout the land in this crisis. Many farmers are anxious about their health, and are concerned about family members and the welfare of their workers. Too many farmers have unsold produce going to waste, as supply chains—restaurants, hotels, caterers and cafés—have had to close because of the crisis. Dairy farmers in my constituency have been hit particularly hard. I know that Members across the House have lobbied the Government to do whatever it takes to support those farmers, and I certainly welcome the announcement of a hardship fund as a step in the right direction. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that.
I want to highlight three areas of concern that need to be improved at this stage of the Bill. Importantly, the concerns are highlighted by those at the chalkface of our agricultural economy: the National Farmers Union, the custodians and users of our countryside, and the consumers of our British products. First, the Bill must ensure that specific provisions in future trade deals require agricultural imports to meet our environmental, animal welfare and food standards. I raised the matter with the previous Secretary of State, and I will raise it again with the current Secretary of State. As Members across the House have said today, that needs to be enshrined in law. British produce must be a global gold standard, and a race to the bottom will have serious consequences for our farmers, our health and our global reputation.
Secondly, the current national and international pandemic has shone a bright light on the importance of food security. While I welcome the fact that the Bill requires the Government to report on the state of the nation’s food security, the current timescale of every five years is too long. The National Farmers Union rightly argues that the Bill should be strengthened to include annual reports on food security, and there should be clear requirements relating to the degree of the nation’s food security derived from domestic production and a clear commitment to prevent any further decline in self-sufficiency.
Finally, as somebody who is keen to maximise access to our countryside, I welcome the provisions that would enable funding for farmers who support public access. However, that is by no means a guarantee that the payments will deliver new paths or make existing paths more accessible. What assurances can the Secretary of State give the House and my constituents that that will happen?
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on such an important Bill—the first new Agriculture Bill in many years. I welcome the Bill and want to outline the key areas and then move on to amendments that would tighten and improve it.
The principle behind public moneys for public goods is sound, and it is excellent that animal health and welfare and environmental protection and management are clearly articulated as public goods. It is welcome that food production and security are recognised within the Bill, and that the Secretary of State is able to help support improving agricultural productivity. The covid-19 crisis has thrown into sharp relief the importance of food security and the need for the UK to be able to produce sustainable, local and accessible food for its population. The Bill’s requirement for the Secretary of State to produce a status report on food security every five years could perhaps be reviewed to make it more frequent. As we move to this new way of paying farmers, I stress the need for a smooth transition of payments so that there are no cliff edges. The Government have guaranteed the same level of payment over the duration of this Parliament, but it is important, as direct payments are phased out, that farmers are given the time and security to adapt to the new system.
Moving on to the amendments, as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee I am happy to support new clauses 1 and 2. As a vet, it will come as no surprise that I am passionate about animal health and welfare, and it is so important that we uphold our high standards. I was proud to stand in Penrith and The Border on a Conservative manifesto that said:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
These amendments to the Bill will ensure that any imports are equivalent to or, indeed, exceed our domestic standards. We can send out the message to our future trading partners that if they want to trade with us, they need to meet the standards that the people of the UK insist upon. That will benefit not only our own farmers and animals but, ultimately, farmers and animals around the world.
Now, some Members will say today that that will complicate trade deals, but I do not hold with that. In the Department for International Trade and the Foreign Office we have the best negotiators and diplomats in the world. In any negotiation there is give and take and, as has been seen with Brexit in recent months, anything can be achieved.
Provisions on animal welfare have been included in free trade agreements, such as those between the EU and Chile and South Korea, and in fact that led to improved slaughter standards in Chile—an important animal welfare improvement. Welfare at slaughter is only part of the story. Members will say that the WTO rules will guarantee welfare standards at slaughter, which is good, but we all know that much more needs to be considered earlier in an animal’s rearing and transport.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). I support much of what he said.
We support the spirit of the Bill, especially the movement to reward farmers for public goods. Today, the Government can introduce one of the most successful changes in agricultural policy in history. Equally, today could be remembered for one of the most catastrophic disasters. The principles are good, but the real value of the Bill will be determined in its implementation.
Farmers in Cumbria and throughout Britain could fall at the first hurdle if the Government insist on beginning the phase-out of the basic payment scheme from next January, long before its replacement is ready. Universal credit is the example of what happens when a good idea is introduced in a hasty, penny-pinching, cloth-eared way. I want to spare the Secretary of State the ignominy of being the person responsible for doing the same with the new environmental land-management scheme. Even more, I want to spare our farmers the hardship, spare our environment the damage and spare our people the loss of British food-producing capacity. In the end, it will cost less to do the right thing than it will to do it badly.
The Government’s plan is to remove 50% of basic payments by 2024, costing farmers 46% of their net income, yet the new scheme will be fully rolled out only by 2028. There are currently 89,000 basic payment claimants; how many of those farms do we expect to survive the long period during which their incomes are slashed before a replacement is ready? It is obvious that the disruption will be huge, undermining the good purposes of the Bill. We cannot care for our environment, guarantee food production and deliver public goods if, by 2028, we have allowed hundreds of farms to close by accident. The answer is a no-brainer: do not phase out basic payments until the environmental land-management schemes are ready. The Secretary of State must listen to farmers on this issue before it is too late.
The ultimate public good that farmers provide is, of course, food. Those empty shelves in March and the disruption to the supplies of imported food must be a wake-up call. Almost 50% of the food consumed in the UK is now imported, compared with 35% just 20 years ago. Successive Governments have contributed to us sleepwalking into a real problem when it comes to food security.
We will suffer a huge blow if the Bill fails to impose import standards, which is why I tabled new clause 10 and will support other amendments of similar intent. We must protect our British standards on food and food production. That will not be possible if Ministers allow the market to be flooded with food produced at a lower standard than we would tolerate here. Let us be clear: if Ministers will not accept amendments ensuring that Britain does not compromise these standards in trade deals, they are clearly saying to British farmers, “Please give us the freedom to sell you out in trade negotiations.” Britain has the best standards in the world, and they will be completely irrelevant if we allow Ministers to strike trade deals that lead to imported goods with lower production, animal welfare, environmental and labour standards.
For us in south Cumbria, the landscape of the lakes and the dales is a breathtaking public good—although, given that we have one of the oldest and most vulnerable populations in the country and the third highest covid infection rate, I strongly urge people not to rush to visit us here until it is safe to do so, at which point we will welcome them with open arms. These landscapes are of global significance. As a UNESCO world heritage site, they underpin, in normal times, an economy worth £3 billion a year. Their contribution to the heritage of our country, its economy and the nation’s wellbeing are astounding, and it is our farmers who are responsible for stewarding and maintaining those landscapes. Will Ministers commit to there being criteria within the environmental land management scheme for payments for aesthetic maintenance and for heritage, especially in the uplands?
Finally, I urge Ministers to ensure that the good principles of the Bill are reflected in wise and effective practicalities. I am convinced that this Bill will be seen as truly historic, but it is up to the Government to ensure that it is for the right reasons.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) [V]
I start by drawing Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to speak in support of new clause 2, new clause 1 and amendment 6. Like other Members, I very much support the broad thrust of the Bill, which has been much improved over time. The revised text, which we debated on Second Reading in January, now recognises the importance of food production and food security, funding to support innovation and productivity improvements, and the proper financing of environmental provisions.
However, the laudable aims of the Bill will come to nothing if the Government do not secure fair terms of trade for UK producers. The new public money for public goods and innovation funding model has to be considered together with the Government’s broad trade policy. Having the right framework for British agriculture is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the future prosperity of the sector, which is why I warmly endorse the amendments proposed, which seek to provide a concrete guarantee on future import standards.
Our producers have worked and invested for decades to raise our standards, and that could easily be lost if they are set at a structural disadvantage by our allowing in a flood of low-quality imports produced with poorer animal welfare and environmental standards, which could ultimately cause economic damage to British agriculture and the social fabric of our rural communities. There is also the risk of environmental damage across the globe if the UK became more reliant on imported produce.
The climate change angle will be increasingly important. UK farmers have a key role to play in our progress towards the 2050 net zero carbon target, as British agriculture accounts for 9% of national emissions, but that opportunity could be wiped out if we allow the importing of food produced overseas in a far more carbon- intensive way—for instance, bringing in Brazilian beef grazed on former rainforest land.
I do not believe that these amendments would damage our ability to strike reasonable trade agreements, so I do not agree with what the Minister said at the start of the debate. The whole argument on standards in trade deals is not unique to this country. We should be looking to base much of our trade on the exchange of quality products. Trade deals should be about the desirable goods we can offer to overseas consumers, not just the market access that they can seek to gain from us. UK agriculture has a huge amount to offer in that regard, already earning the UK some £22 billion a year and representing 6% of overall exports.
I also strongly support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), which would delay the start of the transition to the concept of public money for public goods from the basic payment scheme to 2022, rather than 2021. This would allow the transition to run more successfully and much more smoothly by giving producers more time to restructure their businesses in order to provide those all important public goods. Though DEFRA’s approach is evolutionary, as everyone has said so far, this is still a big shift for British agriculture, and I believe the Government want UK producers to make good decisions, not hasty ones, during the transition. They should therefore give them time.
The amendments I have touched on all have powerful arguments behind them in the best of times; for me, those arguments are substantially strengthened by the new landscape that coronavirus has created. The current situation demonstrates the value of maintaining a strong UK food sector, so that our national food security does not depend on long international supply chains, which have proven fragile in such periods. The outbreak has also showcased the importance of small-scale and regional supply chains that can be relied on for food and drink when all else fails.
I hope the Government will listen to the arguments behind the amendments, and I look forward to hearing their response.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his work in progressing the Bill to this stage.
No Member needs reminding of the importance of a sustainable UK agriculture industry and of our own food security. Amid the covid-19 crisis, it is the UK’s farmers who are feeding the nation. We owe them not only our thanks for working day and night to provide us with food but a future that is economically viable, that ensures farmgate prices are fair and that supports them as they face growing challenges, be they market driven or environmental.
Agri-food is one of Northern Ireland’s greatest economic assets, sustaining approximately 100,000 jobs and bringing an added value of almost £1.5 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. That underpins our need to ensure a sustainable platform moving forward. We must protect those jobs and this cornerstone of our economy, and to do so we need to ensure that the Bill not only allows for the continuation of financial support for farmers but offers protection.
With those two core tenets in mind, my party and I broadly support new clauses 1, 2 and 6. We need to protect our farmers and consumers from cheap imports that do not meet the standards we demand of our farmers. The standards that British farmers work to come with significant cost implications. They ensure that our food is safe and our environment is safeguarded for future generations, while our animal welfare standards are exemplary. Speak to any British farmer: their desire is to maintain these standards—indeed, they want constantly to develop and innovate so that they always ensure that best practices are adopted. In our opinion, it is a major failure of the Bill that it does not enshrine standards for the future. We must not sacrifice these standards, which we demand of our own farmers, on the altar of free trade. That must be rectified.
I also wish to speak directly to the amendment tabled by my colleagues the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry), for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). I, like my colleagues, am a devolutionist. The Northern Ireland Assembly debated and agreed a legislative consent motion on 31 March. In that debate, my party colleague, Edwin Poots, Minister for Agriculture, stated that he did not support a sunset clause. That was the agreed will of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
With that in mind, and given the respect we ought to afford the devolution settlement on this and other matters, we will not be supporting the amendment. We do not believe the Northern Ireland Assembly requested it.
Indeed, adopting the amendment and imposing such a timeline could leave a legislative gap, leaving our Minister with no legal authority to issue agricultural support payments, which currently total some £300 million, to Northern Ireland farmers. Such a situation would spell disaster for our farmers, particularly in the context of challenging farm-gate prices.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) [V]
Before I begin, may I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? The Agriculture Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape our farming sector for the better. I would like to spend the short time that I have discussing the proposed amendments on food imports and standards. I have given immense thought to these amendments over the last few days, but I have also been thinking back to just a few years ago when I was lucky enough to travel across the globe undertaking a research project specifically looking at the global ag sector, and the one thing that came across to me loud and clear above all else was just how small a dot the UK is considered to be by others on the world stage when it comes to influencing the global ag sector. I am also aware of our lack of any previous real penetration into global food markets. However, this country is now on an exciting new course, in which we can forge our new food export opportunities, and I believe that our agricultural industry can truly exert real influence on the global stage in promoting high animal welfare standards and ensuring that the high environmental bar that our farmers passionately adhere to is also met abroad.
As we consider the Bill, we need to look ahead to a new future. The question that I have been mulling over is: what is the best mechanism to ensure that our domestic agricultural industry thrives and is truly sustainable long into the future while also being able to show real leadership on the global stage by promoting abroad the high animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards for which we are recognised? We have a truly credible sector producing some of the finest food the world has to offer, and I want to see our farming industry thrive with food production at its heart. That means ensuring strong market opportunities, both here and abroad.
The phrasing of the amendments definitely seems attractive, and I totally agree that the aspirations behind them are profoundly correct, but if we included them in the Agriculture Bill, which represents domestic policy, would they be workable on the world stage and would they be enforceable? After seeking advice from my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary, I have been informed that they do not adhere to the World Trade Organisation sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Likewise, the wording of the amendments leads to uncertainty as to how the traceability measures would be enforced in countries abroad.
I reiterate that I am entirely in agreement with the aims of the proposed amendments—namely, to create a thriving domestic agricultural industry that it is not undercut by cheap foreign imports, while maintaining and promoting high animal welfare, environmental and food standards abroad. If the amendments are not workable through domestic policy, other mechanisms for achieving all those aims must be sought, rather than the inclusion of a blanket protectionist approach. That strategy could, in the long term as we go forth and emerge on the world stage, have unintended negative consequences for the long-term prosperity and sustainability of the British farming sector, as securing export markets for food produce may be harder to achieve. An early example of the opportunities that we have seen for British farmers is the lifting of the ban on UK beef exports by the US, creating a market for British farmers worth more than £66 million over the next five years.
As a country, we are on the cusp of opening up new and exciting export markets to our UK farmers. Such trade deals can be used to influence the world with our high animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards. Yesterday, we heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade issue from the Dispatch Box an explicit reassurance that we will not lower our food imports standards as a result of the ongoing US trade deal. Seeking further reassurance, I personally spoke to the Prime Minister this morning. He assured me that our strong animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards will not be compromised, and I accepted his reassurance. None the less, I look forward to seeing those reassurances being upheld.
Let us think big and long-term for our UK farmers by opening up opportunities and making sure that our UK sector is known internationally and not as a dot, which is what I found a few years ago.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
This is an important piece of legislation. It has huge consequences for how we are going to feed our nation and protect our environment, and, as many colleagues have set out, there is a lot to support in it. However, my constituents have huge concerns that the Bill does not go far enough to ensure our high standards for food, animal welfare and protection of the environment and climate that we all value.
The Bill would not do enough to prevent imports of food that do not meet those high British standards, and it would be devastating news for British farmers, who would be left at risk of being undercut when they are doing the right thing to produce good quality food and to protect our environment. That would make a mockery of the value that we place on those standards. I urge the Government to listen to the concerns of the public and support Labour’s amendments today, which would enhance this Bill and provide important protections for British farmers and the standards that we all value.
I want to turn to food insecurity and the difficulties that some of the poorest families in my constituency are facing during this crisis—a crisis that has exacerbated the pressures that many people are already facing in trying to feed their families. The continuing problems with free school meal vouchers are now familiar to all of us, yet the Government have failed to get a grip on the problem. Just this morning, another school in my constituency contacted me to say that, again, its vouchers were late. Staff faced similar problems last week. They worked over the bank holiday weekend in their own time for the children who need that support. It is a common story across schools: far too many staff are listing endless problems in trying to use a system that is clearly not fit for purpose. When they try to make contact to address the problems, the helpline is permanently engaged and their emails go unanswered.
Although I know that we needed to put in place a system quickly to get food to those children, the decision not to put the contract out to tender was a poor one. I urge the Government to get a grip on this situation, because it is just unacceptable that children are being left to go hungry and families are being left without the most basic support to enable them to feed their own children. Across the board, too many people are falling through the gaps and are unable to access the food and supplies that they need. Much of that support is dependent on supermarkets—whether it is access to delivery slots or the pricing of their food. Analysis by the Office for National Statistics last month showed that the price of high-demand food and sanitary products has risen by 4.4% since the lockdown measures began. Will the Government put supermarkets on notice that any profiteering from this situation will not be tolerated?
I wish to finish by highlighting the need of kinship carers, too many of whom are finding access to food a challenge. These are people who have stepped up to do the right thing by the children they are raising, and they face unique challenges. Many kinship carers are elderly grandparents, often with long-term health conditions, raising children who have often experienced trauma and have health challenges of their own. The cross- party parliamentary taskforce on kinship care, which I chair, conducted some research into this group and has recommended that the Government work with supermarkets to ensure that kinship carers are included on the priority list for supermarket deliveries. Is that something that the Government can consider urgently?
In conclusion, we have a huge opportunity in this Bill to protect British farming, to maintain high food and environmental standards and to support the most vulnerable in our communities. Let us not waste it.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Minister, in her introductory remarks, referred to various provisions in the Bill that will devolve more power and responsibility to the Welsh Parliament. She also referred to her family’s long history of farming in Oxfordshire and other counties. I would like to explain to her how concerned I am by this moving of additional powers to the Welsh Parliament, because I represent a border community. As Cardiff and London move further and further apart, we have already seen huge additional complications and problems for our farmers on the border in dealing with sometimes highly different and contradictory legislation emanating from both Parliaments.
One classic example is the crisis that we are facing in Shropshire of bovine tuberculosis on an unprecedented scale. We killed 47 cows in Shropshire in 1997 as a result of bovine TB. Last year, it was more than 2,000. My farmers are going through a crisis of untold proportions. Some of my farmers have land on both sides of the border, and bovine tuberculosis unfortunately does not respect national frontiers, so the devolution process is very difficult for my farmers.
Secondly, my understanding of the Bill is that subsidies will end for English farmers in seven years’ time, but not for Welsh farmers. Again, that is a devolved matter. My question to the Minister is how my farmers, whether chicken or dairy farmers—or farmers of anything that we produce in Shropshire—are meant to compete against their Welsh friends and counterparts across the border when they still have the subsidies but we do not. That is a real concern to me.
I have come here specially today, in person rather than over the internet, to look the Minister in the eye and ask her to take these genuine concerns from border communities into consideration. I would like her to create a taskforce in her Department to look at and evaluate the impact on farmers who operate in border communities and to assess how they can remain competitive, and have a level and fair playing field, with this ongoing divergence between Cardiff and London.
I also wish to speak on new clause 1. interestingly, Robert Newbery, who represents the National Farmers Union in my constituency, and many others—including my association chairman, Dan Morris, who is a cattle farmer—are asking me to support my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. They rightly feel that we have some of the best standards not just in Europe but across the whole globe, and they want guarantees enshrined in law that there will be a level playing field.
I am always amazed by the amount of investment that our farmers have had to make in order to comply with these standards. It is absolutely mind-blowing. I spoke for 30 minutes today to Guy Davies, a farmer in Little Ness who produces 5 million chickens a year, and in addition uses the chicken manure to generate over 9 million kW of electricity, which can power up to 2,000 homes. He wants me to support the new clause.
In the little time that I have left, if the Minister wants me to back her rather than going with my hon. Friends, she really does need to explain when she winds up just what guarantees we will have to take back to the NFU and others who feel so very strongly on this matter. According to the president of the NFU, this is the most important Bill since 1947. It is a landmark Bill, and I would like to pay tribute to all the Shropshire farmers who contribute so much to my community.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
I wholeheartedly support new clause 1 and the other amendments seeking the same outcome: that there should be no lowering of standards on food safety, the environment and animal welfare as a result of any future trade deals, no undercutting of British farmers and no race to the bottom. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and I had more than a few differences of opinion when we first served on the Agriculture Bill Committee in the last Parliament—unlike him, I was allowed back for the second one too—but on this issue we are utterly on the same page. The same goes for the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), on whose Select Committee I served in the last Parliament. I thought that he made a very good speech.
As time is limited, all I will say is this: it has been made abundantly clear that no one—not the farmers, not the environmentalists, not the public, not the consumers and not even Tory MPs—trusts the Government’s verbal assurances on this. It is not enough for the Minister to say that it will not happen; we want it in writing, enshrined in law.
I also support amendments on better labelling, procurement, baseline regulation, and fairness and transparency in supply chains, and the Opposition amendment on food security, which calls for a statement to Parliament every year so that we can end the scandal of food poverty. During the current crisis, organisations such as Feeding Bristol have done a tremendous job in my home city, trying to ensure that everyone in lockdown can get the essential food supplies that they need, and that no one, including children who no longer attend school, goes hungry. The voluntary sector has been brilliant, but our children should not have to rely on charity.
I will focus on amendments 18 and 19, which are tabled in my name. I thank the Landworkers Alliance for its work with the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology, which I chair, and for all that it has done to promote the amendments. I have had many emails from constituents in recent days urging me to back my own amendments, which I am obviously more than happy to do. Agroecology is a cause whose time has come. This pandemic has brought home to many people how dysfunctional our relationship with the natural world has become, with overconsumption, unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, a food system that is broken, and birds and wildlife disappearing from our countryside and gardens.
I urge Members to read a recent report, “Feeding the Nation: How Nature Friendly Farmers are Responding to Covid-19”, which includes a quote from a farmer from Northern Ireland. He says:
“The current crisis provides people with time to reflect on the importance of food and farming to all humanity…Our food can only be sustainable and bountiful if it’s produced in harmony with the environment and wildlife.”
The Bill goes some way towards creating a better approach to farm subsidies and rewarding nature-friendly farmers. Despite being an ardent remainer, I will not shed a tear for us leaving the common agricultural policy. I broadly support the public money for public goods approach, but my concern is that it will allow farmers to cherry-pick.
What we need is a whole-farm system approach, so that across the farm, not just on the margins, farmers are using agroecological methods, focusing on getting the best from the whole landscape. Such measures include protecting soil health through no-till farming, which not only boosts food production but helps to sequester carbon; using integrated pest management rather than toxic pesticides; and protecting habitats and promoting biodiversity, so that we see a return of nesting birds, pollinators and beneficial insects to our countryside.
I will finish with another quote from a farmer in that nature-friendly farming report. He says:
“This crisis has made it very clear that we have lost the resilience in our food and farming system, with value being placed on ‘cheap’. This has led to degraded soils, diminishing wildlife and imports of lower food safety and farming standards. We need to shift back to a more sustainable, mixed farming system for resilience across the board.”
That is what my amendments seek to achieve, and I hope that the Government will listen.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) [V]
While my constituency is primarily known as a former mining area, agriculture has always played an essential role in the local economy of Don Valley and continues to do so. Consequently, as the Government have confirmed that there will be no extension to the transition period, this Bill is more necessary than ever, and its passage today will provide farmers and many other individuals in my constituency with reassurance on several issues.
I appreciate that Members in all parts of the House are concerned about environmental sustainability in food production, as can be seen in the Opposition’s amendment 26. Yet this amendment is wholly unnecessary, as clause 1(4) already outlines that the provision of any financial assistance by the Secretary of State to agricultural businesses would have to take into account whether such assistance would encourage food production in an environmentally sustainable way. I am pleased with the addition of this requirement, as it will ensure that the often wasteful aspects of the common agricultural policy will become a thing of the past.
Furthermore, I am pleased that clause 17 will require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament at least once every five years on food security in the United Kingdom. This is particularly relevant at this moment in time. Like so many of my colleagues across the House, I have had dozens of concerned constituents email me about the lack of food in shops as a result of the panic buying that we unfortunately witnessed last month. Some were even scared that the UK would run out of food. Yet I am concerned that the Opposition’s new clause 4 would add such a large number of requirements to the Secretary of State’s reporting that the original purpose of clause 17 would be lost. I appreciate that the new clause is designed to encourage the consumption of healthy food, but clause 17(2)(e) already states that the data put forward by the Secretary of State will include statistics on
“food safety and consumer confidence in food.”
This would inevitably touch on aspects relating to the nutritional value of food and consumers’ confidence that the food available to them was healthy to consume.
This has been a robust debate and I have appreciated the diverse range of views that have been expressed across the House. I end simply by stating that this Bill has my full support and will ease some of my constituents’ environmental and food security concerns.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
This may be an agriculture Bill but it is also one of the most important environmental reforms in decades—a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the way that land is managed in this country for the better.
Frankly, the dry phrase, “public money for public goods”, does not really convey the importance of what we are seeking to safeguard through clause 1 of this very important Bill: the air we breathe into our lungs every minute of the day; the precious soil that nurtures the crops that feed us; our rivers, streams and waterways; our hedgerows and wildflower meadows; our ancient woodlands and our rolling hills; the stunning country- side that is one of the greatest treasures of this United Kingdom we are lucky enough to call home. Of course, the “public goods” covered in the Bill also include the civilised and compassionate treatment of animals and the struggle to protect our planet from climate change.
To make a success of these reforms, we need, first, to give proper weight to food security. I was pleased to see this added to the Bill during my time as Secretary of State. Secondly, these reforms must be properly funded. I fought to secure a Conservative manifesto commitment that farm support would be maintained at current levels in every year of this Parliament. Bitter experience shows how hard it is to deliver change on this scale in the context of a shrinking budget.
Thirdly, we need sufficient time for a managed and orderly transition to ELM. If the Government want to stick to their seven-year timetable, I am afraid that we will need to see more detail very soon on how ELM will operate. Fourthly, in designing ELM we need to get the right balance between, on the one hand, ensuring that the schemes are widely accessed by farmers, including upland farmers, and can be delivered in practice; and, on the other hand, ensuring that significant, measurable, positive outcomes are delivered in relation to crucial public goods.
In this Bill, we are setting out on a path that has been closed to this Parliament for nearly half a century. Successive Governments have pushed CAP reform, but generally returned empty-handed from the Council tables in Brussels. Replacing the CAP means that we can deliver a better, brighter, greener future for farming in England, but we will not be able to realise that vision if we expose our farmers to unfettered competition from US imports produced to lower standards of animal welfare and environmental protection. We are already asking a great deal of farmers as we phase out basic payments. They will face even greater challenges if the negotiations with the EU do not initially deliver a free trade agreement. If we add in the complete liberalisation of trade with US producers, that would be a hit from which many livestock businesses would not survive. The aftershock would be felt in all four corners of our United Kingdom because of the centrality of livestock farming to communities in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and of course the north of England too.
The Conservatives were elected on a manifesto with commitments on animal welfare and the environment which are more far-reaching than any before in the long history of our party, but allowing unrestricted imports from jurisdictions with far weaker rules would mean offshoring carbon emissions and animal cruelty, not reducing them. If we are to keep our promises on the environment and on the decent treatment of animals, they must be reflected in our trade policy and in the Bill this afternoon.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would have loved to have been with you this afternoon in the Chamber, but I am not allowed to be with you. I cannot look you in the eye, but I am here speaking up, I hope, for my constituency of Huddersfield, where we do have farms and farming. We are, of course, the centre for the great Syngenta, one of the leading agricultural science companies in the world. It used to be owned by my old employer, Imperial Chemical Industries—ICI. It is now owned by ChemChina, which is an arm of the Chinese Government.
Things are changing. What the Bill is about, and why I support the amendments that have been tabled, is getting the balance right, across parties, between having good-quality food for our constituents and our children to feed the people of this country and our need for a secure supply chain. Nothing has taught us more about supply chains than the recent coronavirus scandal and the terrible deaths that have been caused by it. The fact of the matter is that we have to have secure food supplies.
Only recently, there was a leaked document—I have to say from the Government side—that said, “Why do we need a farming sector any longer? Why don’t we do what we do with everything else and get the cheapest possible deal in the global supermarket?” That is not the answer. We now know that we must have not only a vibrant farming sector but one that is compatible with a highly skilled and well managed industry. It also needs to be compatible with a diverse and bountiful countryside in which species are not being eradicated and where industrial agriculture does not destroy habitat.
I believe that this is Hedgehog Awareness Week. That is no laughing matter. When I was a young person it was very common to see a hedgehog in a garden. They have almost been eliminated in our country, as have many bird species, through an industrialisation of agriculture about which we must all be wary.
It would be wrong in this debate not to say that farming is under threat from the unscrupulous practices of many of our supermarkets. Getting that relationship between farming, the retailer and the supermarkets is extremely important. It is easy to say that our farming is the best. Our farming, where it is good, is very good indeed, but it is not perfect. We have a lot to learn from experience around the world, and not only in terms of high science, good management, good skills training and paying people well who work on the land. The fact of the matter is that we have to get the balance right between all those competing goals.
I am not someone who gets carried away with campaigns, but I hate the fact that we are eliminating the lovely British badger. I believe that that is a wrong-headed, contrary to science campaign, and we should all deplore that.
There must be a right balance between the countryside, the environment and high-quality agriculture, as well as the opportunity for young people who want to become farmers to get hold of some land and get started. Very largely, the push for local authorities to sell off their land during the recent austerity has meant that many young farmers do not have that opportunity. There is much to go at beyond this Bill. Let us all do it together.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
As a parliamentary hedgehog champion, it is a pleasure to follow Huddersfield’s very own Mr Tiggy-Winkle, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).
I rise to speak to new clause 11 and amendment 37, tabled in my name and supported by colleagues, relating to the mandatory labelling of products with their farming method. Much of what we have heard already aims to put high animal welfare standards at the heart of this Bill. For the Committee stage, I tabled other amendments, including on labelling with the method of slaughter, but due to the truncated proceedings I can only raise one today, and trust that the Lords will consider others when the Bill passes to them. I hope the Government will be sympathetic to new clause 11 and amendment 37, given that they were first proposed in a previous incarnation of the Bill by the now noble Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, who is responsible for this legislation when it continues its passage in the upper House. Knowing him as well as I do, I doubt very much that a red box has changed his deeply held beliefs on animal welfare.
I believe that, ultimately, consumers are best placed to drive improvement in animal welfare standards because consumer demands and changing behaviours force the agriculture and supermarket sector to adapt. The substantial shift away from caged to free-range eggs is testament to this. At present, more than half of egg production in the UK is free range, with more and more restaurants and supermarkets phasing out their use and sale of caged eggs as public demand changes. I would argue that the legislation that required eggs and egg packs to be labelled with the farming method has undoubtedly helped to accelerate this change and that extending it to other products simply follows.
I firmly believe, now we have left the EU and as we prepare to exit the transition period, that the Agriculture Bill, along with the Environment Bill, provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that British agricultural standards are the best in the world. We can and should go beyond the current European framework and set a new standard for animal welfare. Greatly improved labelling for farming methods can be the first step in improving the availability of more ethically sourced food for a changing consumer market.
My new clause and amendment require the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding the labelling of meat, milk and dairy products as to farming method. At present, consumer demand is being impeded by lack of clear information at point of sale about how meat and dairy products have been produced. Therefore, British consumers are largely in the dark.
Plenty of consumer research has been carried out that shows an obvious want among the British public for clearer labelling to identify the farm system used to produce the food that we put on our plates. I am not sure I have heard any good reason why we should not label better, so I am hoping that the Government will either accept the amendment, or reassure me that they agree with the principle and will bring it back in an acceptable form in the Lords. There is nothing to fear from clearer, better labelling, especially as we have heard in other areas of this debate about the desire to set a new global standard for our agriculture sector.
Finally, I commend the work that has been achieved by colleagues at DEFRA. I believe that this Bill will go a long way to improving standards in the UK, but I think we need to trust the consumer and allow consumers to have the information that will drive their decisions about what they purchase. I hope that the Minister will look at my new clause sympathetically and accept it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I shall now suspend the House for 15 minutes, returning at 4.20 pm.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC) [V]
I want to speak on three key themes that intertwine with the amendments and new clauses that we are considering: first, the need to protect domestic food supplies; secondly, the need for joint decision making over the new British state internal food market; and thirdly, trade policy as it will apply to agriculture.
On our economy and food supplies, the current pandemic has exposed long-ignored issues, including our dependence on imports. Now is the time to rethink, reset and rebuild our food supply from the ground up. The regrettable long-term withdrawal of both the British and Welsh Governments from food policy has allowed our food retail industry to become ever more concentrated, so that just four companies now control 70% of the UK food retail market. The oligopoly of several large food retailers has given them unprecedented power to dictate ever lower prices to farmers, continually sapping the financial health of domestic agriculture and expanding an ever wider trade imbalance that undermines our food security. In short, a complete U-turn is needed in agricultural policy to promote food production. Central to that should be the development of local processing capabilities, so that we can help to build a stronger local economy where people can buy local produce more directly.
Following the debate since the EU referendum, it is plainly obvious that the proponents of leaving the EU have given little thought to its consequences for the British state. My preferred policy would have been to remain in the single market post Brexit—a luxury available to the six counties of the north of Ireland, but not Wales—and then there would have been no need for me to make this point. However, in leaving the single market, a new internal market will need to be created for Scotland, Wales and England in order to facilitate the free movement of goods, not least agricultural products. I am sure that, as time goes by, businesses in my constituency and across Wales will start asking why they cannot have the same access to the European single market as Northern Ireland. However, I digress.
The key issue that faces us now is how the new Welsh, Scottish and English internal market will be governed and regulated. I have little doubt that, due to the centralising tendencies of Westminster, British Government Ministers believe that that will be a matter for them and them alone. I remind the British Government, however, that Wales and Scotland have moved a considerable way in recent decades, and the people of our respective countries will not take kindly to the sidelining of our national Governments and national Parliaments. After all, during the EU referendum, Brexiteers were promising Wales a “bonanza” of new powers. To avoid the destructive contradictions caused by Brexit, it is clear that the British state needs to be restructured. Joint decision making between those constituent parts of the British state within the new internal market would be an obvious way of creating some stability.
I turn to trade policy. There is a complete absence in the original Bill of any commitment or means of upholding Welsh and British farming production standards in international trade negotiations. As UK negotiators are reportedly finding out in their deliberations with the US, every one of the 50 states has the right to impose conditions in their trade deals, so as to protect their respective core economic interests.
Welsh agriculture is the bedrock of our food and drink industry, worth nearly £7.5 billion in 2018. A core component of that is overseas trade, particularly with our European friends and allies, where nearly three quarters of all Welsh food and drink exports were destined in 2018. This trade underpins the employment of over a quarter of a million people in Wales. Trade in foodstuffs is therefore a national strategic imperative for my country.
Unrestricted, cheap, poor-quality imports threaten to not only damage the immediate vitality and strength of our domestic food sector, but also pose wider challenges to our environment and our rural economy. As things stands when it comes to trade policy, Wallonia, a region of Belgium, will have more influence over European Union trade policy than Wales will have over UK trade policy. The checks and balances in the EU, the US and other trade blocs are not intended to create problems. They are there to ensure coherence to trade policy.
We are fully justified in our concern in Wales. The absurdity of current British Government trade policy means that trade negotiations with the US are given equal billing to those with the EU, despite their own figures indicating that it would take 60 deals with Trump to make up for what will be lost as a result of a botched Brexit transition phase. Again, Northern Ireland’s farmers will be protected as they will effectively remain in the EU customs union. The British Government seem to think they can leverage concessions from Europe by holding parallel talks, but President Macron, as usual, has completely outmanoeuvred the British Government by saying plainly that if the UK pursues a US deal and agrees to the importation of cheaper, lower-standard food, they can forget the trade deal with the EU.
In closing, my message to the British Government is this: stick as close to the EU as possible and create joint decision-making structures between Wales, Scotland and England over internal market and trade policy. I fear, though, that ideological zealotry will trump my advice. Diolch yn fawr.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) [V]
I want to talk about new clause 1, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), and new clause 4, which has not been selected but was tabled by me. New clause 4 seeks to make the Secretary of State a trade champion for the British agricultural industry. Although the Department for International Trade is absolutely the lead Department on negotiating free trade deals and trade promotion, trade promotion is of course a whole-of-Government exercise. It is incumbent on every Department to ensure that they promote at all times the fantastic products that we want to export to the entire world. I want to put a marker down for the whole of Government that they must be there to promote British exports.
Turning to the specifics, new clause 4 looks at several issues, and we need to get deep into the weeds of what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural actually does when it comes to food exports. One of the most important parts of exporting and, indeed, importing food is ensuring that foodstuffs are of a sufficient quality. Irrespective of the market access and tariffs that we secure in a trade deal, every country needs to allocate a licence to ensure that any food product class is sufficiently safe for their own consumers. For example, when people want to export food to the UK, DEFRA, through the Food Standards Agency, will license imports of sanitary and phytosanitary products.
When we are trying to export products, it is important that DEFRA works hard with licensing agencies in other countries to ensure that the audit of our producers and the audit of our regulators are done in such a way as to ensure that those licences are expedited as much as possible. They can take three years to get done, but we need to be doing things far quicker. From time to time, we get a problem whereby licences will be withdrawn, and we saw that with British beef over the years after Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease—mad cow disease. It is only in the past few years that we have seen the French lift their ban on British beef and the Americans lift their bans on British beef and lamb, and that came decades after CJD was a problem. That is a second area where the Secretary of State at DEFRA must do everything they can to lift such bans to ensure that we get proper market access.
Furthermore, other countries have local laws that may create problems. A good example of that is Thailand, which has perfectly acceptable religious views on alcohol and requires that alcohol is not promoted on the bottle. However, if someone is trying to sell a bottle of 21-year-old malt whisky, the law could interpret that as being a promotion of the product, rather than just a statement of fact that it is a very good whisky. We managed to resolve that problem through the Department for International Trade, as it turned out, but the point is that we need to ensure that we try to break down those inadvertent barriers to entry at every level.
Although new clause 1 is incredibly well intentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset stands up enthusiastically for the interests of farmers, I am afraid that it is rather misguided. Apart from anything else, it goes against the World Trade Organisation laws. In seeking to ensure that standards are maintained within the UK, it misses the point that standards are defined as outcomes not process. That is a problem as we particularly interested in outcomes. The process of ensuring that we have good animal welfare is laudable and important and quite extensive for our producers, but the outcome is ensuring that our consumers are not poisoned by food, which is an important point. I completely sympathise with the objectives of the new clause, which looks to help farmers, but it would end up setting a barrier for ourselves. We would introduce a process-based regulation, rather than an outcomes-based regulation under WTO terms. What we must do is support our farmers by promoting exports. We need the Secretary of State to report back on an annual basis, but we do not want to create other barriers, which new clause 1 would introduce.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to my amendments this afternoon, and to support several others.
My new clause 5 would help to rectify the absence of anything in the Bill to cut pesticide use. This is a really serious omission, given the harm that pesticides cause to insect life, including bees and pollinators, and to other wildlife, as well as the risks to human health. New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to take steps to protect members of the public from the hazardous health impacts of pesticide use—for example, by specifying a minimum distance between where a pesticide is being applied and public or residential buildings. We do not need to look hard to find evidence of the so-called insect apocalypse, and the serious risks of pesticides to humans and nature. Recently, a call from more than 70 scientists urged the phase-out of pesticides as a “no regrets” immediate step, stating:
“There is now a strong scientific consensus that the decline of insects, other arthropods and biodiversity as a whole, is a very real and serious threat that society must urgently address.”
On human health, pesticide cocktails are of particular concern, as they can be far more harmful than individual pesticides, yet our own regulatory system only assesses the safety of one chemical at a time. There is also the exposure of rural residents to pesticides applied to nearby farmland. The lack of anything on pesticides in the Bill is even more disturbing given the Government’s dubious stance on the precautionary principle: refusing to transfer it fully into UK law and refusing to legislate against the risks of a US trade deal undermining it.
My amendment 42 is on the sustainability and resilience of agriculture more widely. It complements amendments 18 and 19 on agroecology tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), which I strongly support. Amendment 42 would enable the Secretary of State to set and monitor progress towards targets for the uptake of integrated pest management based on agroecological practices, including organic farming. This would help to ensure that the catch-all clause on productivity payments does not undermine environmental objectives.
This week, a leaked copy of the EU 2030 biodiversity strategy revealed proposals for at least 25% of farmland to be organic, alongside a wider uptake of agroecological practices, a 50% reduction in pesticide use and cuts to mineral fertiliser use. On Second Reading, the then Secretary of State claimed that leaving the EU meant a greener future for British farming, where the UK would apparently do so much better for wildlife and the landscape. If that is to be reality and not just rhetoric, we need an Agriculture Bill that matches or goes further than the EU proposals on pesticides, agroecology and organic farming.
In response to covid-19, some argue that we should downplay nature and sustainability, and dial up food production. But that would risk doubling down on a food system that is contributing to what scientists last month called a
“perfect storm for the spillover of diseases from wildlife to people”.
One example is forest loss driven by rocketing demand for vast quantities of soya that is then fed to pigs and chickens, including in the UK. Agroecology is our route out of a dangerous dead-end debate that pitches food security, environmental protection and public health against each other. We can and must do much better than that.
Finally, my new clause 14 would go some way to fixing the Bill’s worrying lack of attention to the climate emergency. Having highlighted regulation as a gaping hole in the Bill on Second Reading, I strongly support new clause 8 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and am pleased that it includes specific provisions on climate. New clause 14 would complement that by setting a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions for agriculture and land use in the UK by 2050 at the latest. That is much too late in my view, but I hope that the Government will pick this up. It would also place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish interim emission-reduction targets, as well as policies to ensure that those targets are met.
The Committee on Climate Change has said that “strengthening the regulatory baseline” is an essential step that the Government must urgently deploy to meet climate goals, so I hope the Government will support not just specific climate targets for agriculture, as new clause 14 proposes, but rigorous policies to meet them that place equal emphasis on biodiversity and public health. The climate emergency is just one reason why Ministers must say no to business as usual and yes to a resilient, re-localised and regenerative food and farming system. My amendments would go some way towards putting those things at the heart of the Bill.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I wish to speak against new clause 1. A real issue needs to be dealt with: the high levels of regulation imposed on UK farming can and do add to increased costs for UK farmers. High standards can be an advantage in two ways: first, in what they say about the United Kingdom and our attitudes to animal welfare; and secondly, when it comes to exporting, when we can show to those who want to buy British agricultural produce that it is produced to very high standards—that was a huge advantage to me on a number of occasions when I was Secretary of State for International Trade.
The best way to help our farmers is to have a proper cross-governmental strategy to improve UK farming exports. The proposed changes do not deal with that particular problem, but they do create a number of others. There are three main unintended consequences: the first is the damage to our reputation for observing international treaty law; the second is that the proposals would damage our ability to conclude our current free trade agreements, and potentially future ones; and the third is that they make a mockery of our current negotiating position with the European Union.
First, the new clause is not compatible with WTO rules. Food safety and related issues are anchored in WTO law. Only the slaughter of animals is covered as a welfare issue in the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. There is nothing that the Government will do to undermine food safety standards in this country, and to suggest otherwise is a complete red herring in this whole debate. It would be a fine start to Britain’s independent trade policy outside the European Union if we were to begin by finding ourselves in conflict with the very rules-based trading system that we believe to be necessary.
Secondly, the new clause would damage the chances of our completing our current free trade agreements. I can say from personal experience, in my discussions with the United States, that the US would walk were the proposals to become law in the United Kingdom, and it would be swiftly followed by others—the Australians, the New Zealanders and those involved in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership would be unlikely to take kindly to it. They do not want the incorporation of UK rules to become a prerequisite to trading agreements with the United Kingdom.
There is an additional problem: it is about not just our current FTAs but our ability to conclude future FTAs with developing countries, which simply cannot afford to have the same level of animal welfare standards as we enjoy in a country as wealthy as the United Kingdom. It would be a great pity if, after all the work we have done to promote development, we unintentionally undermined it by agreeing to this change.
Thirdly, the new clause makes a mockery of what we are doing in our negotiation with the European Union. We are currently telling the European Union that we cannot accept the introduction of rules made outside our own country as a precondition of trade with the European Union—the so-called level-playing-field approach—but that is exactly what the new clause would do in relation to everybody else. I can imagine nothing that would bring greater joy to the bureaucrats of Brussels than the UK scuppering its free trade agreement with the United States on the basis that we were insisting on a level-playing-field agreement that we have categorically ruled out in our dealings with the European Union.
I wish to go slightly beyond the content of the proposals to the wider consequences. I worry about what some of the proposed changes say about the signals we would send as a country and our approach to free trade in general. It is worth pointing out—because almost no one seems to have noticed—that global trading volumes went negative in the fourth quarter of 2019. Before covid, global trade was on a downturn, with inevitable long-term economic consequences. Since 2010, the world’s wealthiest economies—the G20—have increased and increased the number of non-tariff barriers to trade: in 2010, they were operating around 300; by 2015, they were operating around 1,200.
There is a bit of environmental law here, a bit of consumer protection here and a bit of producer protection elsewhere. It all adds up to a silting up of the global trading system. Why does that matter? It matters because it risks the progress we have made in the past generation of taking a billion people out of abject poverty through global free trade. It is not morally acceptable for those countries that have done very well out of global trade to turn to the others that are still developing and pull the ladder up in front of them. We have benefited from a global open trading system. It is not only economically sensible, but morally the right thing to do to ensure that that free trade continues.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)[V]
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I served on Bill Committee and I have been contacted by a huge number of constituents, so I am enthusiastic about ensuring that the Government listen to the suggestions put forward by the people most affected by this Bill. There are huge insecurities throughout agriculture right now, with it anticipating new opportunities and challenges arising from leaving the European Union. Parliament is having to consider the Bill without knowing what those challenges will be and what our future relationships with other countries will look like. These insecurities have been highlighted by the sector for some time, and covid-19 means that the public have more recently been faced with these insecurities and the issues relating to the resilience of our domestic food supply chain. Closed restaurants, empty supermarket shelves and restrictions on imported food were issues that did not enter the public’s mind until just a few weeks ago. We should use the experience of this crisis to guide policy to build future resilience for our food and environmental security.
Many farmers and businesses in the agricultural sector will be facing unexpected financial hardship because of covid-19. Having witnessed the fragility of our domestic supply chain, we must ensure that the Bill includes provisions to support the domestic industry throughout the rest of the crisis. We must also consider practices our industry and consumers may be exposed to if our domestic industry cannot sustain the food supply following this and we have to look more to outside sources. With new trading agreements yet to be made, now we have the perfect opportunity to ban unfair trading and unethical practices. The Bill should ensure that food imports are produced to the equivalent environmental, animal welfare and food safety standards as those required of producers in the UK. The Government should also ensure transparency in our future supply chain, so that consumers are able to make ethical decisions for themselves and that the UK agriculture sector is prioritised over international imports. British farmers must not be subject to a system where they are undercut by food produced to lower standards and then imported into the UK. British consumers must not be subject to food with lower nutritional value, unaware of how their food was farmed.
This Bill has an opportunity to have a positive impact on farmers, business, the wider public and the environment if we get it right. That is why I was pleased to see so many contributions to the Bill Committee and why it is important that we include suggestions that will mean that the Bill has much more of a wider impact. The Ramblers, Britain’s largest walking charity, has asked that this Bill includes a requirement for landowners in receipt of public funds to fulfil their legal duty to keep public rights of way. I am supporting that suggestion from Ramblers, so that my constituents have the opportunity to explore nature and have access to a free way to stay active. That is just one way in which the Bill can support farmers to support the wider public. After two months of lockdown, I am sure that all Members from across the House, and the UK public, can appreciate the importance of access to nature and nutritional food. We have pulled together as a country throughout the crisis, and we should use this momentum to continue to support one another.
I am pleased to be able to speak on the Bill, to support workers in the agriculture industry, who are important but often overlooked keyworkers in the crisis. It is essential that a future trade agreement protects British farmers and consumers, and that is why I support Labour’s amendment. I hope that the Government have heard the important contributions we have heard, and take the opportunity today to legislate to protect the UK agriculture sector, and make use of our suggestions, which will have a positive impact on the wider public.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
Here in Wantage I can hear cows mooing as I speak, so the debate is relevant to my constituency.
Beginning with imports, it is fair to say that across Wantage and Didcot we have first-rate farming—Brimstone farm in the west of my constituency is one example. The food that is produced and the environment, agriculture and welfare standards are extremely high. A number of my farmers would like me to support some of the proposals that we are considering, particularly new clauses 1 and 2. I thought hard about that, and was pulled in that direction, but in the end I decided not to do so. Even if that provided short-term help—I am not sure that it would, even if it were compatible with World Trade Organisation rules, and I am not sure that that is the case—in the long term it would not help exports from the great farmers here and across the country. There is a five-year requirement to report on food security. That is a minimum requirement, but I hope that we will hear about food security much more regularly.
In my judgement, public money for public good, is one of the most exciting parts of the legislation. We will change entirely the system for paying farmers, and we will be able to do so in a way that helps to protect the environment. Farmers are the natural custodians of the environment, and measures that enable us to support them to improve air, soil and water quality as well as biodiversity are a hugely welcome development. Maybe—just maybe—it will help to reduce farmers’ average age, which is 60 at the moment. They find it difficult to persuade their children and grandchildren to take on their work. This may be a step to help encourage others to maintain the land for the great purposes that support our efforts on climate change. In future, some people may try to minimise the food production aspect. I hope that that does not happen, because that should not be regarded as a contrast to efforts on the environment. These are mutually beneficial things that we can do together in the Bill.
Turning to exports, I voted to leave the European Union, and was surprised to be told that that meant that I believed in a closed society, rather than an open one. On the contrary—I wanted an open society that was open to more than just the EU. I would like to see British products in countries around the world, and I hope that we will do everything that we can to ensure that that is the case. I think that there is an opportunity on food labelling at the end of the transition period, so that we can clearly define and consistently apply food labelling that demonstrates and signals to the world the high standards that we have in this country.
There is undoubtedly more that we can do to promote our exports. We have the “Food is GREAT” campaign. I hope that we turbo-boost that in the coming years. Finally, I want to make sure that we remember small farms, because this is a tremendous opportunity for our farms, and I hope that we will support them in their contracts and by promoting their goods, so that they too can benefit from this groundbreaking legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now go to Angus and Dave Doogan—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon. I am grateful to Members in the Chamber for correcting my mistake. We go to North Devon—[Interruption.] We go to North Down, and Stephen Farry.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; that was an interesting tour of the UK—from Scotland to the south-west and finally to Northern Ireland.
I want to speak primarily to new clause 9 in my name and those of the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and others; to new clause 1, of which I am a co-sponsor; and to new clauses 2, 6 and 10, which are very similar.
By way of context, I stress the importance of the agri-food sector to the Northern Ireland economy. It represents about 10% of all activity, which is considerably higher than the UK average. Furthermore, the profile of agriculture and associated industry in Northern Ireland is different from that of the UK as a whole; we have a much higher profile of smaller farmers in particular. The Northern Ireland sector is based around quality rather than scale, and standards are critical and are a matter of pride to all stakeholders.
I passionately believe in an open and liberal international trading system, and we had that with our membership of the European Union and its trade deals with the rest of the world. Trade cannot be conceptualised in simplistic terms or around outmoded 19th-century economic thinking. Environmental, food safety, animal welfare and labour issues are now all vital considerations.
It is also important to acknowledge the unique situation in which Northern Ireland finds itself from the implementation of the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol. That is of course the inevitable out-working of Brexit and in particular the decision of the UK Government to rule out a softer Brexit based around the customs union and single market, and therefore the ongoing need to ensure an open border on the island of Ireland and protection of the Good Friday agreement. Northern Ireland will consequently remain aligned to large aspects of EU regulation. Furthermore, there is ongoing uncertainty as to how Northern Ireland will interact with EU trade policy and also UK trade policy going forward, with the risk of being marginalised in both respects. Obviously, in the all-Ireland context, matters such as food safety and environmental considerations need to be aligned.
On the substance of new clause 9, I acknowledge that post Brexit there is a need for an initial UK-wide framework to provide breathing space in policy and payments, but there is a sunset clause in the Bill for some measures applying to Wales, and Scotland has already indicated its intention to shape its own policy. This Bill was conceived and drafted prior to the New Decade, New Approach agreement and the welcome restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland, but there is no sunset clause for the application of schedule 6 to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is therefore out of step with other devolved nations, yet, paradoxically, it is Northern Ireland that needs the greatest scope to shape policy to fit its particular circumstances, not least given that protocol.
The Bill provides for the local Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister to amend provisions by regulation, but most Members will appreciate the different processes and scope to enact them through primary legislation and regulation. Northern Ireland is at risk of losing the capacity of the much more rounded and participative process that comes from full legislative consideration. There is a broad range of farming and environmental stakeholders who deserve the opportunity to engage more fully in the development of policy.
In the Minister’s opening comments, she indicated that matters covered in new clause 9 were largely for the devolved AERA Minister. However, I have already explained the difference between action by regulation and by primary legislation. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) stated that the local Minister was happy with the Bill and the Assembly had already passed a legislative consent motion, but that Minister was only one voice and his views are not representative of the majority of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The LCM was passed by the Assembly in anticipation that it could still pass its own bespoke legislation, and, importantly, the agriculture and environment Committee in the Assembly has expressed its support for a sunset clause.
Any sunset clause would run to 2026, which would provide ample time for local measures to be put in place; there would therefore be no risk. It would be a strange thing if the Northern Ireland Assembly did not want to shape policy in an area of its own competence.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) [V]
I support the Bill overall. I think it is great for agriculture. It is a landmark Bill, and I thank my local National Farmers Union and local farmers for the engagement I have had with them over many months now.
I do, however, want to speak against new clauses 1 and 2, for which some NFU representatives have been encouraging MPs to vote. While there are good intentions—clearly I want to do what I can to support and help create opportunities for farmers up and down the country, including in south Somerset—the new clauses would in fact be damaging to their long-term interests and the long-term interests of the country. I will say a few things about the reasons for that and address some of the things that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said. He said that he wanted us to be a beacon for standards around the world, and I agree with him, but I believe that we can champion higher standards much better if we are not a trade pariah, which we would be regarded as if we banned imports on a blanket basis, as the new clauses would effect. I am also, as is my hon. Friend, pro consumer safety, and it is important to understand that we will not be reducing import standards. We will have the Food Safety Agency to ensure that our products are safe and that our consumers are kept safe.
I am pro farmers’ opportunities, and we have a lot of scope to increase the work that the Government can do to help farmers to market their products and develop new innovative products. I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking at a new grant scheme to help with some of that. There are also the opportunities from trade itself, which are large. My hon. Friend said that he was pro food security, and I also support such a thing, but part of that is about having diversified supply chains, and that is exactly what would be damaged by the new clauses, which could effectively create a blanket ban on imports at the whim of the Government or of a food safety agency. I do not think that is in our interests either.
The bottom line is that we are not going to let standards slide, as the shadow Minister said was his fear. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) made the point that our high standards are often a very good marketing feature for our export products around the rest of the world. Being able to do these deals around the rest of the world is critical. At the end of the day, the new clauses, if passed, would interfere with our ability to sign new trade deals and to roll over the existing ones that we have with the EU. It would put us outside of the scope of our WTO agreements, and we would be that trade pariah.
I will finish by saying a couple of things. My neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said that he wanted lots of US exports. That simply would not happen under a trade deal, as he said he wanted, if the new clauses were agreed, because there would not be a trade deal.
Finally I want to address my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). He had heartening faith in our trade negotiators, and I agree that we have some great trade negotiators who will fight hard for us and for our farmers. I will do what I can to aid the negotiators in that process of fighting for farmers, but I am afraid that however good they are, if the new clauses passed into law their ability would not make any difference; there would simply be no trade deals with any other nation. With that, I thank all the farmers of south Somerset for their support through this process.
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.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
What we should be doing in this Parliament is protecting our farmers, our food security, our food standards, our climate, our environment, our public health and our workers, but the Bill falls short on all those counts. The reality is that Britain is gripped by a once-in-100-years pandemic that has taken the lives of 33,000 people, yet this reckless Government refuse to extend the transition period in which we are required to get a deal with the EU, and indeed with the US. This puts all our interests at risk.
Members will know that something like 44% of our trade goes to the EU—in Wales three quarters of our food goes there—and that the United States is a very tough negotiator. It is interested in low-price, often substandard food that may be forced on us unless we ensure in this Bill that we secure the highest standards possible to limit what can be negotiated. The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has confirmed that chlorinated chicken must be part of a post-Brexit UK trade deal. We have heard talk about hormone-impregnated beef. Basically, we are at risk of importing food below the standards we currently enjoy and torpedoing the opportunity to have a meaningful EU trade deal, which is of much greater significance than the US trade deal—something like 60 times more. It is important that we ensure environmental standards are built into trade deals and into Bills such as this one. If we do not build those food and environmental standards into our law, and they are not subsequently in trade deals, then when we try to increase our environmental and food standards we will be taken to an international court by Trump and others, and we will be unable to move our standards upwards.
On climate change, there is great concern about nitrogen fertilisers producing nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas used in cattle feed for indoor intensive farming, particularly in the United States. We do not want that here. We should rule that out. We should put that into our trade deal and into the quality controls we put in the Bill. More trade further afield with the US will be bad for climate change in any case, and we know the US does not respect the Paris agreement. We need to use Bills such as this one to protect our food standards and ensure that those standards go into trade deals.
It is interesting that the Bill does not mention air quality, despite the fact that DEFRA argued that agriculture was a more important source of particulates for air pollution than diesel. We know that during the lockdown, PM2.5 and NOx have actually gone down: PM2.5 went down by 10% and NOx by 40%. We know that ammonia is a precursor of secondary particulate pollution; in other words, even though we are using our cars less, we still need to ask what we should do about delivering World Health Organisation standards, particularly as we now know there are significantly more covid deaths in areas with air pollution. That is a great big hole in the Agriculture Bill.
On migration, there are limits on the number of people who can come over here and pick our fruit and vegetables. The Agricultural Wages Board in Wales—it was abolished in England—should be extended to England to support rural workers’ wages. On protecting workers, it is critically important at this time that the workers in food production, abattoirs and food processing have proper PPE, testing and social distancing. We already know there are a massively disproportionate number of those people dying from covid. Again, the Government have neglected that situation.
In conclusion, we need to put food standards centre stage. I will be supporting the amendments. We need to ensure the EU deal is the right one, which means extending the transition period. We need to ensure that the environment and climate change are centre stage, and they need to be part of the trade deals. We need to protect our workers and all our interests in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now call Daniel Zeichner to wind up for the Opposition and ask that he speaks for no more than eight minutes.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be able to continue to debate these vital issues with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). We had many hours in Committee.
This Bill has been a long time coming: almost two and half years since it was started, with three Secretaries of State and two Prime Ministers. It seems a world away from when it was launched back in October 2018. Some things have not changed, however. The climate crisis, finally properly recognised by this Parliament last year, remains more than pressing. There is much in this Bill on which we can all agree. We welcome the improvements on the first version, but, as the debate this afternoon has shown, we still think that there is room for improvement and that there are some fundamental points of disagreement.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now call Minister Victoria Prentis to wind up for the Government. I ask that her speech lasts no more than 10 minutes.
Victoria Prentis
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I cannot tell you how much I have enjoyed the debate this afternoon. I do not think that that is just because it is my first time out of the house for some weeks. We have heard from passionate colleagues on both sides of the House—colleagues who are passionate about farming, food and food security. We have heard from distinguished former Secretaries of State. We have heard from farmers. We have heard from those from farming families. We have heard from many Members who represent farming constituencies. We have heard from a vet, and we have heard from a number of colleagues, some mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who love both food and food security. We also heard, indirectly, from the cows of Wantage.
I would like to take this opportunity to reassure Members that the Government understand the importance of agriculture to the nation. I know that British farmers are the best in the world. The Bill will ensure that they receive the support that they need to give us the food that we need and enjoy; to protect and enhance our beautiful rural landscape; and to ensure the health of the wider rural economy.
We have had a robust debate, which was well-intentioned on both sides. I need to reiterate at this point that there can be no question of sacrificing the UK livestock or other farming industries for the US trade deal. To the contrary, it is our view that a US trade deal is perfectly compatible with a thriving UK farming industry and very high standards. We have heard mention of the dreaded chlorine-washed chicken several times, and I would like to reassure the House that under existing regulations, which we will put into English law at the end of this year, chlorine-washed chicken is not allowed, and only a vote of this House can change that.
I think I also need to restate that the Government are willing to commit to a serious and rapid examination of what can be done through labelling, to reassure colleagues. It may well be that that would help colleagues to understand that we do intend to promote high standards and high welfare across the UK market. I agree that we must consider the case for consumer choice more fully when we look at this in some detail. I agreed earlier in the debate, and reiterate now, that we will consult on this at the end of the transition period. It is important that we look at how it would affect both the industry and consumers, and indeed retailers. I am keen to take that forward.
I thank my predecessor—now the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—for making the Agriculture Bill such a great piece of legislation. We will hear from him later, on Third Reading. I would like to gently tease the hon. Member for Cambridge about this. Isn’t it great that we have a Secretary of State who stands up for high standards of British farming; and isn’t it great that this framework Bill, and what has been said by our trade negotiating teams, and indeed by the Prime Minister and in the Conservative manifesto, again and again has reassured that champion for high standards in farming, who is behind this Bill, as I am sure he will tell us very shortly?
I am very grateful to the members of the Public Bill Committee for their diligent scrutiny. It is fair to say that this Bill has evolved, and indeed improved, during its passage through the House. I am so sorry that many of them have not been able to speak in this debate, but I think that given the hybrid nature of the proceedings we have had a pretty good go at discussing the issues that, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said, concerned the Committee.
I would like personally to thank especially our Parliamentary Private Secretaries to the Department. They have been towers of strength at a difficult time, when it is difficult to communicate with colleagues in a way that we would like to and are used to. I express my thanks and gratitude to all the civil servants who have worked on the Bill, especially Nathalie Sharman, the Bill manager, who is in the Box this afternoon.
I thank, more widely, those across the four nations who have worked hard on the Bill to get it to this stage. During the work that we have done in the taskforce for feeding the vulnerable over the past four months, we have worked very closely with my colleagues across the four nations, and I hope that we can continue with that spirit of co-operation as we take these policies forward.
I would also like to thank the Clerks and the House authorities for helping us to make history as the first Bill to be voted on using electronic voting. I hope I have not spoken too soon, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that it works!
This is, as we have said many times, a framework Bill. We have a long, long way to go, and many tests and trials, before the agricultural transition period comes to an end in 2028. I would like to reassure farmers that the Government will support them and ensure that consumers will continue to have access to great-quality British food to eat. We very much hope that that will mean consumers from all over the world.
Farming is more than a job. We must cherish the deep personal connection felt by those who farm the land to the soil and landscape they care for, and build upon it in the reforms that we make. This Bill gives us that framework for the future for farming and for our countryside outside the EU. It will allow us to reward public goods such as environmental improvements, it will support investment in technology and research to improve productivity, and it will help our farmers to produce the high-quality food that they are renowned for and that we all so enjoy eating. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now call Simon Hoare to wind up, and ask that his speech lasts no longer than two minutes.
Simon Hoare
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I, too, am grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members from across the House who have spoken in the debate. It has been of noteworthy interest that Members representing both rural and urban constituencies have spoken with knowledge and passion on this.
Let us be absolutely clear: this is the Bill to set out these priorities. In previous iterations, we were told that the previous Trade Bill was not the vehicle and the Agriculture Bill was not the vehicle—in which case, it seems that we are going to try to travel without any form of vehicle at all. That would be rather foolish, so this does need to be in the Bill to give certainty, to give power to the elbow of our negotiators, and to say that the British Parliament thinks that these issues are important and is prepared to stand by them.
That said, there is, as the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), said, much similarity between new clauses 1, 2 and 7. With the leave of the House, I will withdraw new clause 1, in order for the House to have the opportunity to vote on new clause 2. I think the merit of new clause 2 is that it is a Select Committee-authored amendment. I believe that when the other place comes to deal with the Bill, that will carry some weight in their deliberations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 pm
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring proceedings on consideration to a conclusion (Order, this day, and Standing Order No. 83E).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I put the first Question, I confirm that the final determination is as follows. Remote Divisions will take place on new clause 2, new clause 7, amendment 39 and Third Reading. The Question, That Government amendments 20 to 22 be made, will not be subject to a remote Division.
New clause 2
International trade agreements: agricultural and food products
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 that contains provisions relating to the importation of agricultural and food products into the UK unless they have first made a statement confirming that—
(a) the agreement contains an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, and
(b) any agricultural or food product imported into the UK under the agreement will have been produced or processed according to standards which are equivalent to, or which exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to—
(i) animal health and welfare,
(ii) plant health, and
(iii) environmental protection.
(2) A statement under subsection (1) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
(3) Before the first statement under subsection (1) may be made, the Secretary of State must by regulations specify—
(a) the process by which the Secretary of State will determine—
(i) that the standards to which any agricultural or food product imported into the UK under a trade agreement is produced or processed are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to animal health and welfare, plant health and environmental protection, and
(ii) that the enforcement of standards in relation to any product under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) is at least as effective as the enforcement of the equivalent domestic standards and regulations in the UK;
(b) the ‘relevant domestic standards and regulations’ for the purposes of subsections (1)(b) and (3)(a)(i).
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending any regulations made under subsection (3).
(5) Regulations under subsection (3) or (4) shall be made under the affirmative procedure.
(6) In this section—
‘international trade agreement’ means—
an agreement that is or was notifiable under—
(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the
WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the General Agreement on
Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);
‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
‘World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement’ means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time);
‘WTO Agreement’ means the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.”—(Neil Parish.)
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
The House proceeded to a remote Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The remote voting period has now finished. I will announce the result of the Division on new clause 2 after the House has voted on new clause 7.
New Clause 7
Coronavirus emergency food plan
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of Royal Assent being given to this Act, prepare and lay before Parliament a document (a “coronavirus emergency food plan”) setting out measures to address the impact of coronavirus and coronavirus disease, and action taken in response, upon the supply of food.
(2) The coronavirus emergency food plan must assess and address—
(a) the matters listed in section 17(2);
(b) the following matters—
(i) the incidence of hunger, malnutrition and food poverty measured (a) nationally and (b) by local authority area;
(ii) the level of demand for emergency food aid and the adequacy of services to meet that demand;
(iii) the availability, distribution and affordability of nutritious and healthy food;
(iv) the ease of access to nutritious and healthy food across different socio-economic groups and communities;
(v) the functioning of the food supply chain, including stock levels of individual food items and any cross-border issues impacting upon the import and export of food; and
(vi) the level of any financial assistance provided by a public authority to farmers, growers and the fishing and fish processing sectors as a result of coronavirus or coronavirus disease.
(3) The plan may take account of information provided in response to a requirement under section 25 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (power to require information relating to food supply chains), subject to the restrictions on the use and disclosure of information set out in section 27 of that Act (restrictions on use and disclosure of information).
(4) In this section—
“coronavirus” means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2;
“coronavirus disease” means COVID-19 (the official designation of the disease which can be caused by coronavirus);
“financial assistance” means assistance provided by way of grant, loan, guarantee or indemnity, and any other kind of financial assistance (actual or contingent).”’—(Luke Pollard.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State lay before Parliament a coronavirus emergency food plan, within six months of Royal Assent.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
The House proceeded to a remote Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The remote voting period in respect of new clause 7 has now finished. I will declare the result shortly, probably after the next Division.
Agriculture Bill
Monday 18th May 2020
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 May 2020 - large font accessible version - (13 May 2020)
Agriculture Bill
Wednesday 10th June 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 May 2020 - large font accessible version - (13 May 2020)
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, in declaring my farming interests as set out in the register, it is clearly a privilege to open this debate. The policies that flow from the Bill seek to strengthen our agricultural and horticultural industries and protect the long-term future of food production in this country. They will help deliver a fairer return from a fairer marketplace for food producers.
Financial assistance will be provided for protecting or improving the environment and will allow the environmental land management—ELM—scheme to provide financial assistance for the delivery of outcomes such as cleaner air and water and thriving plants and wildlife. The Government will also provide financial support in connection with managing land or water to help mitigate flooding. There will also be support for action to improve animal health and welfare, reduce endemic disease, keep livestock and soils healthy, and support public access to and enjoyment of the countryside. Farmers and land managers will be rewarded for their vital work in enhancing our environment and looking after our landscapes.
The Government and food producers have important contributions to make when it comes to tackling climate change. These provisions will put our farmers at the heart of an ambitious enterprise: to meet the goals of the 25-year environment plan and achieve the Government’s world-leading commitment to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. The National Farmers Union has already shown admirable leadership in its work on seeking net-zero emissions.
The Bill recognises at its heart that food production and a flourishing natural environment can—and must—go hand in hand. This is explicitly demonstrated in Clause 1(4), which places a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England, and in an environmentally sustainable way, when framing financial assistance schemes. It includes provisions for financial assistance to encourage farmers, foresters and growers to improve their productivity in a sustainable way. The Government will provide grants so that they can invest in equipment, technology and infrastructure.
I know that Ministers sometimes receive reports from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee with some trepidation, but I am most grateful to—indeed, I thank—the committee for its consideration of the Bill, its overwhelmingly positive report and its commentary on an improvement to an earlier Bill. Of course, we will consider closely any residual issues and concerns raised by the committee.
In setting a seven-year agricultural transition period from direct payments to a new system, the Government wish to ensure a gradual move so that farmers can adapt. Over the past few months, the role of farmers and food producers in feeding the nation has quite rightly been on everyone’s minds. Working as I do at Defra, I particularly want to record my gratitude to all who have worked so hard, from farm to fork, to ensure we have access to the food we need. The importance that the Government place on food security is recognised in the Bill, with a duty placed on the Secretary of State to lay a report on food security before Parliament at least—I emphasise at least—every five years. We would certainly not intend to wait five years before publishing the first report, which will of course take into account what has been learned from the current pandemic.
The Secretary of State will have the powers to act in truly exceptional market conditions, such as those we are enduring at present, or in extreme weather conditions if these result in a severe disturbance in agricultural markets. As we move from area-based payments towards payments for the delivery of public benefit, we must also make sure that our farmers are fairly rewarded by a fair marketplace for the food that they produce.
Part 3 of the Bill contains provisions to strengthen the position of farmers in the food supply chain. Fair dealing provisions will introduce statutory codes of practice to regulate those buying from farmers; we will look at the dairy and red meat sectors first. Farmers’ position in the supply chain can also be strengthened by allowing groups of farmers to form producer organisations, which can access derogations from competition law, giving them the power to co-ordinate activities and become more competitive. The Bill contains powers to collect and share data, allowing the Government to strengthen existing market reporting services, and to provide information which will help farmers to make clearly evidenced business decisions and manage risk.
The Bill will enable the streamlining and modernising of the regulation of fertilisers. It also sets up the new multispecies livestock information service in England, which will provide the best livestock traceability. As a Minister with biosecurity in my brief, I think it essential that we enhance traceability.
The Bill also attends to a fairer distribution of the red meat levy, which I know has been an issue in Wales and Scotland. It will make pragmatic modifications to tenancy legislation, introducing more contemporary arrangements that will work for both tenants and landlords. It also contains powers to amend existing marketing standards, and to make new organics regulations and amend the existing regime so that these can be modernised to work better for domestic producers.
Part 6 provides powers to ensure the UK’s compliance with its obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Regulations made under this part will allow the apportionment, between the nations of the United Kingdom, of agreed limits on certain types of financial support. I should note that this clause refers only to the Agreement on Agriculture and not to other WTO treaties, such as GATT, which the United Kingdom is bound to as a WTO member.
Clauses 43 to 45 and Schedules 5 and 6 have been included in the Bill at the request of the Welsh Government and DAERA Ministers. I am pleased to present them on their behalf. The Scottish Government have chosen to introduce their own agriculture Bill.
The Government have made it clear in the joint letter from the Environment Secretary and the International Trade Secretary published on 5 June, which I asked to be circulated to noble Lords yesterday, that they are alive to the issue of trade standards. My honourable Friend the Minister for Farming in the other place has stated:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
I can confirm that all food—I emphasise all food—coming into the country will continue to have to meet existing import requirements as the withdrawal Act transfers EU standards on to the UK statute book. This specifically means that the import of chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef, for example, is prohibited.
I realise that this is a brisk run-through of some elements of the Bill but I want to keep my remarks fairly short, so that we have plenty of time for other contributions. The Agriculture Bill is the beginning of a journey that we acknowledge will take time. We will put farmers and land managers at the heart of that journey. It needs to be their project too; it will not work if it is not. We will support them through the agricultural transition by adequately rewarding them for protecting and enhancing the environment, while enabling their businesses to prosper in the production of outstanding British food and drink for domestic and international consumption.
In this context, given the immense challenges that this planet faces—an increasing world population; climate change and its impact; the imperatives of enhancing the environment; and sufficient food production—how should we best use scientific advances to aid us? We have to wrestle with all these challenges. Innovation has been part of agricultural history, as have the traditions of good husbandry and custodianship. We clearly seek a blend of succeeding generations of farmers and new entrants. Coming from farming stock, I say that we ask much of the British farmer—as usual, at the very beginning, in contending with the weather. As some of your Lordships will know from an earlier consideration on derogation, this year had an exceptionally wet winter and spring followed by an exceptionally dry May.
I look forward to this debate because, by coming from all parts of the country, noble Lords will be well aware of the dynamics of their local farming sectors. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Bill. I declare my interests in having a career from dairy farming, through processing and manufacturing to retailing, as well as serving on a public-private partnership.
Agriculture has been subject to many crises and constant change, albeit incremental, shaping and responding to each reform package as a member state in the EU. With all areas being repatriated, the House rightly recognises that the Bill creates a rare opportunity to make a clear strategic leap into new but familiar territory by designing new support systems to underpin sustainable agriculture.
I congratulate the Government on this second, revised version of the Bill after the one originally proposed. The first Bill was roundly criticised for being a misnomer of a Bill. Although it was called an Agriculture Bill, it did not include much agriculture and provided only a delivery mechanism for environmental payments. That would have been a tremendous lost opportunity. This improved Bill provides better balance. It recognises the importance of food production in ongoing reforms, balanced with the need to refocus on environmental sustainability. With all trading blocs around the world supporting their agriculture, Labour recognises that the UK’s departure from the common agricultural policy creates a unique opportunity to change the way that the UK supports its domestic farms and food producers, and welcomes the environmental focus underlying aspects of the new policy. We will work across parties to ensure that the final version of the Bill strikes the right balance between production and environmental protection. Labour endorses the concept of public money for public goods.
The Government set out their changed priorities in two important policy documents in February this year: Farming for the Future, and Environmental Land Management. My first question to the Minister is: having written these before the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic, do they wish to amend their approach in the light of its experience? My second question seems to follow: is food a public good? These two documents do not explicitly recognise that it is, yet with the experience of severe disruption in supply chains, access challenges to food banks and challenges to safeguarding vulnerable and shielded persons, debate may well move in the future towards recognising food as a fundamental right, with its provision in some aspects becoming a public service.
The additions in the Bill now include provisions on safeguards on the support of domestic food production by focusing on soil protection, investments in technology and equipment, improving environmental sustainability, and innovation through future research and development; while reducing carbon emissions. Additionally, the Government have recognised the importance of food security by commissioning Henry Dimbleby to lead an independent review into the UK’s food system. It could be argued this review should have appeared before the Bill to provide a back-cloth to the Bill’s provisions. This review, with recommendations for a national food strategy, must not be delayed.
Does the Minister also recognise the importance of the UK’s self-sufficiency? His department has been reluctant to do so in the past, such that the UK’s self-sufficiency in food has declined to 53%. We welcome the Bill’s provision that the Government must report on food security, but call on the Government to recognise that, in relying on imported food, it is exporting decision-making on food policy to overseas countries with differing priorities. This may not be consistent with the Bill’s focus on the environment.
We also welcome the importance of providing a better balance of economic returns to agriculture through transparent and fair markets. The coronavirus disruption to supply chains once again has exposed poor behaviour, especially in the food service sector, where enterprise risk was pushed down on to the primary producer. While recognising the benefits that have come through the retail market with the work of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, how and through what mechanisms will the statutory code of practice for contracts, outlined in the Bill, be enforced in this food service sector?
Competition law needs to be re-examined in light of the pandemic experience. How will the obligation to establish fair dealing be brought forward? Bearing in mind the Groceries Code was the responsibility of the Department for Business, can the Minister say which department will take overall responsibility for business practice enforcement to make it effective?
The key feature of the Bill is to replace direct payments with environmental land management, characterised as providing public support for public goods. While we welcome these provisions, the policy document and the Bill are both scanty on the final details of what ELM will look like. I know these provisions will form the basis of many questions for other speakers. Everyone will praise the intentions of the Government. Environmental degradation is abhorrent. But there are many concerns regarding baseline standards without meaningful enforcement through cross-compliance for basic environmental conditions to receive payment and how this can be replaced with meaningful incentives to enhance the countryside if the food producer does not want to enter into any scheme.
Direct payments have provided a large element of financial support to a lot of farmers, especially in the uplands. The first change to agricultural experience in the transition is a cut next year to its funding, with few alternative schemes being ready. If agriculture is to be encouraged to take up environmental improvements, these schemes must be seen to pay, with schemes recognising opportunity costs of value rather than being based on income forgone. The Government must learn from having already experienced a huge shortfall in the expected take-up of environmental stewardship schemes recently.
Aspects regarding climate change mitigation must also be a fundamental priority. I welcome such projects as the carbon credit schemes on woodlands and warn against fixed, bureaucratic approaches that fail to recognise local farming conditions.
The improved balance of the Bill will nevertheless be a severe challenge to achieve. The Bill omits, and needs, a vital third element and focus to provide better stability. This key element would be provided by the introduction of food standards into the Bill. For agriculture to thrive, for the countryside to be enhanced, food standards must underpin the provisions in the Bill and be maintained. I want to make it clear that dealing with the issue of standards is one of our top priorities. Domestic standards of production are a clear commitment and all imported produce must comply with food, environmental and animal welfare standards that domestic production has to adhere to. This has been the key concern of every submission, letter and email I have received on the Bill. I thank everyone and all the organisations who have sent me their thoughts.
The joint letter issued recently from the Secretaries of State of Defra and DIT still does not recognise the strength of feeling that a clear majority of the public want the certainty of the law to put this commitment beyond dispute, prevarication and back-tracking. Labour will look to support this commitment by writing amendments also into the Trade Bill. We will be tabling an amendment on the matter, and I expect to see several others tabled at Committee. We wish to work with all voices around the House who share this concern, to find the correct formulation to write this into law, be that through a food and trade standards commission to adjudicate on equivalence of standards or through other statutory provisions.
The Bill has been recognised as a framework Bill that is scantily dressed in detail. Your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its 13th report of the Session, outlines the major transfer of powers from the EU to Ministers, bypassing Parliament and devolved legislatures. The skeletal framework of the Bill gives extensive powers for future regulatory changes without clear detail and with correspondingly few duties. Yet the Government acknowledge that the new agricultural support system will take time to develop. We will wish to draw out in Committee as much detail as possible on relevant principles, policies and criteria underpinning ministerial decision-making that will eventually arrive through statutory instruments. As your Lordships know, statutory instruments are not generally subject to amendment.
There are so many aspects of the Bill that time precludes me from discussing. This is a significant piece of legislation, and it is disappointing that speakers are under such time constraints. The three key tests of the Bill are that: first, it must secure a safe and traceable supply of nutritious food; secondly, it must ensure ELM schemes are effective, supporting jobs, investment and research for a sustainable environment and planet; and, thirdly, it must insist on high standards, clear equivalence and a level playing field to enhance the health of the nation.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords,
“God made the land for the people”.
I was reminded of that rallying cry from the Liberal anthem “The Land” as I considered this Bill. There have been many political struggles down the years over the ownership and management of land, of which nearly three quarters in the UK is farmed. This Bill righty seeks a new consensus on how we manage the sometimes competing demands of farmed land and how we reward those who steward it on the people’s behalf.
So, whilst we are saddened this has been necessitated by our leaving the European Union, Liberal Democrats welcome the new approach proposed by the Government of paying farmers and land managers public money for delivering public goods: namely, protecting the environment, on which we depend, to produce healthy food; enhancing biodiversity; and tackling the impacts of climate change—all this at the same time as maintaining the patchwork quilt of fields and rolling hills which create a sense of local place, so valued for our physical and mental well-being. But this is only an enabling Bill, and much remains unclear about how those welcome ambitions will become more than aspirations.
In the past, the more land you had, the more money you received. Thankfully, in the future, payments will depend on delivering agreed legal targets. But, despite the welcome multiannual financial plans, there is no requirement for a budget to be set for the individual component schemes or clarity on the long-term funding framework for farmers.
While the Bill allows for drawing up targets and metrics to deliver the public goods, there is no clarity as to how the new measures will be regulated and enforced. It has been estimated that, at present, farms have just a one in 200 chance of being inspected each year by the Environment Agency. The system already needed radical overhauling, as the government-commissioned review by Dame Glenys Stacey outlined. In future, with a far more complex new system to monitor, it doubly needs it.
Yet the Government have sat on the Stacey review since 2018 and the Bill is silent on any objectives or indications of how a new regulatory framework and anybody administering it might exercise its functions. The Government managed to set these out for the Office for Environmental Protection in the Environment Bill. It is deeply disappointing that the Agriculture Bill gives no sense of how we can guarantee the delivery of the environmental and animal welfare ambitions in it.
It is essential that those ambitions are delivered. Tackling Covid-19 has reminded us how vital it is that our farmers contribute to public health goals by supplying healthy food, while helping us tackle the nature emergency and the worrying decline in biodiversity and wildlife—there has been a 54% drop in farmland birds during my lifetime—and mitigating the effects of climate change by planting trees and restoring peat bogs. The agriculture sector accounts for about 10% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, and we must bring those down, including by cutting on-farm food waste. If food waste was a country, it would be the third-biggest emitter of CO2 on the planet. Among other amendments that my Liberal Democrat colleagues will speak to at later stages of the Bill, we will introduce one requiring that the Secretary of State’s five-yearly UK food security report includes data on how much food is wasted, since we will not be food secure if we produce plenty but much of it is wasted.
Those ambitions will not be delivered either if all government policy does not support them, including future trade policy. Existing UK agriculture policy, agreed as a member of the European Union, has been pivotal in guaranteeing consumers the safety of their food and respecting the welfare of livestock. It has kept out pork from pigs confined in sow stalls, beef from cattle injected with hormones to enhance their growth and chlorinated chicken to wash away the shame of poor husbandry. The Government say that they are sincere in their commitments to maintaining those standards, so why not put it in the Bill? Liberal Democrats will work with others, including the Labour Front Bench and anyone else in the House, to support amendments to the Bill to ensure our high environmental protections and animal welfare standards are not compromised in trade negotiations, which would also fatally undermine farmers who seek to do the right thing for our health, our animals and our countryside.
No financial support or policy changes on productivity measures should undermine the delivery of other public goods. I will oppose any attempt to use the Bill to overturn existing legislation on gene editing, which would be a serious step backwards for animal welfare and public trust in our food. We need to retain the European model of regulation that we are currently signed up to, where no gene editing is allowed outside the lab and mandatory labelling is required, and we should not enable trade deals with countries such as America, where products from genetically modified animals can be marketed. Rather than amending this Bill to obtain even more productivity and profit from individual animals, who are sentient and have intrinsic worth, I hope that this House will endorse the aim of the Bill to support sustainable agriculture that respects the welfare of farmed animals and enhances biodiversity. The direction of travel in this Bill is welcome, but there is more to be done to ensure that we end up rightly rewarding the careful stewardship of the people’s precious countryside.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, living in rural Northern Ireland in the county of Armagh, better known as the garden of Ulster, I have a natural interest in the Bill. I also have an interest in it having served on the agriculture committee of the European Parliament, although that service was in the middle of the last century.
I have watched developments in the common agricultural policy; I have watched the development of the European Union. More recently, the United Kingdom has contributed £20 billion to the EU budget, of which about £8 billion comes back, £4 billion of that to the farming industry in the United Kingdom.
As a result of Brexit, this is the first real United Kingdom agricultural policy for about 50 years. This is due to the end of the application of the common agricultural policy. There are three fundamental questions which still need to be answered—in fairness, the Minister answered one of them, but I want further clarity on the issue. First, will Her Majesty’s Government’s support for the agricultural industry in the United Kingdom continue at the same level as exists from the common agricultural policy at present? Secondly, will the quality and standards of agriculture and food in the United Kingdom decline after we leave the common agricultural policy? Thirdly, will there be provision for the import of cheaper foods, creating unfair competition for our own home producers here in the United Kingdom?
This is a comprehensive Bill that will require much detailed examination in Committee, but there are a number of issues in relation to Northern Ireland that I wish to mention. Agriculture is the main employer in Northern Ireland, employing one in eight people. Rural towns and communities depend on the success of our 25,000 farm enterprises, but beef production income has fallen by £36 million in the past year alone. Income from milk has also fallen. Many farmers are now finding it difficult to stay in business.
Farm structure in Northern Ireland is very different from that in England, hence it is important that agriculture is a devolved matter. For example, farms in Northern Ireland are much smaller than in England. Intensively farmed poultry and pigs are a major product. Near where I live, we have Moy Park, employing 4,000 people dealing with poultry alone.
There are three issues that I wish to mention to the Minister today. One relates to the Northern Ireland protocol, in which I am sure he is well conversant; namely, can the Government give an assurance that there will no checks or tariffs on Northern Ireland agricultural exports into Great Britain, as 50% of our exports are into the British market? It is very important that that is maintained, so I hope that there will be no checks or tariffs. Secondly, can the Government confirm that they do not want lower standards of food safety than in the European Union, as Northern Ireland has to retain the EU’s standards under the protocol? Such lower standards would result in reduced costs of production and make it more difficult for Northern Ireland agricultural producers to compete in the GB market. Finally, on Article 10.2 of the EU Northern Ireland protocol, will UK support for Northern Ireland agriculture be unquestioned, or will the exemption from the EU state aid rules become null and void if the joint committee fails to reach an agreement? Does this in practice mean a continuing EU veto over UK support for Northern Ireland agriculture?
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I am pleased that the long-anticipated Agriculture Bill has finally arrived in your Lordships’ House. There are many good and laudable parts of the Bill, not least the fair trading provisions for farmers and concerns for the environment and wildlife.
This House knows that rural England requires flexibility, and the complications and unintended consequences caused by the European Union’s cap have been well rehearsed. I have repeatedly raised the issue of food security in your Lordships’ House, which must be a top priority for any Government.
We have been reminded of this again recently after the recent lockdown following the Covid pandemic. Shop shelves were stripped bare within hours and you could not buy some products such as flour for weeks. We know we cannot be fully self-sufficient in food as a nation, as nowadays we demand many products that are best produced in warmer climates. However, we can learn from our recent experience and think about how as many people as possible can have access to ethically farmed, good quality, locally sourced food. This is an agricultural issue, an environmental issue and a social justice issue.
The possibility of cheap imports providing even cheaper food is being trumpeted by some and a trade deal with the States has long been thought of as an opportunity to deregulate our farming. As the Bill progresses through its various stages, we will want to test the legislative guarantees to reassure us that these worries will not be proved correct. I will want to explore why the reviews into food security will be so infrequent rather than undertaken on an annual basis.
Elsewhere in the Bill, we will also seek clarity. Environmental land management schemes, with public money for public good, remain a cornerstone of the Bill, yet a cornerstone with so little clarity will fail to support legislation. The definition of biodiversity in the Environment Bill—a piece of legislation this Bill fails to acknowledge—remains unclear, as does this Bill’s lack of definition of the phrase “public good”. Moreover, the tapering of the schemes remains opaque, despite many requests for clarity. Upland farming, for example, is dependent on similar schemes, yet, as far as I can see, remains undervalued by the Bill. Furthermore, issues such as peat restoration and water obstruction which fail to consider legal implications remain unfinished. While welcome, the Bill will need a much great level of clarity as it passes through its various stages if it is to receive support from this House.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests in the Bill as published in the register. The Bill is one of the most important for the countryside and for farming for many years. It does not just tinker with the system. It is not just an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, with which many noble Lords will be familiar. It is a direct consequence of our 31 January departure from the EU. As such, it is a great opportunity to reinvigorate our farming industry as we in the UK would want it, free from the suffocation of the common agricultural policy.
There is a real need to give farming a boost—a breath of fresh air. Recent events have lessons for us. It is a paradox of the global world: just as the supplies of PPE dried up as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, so can our dependence on cheap food imports from around the world expose us to a similar risk.
The structure of the Bill is essentially that of an enabling Bill, but it is important to note that it does not weaken current commitments to the public good. Farms such as ours support far more trees, hedgerows, spinneys, field margins and nature areas than in my day. It is also important to note that the joint letter that noble Lords received from Liz Truss and George Eustice, Secretaries of State respectively for International Trade and Defra, clearly commits that there will be no lowering of standards, either in animal welfare or food safety. Chlorinated chicken is not on the table.
There is one area to which I would like to see a similar commitment—one in which there is extensive support from both scientists and farmers and, for that matter, here and in Europe. It is breeding for enhanced yields and reducing our use of fertilisers and pesticides—a double whammy, but a positive one. I refer, of course, to gene editing, which is an acceleration of plant breeding that is supported not only by our world-leading scientists here, but also in Europe. The Prime Minister spoke of the technique on the day he was appointed. He used it to demonstrate the perversities of the European justice system.
The agency delivering this game changer would not be multinational agro-giants but institute spin-offs and small SMEs, such as the ones that I am familiar with in my area. The Minister will know that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture strongly endorsed these techniques, which have a great potential in the developing world. As an industry we would be delivering a greener environment and food security for the nation, and playing our part in feeding the world. I welcome the Bill.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of the Woodland Trust, chairman of the Royal Veterinary College, a member of the Commission on Food, Farming and the Countryside and vice-president of the RSPB.
I want to say three things on the Bill. As noble Lords have said, it is a once in a lifetime opportunity. I know that the Government regard it as an enabling Bill, but such landmark legislation should have a bit more real meat on the face of the Bill to tackle the important future for farming, food, the environment and climate change. I welcome the Bill’s commitment to public money for public goods, but Ministers must ensure that the environmental land management schemes do not result in a basic level of payment that does not really deliver for the environment but looks like the same old farmers’ support system. There is a real risk of that.
Payments for agricultural productivity which are allowed under the Bill should explicitly be for sustainable productivity. The Bill has too many clauses where the Secretary of State “may” do worthwhile things, such as have an environmental land management scheme or provide financial assistance for public goods. The Bill should say that he “must” in these circumstances—we need duties, not simply powers.
My second point is that the Bill must have as its key principle support for a thriving and sustainable food and farming sector, while delivering public goods. But we know that the negotiation of a free trade deal with the USA could jeopardise the Conservative manifesto commitment that imports will not be permitted to the UK of food produced to lower environmental, animal welfare, food safety and employment standards. To do this would risk undermining UK standards and create unfair competition. Simply to slap a higher tariff on such imports, as is rumoured in the press, would not remove that risk. Trade Ministers continue to reassure us—we have now had a joint letter from the Trade and Environment Ministers. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, a Minister in the Department for International Trade, who said last week:
“There will be no compromise on high environmental, animal welfare and food standards.”
We are also told that that might be contrary to World Trade Organization rules. Should that not have been thought of by the manifesto writers before they wrote their assurances? Will the Minister tell us what is going on? If there are such strong commitments, surely the Bill should be amended to require agri-food imports to have been produced to equivalent standards to those in the UK.
My third point is one that many noble Lords will have heard before, because it is my current hobby-horse. The list of public goods in Clause 1 that the agricultural sector is to be asked to deliver is very extensive, but these are not the only pressures on land, and they are growing. Land is needed for increased food security, carbon storage, biodiversity, flood management, trees and increased timber self-sufficiency, recreation and health, and built development such as housing, infrastructure and other needs. The Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership found that, to meet a growing UK population’s food, space and energy needs, while protecting the nation’s natural capital, the UK would need a third more land—7 million hectares. I therefore call on the Government to commit in this Bill to develop a land use framework for England, within which these competing needs can be reconciled. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have land use frameworks already, and it is long overdue for England.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a co-chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. In some ways, I have a slightly different view, and have always been pretty critical of the state aid that the agriculture and farming industry has received, largely unconditionally—some £3 billion to £4 billion a year. Many of us think that that money could have been spent in much more effective ways, whether in the National Health Service or social security, or in all the other areas that are so demanding on the Treasury. We have a real chance now, outside the European Union, to change that.
At the same time, I am very aware that as well as the climate change crisis facing us globally, there is also a biodiversity challenge for ecosystems and ecosystems services, not just globally but here in the UK. I remind Members of the State of Nature report by the Wildlife Trust, which, to give just a few examples, pointed out that 40% of species in the UK are currently in decline, some 13% are at threat of extinction, and one-quarter of our mammal species are at risk. The reasons for this are due in part to climate change, but the main reason identified is land use for agriculture. Of course, 70% of England, and slightly more of the UK as a whole, is under agriculture and farming management. It was in looking at those trade-offs that I made a personal decision: it is important to direct that subsidy, or state aid, at this crisis, as we have started to direct many other resources at climate change.
I very much welcome the environmental land management scheme set out in the Bill, although I would like to see a lot more detail on it. I believe that this is one way to make sure that we start to meet the biodiversity and ecosystem challenges across our nation—it is not the only way, but as it is the only way the Government are proposing, I support it. This is an emergency and we need to get on with it. For that reason, I speak probably in the opposite direction to some of those involved in the industry itself, and ask why the transition is seven years. It seems to me that, for an emergency, that is an extremely long time. Why can we not take five years to move across to the different system, to make sure that we keep our ecosystems safe and maintain everything that our economy depends on?
I welcome that the Bill mentions agroecology, which is a new way of looking at agriculture and whole-farming systems. I hope that ELMS will take seriously that whole-farming systems approach. My question for the Minister is this. There have been a number of trials of ELMS. How do we see those now? I am concerned about whether farmers will take up these schemes, so that we can have a real effect on our environment.
All environmental measures need to be a long-term commitment; it is no good growing trees if we cut them down in five or seven years. How do we ensure that these improvements, be it peatlands or whatever, are maintained over a long period? Reflecting in particular on my noble friend Lady Parminter’s excellent speech, I wonder also how we will enforce this. We are not good at enforcing environmental regulations in the United Kingdom at the moment, something the Government really need to confront.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
My Lords, I very much welcome the commitment given by my noble friend in his opening remarks to the pledges made in the letter of 5 June from the two Secretaries of State about food standards, particularly in relation to food imports. It is worth remembering that, across a range of areas, the benchmark of EU standards, which we will incorporate into UK law and adhere to, is one that we have signed up to in the EU. But in addition to EU rules, several measures have been taken unilaterally by the UK Government in the past—such as the banning of sow stalls and tethers, and veal crates—which were not universally welcomed within the EU. I say to my noble friend: do not just rest on the laurels of the EU. Let us look across the piece at how we can improve and enhance our standards as we go forward, both for the domestic market and for imports. Pesticides, veterinary medicines and issues relating to zoonotic diseases all have to be monitored and need ongoing improvement
Turning to food supply, the Bill makes welcome reference to the small producer. In his opening remarks, my noble friend referred to producer organisations. These have been tried over many years: some have been very successful, and others have failed. The farming community in particular has everything to gain from adding value to food products at the farm gate, rather than leaving a long chain of people to take a slice of the profit. But my noble friend should note the very small producers—farms that produce regional, local food products with which those areas are familiar. Over the years, we have very much admired this in continental countries such as France. There is benefit in adding value at the farm gate, before the product leaves.
This is true not just for supermarket sales but for those very important farmers’ markets, farm shops and food boxes, all of which have grown in popularity in recent years. I hope we will build on that. The advantages are enormous: the food is fresh; it saves on transport costs, which helps the environment; and the people who buy the food get to talk to the very people who produce it. There is an educational element to this. I am a former cookery teacher who is appalled that cookery classes, such as we used to know them, were banned—I am afraid that that was done by a Conservative Government. Domestic science is often derided, but, my gosh, it is a very important life skill. I hope my noble friend will give attention to those who are producing all the raw ingredients that not only help economically but help the health of the nation.
I want to add a word of support for the point made by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. As an Agriculture Minister, I introduced the first GM product in this country, way back in the 1990s. It all fell apart, as we know, for all sorts of reasons. But with the right controls I believe that there is much to be gained from looking at this science, particularly in respect of plants. We must make sure that we are not left behind because of people’s fear of the word “gene”.
The Duke of Somerset (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my farming interest, as in the register.
There are many substantive issues in this Bill and around ELMS, and I start with standards. The empty shelves which were so apparent at the start of the lockdown should focus our minds, so I welcome the belated acknowledgment of food production as an aim in the Bill, but I ask: what sort of food production? The Minister says that the Government can square the stated promise of not reducing our standards of welfare, stocking densities and environmental concerns with doing trade deals with countries with lower standards. Therefore, if there is to be one standard for imports and another for home-produced food, it is vital that labelling regulations are updated to give transparent and full information to the shopper, who tends to buy primarily on price considerations. Care also needs to be given to how consumers in cafés and restaurants are properly informed of the origins of their foodstuffs.
The Government have been clear that they intend to take advantage of Brexit freedom from EU red tape and will phase out cross-compliance. So again there is a dichotomy between moving away from the stifling rules and regulations that benighted the CAP and the demand for a high-cost regulatory regime to ensure continuation of our high standards. We must avoid even worse red tape than currently strangles our enterprises. The NFU’s suggestion of a farm standards commission to address that seems laudable.
I hope that ELMS will be far-reaching, including embracing, for example, emerging technologies, such as leaf recognition to target individual plants when spraying. The further development of robotic fruit and vegetable picking is vital if the shortage of foreign labour, so exacerbated by our foolish Brexit policy, is to be avoided.
We are seeing a gradual shift in diet in the UK, not just with less meat being consumed but with demand for locally produced food sold in local shops. The coronavirus has encouraged this trend and people are becoming more conscious of their health. In the post-virus world, we must embrace and encourage this localism, breaking the unfair near-monopolies of the big supermarkets, with their aggressive purchasing tactics.
Cleaner water is clearly targeted in the Bill. However, floods continue to ravage settlements every year. We need to slow up floodwater flows and catch the excess higher up in the hills. Rewilding is a topical discussion and one of the best ways of controlling water is by reintroducing bends into our streams, as well as reintroducing beavers. The successful introduction of beavers to the River Otter in Devon points the way back to better river management regimes. Can the Minister confirm that Defra’s intention is to expedite and encourage the licensing of these native animals, which naturally slow water and create rich environments for wildlife, thus regenerating biodiversity?
The Bill mentions productivity in forestry. I believe that we need to encourage more planting of both conifers for commercial wood use and broadleaf trees for landscape and environmental reasons. However, indigenous broadleaves cannot thrive alongside the grey squirrel. Can the Minister kindly indicate the department’s support for the current immuno- contraception research and rollout?
The UK agriculture industry needs consumer buy-in to support the higher cost of our standards. That means getting the general public to understand farming constraints. I would like to see encouragement in ELMS for farm tours and school groups, and the expansion of permitted footpaths to augment our already world-leading rights-of-way network. There is much to welcome in the Bill. Let us expand and use it to the fullest extent.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the National Farmers Union, and my two sons are involved in both agriculture and land management.
The Bill is a major step forward in laying the foundations for a bright future for agriculture, food production and security, animal welfare and environmental land management. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get it right and we must grasp the issues. I know that Her Majesty’s Government wish for a speedy passage of the Bill in order to facilitate payments to farmers, but that must not stop us scrutinising the Bill most carefully.
I welcome this opportunity to break free from the burden of the common agricultural policy, under which farmers and owners are rewarded based on land and not on outcomes or public good. I believe firmly that the thrust of monetary reward should be targeted towards small and medium-sized farms, those who farm in less-favoured areas, and hill farms. That comprises much of what I voted to leave the EU for, along with at last being able to be in charge of our own affairs.
In the very short time available, I will touch on three subjects: animal health and welfare; food standards; and tariffs. British agriculture and its products, and the manner in which they are produced, have an envious reputation worldwide for excellence. The prevention of disease among farm animals is absolutely critical in ensuring a bright and profitable future for British farming. I know that my noble friend the Minister has a special interest in biosecurity matters, and that is of course a key area. The cost of animal diseases to the British economy and the farmer can be crippling.
When I farmed sheep, the major problem was foot rot, which is still endemic in the national flock today. Sick animals are less productive, have reduced welfare and place a major burden on farmers, and the quality of the end product is compromised. In this Bill we have a real opportunity to reduce and prevent the burden of disease. I shall be tabling an amendment in Committee addressing the health and welfare of livestock, which I hope the Government will look kindly upon.
With regard to food standards and tariffs, I am grateful to my right honourable friends the two Secretaries of State for their joint letter to colleagues yesterday. It was helpful. However, I have received a large number of representations from farmers and others who come from rural communities or who hold an interest in food production and consumption, and many bodies with a related interest, even including the Shrewsbury and Atcham Labour Party. All are furious, as I am, that the parish amendment in the other place was voted down recently.
The joint letter from the Secretaries of State says:
“This UK Government will not compromise on our standards … our manifesto is clear”.
However, none of us would ever be naive enough to view politics as a squeaky-clean business. Indeed, its waters are always somewhat murky. A manifesto can be interpreted in many different ways to suit those implementing it. Words and language can have more than one meaning. Legislation can be altered by numerous mechanisms, some not requiring a vote. For instance, in trade law a free-range egg and a caged egg are considered the same when it comes to the risk imposed specifically by the egg. However, they are both simply eggs. The Government have said that they will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards. That is absolutely excellent and very much to be applauded, but much more detail and action are needed.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the somewhat belated arrival of the Bill in this House, and I welcome its general sense of direction. However, we have only half the picture in the Bill. We do not yet know the trading environment in which we will be operating and in which these measures will be delivered; nor is the mechanism for delivery and enforcement clear.
During the Brexit campaign, one lot of Brexiteers foresaw a future of cheap food for consumers coming from trade agreements with low-cost countries, while another group envisaged a renaissance of British agriculture where we made our own rules to attain a high degree of self-sufficiency, protected from the burden of Brussels bureaucracy on the one hand and European competition on the other. Of course, those positions were contradictory but they had in common an assumption of a seriously reduced burden of regulation. Cheap food and self-sufficiency both meant lower standards.
Those pressures are still there, but thankfully Ministers have taken a third position: maintain our standards and subsidise public goods. However, we do not know the trading context and the Bill does not really make clear how we deliver a radically different, sustainable and healthier food production system in this country.
As a point of history, the CAP was never popular. We have been in the system for nearly 50 years. Just half way through that I became a Minister for Agriculture when we switched from the much-derided and distorted production subsidy system to the almost equally derided land-based system. There were some supposed advantages of the switch in the Fischler reforms of 2005 but they were not fully realised. At the time, we thought that we would be moving to a new system of multilateral trade agreements in the Doha round. In practice, that never materialised but would have required a substantial dismantling of the production subsidy. As I said, that never happened and we are now in a much more anarchic world trade position.
Applying the direct payment to all agricultural land meant that food, welfare and environmental standards could be made to apply to all agriculture: you lost the subsidy, or part of it, if you did not comply. In practice, regrettably that system of cross-compliance was never properly implemented here or across Europe. However, the fact is that the Bill takes away some of that universality, and that is dangerous, unless we have a wider plan to which we are working, as my noble friend Lady Young said, for an overall framework for land use.
There are three or four omissions from the Bill to which I want to return. First, the defects of the last CAP reforms were seriously compounded in this country by the failure to administer the system effectively. The RPA seriously failed, yet the Bill gives no clarity over how the new system, much more complex and granular, will be administered or what the relation of that is to the machinery to come in the environment Bill.
Secondly, we need tougher measures against the overchemicalisation of farming. I have heard that the reason why pesticide regulation is not explicitly referred to in the Bill is that we have a perfectly adequate domestic system for pesticide regulation. We do not. There are dangers to human health as well as damage to air, soil and water, livestock and biodiversity if we do not reduce the dependence on chemical solutions.
Thirdly, for a new era in agriculture we need to ensure a new generation of those who work the land. We need to make it easier for new, younger farmers to come into the business without necessarily having inherited the land. I want to see a revival of county farms. We also need a wider home-based, skilled and better-paid workforce on the land. Our immigration policy will make dependency on overseas labour impossible for a range of jobs, from seasonal fruit pickers to livestock vets. We need to upgrade the whole domestic labour force. I hope to return to these issues at later stages of the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, we begin this debate at a time when the subject of the Bill is of acute urgency. That is not just for the obvious reason—the looming threat of a crash-out Brexit and the need for farmers to have certainty about what is happening in a few months’ time—but because it is being debated with our countryside and food system in a state of emergency, The nature crisis, the collapse of biodiversity and bioabundance, that has left the UK one of the most nature-deprived nations on earth; the obesity and health crisis associated with nutrient-poor diets; and the dominance of the supermarkets in what we eat: these are the issues that the Bill could and should be tackling.
Instead what we have is a shell, a statement of a few principles that are not generally bad in themselves and are sometimes even admirable, and certainly somewhat improved since earlier iterations of this legislation, but there are few commitments to action. This is a grade D effort, not even a pass mark, when what we need is a sterling, standout, brilliant Bill, something—I am sure the Government will agree with me on this—that is world-leading.
The limitations of our arrangements in your Lordships’ House, imposed not only by Covid but by the usual channels, have ensured that many Peers with valuable contributions to make—my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb among them—have been excluded from this debate. I know they are pushing for a second day of this debate and I hope that is secured. Given the extreme time restrictions on today’s speech, I am going for a checklist of issues that my noble friend will be covering: safeguards on import standards, ensuring that agriculture reaches net-zero carbon as soon as possible, and animal welfare standards.
My focus will be on the farming system and the food system. When farmers hear criticism of the system they often take it as criticism of themselves, but we know that they have been betrayed by decades of failed government policies. They need a Bill that gives them a real choice to build back better. The Government say they support agroecology. Words are good but a direction to the Secretary of State to support whole-farm agroecological systems is far more important.
The Bill also lacks a commitment to organic agriculture. The EU’s 2030 biodiversity strategy plans for 25% of agricultural land there to be organic. The EU is also looking at a 50% reduction in the use of pesticides and cuts to mineral fertiliser use. If the Government want to be world-leading, they have to do better than that. Crucially, we need to ensure that the payments for productivity in Clause 2 do not undermine progress on biodiversity, climate and animal welfare.
Some are arguing that we should downplay nature and sustainability and dial up food production, but that is a false dichotomy that risks doubling down on a food system that is contributing to a perfect storm of a spillover of diseases from wildlife to people, and, like the proponents of genetically modified organisms and crops, it chases after a failed industrialised monoculture. Just as there is a growing consensus on the need to measure economic progress with indicators far more useful than GDP, we must adopt new indicators for agriculture. We need to think about people nourished per hectare, not tonnes of biomass.
Protection for the basic infrastructure of farming—farmers—is also missing. They need financial security for long-term planning. The idea of multiannual financial assistance in the Bill is good but guarantees are needed.
Let us see a commitment to many thousands of new entrants. We need to see the county farms supported. We need to see the green belt used to the best advantage and, as other noble Lords have said, a comprehensive land-use strategy. Then there is democracy. Let us give Northern Ireland control, and let us bring in people’s assemblies to oversee agricultural policy.
We have learned that our holidays this year will be significantly curtailed. Good. Now we need the department and the Government to take the time to listen to the expertise of this House.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness of the speaking limit.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
We need to stand up for what the people and the environment desperately need: a good, world-leading agriculture Act.
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as the owner of a working farm in Northumberland. I support the Bill. I see it as an opportunity to make farming more sustainable environmentally, ecologically and climatically as well as commercially and technologically. So I welcome the emphasis in the Bill on productivity. I seek assurance from the Minister that as far as possible the environmental land management scheme will work by results, not by intentions. One of the great mistakes of subsidies in the past is that they have rewarded pious intentions rather than successful results.
To be sustainable, agriculture needs innovation in precision farming, robotics, drones and other technologies so as to use fewer chemicals more precisely targeted. It needs innovation in genome editing particularly—a precise new breeding technology that enables plant breeders to achieve exactly what they have achieved in the past but much more quickly and precisely, thereby reducing the dependence of crops on chemicals.
There has been a huge debate in recent years between the advocates of land sparing and land sharing. The land sharers are those who suggest that we should farm badly and have wildlife alongside us. The land sparers say no, farm as well as you can but set land aside. The argument has been won by the land sparers. Evidence from Cambridge University and elsewhere has shown clearly that you get not only more wildlife but fewer emissions if you farm as well as you can and then set land aside. That is what I try to practise on my own farm, where we farm as well as we can in the field but leave generous field margins for wildlife and we leave particular meadows—flower meadows, water meadows and so on—also for wildlife. As a result we have increasing numbers of skylarks, yellowhammers, tree sparrows, brown hares, butterflies and bumblebees. If we were to try to feed the world using organic and agroecological methods, we would need to cultivate 82% of the world’s land area instead of 38% as we do today.
The Government have rightly committed to maintaining standards, and a lot of amendments to the Bill are driven by protectionism disguised as animal welfare. Free trade is a huge export opportunity for agriculture. We already export £24 billion worth a year and British lamb, which is world-beating, is competitive in the American market and has a huge opportunity there. Stocking density for poultry in the US is roughly the same as here and there is less campylobacter per head in the US. We should work to improve these standards internationally through the OIE, the world organisation for animal health. The UK has lower standards in some areas—for example, it has lower standards than New Zealand on stunning in abattoirs. We have nothing to fear and lots to gain from world trade. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Browning both mentioned, the issue here is that the European Union has forced us to adopt lower standards. It has forced us to spray more on crops such as sugar beet and potatoes by denying us opportunities in biotechnology.
I quote from a farmer’s email sent to me today:
“Farmers not only can but will do the green if we’re in the black, give farmers back the responsibility and ownership and all may well be amazed at the results Reignite our once bright curiosity to innovate … Allow us to disrupt from within, rather than imposed disruption from outside.”
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for outlining the provisions as they apply to Wales in this Bill. I very much welcome the inclusion of Schedule 5 on Wales, which provides Welsh Ministers with the powers to provide for the continuation of direct payments to farmers after 2020, giving some security to our farmers in these difficult times. As the Welsh Government intend to introduce an Agriculture (Wales) Bill, expected after next year’s Senedd elections, these are transitional powers, with a sunset clause of 31 December 2024, allowing for consultations with interested parties and the production of a White Paper. Again, I welcome that decision
Agriculture is of course a devolved matter, and this Bill covers areas where the Senedd believes it has competence, particularly in relation to the WTO agreements on agriculture, but which the UK Government believe are reserved. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could update us on the present position of both parties on this issue. Will an LCM be required, or will the matter be resolved through a bilateral agreement? If the latter, can the noble Lord say how such an agreement would operate, and confirm whether either way forward has received Senedd approval?
Farmers in Wales have welcomed the inclusion of food security in the Bill and, in particular, the duty placed on the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament
“at least once every five years”.
They were, however, concerned about the frequency of the reporting requirement. In their evidence to the Senedd’s Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, leaders expressed concerns that a five-year cycle would not
“sufficiently reflect the food security risk to the UK”,
and that the period would be too long,
“particularly through a transition period that could prove to be challenging.”
The lack of a requirement on the UK and Welsh Governments to publish a response and to take action as appropriate was also seen as a deficiency in the Bill. These are issues, along with the inclusion of the devolved Administrations in the methodology planning for the report, that I hope we can discuss in more detail in Committee.
The CCERA committee report also highlights the concerns of farmers’ leaders in the matter of fair dealing with agricultural producers and others in the supply chain. Clause 27 of the Bill is aimed at addressing unfair practices in agri-food supply chains, which disadvantage small, individual businesses operating without strong links between them. The discretionary powers that this clause gives the Secretary of State were queried and a strong, alternative case was made for extending the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator in relation to fair dealing with agricultural producers along the whole supply chain. Have the Government given any consideration to this or discussed this alternative with the Welsh Government?
In the matter of identification and traceability of animals, broadly welcomed by farmers, can the noble Lord say whether it is indeed the case that the new multispecies livestock information system will be run by what is essentially the present Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board? If so, how will this UK board, operating in a devolved policy area, be accountable to the Welsh Government? Finally, what steps will be taken to ensure compatibility between the new livestock information system and the Welsh electronic IDCymru system?
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as farmer and landowner, as set out in the register. I broadly welcome this Bill and will confine my remarks to those areas that have been less widely addressed. I start from the premise that this Bill should principally focus on agriculture.
Public money for public goods is an excellent mantra, and support is directed at the range of activities listed in Chapter 1 of Part 1, on which environmental land management schemes will be based, together with measures to improve productivity in the sector and supporting ancillary activities. However, the seven-year transition period becomes a problem if financial and other details are too sketchy for farmers and land managers to have enough information on which to base investment decisions. We know what basic payment will be paid in 2021, but not in the remaining years.
Similarly, we know that the ELM scheme currently being piloted will not be available to roll out until 2024. Absolutely no financial or other information is available to enable farmers to calculate the likely return of implementing a scheme. Remember, without profit there is a risk that they are not taken up and land is abandoned. Without the BPS, 24% of farms make a loss; return on capital in farming is around 1%, well below returns in other parts of the food industry. Farmers need profits to survive. No doubt farmers on good land will thrive without BPS, as will those in parts of the country where diversification can be driven by good location and so on. But those on the poorer land and in less desirable places will really struggle, and many will leave the industry. My first point is to reduce these uncertainties by providing clarification on the remaining BPS payments and early information on the likely financial returns from ELMs. Accordingly, a delay in implementation to 2021 would make sense.
My second point is the issue of skills, which should be covered by a clause of its own, rather than coming in the catch-all clause on productivity. Work is currently being done on this by a group ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. The establishment of an industry professional body to lay down, monitor, measure and advise on common standards is crucial to the industry and requires government funding to underwrite its role. Such an amendment will be tabled.
The proposed five-yearly review of food security is excellent and, once the methodology is established, one hopes that it will become an annual or biannual event. Although not directly specified, the review should cover both skills in the industry and the profile of participants. Currently, farming is characterised by a high average age, with a third being over 65 and only 3% under 35. An unattractive career image, based on low median earnings, needs to be watched.
My final point relates to intervention in agricultural markets. It is very narrowly drawn and excludes exceptional weather events or animal disease. Intervention seems to depend on reduced market prices, although some events could lead to higher prices, which are not available to farmers if they have nothing to sell. I request that the Minister look at widening the definition of intervention.
In farming, there is an old adage: timeliness is godliness. This should be a guiding principle of this Bill, as the importance of food security is increasingly recognised.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my farming interests as set out in the register. There are a number of aspects of this Bill that are causing concern to the farming community and on which I have had many representations. I am sure that many noble Lords will want to continue to discuss the principal ones among them, such as food security, high animal welfare standards, the timetable attached to the reduction of the basic payment scheme in advance of any financial details consequent on the introduction of the new ELMs, and the need to maintain domestic food production. There are other aspects of the Bill that lack clear explanation. Two principal areas of concern are the definitions of natural capital and greater public access. It is uncomfortable progressing with this Bill when such critical areas lack clarity. However, will the Minister give a response to three other aspects of the Bill in particular?
The first is the degree of financial support the Government will undertake to provide for our agricultural colleges and other places of education. Given that the university and college structure has already come under severe and sustained financial pressure, which I fear will only increase, can he assure the House that support will be maintained for the current apprenticeship schemes? These will be important at any time, but given the anticipated high rate of national unemployment envisaged across the country, particularly among the young, such schemes have a vital role to play for both rural industry and the individuals who enrol. We must provide a well-educated labour force to bring about the technical and scientific changes that we will seek to introduce to maintain our competitive global position in agricultural production.
The second question relates to forestry. All the mainstream political parties included ambitious tree planting targets in their manifestos before the last election. The reality is that unless more funding is provided, both for initial planting and subsequent maintenance, there is no realistic likelihood of even a small percentage of these targets being achieved. Can the Minister give some comfort on this point, too?
Lastly, as a result of the recommendations put forward last year by the ad hoc committee on the rural economy, of which I was a member, the Minister has undertaken to give an annual report on rural-proofing. I suggest that Defra undertakes a similar annual report on food security, rather than the five-yearly report proposed in the Bill.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an important Bill that aims to shape the future of farming in our country and promote a food and farming industry in harmony with the environment and which is environmentally sustainable. In this respect I think it builds on the work that many farmers are already undertaking. I am certainly aware, in my own part of the world, that there are farmers who have enthusiastically, over and above any financial incentive, adopted measures to promote the environment in various ways—providing habitats for birds such as the curlew, the lapwing and the endangered grey partridge, or for endangered animal species, such as the brown hare and our beloved red squirrel.
I also support the aims of the Bill in increasing our own food production, particularly in horticulture. When I was an Agriculture Minister some years ago, I was enthusiastic about the role horticulture could play in our country and I hope that the Bill will promote that even further. The Bill, however, presents a lot of challenges for farmers, and I echo the concerns raised that we need to work with farmers—who have had a lot of bureaucratic hurdles over the years and a lot of difficulties with deferred payments to contend with—so that the new system is brought in fairly and with a proper, carefully thought-out transition.
Agriculture is a devolved matter, as we know, and I very much respect that, but as a supporter of decentralisation I hope that in England the Bill will be sensitive to the needs of different regions. Here in Northumberland, we feel very close in many ways to agriculture as it is practised in the Scottish borders, not far away. I believe that co-operation between the devolved authorities will be tremendously important, not least in safeguarding the future of the UK’s own internal market, but also in learning from each other and sharing good practice.
Very valid criticisms have been made on the question of standards and I look forward to supporting the amendments that will be tabled by my noble friends Lord Grantchester, Lady Jones and others in Committee and on Report. It is important to have standards enshrined in the Bill. The biggest challenge to the Bill, however, is the Government’s own trade policy. In this, I very much echo the words of my noble friend Lord Whitty.
We are currently negotiating with the European Union. It seems to make environmental sense to cut down on air miles and to trade with our nearest partners. Already, most our food exports go to the EU, including something like 94% of our sheepmeat. In recent years, the market for lamb has increased more in European countries than in countries outside the EU, so it is vital that we get our trade arrangements with the EU on to a very good footing for the long-term future. It would be crazy to try to leave the EU without a deal—to crash out—and to give our farmers export hurdles as a result. I urge the Government not to let British agriculture down by allowing substandard food imports. I also urge them to prevent our farmers having difficulties in the future in accessing our nearest and biggest export market, in Europe, on which we depend.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his introduction of the Bill. First, I pay tribute to three people from whom we shall not hear during our discussions on the Bill: the Countess of Mar, Baroness Byford and the Earl of Selbourne, who have retired. We will miss their expertise, wise counsel and first-hand experience in agriculture. However, I welcome the interest in agriculture from those who do not usually take part in debates on this subject. Sadly, one-third of those who put their names down to speak cannot do so because of the unusual and regrettable way in which this House is now being run. Can my noble friend confirm that there will be no curtailment of debate whatever in the following stages, so that the House can fulfil its function properly?
Like others who have spoken, I have concerns not only over environmental and welfare standards for trade agreements, but also that the Bill should provide for proper environmental standards in the UK with appropriate regulations, long-term funding and certainty, so that farmers are properly rewarded. In the last 50 years, the amount of land available to feed each person on this planet has dropped from two acres to less than half an acre, and it is still falling. The UK is only 75% self-sufficient in indigenous-type foods. Therefore, food security and food strategy must be included in the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ridley that high-yield farming and improved biodiversity are not mutually exclusive. The Allerton project has scientifically demonstrated that more than successfully for more than 25 years.
Farming is currently an administrative nightmare. I want to focus on one key practical point of the Bill, which is the scale of change and adjustment for farming as it moves from the arrangements inherited from the EU CAP to those founded on markets in food production. It will become more of a marketplace for farmers to sell public goods to the state acting as buyer on behalf of society, as well as probable private sector activity. The outcome will be a much less standardised industry than the one we have created since World War II, as we move away from full-time commodity production. Achieving that will be a major call on all those involved, not only government and farmers. Thus, I hope my noble friend, like me, will endorse the Welsh Government’s observation:
“Advice should be seen as an investment in the capacity of farmers and farms rather than a cost”.
Farming needs a climate positively supportive of sustained, useful advice, with the necessary conversations and time for reflection and delivery of everything from cost control, the adoption of new technology and generational change to repositioning the business, implementing a diversification project, accepting that land should be let out or understanding the value in public good contracts. This will involve both the private and public sectors and we must ensure that it happens.
This is a watershed moment for British agriculture, and this is a hugely important Bill. Although frustrating in many respects, because it is largely an enabling Bill, it puts in place the legislative framework for many years to come. I support it, but I also say to my noble friend Lord Gardiner, who, with his officials, has, as usual, been so helpful with briefing and information, that it would be disappointing and utterly inappropriate if all amendments, particularly the many cross-party ones that will be tabled, were to be rejected.
Lord Carter of Coles (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an important Bill and certainly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reform the funding of agriculture in this country. It is confirmed by the number of noble Lords speaking in the debate, which is in contrast to the occasion when one of the Minister’s predecessors, Lord Walton, came to the House in December 1940 to make what he thought was an important speech only to find seven Members in attendance, their main interest being in the allocation of jam. I declare an interest as a farmer, with other rural interests. In the interests of time, I will touch briefly on three issues: security, standards and sustainability.
Agricultural subsidies are rife throughout the world and cost over $500 billion a year. Often, their purpose is to support rural economies and underwrite food security. Covid-19 has shown that in many areas, globalisation can lead to national shortages. While it has not dramatically affected the food supply here, it has been comforting to see how well the food supply chain has functioned in recent months—our thanks should certainly go to those who have kept the shelves full.
On food security, we are 60% self-sufficient but, despite the dramatic performance of our agricultural exports, we run an annual balance of payments deficit of about £24 billion. We welcome the review of sustainability and security but the question is, what level of self-sufficiency should the country aim for? I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that. Also, in the course of policy formulation, what attention is being paid to our ability to pay for the high level of imports that we sustain?
Many noble Lords have spoken eloquently about food standards, and we are absolutely clear—everybody I speak to is clear—that there must be no reduction in those. The joint Secretary of States’ letter yesterday offered some comfort. However, the key is to see how this is dealt with in the Trade Bill, and of course the Government’s intentions, as noble Lords have indicated, remain a matter of concern. The key will be the regulatory framework we put in place to oversee those, and as we work our way through the Bill and the amendments, we will get a better picture.
The sanitary and phytosanitary standards are more visible. One of the things we need to be aware of as we drive for more productivity and efficiency is that we do not want to drive standards down. We want to ensure that those who work in the production and, more importantly, the processing of food have the right working conditions and standards to do their jobs. We must ensure that those standards are maintained.
Finally, I come to the sustainability issue: getting the balance right between environmentally ambitious policies and the need to have a highly productive, quality agricultural sector. It is commendable that the Government have recognised that this will take time, and the transition period is very welcome. However, until we see details of things like the ELMS project, as other noble Lords have indicated, it makes it extraordinarily difficult for farmers to plan. Farming is a long-term activity, as is environmental investment, and the quicker we can see details of the success of the pilot schemes and understand the finer detail, the better we will be able to go forward. Similarly, on issues such as productivity and investment, we need to understand how this will come about and which sectors will be supported, how that money will flow through and how it will go over the coming seven years.
When Lord Walton came to the House in 1940, his objectives were to ensure that the nation had enough food of sufficiently high standards, and of course we wanted to survive. The threats we face have changed, but we should ensure that this legislation is true to the same principles: food security, food standards and sustainability.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have no interests to declare but for years I shadowed Agriculture Ministers Gummer and Hogg—now the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—and represented a predominantly farming constituency through the BSE and foot and mouth crises.
This is an enabling Bill but is really a legislative pig in a poke. Perhaps inevitably, but with dire consequences, it is entirely dependent on its context. From Clause 1, in which the Secretary of State is given a permissive funding role, the only certainty is uncertainty. That uncertainty combines the forthcoming recession following Covid-19 with the potential failure to achieve a satisfactory Brexit deal in just 28 weeks’ time, creating unprecedented chaos for the UK’s food supplies. That recession, as we already know, will be harder-hitting than anything the country has experienced in our lifetime. Anyone who believes the Government will be willing and able to invest on the scale necessary to make the Bill work is surely living in a fool’s paradise. In the worst possible economic environment, the Government are determined to ditch the tried-and-tested partnership with our neighbours in favour of surrender at the feet of Mr “American farmers first” Trump.
We have all seen the Secretary of States’ letter but frankly, they did not support the Parish amendment, and on the rebound from Brexit, how can they really stand up to Trump? In the words of the NFU president, this could result in us
“opening our ports, shelves and fridges to food which would be illegal to produce here”
and
“would be the work of the insane.”
Now, Trump’s negotiators want us to give up origin labelling—so much for consumer choice.
In the unanimous briefing I have received, I especially welcomed the personal evidence from Juliet Cleave, a livestock farmer in my old constituency. In my four minutes, I obviously cannot do justice to her passionate defence of British agriculture. However, one sentence stands out:
“Unfair competition in the marketplace not only undermines the rural economy but will lead to further consumer confusion.”
In that context, Ministers seem to have failed to secure reciprocal protection for traditional food products such as Cornish pasties, Melton Mowbray pies and Scotch whisky, which are all currently subject to the excellent EU GI scheme. I was assured last year that this would be guaranteed, but that looks like another broken Brexit promise.
With a few weeks to go, the Government are charging hell for leather towards failure to secure a satisfactory deal—or indeed any deal at all. Farmers, consumers and the environment could all be the first victims. The Bill is a totally inadequate corrective. In any circumstances, this would surely be folly. Whether Covid-19 will be still fully with us or will have begun to fade by December, to charge over the cliff without even extending the transition would be ludicrous lunacy.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, in Gulliver’s Travels, Jonathan Swift wrote of the King of Brobdingnag:
“And he gave it for his opinion, that whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country than the whole race of politicians put together.”
That is precisely what Norman Borlaug and his fellow scientists did in the middle of the 20th century. The green revolution was a miracle. A combination of genetics, agrochemicals, irrigation and mechanisation meant that between 1960 and 2000, although the world population doubled, the amount of food produced per person increased by 25%. But we now know that this revolution came at a cost: damage to habitats, biodiversity, soils, the climate, freshwater, and farm animal welfare. That is why this Bill is so important and welcome. It gives us the framework for resetting agriculture in this country—for embarking on what has often been called the doubly green revolution. This means harnessing all the power of science and technology to produce more with less: more food with less impact on the environment, the climate and animal welfare. However, the Bill leaves as many questions as it provides answers. Here are just some of the points that should be explored in more detail in Committee. Other noble Lords have also mentioned them in their speeches.
First, how will the delivery of the public goods listed in Clause 1 be measured, who will do the monitoring and enforcement, and what sanctions will be applied to farmers who fail to comply? Will the office for environmental protection have a key role in this?
Secondly, there will inevitably be trade-offs. For instance, increasing productivity may imply extracting more from the land for our consumption and therefore leaving less for the rest of nature. By whom and by what process will these trade-offs be computed? For example, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, mentioned the debate about land sharing versus land sparing. Will there be a transparent analysis of this approach to managing the trade-off?
Thirdly, the delivery of a cleaner, greener, more productive agriculture will require investment in science and technology, as well as knowledge transfer. What is the Government’s plan for enhancing the necessary science base, including gene editing, and ensuring that this new knowledge will be taken up by farmers?
Fourthly, as many noble Lords have already said, the Government claim that food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards will be the same for domestic and imported food, but what independent scrutiny of this commitment will there be?
Finally, it is often said that the UK has high animal welfare standards. However, we should be aware of the reality that many other European countries are already ahead of us. For example, beak trimming of hens is banned in six other European countries but not here. France and Germany will ban the castration of piglets without anaesthetic by the end of next year, but we have not made this commitment. Does the UK intend to catch up with the best in the world, or will it join the race to the bottom in the pursuit of new trade deals?
The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the Bill. In the time available I will raise four brief points and then turn to the important role that standards will play in negotiating trade agreements.
First, do the Government intend to publish an impact assessment before the Bill has finished its parliamentary stages? It is irregular for a Bill, even a framework enabling Bill—and especially a Bill of this consequence —to be sent to Parliament without a primary-stage impact assessment at the very least.
My second question arises from the welcome inclusion of food security. However, like others I believe the required reporting cycle should be more frequent than at least every five years. I also believe it should include reference to emissions, climate change impact and supply chain sustainability to ensure a more complete understanding of the realities. Will my noble friend consider this?
My third question is a United Kingdom question, and I declare my interest as a Scottish farmer. While fully accepting that trade is a reserved matter, I believe the Bill has missed an opportunity to clarify the involvement of devolved nations in setting WTO-compliant ceilings and the assessment of impacts from quotas and tariffs. Will my noble friend look again at these arrangements? In the same vein, I add in passing that this Bill is also an opportunity to embed the principles of fair funding for intra-UK allocation—as detailed in the review by the noble Lord, Lord Bew—to add some transparency to the methodology of how any future budget will be allocated.
My fourth point is that, like many others, I believe this Bill is an opportunity for the Government to adopt an amendment that would enable future access to precision-breeding tools such as new gene-editing technologies.
I now turn to the important role that standards will play in negotiating trade agreements. I have two points. First, I ask my noble friend whether the Government’s welcome commitment that trade negotiations will not compromise the UK’s high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards can be understood as referring to UK production standards as a whole. This is critical as, where any production standards are lower than those required of UK producers, imports will impact on the ability of UK producers to compete on a level playing field.
My second point relates to how the importance of maintaining standards in negotiating trade agreements might best be addressed. The UK’s enviable reputation for high standards in food and farming has been achieved through successive Governments’ support for a national framework of standards, measurement and accreditation, collectively referred to as the United Kingdom Quality Infrastructure, UKQI. Here I declare an interest as the chair of the UK Accreditation Service, UKAS, which is the UK’s national accreditation body and a key component of the UKQI. UKAS accreditation is central to ensuring the effectiveness of standards through underpinning their implementation with a robust verification and certification system.
Furthermore, UKAS and BSI—the national standards body—operate within an international framework, as accreditation and standards are global activities. This mutual recognition of standards and accredited conformity assessment underpins many international trade agreements. Should a trade standards commission be established—and I believe there is a good case for doing so—one of its roles could be to look at how accreditation and linked mutual recognition arrangements underpinning standards should be utilised, protected and, where appropriate, enhanced, as a central part of trade negotiations and agreements.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in a nation where 50% of food is currently imported—fully 30% from the European Union—the protection of high standards on imported food cannot be overestimated. Anyone who cares about the quality of the food we eat, animal welfare and the environment should be very worried about this Bill, which threatens the very survival of British agriculture, putting both its UK market and its important export markets in the European Union in jeopardy and sacrificing Britain’s high food and animal welfare standards and with them our farming industry.
Legal protections to guarantee animal welfare, food hygiene rules, agricultural workers’ rights, environmental protections on the food we import and targets for reaching net-zero emissions for the agriculture industry are all deliberately omitted from the Bill. Presumably, this is to preserve the prospect of future post-Brexit trade deals with the United States and Pacific Rim countries, which may initially lead to cheaper imports but at a devastating long-term cost to both UK producers and consumers.
The truth is that if existing food standards are not maintained for imports, the UK’s agricultural sector will be unable to compete and our farmers will be faced with a choice of either lowering standards or going out of business. Import prices would then rise, leaving the country dependent on food imports of compromised quality.
Sadly, a majority of MPs voted against proposed new Clause 2, an all-party amendment requiring new international treaties on the import of agricultural and food products to comply with World Trade Organization safety rules and the UK’s own standards. Significantly, it was proposed by the chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Conservative MP Neil Parish, and backed by the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers’ Union, the RSPCA, the Wildlife Trusts, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Soil Association and the World Wildlife Fund.
Speaking against the proposed new Clause 2 on 13 May, former International Trade Secretary Liam Fox gave the game away, saying that
“the US would walk were the proposals to become law in the United Kingdom, and it would be swiftly followed by others … They do not want the incorporation of UK rules to become a prerequisite to trading agreements with the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/20; col. 323.]
Our high standards are viewed by some outside the EU as a barrier to trade, but having a requirement to uphold environmental standards as part of the Agriculture Bill would surely help prevent a race to the bottom.
The Financial Times reported on 14 May that
“the Department for International Trade was preparing to offer a ‘big concession package’ to US negotiators in the coming months that would reduce the cost of some agricultural imports to unlock a trade deal with Washington.”
Such concessions to the US would effectively impede the prospects of a comprehensive trade deal with the European Union, which provides vital export markets to British farmers. For example, nearly three-quarters of all Welsh food and drink exports and over 90% of Welsh beef and lamb exports were destined for the EU in 2018. I therefore ask the Minister to give a categorical commitment to negotiate agreements with the Welsh and other devolved Governments at all stages of future negotiations.
I agree with my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lady Quin on the need to prioritise a trade deal with the European Union to protect our farmers’ important export markets and our food and environmental standards.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his undoubted commitment to this area. I speak as the daughter of a tenant farmer and having had the privilege to serve in Defra during the coalition. The Bill lists potential public goods and its environmental emphasis is welcome, but little is actually mandated, measured or enforced, as we have heard, and so much will come via secondary legislation. We know that SIs cannot be amended and are almost never rejected.
Above all, as again we have heard, there are a number of elephants in the room, and the prime one is our departure from the EU—our biggest market and the source of much agricultural labour. Minette Batters, the NFU president, rightly identifies the uncertainties here. We do not know what our relationship with the EU will be in only a few months’ time, quite what our immigration system will be, or the nature of any trade deals with other countries. There will be huge challenges for any Government with a huge public debt that will need to support health, social care and our failing industries. Agriculture and the management of land might slip as a priority, however important food security may seem at the moment. That is the backdrop to this Bill, affecting an industry that is, by its very nature, long term and less flexible than others.
There is the seven-year commitment on direct payments, but the notes explain that these could in fact be reduced. The transition becomes meaningless. Can the Minister clarify that? The Bill mentions that financial and other assistance might be made available in exceptional market conditions, but, by implication, it might not. The EU has been strong on rural support. All the powers here seem to be what the Secretary of State no longer needs to do. Can the Minister comment?
The Bill states that high standards will be set regarding food safety, animal welfare and environmental management, but without it being mandated, as we have heard. Where is the regulator here?
We are not in a strong position in trade deals, yet, for example, the standard use of antibiotics may mean that simple infections become untreatable—the next and even more lethal pandemic. That is something to tackle globally, which we were better able to do as part of a large bloc, the EU.
The tenanted sector farms one-third of the agricultural land of England and Wales. That is very vulnerable now. I recall the frequent and long walks my father took with the bank manager. Can the Minister tell us how tenants will be better protected under this Bill—not just tenancies, but their business models, especially in less productive areas such as upland farms?
As we leave the EU, but without new trading arrangements, agriculture is in a very challenging situation. So much of how this industry will fare may depend not on the apparent intentions of the Bill and the undoubted intentions of the Minister, but on these wider decisions.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests. I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak at the Second Reading of such an important piece of legislation and congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his eloquent introduction to it.
We currently have the highest standards of production for animal health, hygiene and welfare. These standards must not be compromised or negotiated away. I refer to those of us who remember the unilateral sow stall and tether ban introduced by a Conservative Government in the late 1990s, yet we continued to allow imports from other EU countries and elsewhere that used them. Consumers voted with their feet, choosing the lower-priced, imported products that did not meet our high standards. As a result, 50% of our pig producers left the market. Now we face similar challenges to our home- produced chicken, beef and flour at the risk of inferior imports that are not produced to our high standards.
I have had a letter, as I am sure many have, from the chair of the FSA, Heather Hancock, in which she clearly states:
“The FSA will publish its risk assessments and its risk management advice to Ministers, who would then decide whether to accept this advice.”
After that, all that would be required to change the existing regulations or authorisations would be for statutory instruments to be laid in Parliament—a mere swipe of the pen and an SI, and our standards could be changed overnight. No primary legislation would be required. For the avoidance of doubt, let us put the case in the Bill for our current standards to be maintained and matched against any imports under any future trade agreement.
I raise the issue of vets and their capacity to meet increased demand for veterinary certification and supervision on import and export checks. This is a very serious issue. I hope my noble friend will today give the House a commitment that we will have enough vets in the UK to provide this service.
Many noble Lords have referred to the sketchy information available on ELMS at this stage. I welcome my noble friend’s commitment to introduce mitigation against flooding as a public good, from which farmers and others will benefit. We have certainly benefited in North Yorkshire from the Pickering Slowing the Flow scheme, but will my noble friend address the issue of reservoirs in the Bill and the stringent requirements of operation, particularly in its review of the Reservoirs Act 1975? How will water storage on farmland be regulated under ELMS? If pilot schemes for ELMS are to start only in 2021, when will the results be known?
I will also raise the position of tenant farmers, who make up 47% of farmers in North Yorkshire and the north of England. Will they continue to benefit under the scheme? Is there a danger that they might be excluded since they do not own the land? What, also, is the future for hill farming?
I pay tribute to our farmers, who work all hours and produce food in all weathers, particularly in this crisis. Now that we have left the European Union, we are not bound by public procurement rules. Will my noble friend ensure that all our schools, hospitals, prisons, care homes, shops, restaurants and homes source our food from the UK to our high standards of animal welfare and hygiene? Will he agree to set up an international trade commission, independent of government, to set the criteria to be met in any negotiation on international trade? Will he agree to defer the phasing out of basic farm payments for one year, particularly in the light of Covid-19? Will he agree that agriculture, horticulture and forestry activities must lie at the heart of farm policy under the Bill?
Baroness Henig (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we all agree that taking back control of our agricultural policy is a defining moment for British farmers and all of us in the United Kingdom. There is agreement that we must lay the strongest foundations possible in the Bill, based on existing high standards of animal welfare, food production, agriculture and environmental standards, which we have established. We must build on them for the future.
We know that we face a climate change emergency, which is having a global impact on land use and food production, and that there are great concerns about the harmful overuse of antibiotics and pesticides. We must all work together to develop sustainable environmental and agricultural policies to deal with the problems facing us and to help farmers to maintain and improve standards. We must not let them be undermined in any way.
Like many others, I am concerned that, having taken back control of our agriculture from the European Union, the Government appear to be on the brink of giving much of it away to the United States in a trade deal that will have little benefit for the United Kingdom, but which will pose grave threats to British farmers, who already face the likelihood of tariffs on food and animal exports to the European Union. The British public have made it clear repeatedly that they do not want to buy chlorinated chicken or beef treated with growth hormones, however cheap they are, so why are we discussing these products with the United States? In the other place, Ministers and government supporters argued that this was an issue for future trade Bills, not for this Bill, but issues of food standards, food hygiene and animal welfare are central to the Bill.
In the other place, there was an attempt to put the Government’s verbal assurances that no changes in standards were being considered into legal form. This was going too far for the Government, but I have no doubt that such an amendment, and many others, will be put forward here in Committee. To help me understand the Government’s position more clearly and guide me on how potential amendments might be framed constructively so as to gain government support, I should like to ask the Minister some questions. He does not need to answer them at the end of the debate, but I would grateful if he could come back to me in writing.
First, what advice have the Government received on the options available to the United Kingdom to set animal welfare and environmental standards for imports in a way that is consistent with World Trade Organization rules? As previous speakers have said, this is an important area where we urgently need clarification.
Secondly, to what extent do the Government’s plans to develop a 21st-century agricultural policy also incorporate international trade? Thirdly, have the Government analysed the impact of changing food standards on the United Kingdom’s farming and broader food sectors? If so, can this analysis be published?
Fourthly—and importantly, as many speakers have pointed out—to what extent do the devolved Administrations have powers over their own food standards? What discussions have so far been held on this issue? Have the Government discussed with potential trade partners an alliance to improve animal welfare and environmental outcomes through trade agreements?
Lastly, what analysis have the Government made of a typical United States text on food within a trade agreement and whether accepting it would mean the United Kingdom having to change our own food rules?
We should all be in agreement on this Bill in terms of grasping the considerable opportunities that it offers, but warm words and vague promises from the Government are not enough. We need greater certainty on standards and on the Government’s strategy in this area, which is what my questions are aimed at finding out. Depending on the Minister’s response, I might seek to bring forward, or support others who bring forward, a number of possible amendments in Committee to strengthen this most important framework Bill.
Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber for such a crucial debate. Thanks to many for their tireless work in getting us here in hybrid form; however, I am concerned that this key legislation is the guinea pig for our new system and that it will not get the scrutiny it deserves. I trust that the usual channels will be sympathetic and not rush it through this House. Many more expert voices than mine are silent today. They must be heard.
I refer to my interests as a farmer in Devon, a county renowned for its green and varied landscape, with an ancient tradition of livestock farming. Devon has many small family farms for which basic payments, through no fault of their own, have become key to survival. If we get this wrong, Devon will suffer, causing untold environmental, economic and cultural damage.
The transition to ELMs over the next seven years is particularly concerning. BPS payments decrease from 2021, but ELMs will not be in place until 2024 at the earliest, and 2028 for most. What do farmers do in the interim? Those on marginal farms may simply stop, abandoning farmland to scrub; perhaps this is government policy. Others will do what they can to remain solvent, which means intensifying production and increasing environmental degradation. Even those who farm profitably will hold off capital and environmental improvement—why risk investing now in things you may be paid for in five years’ time?
The result will be the exact opposite of what we need: a decrease in productivity and environmental outcomes, when both need dramatic improvement in the face of international competition and a net-zero target for farming by 2040. Will the Government recognise these dangers and adjust the transition period to avoid them?
Many people have noted that this is the first time since 1947 that we can legislate for agriculture as a sovereign nation—a Brexit dividend for our green and prosperous land. Given coronavirus, comparisons with 1947 are apt. Only months ago, Dieter Helm wrote:
“Food security is largely an empty slogan of lobbyists … It should not be taken seriously.”
He might not say that now, as the nation is acutely aware of food availability and food quality, given the ruthless effect of Covid on those with poor diet. Never has access to healthy, sustainable, affordable, local food been more important.
However, this is not 1947. We were not just an island on the edge of Europe then. We were the centre of the British Empire, with access to food from around the world on terms that we dictated. We lack that bargaining power now. As we negotiate trade deals, we must ensure that our domestic food supply is regularly—annually—monitored and strengthened and that our standards are protected.
The Government resist setting standards, citing existing legislation and a reluctance to tie negotiators’ hands, but both national opinion and history are against them. Ignoring the irony of this Government relying on retained EU law to defend their position, the suggestion that agricultural legislation is not the place to address international trade is just wrong. As Devon warmly remembers, we have been legislating the import and export of wool for more than 500 years, and it was through robust legislative intervention that British farming technology led the agricultural revolution. We did it then and we can do it now.
Finally, this is the Agriculture Bill, not the environmental land management Bill, and the focus must remain on farming. We need a long-term vision for our farms. With more time in Committee, I look forward to discussing soil, carbon, agricultural tenancies, young farmers, gene-editing, productivity and more. But I lack the time now.
The Duke of Wellington (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I declare my agricultural interests as detailed in the register.
It is because of my agricultural interests that I know how much anxiety there currently is in the farming industry, particularly among livestock farmers. Negotiations continue with the European Union to secure a free trade agreement, and we wish our negotiators every success. But, should there be no deal and we have to trade with the EU on World Trade Organization terms, the effect on livestock farmers will be most serious. There are tariffs on beef and lamb going into the EU. Currently, three-quarters of all beef exports from this country go to the EU; the proportion is even higher for sheep meat. Tariffs into the EU will inevitably reduce the prices that farmers receive. Most of the livestock farmers in the four nations of the United Kingdom are small to medium-sized, and they are the ones who will suffer most.
From the Government’s figures for 2018-19—the latest that are available—it is clear that nearly all livestock farms lose money. This is then compensated by basic payments and agri-environment payments, but even after these payments, in 2018-19, the average income of a livestock farmer in a less-favoured area was £15,500 per annum. This is substantially below the minimum wage, and farmers usually work very long hours. Despite these figures, the Government propose to reduce the payments by 5%, starting next year in 2020-21. I cannot see in the Bill any proposal that will support the small to medium-sized livestock farmer from now until the introduction of the environmental land management scheme, which will start in 2024. Therefore, will the Minister try to persuade the Treasury that the lowest band of basic payment—that is, up to £30,000 a year—should be frozen for the next three years?
Is it not in the public interest that the uplands of this country be farmed in a sustainable way, extensively grazed, mainly grass-fed and capturing carbon, as pastures do? This must surely be a public good deserving of public money. Then, while facing a reduction in public support, these same hill farmers are also threatened with tariffs on sales into Europe and a free trade agreement with the United States of America. The latter may well, as part of a larger deal, allow American beef into this country; it is produced to lower standards and will come in at a price that UK farmers will find it difficult to compete with. In the same way that UK fishermen were, we must admit, sacrificed to achieve our entry into the then European Economic Community, so our livestock farmers may still be sacrificed for a US trade deal and no deal with the EU.
When the Minister sums up, I hope that he will reassure me and other noble Lords that the prospects for our smaller hill farmers are not as bleak as they, and I, fear.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this important debate and I declare my interests as listed in the register.
As the second-largest net contributor to the European Union, for many years we have complained vociferously about the common agricultural policy, which still accounts for around 40% of the EU’s budget. The Government have undertaken to maintain the level of financial support received by farmers during the current Parliament, although the basis for the payments will change. Farmers need to plan for the future and they need to know how the Government’s new land management scheme will work. Can the Minister tell the House how farming businesses will be able to replace their lost income for the three years from 2021? I also ask him to resist the misguided calls being made by some noble Lords to introduce into the Bill measures that would bind this country into retaining full dynamic alignment with EU rules, including its controversial SPS regime. I am not advocating in any way that the UK should lower its food standards, but standards are not two-dimensional: higher or lower. The EU applies some unreasonably strict rules that do not make standards higher, but they do make them more expensive and cumbersome to comply with.
In some areas, the rules are protectionist in their effect, which means that EU consumers have to pay higher prices than they should. For many years, the EU has put too much weight on the precautionary principle. I cannot understand why we have become obsessed with chlorinated chicken as being symbolic of poor standards in animal welfare. Aside from the fact that US poultry farmers tend to use peracetic acid nowadays, the evidence shows that the incidence of campylobacter infection in the UK is nearly five times the level in the US, as already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ridley. Further, the level of salmonella infections is significantly higher in the EU than in the US. If there was any doubt about the safety of using chlorine to wash vegetables for sale in supermarkets or to keep drinking water and swimming pools safe, it would obviously be banned.
I do not have time to mention the large number of myths which have been put about with regard to US animal welfare standards, but actually, permitted poultry stocking densities in the US and the UK are roughly comparable. As for beef, the UK Veterinary Products Committee concluded that it was unable to support the opinion of the European Commission that the risks from the consumption of meat from hormone-treated cattle may be greater than previously thought.
The UK, as an advocate for free trade and for proportionate regulation at the WTO, should ensure that its own SPS rules, unlike those of the EU, are compliant with the WTO’s SPS regime. This allows countries to maintain standards that are stricter than international ones, but only if those standards are justified by science or by a non-discriminatory lower level of acceptable risk that does not selectively target imports. The UK buys chicken from Brazil, Thailand, and Poland, which is an EU member state. Noble Lords who disagree with me should perhaps investigate stocking densities in any of those countries.
Our new free trade policy, including agreements with the US and Japan, will provide new opportunities for farmers to export their high-quality food products, especially those including lamb, to new markets where they will rightly find strong demand.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
Lord Judd. No? Lord Naseby.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box because I know that he is absolutely dedicated to the whole of the farming industry. I have lived in Bedfordshire for half a century or thereabouts and I represented a part of Northamptonshire for a quarter of a century or thereabouts. I talked recently to our local farmers and heard one simple message: they are worried. They are worried about the transition and climate change, but they wished me to communicate to the Minister that despite all that, they support the NFU’s proposal for a UK trade, food and farming commission.
I want to concentrate on three niche areas, the first of which is horticulture. It was once a thriving and booming industry until rising energy costs and competition with Holland almost killed it off. As you look around the landscape of Bedfordshire and the south of Northamptonshire, you see that it is one of decaying glasshouses. There must be a way to restore horticulture, which is so important to us for food production. This means that obviously we will have to work with renewable energy, and I hope very much that that will be done with further financial and other extra help from Her Majesty’s Government because it will help enormously on our food security. Alongside that, we must have an understanding of the need for temporary labour to be imported in and out of the country to help with harvesting.
The second area is forestry. I declare an interest as someone who has 40 acres of woodland where I have been working with the Forestry Commission through a 10-year management agreement with a small local company called Astwick Forestry, which is run by a wonderful man, Mr Hart. There are exciting opportunities in the world of forestry. The Urban Tree Challenge is strongly supported by my noble friend on the Front Bench, and we now have the exciting round two coming up for open and small woodlands. There is the woodland carbon scheme where others could buy the sequestration to offset their existing emissions. The market for this is one of huge potential and demand, and it is good to see that the Government have set up an additional scheme worth £50 million—the Woodland Carbon Guarantee scheme—to accelerate the growing of trees for carbon capture. That is an embryonic area of forestry which has so much potential for the future. However, I worry a bit about the frequency with which diseased rootstock comes into this country from, dare I say, the continent and other parts of the world.
Thirdly, I turn to a real niche industry. Here I declare another interest in that I have 100 vines at home, which make about 24 bottles of English sparkling wine a year, so I am a niche grower. But there are far bigger growers in Sussex, Kent and other parts of the United Kingdom. We should remember that the Romans produced wine here with great success, so I think that this is an excellent and exciting area. It is interesting to note that in a blind tasting, some of our best production comes alongside, dare I say, French champagne, although I am a member of the Ordre des Coteaux de Champagne. This is a young industry which needs understanding and I hope that the ministry will listen carefully to the pleas of this really niche industry.
Lord Burnett (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I live in a rural area and for many years I used to farm on my own account. I had the honour to serve as Member in the other place for Torridge and West Devon, where I still live. It is one of the most rural constituencies in England and part of it comprises a large swathe of the Dartmoor National Park. I have observed over many years how the United Kingdom’s agricultural industry has made substantial investments of time and money into animal welfare and environmental protection. We rightly have high animal welfare and environmental standards. We concentrate whenever possible on the extensive rearing of livestock and we produce high-quality products.
Given the time constraints in the debate, I shall concentrate on the beef and sheep sector. If there is no agreement with the European Union by the end of this year—and media reports suggest this is likely; even the Governor of the Bank of England has warned banks to prepare for no deal—then the prospects for UK agriculture are extremely bleak.
The sheep sector faces a very damaging period, lasting for years. Approximately 40% of our total sheepmeat production is exported to the European Union. We import very little sheepmeat from the European Union. If we leave the EU without a deal and on WTO terms, our exports to the EU will carry an ad valorem tariff of between 40% and 60%. This product is very price sensitive. Exports will be severely cut and there will be chronic oversupply in the UK. The price of sheepmeat will plummet, leaving our sheep farmers’ stock values decimated. The continuation of the basic payment scheme and other support will not even start to make up the difference.
As to beef, we are net importers from the EU. I understand that we are proposing an ad valorem tariff of approximately 12% on imports of beef into this country from the EU, whereas our exports of beef to the EU will carry an ad valorem tariff of between approximately 40% and 60%. This means that we shall be in the ludicrous position of subsidising imports. Trade in beef products will be severely disrupted, and with dire consequences for our farmers. Stock values may drop substantially.
The pressure will be on the Government to make alternative tariff-free or low-tariff arrangements with non-EU countries. There will be overwhelming pressure on the Government from other sectors of the economy to complete a trade agreement with the United States. My understanding is that any trade agreement would have to be ratified by both Houses of Congress. Senators and members of the House of Representatives from rural areas could refuse to ratify the agreement if the necessary access for their constituents to agricultural products from the UK was not included. The pressure on the Government to conclude an agreement with the US will be overwhelming. Despite their fine words, Ministers come and go. Unless we impose the most compelling and robust statutory prohibitions on the Government, we shall be flooded with cheap, hormone-fed beef that is reared with scant regard for animal welfare and with other products that are equally substandard. For example, there are many crop sprays permitted in the United States which have been outlawed in the EU, and therefore in Britain, for years.
The Government should agree an extension on the transition period until satisfactory arrangements between us and the EU have been agreed, for all businesses in the country not just the agricultural sector. It is not in our interests to import substandard food that will be damaging to the British people. Agriculture in the UK employs, directly or indirectly, approximately 4.1 million individuals. If the Government do not heed those of us who counsel caution, there will also be substantial consequential losses for rural and urban Britain, of jobs, business and other opportunities.
Our farmers produce, and should be encouraged to produce, the basic necessity of life: namely, food.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
Please can I remind the noble Lord of the speaking limit?
Lord Burnett [V]
We owe it to everyone in our country to ensure that we maintain an agricultural sector that continues to provide high-quality, safe food and which continues to respect the environment and animal welfare.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my farming and landowning interests.
I have a lot of good things to say about this Bill but no time to say them. The change to ELMS and the wider approach to the food chain are great—it is about more than just production on the land—but, despite the paper Health and Harmony: The Future for Food, Farming and the Environment in a Green Brexit, there seems to be little in the Bill about nutrition and health.
I will focus my remarks on my worries. First, I worry about the imminent vacuum in our support systems. ELMS is still a long way off. Farmers do not know what it will mean for them. Changes in land management take a long time to implement. A farmer would be mad to start preparing or training now for something that may or may not come in by 2027. Meanwhile, the single farm payment will be mostly gone before farmers know what the Government want them to do to survive. In all fairness, the Government cannot abandon one support system before the way forward on the next is clear.
Secondly, it must now be obvious to everyone, including the Government, that reviewing our nation’s food security only once every five years, after what we have just been through, is madness. I will say no more at this stage.
Thirdly, I would like a clear message in this Bill that we will move forward to allow gene editing in our research programmes. This is a way of speeding up the natural methods of farm breeding to ensure that we can improve the environmental and nutritional outcomes of feeding our ever-expanding human population, both at home and—more particularly, as far as I am concerned —in the developing world.
Fourthly, everyone knows that we must have a clause in this Bill that looks carefully at the importation of goods that would be illegal to produce in this country. Every department, including the DIT, is signed up to this red line, as is the Prime Minister and the vast majority of the voting public, so what objection could there be to putting something on the face of the Bill to make it more difficult for future Administrations to renege on that? In my view, it would make trade negotiations easier. If it is not a matter of discretion during discussions but is the law of the land, then everyone knows precisely where they stand and it disappears as an issue.
My final area for amendment is to introduce a clause allowing Ministers to support businesses and communities in rural areas. Why do we want such a clause in an Agriculture Bill? Because currently it is hard for a family farm to survive on food production or land management alone. We must help the farming households to find cash for jobs off the farm, to ensure the survival of the farm itself. I am not saying that the Government must spend their agricultural budget on the wider rural economy; I am just saying that Farming Ministers should have that arrow in their quiver for use in certain areas or circumstances, should it prove beneficial. To have it there can do no harm.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear introduction. An advisory speaking time of four minutes is not long to tackle the far-reaching provisions of this Bill, but I want to use a few of my precious seconds to protest to the Whip on duty about how the Bill is being handled. It is not just the four-minute limit; more importantly, a good number of our fellow Peers from all parties have been scrubbed from speaking at all. Things have reached a pretty pass when Members of your Lordships’ House are prevented from speaking at Second Reading of a Bill of this magnitude. Please do not play the pandemic card in reply. It will be perfectly possible to extend this debate by another half day to enable all who wish to speak to do so. Our fellow Peers deserve no less.
In my remaining time, I will focus on Clause 17 and food security. I remind the House that I am a controlling shareholder in a company that owns a modest amount of farmland. On 14 May, there was a very interesting debate in your Lordships’ House on food security, ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and equally ably replied to by the Minister. However, given the scale of the challenges we face to our future food security, through a combination of 40% increase in the world population—some 4 billion people—the impact of climate change and risks to the ability to move food around the world, Clause 17 is far too bland and unsecure. We need not expressions of hope but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, duties on the Government.
I will give three quick examples. First, there needs to be a stated government policy on what level of food security is sought. Currently, it is about 50%. Is that the right level? Should it be higher or lower? The public are entitled to know.
Secondly, the clause says nothing about water. The Environment Agency tells us that we will run short of water within 20 years, and that we are entering, in the words of the chairman of the Environment Agency, “the jaws of death”. Significantly for our food security, the shortage of water will be most acute in the south-east of England, where some of our most productive farmland is located.
Finally, the clause makes no reference to the number of mouths that will have to be fed 20 years or so from now. What will the population of the United Kingdom be? Those numbers are stark. The ONS mid projection suggests that the population of the UK 25 years from now will be 72 million people, an increase of about 6 million, equivalent to two and a half cities the size of Manchester today. To provide the necessary homes, offices and other space for those people is likely to require us to tarmac over an area the size of Bedfordshire.
One of the challenges faced by all Governments is the inevitable public bias towards the present at the expense of the future. People find it hard to give proper weight to problems that lie 20 years away and are, unsurprisingly, inclined to focus on the short-term challenges they face, but if the pandemic has taught us anything it is that an absence of strategic thought and planning can carry a heavy cost, so I shall end with that great Jewish saying, “Start worrying. Details to follow.”
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a small-scale upland sheep farmer and as president of the Countryside Alliance. This is potentially a good Bill that travels in the right direction, and I am grateful to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, for introducing it, but it is a very bare framework with far too many delegated powers and far too little real detail. It could and should be improved by some additions.
First, our current food, environmental and animal welfare standards were surely not put in place simply to protect the market for our farmers or because we were required to adopt them while we were in the EU. They are there for the benefit of our consumers and we are keeping them post-Brexit presumably because we think they are good and necessary. The Conservative Party’s manifesto at the last general election stated that there would be no compromise on them in our trade talks, and the letter we all got yesterday from the two Secretaries of State said the same, as did the Minister in opening. To allow products which do not meet our standards—even if, as has been suggested in the press, tariffs might be imposed on them to help our producers compete financially—would betray the promise made to the people of this country that they would have good, safe, ethically produced food to our own high standards. If, as we are being repeatedly told, there will be no compromise, will the Minister tell us why that is not simply being put in the Bill? As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said, the amendment in the other place proposed by Mr Neil Parish was supported on all sides of the House and it, or one like it, needs to be put in the Bill.
At long last we have an opportunity to shape our own agricultural destiny, and the choice is stark, facing, as we do, the end of direct payments under the CAP. It is no exaggeration to say that the single farm payment has been the difference between a loss and break-even for many small and medium-sized family farms, particularly in the uplands where there is very little but livestock farming to turn to. That point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. If you cut direct support to those small farms, as New Zealand did, they go under, and farming becomes the province of large commercial enterprises. Under the Bill, that direct support is reducing and is guaranteed for only a very short time. As others have pointed out, there is then a lacuna in support, and we have no details or figures with which farmers can plan for the future, as plan they must.
The Bill must recognise that the production of food to a high standard, which British farmers primarily do, is the main benefit to us all from our agricultural industry, as well as landscape maintenance and enhancement, wildlife habitat preservation, access to the countryside and so on. We, the public, directly or indirectly, derive benefit from that we should all contribute to its cost. However, productivity and profitability have to go hand in hand with the new environmental land management schemes or they will fail. In my area, Exmoor National Park, I am very encouraged by the trial and test called Exmoor’s Ambition, which is partly funded by Defra. It has been running since 2019 and goes on until next year. It works closely with farmers and land managers to define and develop the public good outcomes which will be required under the ELM scheme, and how farmers will be paid for them. We all want to know the results, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us how those trials are going and if anything is emerging from them as yet. Those schemes must be devised and designed—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
Perhaps the noble Baroness could bring her remarks to a close.
Baroness Mallalieu [V]
I hope they will be devised by farmers, not just by recent environmental studies graduates sitting in an office, which has sometimes been the case with other schemes.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, this Bill is silent on pesticides and herbicides, yet they are toxic to insects and wildlife. Some may prove carcinogenic, even at a very low dose, and the current regulations on these chemicals need to tighten, not lapse. Several noble Lords have addressed the urgency of this and said that we must value high-quality, ethically farmed UK food. Maintaining current standards and practices will not be enough.
Focusing on issues pertinent to Wales, I thank the Minister and his department for working with the Welsh Government to add to the Bill the powers requested to introduce an agriculture Wales Bill in the next Session. It will allow continuity of support for Welsh farmers and the effective functioning of the UK single market going forward. It will include powers to simplify or improve the basic payment scheme to farmers beyond 2020 and to modify retained direct EU legislation on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and support for rural development.
Schedule 5 to the Bill, the Welsh schedule, will enable Wales’ animal health and welfare framework to be supported by legislation. The framework is based on “prevention is better than cure”, with health improvements through the vet and farm plan that promotes joint working for animal welfare, linked to planned maintenance. The agriculture Wales Bill will echo the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, with awareness of Wales’ global responsibilities, such as through the network of antibiotic champions to decrease antibiotic use.
The intention behind Clause 27 is to counteract unfair trading practices and to prevent market abuse—that is, larger players in the market exploiting those in relatively weak market positions. However, if this is a reserved power, there must be consent from the Welsh Government because those powers intersect with devolved matters for Wales, including agriculture and agricultural productivity and sustainability. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will strengthen the requirement to engage with the Welsh Government by amendment, as required in the legislative consent Motion, which my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and I support? My noble and learned friend, being unable to speak today, has written to the Minister asking when the draft common framework on agriculture will be available and whether it will contain a dispute resolution mechanism. The UK internal market must function appropriately, enabling the devolved Governments to determine matters such as standards and subsidies.
Although the Explanatory Memorandum recognises that organic production is a devolved competence, the Secretary of State seems to be able to legislate on organics. This confusion needs clarifying by amendment to ensure that the Secretary of State can make organic production regulations falling within devolved competence only with the prior consent of Welsh Ministers.
Regarding the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture, there remains disagreement between the UK Government and the Welsh Government on whether the WTO clause is wholly reserved. Can the Minister confirm that a bilateral agreement has been reached to require the UK Government to consult the devolved Administrations before bringing forward regulations under this power?
Subject to amendments ensuring consultation and such a framework, I hope we can support the Bill.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con) [V]
My Lords, I broadly welcome the Bill, which is timely. I have several questions on which I would like some clarification, if I may. At present, my noble friend will recognise that the agriculture funding system within the EU works to a seven-year timetable, allied to the multiannual financial framework. How will the future funding cycle then be determined within the UK itself, and how shall the devolved nations be involved in the determination of that cycle?
I note the important contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bew. In his review of farm payments north of the border, he was able to restore a degree of amity between Scottish farmers and those in the rest of the UK. It will be recalled that this was simply because the then Secretary of State for Defra mistook his UK role for his English farming role. There will need to be greater clarity to ensure that this does not happen again.
I have only a few specific points. Coming this late in the debate, I am afraid that several noble Lords have raised them; I will therefore echo those points. First, I echo the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. Will there be a primary stage impact assessment? It will be important, given the scale of the change that the Bill represents, to have a full appreciation of how it will interweave with the future development of policy.
Secondly, I welcome strongly the notion of delivering support for public good. But public good is a nebulous concept and the measurement of it will be a challenge. Noble Lords will be aware that one of the great criticisms farmers have had of the common agricultural policy is its bureaucratic base, along with the measurements and involvement of bureaucracy in establishing conformity to policy. It is often this part that has caused the greatest frustration for farmers, so it would be useful to get some sense of how this public good will be measured and what sanctions might be anticipated for the failure to deliver public good.
My final point rests on perhaps the greatest question yet to come, that of climate change. Farmers will be at the forefront of decarbonising, so I would welcome my noble friend’s comments on how he anticipates the evolving agriculture support policy interweaving with the UK Government’s ongoing commitment to net zero. These elements will become very important and critical in helping farmers themselves to move in this direction. Those are my points.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, this is major legislation and I am sure that the goal of having a better set of arrangements for agriculture than we had under the common agricultural policy, including better environmental land management, has wide support on all sides of this House. However, it is easier to state these goals than to work out how you will make them work. The question just asked by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, about how public benefit will be measured, regulated and rewarded is very relevant.
Within this policy are two big unresolved tensions. On the one hand, the Government want something better than the common agricultural policy and when Michael Gove was Secretary of State, he set out ambitious objectives for something better. On the other hand is the Government’s ambition for global Britain and their determination to use the new freedoms of an independent trade policy as a result of Brexit to make up for the loss of access, or more constrained access, which there will undoubtedly be, to the EU single market.
The Government tell us that there will be no detriment to the EU standards that are now incorporated in UK law. We have the letter before us from the two Secretaries of State. I am not trying to argue that they are in some way misleading us; in fact, I have great personal respect for the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who has become the Trade Minister in this place. But our Ministers are rather naive about trade negotiations and will find that in the force majeure of trade—particularly if we get a bad deal from the EU, which I think we will—they will be under enormous political pressure to demonstrate that they can do deals elsewhere. Those deals will generally be bad deals for British agriculture. They will involve either some sacrifice of standards or increased quotas—for example, for Brazilian beef, US beef and that sort of thing—which will cause a lot of competitive pressure in certain parts of the industry.
That brings me to the second tension—that between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. Environmental land management strikes me as a matter that should ideally be devolved, but the UK will control the trade negotiations, which will determine a lot of the standards to be applied. My forecast, which I am afraid is pessimistic, is that what happens in the trade negotiations on agriculture will be a cause of huge tension with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It will set off political consequences that could threaten the unity of the United Kingdom. I am sorry to be so pessimistic but, while this is a good Bill, it is fatally flawed.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I regret Brexit, but I support the targeting of financial support to farmers to secure environmental enhancement, food security and safety, and the welfare of animals and plants. I hope that small family and hill farms will get a better deal, as opposed to the cereal barons and city-owned megafarms that the CAP seems to favour. However, I will put down a few markers.
First, I fully concur with my noble friend Lord Tyler’s concern over the protection of GIs. Can the Minister tell us the Government’s plans in this respect, whether for Cornish pasties or other products? Secondly, there should be no threat to the production and marketing of kosher and halal food in the wake of Brexit. Thirdly, I fear that the Government will torpedo British farmers’ and consumers’ interests by giving in to US pressure on food standards. As others have said, the US produces food to standards that many of us regard as very bad practice and which EU law prevents. Even if the response was, “We won’t ban them but will require them to be labelled”, that is not an adequate substitute in all cases—and anyway, we know from the experience over GMOs that the US will fight that tooth and nail.
The Government have made much of their manifesto promise, reflected in a letter from the two Secretaries of State, that they would
“not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
The problem is that this pledge was set in the context, and with the caveat, that the Government would not so compromise
“In all our trade negotiations.”
As we have heard, Neil Parish, the Conservative chair of the EFRA Select Committee, clearly did not trust the Government. Hence, he was among those—my colleague Tim Farron was another—who tabled amendments in the other place last month to try to avoid the commitments being, as he put it,
“traded away on the altar of cheap food.”
If the Government’s pledges meant anything, why did they rally their troops to defeat those amendments?
I fear that the Government are leaving themselves plenty of wiggle room. There are reports of a plan to apply tariffs on lower standard products, apparently with the idea that US producers would thus find it uneconomic to send them here. What is the state of play on this reported plan and how does it accord with the manifesto and ministerial pledges? In any case, as the Times columnist Clare Foges put it well on Monday, the pledge not to lower our standards through trade negotiations does not prevent them doing so through domestic legislation; hence the refusal to agree a level playing field in the EU negotiations.
Given the experience in the other place last month, it would seem that the Government could rely on their loyal lobby fodder to get a diminution of standards through. As it was put in the Financial Times yesterday:
“For Mr Johnson … a deal with the US is a strategic imperative … Washington’s price will be … a decisive British break with EU rules and regulations. It is looking more and more as if Mr Johnson is ready to pay this price.”
Mr Johnson might be ready to pay that price, but it is British farmers and consumers who would take the hit. As my noble friend Lady Parminter said at the beginning of this debate, Liberal Democrats are determined to stop that—as, apparently, are noble Lords across the House.
Baroness Worthington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to be able to participate in this important Second Reading debate on the Agriculture Bill and I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. I would like to take a moment to echo comments from other noble Lords about the inability of our colleagues to participate in this Second Reading debate and to echo the hope there will be no further curtailment of debate around the Bill and the scrutinising of this important framework legislation. It represents a once in a generation opportunity to set a new framework for how we reward farmers and how we manage our land and food systems.
Time is short, as many people have commented. I want to address my comments to the issue of climate change and the ability of this Bill to help us to make some significant strides forward in how we domestically address this issue and by setting world-class policy standards for other countries to adopt and take on. This is the promise of the ELM that the Bill introduces—that we will be shifting from a system focused on public money to support production and move it towards supporting public good. I fully support the Government’s intentions here and, as others have mentioned, I would like to see more detail about the definitions of what ELM will cover and how it will operate.
The principle is a good one and, unlike many sectors of the economy where we are seeking to address climate change, there is often a large debate about how we can price in externalities of climate change—how we can add costs of greenhouse gas pollution to a sector which is currently not paying them. Here, with agriculture, we have the opportunity to redeploy public money that has already been allocated, so it is a fantastic opportunity to align our need to keep land productive, to support farmers, to increase our food security and to improve our balance of trade, and at the same time address climate change.
There is a need for us to explore where there is that great overlap between productive land and high-carbon land. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who pointed out there are different camps when it comes to how we should use our land. We should be trying to direct our public money towards those uses of land which achieve a triple bottom line: rural development and jobs, high-carbon stocks on our land, and increased food security. I think that points us towards investment in the whole system of agro-ecology, where we are producing food and maintaining high biodiversity standards on our lands. Those are the sorts of areas we can explore in Committee and hope to get more flesh on the bones of this important framework legislation.
In the time remaining I want to touch on the context of this Bill being passed with so much uncertainty, both in relation to the trade deal we are expecting with the EU and other potential trade agreements with countries such as the US. It does feel as if we need to be writing some clear legal standards into this legislation to enable to us to conduct those negotiations from a position of strength and not have the potential rolling-back of high environmental standards. In a sense, we need to ensure we can erect a green wall around our own high environmental standards and have those standards upheld for the benefit of the environment and for our rural communities.
The other issue I am concerned about is the shift away from the payment systems we have today; we will lose the stick, as it were, of cross-compliance, where if farmers receive a payment, they are required to adhere to certain environmental standards through cross-compliance. That will be removed, and I am concerned about potential backsliding and who will oversee any potential loss of environment benefit. We have to see a net gain in environmental terms from the Bill and we should be seeking to put in place clear measurements and enforcement mechanisms to make sure that we deliver the things we are expecting from the public money we will continue to spend in this area. I thank noble Lords and look forward to Committee.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I would first like to apologise to my noble friend on the Front Bench; there was a little confusion earlier and I was unable to be here for his opening remarks. I know that it does not fuss him, but I would like to apologise anyway. I also declare my interest: my earliest memory as a child is of my father’s business. He raised chickens and grew tomatoes and cucumbers, and even had a few pigs—until the business went bust.
I will start with three points. First, the fundamental purpose of farming, which we must never forget, is to feed the people. Secondly, the common agricultural policy is one of the worst food deals since Eve plucked the apple and handed it to Adam. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, competition and free markets have lifted vast parts of the world out of starvation and food shortage. Even more than that, competition has provided and continues to provide a wider range of food, at a lower price and of higher quality. It comes about through endless innovation rather than through endless regulation. It is a point that my noble friend Lord Ridley made with such passion and excellence, and it is the inexorable lesson of the last 200 years.
We owe our farmers a great vote of thanks; they form an exceptional industry, but I believe that the best is yet to come. Of course, they face a process of change, and that brings with it uncertainties—and opportunity. So I welcome very much the seven years of transition that the Bill offers—I think it will be needed—and I also welcome the emphasis on the environment. Good farmers do not need lectures on environmental standards —of course they do not—but I do welcome the encouragement to them that the Bill offers.
There is a game being played by some with this Bill; it is called a distraction technique. You will recognise it. Great magicians have it, yobs hanging around cash machines waiting for an elderly lady have it. Everything is not what it seems, and every argument is not what it seems. We hear, “We must stop the race to the bottom.” What race to the bottom? Show me it. “What about chlorine?” I hear. Good question; we wash a lot of our foodstuffs in chlorine anyway, we wash our children in chlorine in swimming pools, and we actually drink chlorine. Today, at a British supermarket down the road, you can buy a whole chicken for £1.87—a chicken which satisfies all our safety standards. It also satisfies consumers—and that, I remind you, is the first and finest purpose of agriculture: satisfying consumers.
One of the many advantages that Brexit will bring to us is better labelling. Imagine that on the shelf in your local supermarket you have a chicken labelled, “Bred in Britain and Produced with Pride”, and that alongside it there is a chicken that says, “Chlorinated in Kansas”. No doubt which one, if noble Lords will excuse the pun, is going to fly off the shelves. Chlorine is not a problem.
We are looking for a brighter, greener, more innovative future, and this Bill helps farmers produce that. I wish it well—even if it comes 60 years too late for my father.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
[Inaudible]—family farm in three counties of Wales, and in Suffolk.
My Lords, this Bill is a sea change from its ill-fated predecessor. That was heavily criticised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House, which expressed its dismay at the major transfer of powers from the EU to Ministers of the Crown, bypassing Parliament and the devolved legislatures in Wales and Northern Ireland. Not for the first time, Whitehall sought to claw back powers that I had won for the Welsh Office as Secretary of State for Wales and that formed one of the building blocks for the Welsh Assembly.
The briefing from Defra, for which I am grateful, makes it clear that leaving the CAP will enable the devolved Administrations to design policies that will meet their own needs. Wales and Northern Ireland have asked the Government to extend certain powers in the Bill to them. I ask the Minister to summarise what they are. Provided they do not undermine the principle of devolution—that it is the Welsh Government who decide what is best for Welsh farmers, the Welsh countryside and Welsh consumers—I would welcome them.
I support the emphasis placed by my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the need to involve the Welsh Government in any international negotiations which concern Welsh produce. I hope to expand on that at a later stage.
There is value within the United Kingdom single market for standards and assistance to be on the same lines if so desired.
My next point is on the maintenance of the high standards that we now have for food production and the protection of consumers in this country. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, raised animal health. We have our occasional epidemics and my family have been too close to foot and mouth in the past. Another problem has been BSE. Tuberculosis in cattle has not been properly resolved. We have gone backwards in this area. I do not want a lowering of our standards to accommodate a general trade deal, which the Government seem determined to get. The issue is not solely chlorinated chicken or hormone-fed beef; British farmers, wherever they are, are proud of the standards that we have in this country. We do not want to see the door opened to lower-cost, poorly produced food imports.
It was said in the Commons that imports produced to lower standards than ours pose a real threat to UK agriculture. Without sufficient safeguards, we could see British farmers significantly undermined, while turning a blind eye to environmental degradation and poor environmental standards abroad. Agricultural goods should be imported into the UK only if the standards to which they were produced are as high as or higher than the UK standards. I welcome the assurances on this point.
The small farmers of Wales, Cumbria and elsewhere operate on fairly thin margins. I welcome the emphasis on the environment for all our people, but we must remember that the countryside can be enjoyed by everyone only if there are people living there. I trust that in the disbursement of funds to agriculture, this will be borne in mind.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest: my stepson is a farmer in Scotland. I also associate myself with a remark made originally by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and followed by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank: that it is surprising that no impact assessment is before us.
Noble Lords may, like me, have received a briefing from the National Farmers’ Union of Scotland—16 of the Bill’s clauses apply to Scotland—and it has sought to have a particular point made in this debate: that where the Bill, or indeed Brexit, creates new financial and regulatory frameworks, Scottish interests must be represented.
It is plain from the debate so far that there is real anxiety that little protection is offered to domestic producers from cheaper imported food produced to lower standards. We heard what the Minister said, which I of course accepted; we have seen what Ministers have written about, but I have had a lot of ministerial letters in my time and, to be quite blunt about it, their effect normally lasts only until the subsequent letter, which begins “In view of changed circumstances…” I cannot understand why the all-party amendment proposed by Neil Parish MP in the Commons was not accepted by the Government. At one step, they could have removed the anxiety and suspicion that the Bill has created in this matter.
But of course, it is more than ministerial letters; the Government’s manifesto promises that
“we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
We know the extent to which the Government feel obliged to meet the terms of their manifesto, so how can they possibly meet them in the circumstances that we are discussing? There is only one way in which it can be done, and that is that in any trade treaty it should be an essential—and I use that word in the legal sense—condition that the promise is met in terms.
I have already said that 16 clauses in the Bill apply to Scotland, and I want to finish by referring to Clause 17, on the duty to report to Parliament. Food security has been a live issue in recent weeks, but it seems to give the Government far too wide a measure of discretion that the obligation arising under that clause should be only at five-yearly intervals. I heard what the Minister said, that there might well be occasions when an earlier report was made to Parliament, but is this not a matter of such significance and importance that the obligation should be met annually? Food security is a strategic requirement of every Government; this Government should recognise that.
The Deputy Speaker
Before the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, I should advise the House that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will now speak as the first speaker in the second section of the Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill and before the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.
Lord Trees (CB) [V]
My Lords, this Bill is of colossal importance. It will involve a revolution in our countryside and affect our food supply, the environment, the rural economy and the lives of many thousands of people. I have never before had so many emails from the public about amending a Bill. Thus, it is regrettable that we are given such little time to scrutinise it in the House.
That said, there is much to welcome in the Bill, but it also raises major questions. I will focus on those pertaining to animal health and welfare and the sustainability of livestock farming, notably of cattle and sheep.
The Bill proposes support for
“protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock”.
As a vet, I welcome this. While it is intrinsically the ethical thing to do, it also addresses other key goals in the Bill, notably increasing productivity, safeguarding food security and mitigating climate change. Proper control of enteric worms in sheep, for example, can reduce greenhouse gases by 10% per unit of production. It would however be helpful to know more about how this support will be delivered, what the baseline is, and how improvement will be measured. I ask the Minister to answer those questions, if need be in writing.
Cattle and sheep farming are a pillar of the rural economy, particularly in our upland areas, and help maintain the countryside we love. But there are more than just aesthetic or sentimental reasons to value this activity. Cattle and sheep turn grass into products that we can eat, and which provide wholesome, nutritious food, contributing to our food security. Cattle and sheep are maintained at high standards of welfare and husbandry, from birth to slaughter. The use of antibiotics is minimal, and only for disease control. In the UK, across all animals, antibiotic use has fallen by 53% in recent years, and is well below the O’Neill commission target. What about greenhouse gases? Data from the FAO shows that UK cattle emit 75% less CO2 and methane per kilogram of meat than the global average. Finally, grazing animals put back into the soil nutrients and essential fibre.
Our grazing livestock enterprises are not only important for our rural economy and the maintenance of our countryside but are incomparably good for animal welfare, compatible with afforestation and initiatives to improve biodiversity, which I welcome, and produce food in a much more environmentally friendly way than many other global systems—think of cattle reared on cleared rainforest. Yet this aspect of our farming is most vulnerable to the reduction in direct payments. If we allow the importation of livestock products without requiring the same high level of animal welfare, environmental standards and food safety that we demand of our own farmers, we risk destroying our indigenous system. This would be to export poor welfare and poor environmental standards, and would be deleterious to climate change mitigation globally. It would be a classic example of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.
I would like to hear from the Minister how the Government will respond to calls either to enshrine legal minimum standards in the Bill, or to establish a trade, food and farming commission, to which a former Secretary of State was committed, and what powers it might have.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Welcome back, my Lords. We resume debate on the Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill. The first speaker I will call is the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
We do not seem to be connecting with the noble Lord, so I shall call the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, I must thank my noble friend the Minister and his officials for the time they have spent briefing us on the interpretation of the Bill. I also declare my interest as a hill farmer and livestock breeder in Scotland.
The legislation before the House has not been shy in hiding that it is purely an enabling Bill for the Secretary of State. Fortunately, it allows us a fair bit of scrutiny but, at the same time, I am struck by the absence of any hint of common frameworks for the devolved Administrations. In April 2019, the Government reckoned that there were 21 policy areas where negotiation was needed on common frameworks. Can the Minister say in how many of those areas frameworks have been achieved and how many more are left in consideration?
One thing that has obviously been put to one side in the Bill is any sense of a common framework for carcass classification, which, given the quantities of the product that are traded between the devolved components of the UK, would seem like an obvious area for consideration. What effort will be made to achieve some common direction here? The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, pointed out the missing Dimbleby review of food policy. It is not easy to make sense of the finer points of an agricultural Bill without a clear assessment of the current role that both agriculture and food are expected to play.
The present message coming through to me is that farmers are being clearly told that we must guard the purity of any water and contribute to the national target for net zero carbon emissions, but much of the other side of the equation is missing. Unless there is a scientific breakthrough, there can be no doubt that this will mean a loss of land for productive capacity, and it is hard to see that happening without a loss of farm units and national self-sufficiency. The upside of Brexit is supposed to be trade. The farmers in this country would be very ready to compete but their basic request is for a level playing field.
I think that we all received the joint letter from the Secretaries of State saying how the Government promise to maintain our high standards, but they have already rejected the opportunity to put those on the face of the Bill. If the standards that we wish for come to be seen in any way as restrictive to trade, I am still puzzled to know how they will be enforceable in the face of any WTO charge. The boundaries that we are trying to maintain do not infringe any sanitary or phytosanitary issues. I hope that the Minister will make it plainer to us what the Government would like to see.
Another factor that we are dealing with centres around trading with the United States. We are in the middle of a drive for agriculture to contribute to net zero carbon equivalence. Money and research are going into this topic on both sides of the Atlantic and, in the US, much of it is to do with achieving faster growth rates and using additives that are not allowed under EU rules. The effect of this will be that United States beef could claim a lower carbon footprint than we can achieve in this country, especially if the US can find an ecological way of transporting it.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My apologies for the disruption to services, but I am afraid that my computer went down completely just before I was called. I record my warmest appreciation to everybody who has worked so hard to make sure that I am able to join the debate— thank you. My relevant interests are all unremunerated and are in the register. I should perhaps specifically mention that I am a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on National Parks and a vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks.
While there is a great deal to be welcomed in this Bill, and the Minister is personally to be congratulated on the part he has played in bringing it before us, there is still a great deal to be put right. Too much is aspirational or only indicative. With teeth and sufficient scope, ELMS could prove a significant step forward. Does the Minister therefore not agree that this must inescapably entail more effective alignment of the Bill with the Climate Change Act and Paris Agreement?
We need practical provision to meet the challenge of food security and muscular methods of enforcement to ensure that public payments for public goods are really delivered and not just a theory. We need specific identification of such public goods: for example, quality of air and soil, reduction of pollution, well-being of uplands, provision of our vital precious landscapes, enhancement and development of woodland and remaining wilderness, peat bogs, the countryside in general, public access to that countryside and rights of way, and urgent regeneration of biodiversity—plants, animals, insects and wildlife. As has been mentioned by several noble Lords, we need stringent regulation of imported foodstuffs, to make certain that our higher standards are not in any way undermined, not least in any trade deal with the United States. We should also spell out and reinforce the responsibilities and duties of the national parks, areas of outstanding national beauty and other special sites in developing a complementary policy in these spheres.
The National Trust has reminded us that soil degradation in England and Wales cost the economy £1.2 billion per year, that between 2009 and 2014 the distribution of British bee species declined by 49% and that farmland birds—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
May I remind the noble Lord, Lord Judd, of the speaking time limit?
Lord Judd [V]
My Lords, it would be sad if this potentially very significant Bill were to become, in the end, just another recycling of good intentions. It needs muscle and teeth. This House must now get down to the task of providing that muscle and teeth. That is very much our responsibility in the weeks and months ahead.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to speak at Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill. As we have heard, it is the first major reform of agricultural policy for many years. As we form new relationships, it will determine new systems to support our farmers and growers and protect the environment. What is most important for agriculture is to maintain high standards of quality. Our aims should be standards at least as good as those of the European Union, if not better, and that we maintain food security.
There is no benefit for the UK in our farmers and growers seeking to deregulate, lower standards and take part in a race to the bottom. We want the highest possible standards for food produced and consumed in the UK. We also need to ensure that where we export food, it is recognised as some of the best in the world. I support my noble friend Lady Mallalieu’s point that Ministers’ welcome commitments should be in the Bill. I cannot understand why they are not prepared to do that.
I pay tribute to our farmers and growers and their work during the Covid-19 crisis. They have worked with others in the supply chain to keep food on the nation’s table. I support the aim of the Bill to provide public money for public good but, as my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone said, this must be for doing real public good and not a continuation of the old regime in all but name.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, confirmed that there is no possibility of chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-injected beef being imported and allowed to be consumed in the UK. It is good to hear that, but can he go further and confirm that, in all the food that we produce and import in the UK, there is no possibility of standards being any lower than those of the EU and that, in fact, the Government intend to go further and, where possible, introduce even higher standards? Will he confirm that, in looking for those higher standards, there will be no possibility of unintentionally weakening standards? The weakening of standards of imported foods would devastate the livelihoods of our farmers and growers and increase the risk to the general population.
I very much support the aims of the Bill to support and regenerate biodiversity and to support public understanding of the environment. Will the Minister set out for the House how he sees that being achieved? Further, will he outline how he sees the powers of the Bill helping to prevent, reduce and protect us from environmental hazards, such as flooding, which have been more and more of a problem in recent years?
Also, will the noble Lord set out how he sees public access to the countryside being maintained and improved? Will he confirm that farmers and growers will be able to receive financial assistance to create new public paths and make improvements to existing routes to enable more people to get outdoors and enjoy our wonderful countryside? The Bill should work to help our precious path network be better maintained. Where farmers and growers are encouraged to do that, they should be properly rewarded for doing so.
I am conscious that I have asked a number of questions. If the noble Lord cannot answer them today, I would appreciate a letter being sent to me and to other noble Lords, and a copy being put in the Library of the House.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, we are having a very long and complicated discussion on a Bill that is a framework. It is long and complicated because it is a framework. We basically have a series of good intentions here—and good intentions are the road to hell. If we do not get some clarification during the Bill’s passage, noble Lords will have a very busy time voting. I think the Minister knows that and he might want to have a chat with the person who drafted the Bill. Clause 1(1) goes up to paragraph (j); agriculture is first mentioned at paragraph (i).
The Bill talks about how we are to deliver all these wonderful things for the environment. How will we do that? The delivery system is potentially there: it is those who farm and work the land at the moment. They do not know, or are unsure, how they will be supported. British agriculture has needed support from the state, either multinationally or by the nation itself, to make itself productive since about 1870. It was called the great agricultural depression, when the steam engine opened up the prairie and the pampas to production. We have been in decline since then. We cannot compete. It is historically proven. There is a lovely document in the House of Commons Library that shows this.
How will we make sure that the farmer is there to deliver the public good for public money? We must make sure that they know what they are doing. Farmers are currently concentrated on food production. That is what they do, that is what they have been trained to do and that is the culture. To move away from that, they will need the support and encouragement of the state, and a degree of certainty. At the moment, that is not there.
We have another ritual dance when a Minister says, “I’m not going to do that”, but it is not in the legislation. We then come back to the Minister and say, “Yes, but you won’t be there for ever, although you have a wonderful attitude and we know you wouldn’t do it yourself.” It has always been true and it has always been there. We need something in the Bill that defines what we will do here and how the farmer should be supported.
To put it bluntly, we have had many sets of briefing come in. The NFU states the worries and problems of food producers. We should be able to carry on doing this; that is what we do. Then I got one from the Ramblers’ Association that says: if we are supposed to be providing access to the countryside as a public good, why do we not make sure that we pay landowners to make sure that there are public paths to be used, with all the public health advantages et cetera? If the farmer is there and told that they will be supported, that might just work. We might get gates and solid paths around the edge of the fields. If we do not know what is going on, we will not get interaction from the farming community and those who work the land. We have to try to build that trust and give it a firm basis. The fact that a Minister thinks that it is a good idea and will not change it will not help, very often.
Ministers generally last a couple of years in post and civil servants about the same length of time, but planning on this has to be decades long to really get it going. Will the Minister bear in mind, when amendments are moved during the passage of the Bill, that that is the sort of encouragement we will need to make sure that our delivery system, the farming community, is much more compliant?
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to all the farmers who have suffered during this pandemic, coming on top of last winter’s floods. Ambridge was slow off the mark, but after the initial shock, most farmers responded well. Many have found alternative local means of survival. They are complaining about lockdown less than others because they have to be outdoors, feeding the nation, but they rightly complain about some aspects of the Bill.
I come from a generation horrified by the food mountains and fortress Europe of the 1970s, with the obvious inequalities in farming, the waste and the lack of protection for developing countries. I belonged to organisations that campaigned against these things. We can now say that they succeeded, although there is always more to be done. The UK, among others, shifted the argument away from deserving French farmers to a wider demand for a greener Europe less dependent on subsidies. Here we are, still benefiting from the old system but gradually dismantling it at last in favour of policies that help the environment and the planet.
Since then, my wife and I have inherited largely tenanted farmland, and have come to see the other side of the picture: the continuing importance of direct farm payments in the family farm economy. The Bill is necessary but the gradual phasing out of these payments is absolutely essential, especially when you think about how much agriculture has been set back by the virus.
I will support any Lords amendments on standards and welfare. Noble Lords may have noticed that MPs from the West Country have been heading such amendments. They are no more than common sense coming from MPs who represent people who live and breathe farming. They also reflect the views of a large number of farming organisations, as has already been mentioned.
I read Victoria Prentis’s response to those amendments. She argued that they are “well-meaning” but will have “unintended consequences” and said that “all EU standards” will become part of domestic law by next year. These are merely reassurances. How can she know that? She said that the proposed new clauses would disrupt our food supplies and risk our potato and whisky exports. How can she know that? After the transition, anything could happen. We are already deep in negotiation with the US. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and other noble Lords said—remembering TTIP and the EU’s own battles—we will be under considerable pressure to lower standards.
Vets are also concerned about the preventive use of antibiotics in farming, which is due to be banned in 2022. When George Eustice describes US animal welfare as “woefully deficient”, he is thinking of mass medication with antibiotics. I can understand differences between Ministers on these issues but this may be one that Defra got right and the Trade Secretary got wrong. I read the joint letter.
On forestry, I have sympathy with the successive government attempts to combine better management with more respect for wildlife and the environment—excluding squirrels, of course. Nowadays, there is no shortage of jargon in the Forestry Commission’s draft woodland plan.
What about the lack of investment? With climate change, there was euphoria about trees saving the planet —many organisations took advantage of that—but even before the virus came along, any enthusiasm in the Treasury had vanished. Where has the money gone? Perhaps too much goes into deer fencing, planning for deer fencing and consultancy of every kind.
Finally, I expect that the Minister has had a briefing from the Ramblers. The association makes a lot of demands but it has a point about funding for rights of way. As an owner, I have generally found RoW officers extremely co-operative, but the machinery seems to turn slowly. Can we have an assurance that rights-of-way matching grants will be more generous and more forthcoming?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests in the register and express my total disappointment that my noble friend Lord Morrow could not participate in this debate, even though he had prepared for it.
Under the Bill, the Government would be required to report on the state of the nation’s food security every five years. Surely this is a relevant and important measure in the light of the empty shelves and food queues that we have experienced in recent months—something that I had never experienced before in my lifetime. However, I am convinced that farmers throughout the United Kingdom believe that this should be strengthened in the Bill and made a yearly requirement instead of a five-yearly one. By doing so, the Government and producers would have a clear understanding of how much of our nation’s food comes from domestic producers, thereby assisting us in our endeavours to be as self-sufficient as possible. I believe that this would be in the national interest, and I encourage the farming industry to be both stable and efficient in future.
With Brexit, the United Kingdom is fundamentally reassessing its trade relationship with partners in the European Union and the rest of the world. I have no doubt that many see major opportunities for the United Kingdom but undoubtedly there are also challenges. These trade negotiations coincide with one of the most serious crises that the world has faced in a generation, in the form of the coronavirus, and the ongoing challenges of climate change and biodiversity decline. A future trade policy that undermines our farmers will mean that a common goal of a more prosperous, sustainable and nature-friendly food and farming sector will be made much harder to achieve, and our nation’s already declining food self-sufficiency and security will continue to be eroded. The UK will also have missed an opportunity to set out its stall as being serious about tackling its global footprint and being at the forefront of sustainable production and climate-friendly farming across the world.
If UK farming is to face a future as a vital strategic sector, producing the food that we eat and meeting the challenges of climate change, food and security and the high expectations of the UK public in the way that we treat our farm animals and wildlife, the Bill must not undermine that very goal by allowing in food imports that fail to meet its high ideals. As in Northern Ireland, farmers and growers across the United Kingdom are very proud of their high standards of production. It is important that UK farmers are not in any way unfairly disadvantaged through the imposition of high costs, direct or indirect, that are not shared by overseas competitors exporting food to the United Kingdom. It is therefore imperative that the Agriculture Bill is amended to ensure that agri-food imports are produced to environmental animal welfare and food safety standards that are at least equivalent to those required of producers in the United Kingdom, which are so highly valued by the British public.
The British Government stated that they had no intention of allowing the UK’s high standards of production to be undermined after the UK left the European Union, but that will be the outcome of allowing the import of food produced at a lower standard. UK consumers will be left hostage to food on the market that will be unsafe and our UK farming industry seriously undermined. If the Government fail to amend the Bill accordingly, I believe they will be failing not only our food-producing industry but the UK consumer.
Lord Jopling (Con) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my farming interests.
I must say that when I read the Bill I came to the conclusion that others have come to: I found it principally focused on environmental issues rather than farming issues. Of course I regard the environmental issues as vital; indeed, I remind the House that I was the first Minister ever to put agricultural chemicals under statutory control, and I was the instigator of the very successful environmentally sensitive area scheme that was later adopted throughout the CAP. However, this is an Agriculture Bill and, as others have said, it is, frankly, vague on the economic future of British agriculture.
I first worked in the industry as the 1947 Act was taking effect. I remind the House that it was introduced because, as a result of the war, we were perilously short of homegrown food—hence food rationing continued for many years after 1945. In the early 1970s, before we joined the EC, it was succeeded by support for the agricultural industry through tariffs on imports that matched the CAP arrangements that continue until today. Of course, that has been supplemented by the direct payments arrangements. It is strange that the objectives for agriculture in both the 1947 Act and the common agricultural policy bear significant similarities—the objectives of supporting food production and self-sufficiency—but the Bill, frankly, does not perpetuate these worthy aims.
True, the Government have committed to
“guarantee the current annual budget to farmers in every year of the Parliament.”
I welcome that—and ask the Minister if he will enlarge on that pledge—but after that period, at the end of the Parliament, the future is vague.
There is a question that worries me that I have been putting for four years. In our Brexit negotiations with the EU and other trading nations, we seem likely to move to a situation in which the industry is kicked in the teeth twice over, with the prospect of cheap foodstuffs being imported free of tariffs and, frankly, with dodgy safety guarantees. For instance, the Government tell me there is no scientific test to tell whether beef has been implanted with hormones, yet our post-Brexit exports to the European Union would have to jump its common external tariff.
Given this very serious double threat—together with the phasing out of the direct payments scheme, which is crucial to the farm incomes of a great number of farmers, particularly in the marginal and upland areas—it is hardly surprising that farmers view the future with anxiety and a sharp lack of confidence. The Government really must as soon as possible address this uncertainty and give us details of what the ELMS will provide. We need to know this now.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
We have been in lockdown now for over 11 weeks, and most people have remained in their immediate locality. For those able to do so, exercise and getting some fresh air has been an important ingredient of each day. Walking has staged something of a comeback, whether along local streets, in local parks or—for those fortunate enough to be close to more open countryside—along local footpaths, as people simply enjoy the pleasure of being out and about in such an environment. On top of the constraints of the lockdown, the good weather has clearly been a key factor.
From what I have seen in my locality, it looks as though numbers of people have discovered at least some public and permissive footpaths in their neighbourhood that they were not previously aware existed and have greatly enjoyed the pleasure and opportunity of more extensive walking in their own area than they had previously fully appreciated were there and available. This is something we should seek to build on as one of the few pluses from the constraints of the lockdown and is surely in line with government objectives of promoting walking.
I raise this in the context of this Bill because, as my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark said, one of its objectives is to protect and improve access to the countryside. Agriculture accounts for 70% of land use in the UK—land that contains a significant proportion of the nation’s paths. It is important that access to our countryside for all should be safeguarded, promoted and, where possible, extended. We do not want to see our network of public footpaths and permissive paths diminish. Indeed, we should be looking to grow the network.
In saying that, I appreciate that there can be tensions between those who want to visit and enjoy our countryside and those who earn their livelihood from the land. On the one hand, some owners of land or their tenants do rather less than they might to maintain ready and easy access to footpaths. On the other hand, there are people who cause problems for those who earn their livelihood from the land by not keeping to public footpaths and permissive paths, even where they are clearly marked and signposted—an issue made even more of a problem if they have a pet animal with them, usually a dog, which they fail to keep under control.
Can the Minister say how the Government intend to use the provisions of the Bill, not least with its focus on public money for public goods, to promote and further extend responsible, realistic access to our countryside for all? That objective must surely also be in keeping with the cross-government goals of improving the overall health and well-being of the nation. Is it the Government’s intention that farmers will be provided with proper financial support where they are making improvements to the accessibility of existing routes or paths on their land or where they provide new paths of value to the public: for example, to avoid the need to walk on adjacent country roads with fast-moving traffic or to link up existing paths? Is it also the Government’s intention that those who receive public payment should be expected to fulfil legal duties to keep paths on their land clear? There is also the important issue of providing financial support for improving access to our countryside for those less physically able, including wheelchair users.
I would really appreciate a response from the Minister on the issues and questions I have just raised, either when he replies to the debate or subsequently.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
I was a party to the 34th report of the Delegated Powers Committee in the last Session, reporting on the previous, abortive Agriculture Bill. The committee viewed that Bill as a major transfer of powers from the EU to the Executive, bypassing Parliament and the devolved legislatures. A skeletal framework means that there is no policy content. That Bill contained some 40 separate regulation-making powers, exercisable for the indefinite future and with no sunset clause. To cap it all, the Minister could create undefined criminal offences with a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment.
As the current committee makes clear in its 13th report, some of those criticisms have been met in the redrafting of the Bill, and we should be grateful for that. One important issue is that Defra has recanted on its desire to send farmers to prison and has reduced the proposed penalties for such criminal offences as it may dream up merely to an unlimited fine. Nevertheless, although there are desirable improvements, this remains a skeleton Bill, as the current Delegated Powers Committee points out and as my noble friend Lord Addington mentioned a moment ago. At some unknown future time, the Minister will slot a package of policies into this frame, as and when he has worked them out. He will introduce a series of unamendable SIs for minimum scrutiny and, save for one issue only, with no consultation.
The Government’s intentions with regard to the future shape of British agriculture as a whole remain obscure. We see it through a glass darkly, not face to face; as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, it is vague. Clause 4 requires the Government to place before Parliament a multiannual plan, covering seven years in the first instance and setting out the Government’s strategic priorities—but this is for England. Will the multiannual plan even consider its implications upon Wales and Scotland? What about the relationships generally between Scotland, Wales and England—a point raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose? Three separate agricultural regimes will be developing in Great Britain. How will this internal market operate or co-operate? What will be the rules and how will they be determined? My noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem called for Scottish participation in fashioning these rules, and equally, there must be Welsh.
If in Wales we want to support upland family farms through generous subsidies, does the undercutting of Cumbrian sheep prices cause any problem? If the English Government want to subsidise, say, cheese production in Cheddar or Cheshire, what happens in Caerphilly? How level will the playing field be?
Since the border with the EU has now been firmly placed some 30 sea miles west of Holyhead, I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, in also asking how Northern Ireland agricultural production will be integrated with the rest of the United Kingdom, forms or no forms.
I have to say that these are terrible times for farmers in Wales. They are shortly to be cut off from their European markets, losing direct access for three-quarters of their exports. The pandemic has lost them supplementary income from, for example, restored farm cottages and buildings from which they can extract at least some income, simply from the view. They separately, and desperately, need support and an injection of confidence in the future. This Bill will not assist them.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as listed on the record. I have farmed as a tenant in Northumberland all my life. Much has been said already about the significance of this Bill: to take a blank sheet of paper and have the opportunity to shape how our countryside is going to be managed for the next two, three or four decades is a huge privilege and an immense responsibility. The Bill must be fit for purpose. The direction of travel as outlined in it is absolutely correct.
In 2001, I was responsible for a report on the future of food and farming, and on page 74 I wrote these words:
“Public funds should be refocused on public goods.”
I am therefore delighted that after nearly 20 years, we are making progress. This Bill, along with the Environment Bill, present an opportunity to create an exciting new vision for the management of our precious countryside. There is huge ambition within our farming and food sectors to re-establish ourselves as world leaders in agri-food science and to be innovators in sustainable food systems; to be renowned for our health, safety and high welfare standards and ethically produced food; to have consumers both here at home and abroad who value what we produce; and to be connected with the countryside and the value and the benefits that it delivers. We can clean up the water and the air and we can improve the quality of our soils and help to capture a lot more carbon. We can help to restore habitats and deliver a wide range of vital outcomes, targeted on a geographical basis. We can help to mitigate the impact of climate change. Why should we not be first past the post in achieving net zero carbon emissions? We can deliver these outcomes if the schemes are designed correctly and if the Treasury recognises the huge potential of investing far greater than the current level of spend in the countryside.
I would like to address three concerns and to support many more which have been referenced in this debate. First, we will not realise this exciting ambition if our market and our confidence are undermined by the importing of cheap food, negotiated in hastily signed trade deals which are not subject to our standards. Repeated reassurances by Ministers, even in recent letters, that this will not happen are not enough. We need a commitment in the Bill or a standards commission.
Secondly, I turn to the proposed timetable. Seven years of transition looked like a sensible approach when it was announced four years ago, but the distractions which have taken place since put that in serious doubt. The pilot ELMS have just got going. Farmers know that their current support systems are going to be dismantled but they have no idea how the new schemes will be designed. They have no knowledge of the definition of the value of the public goods that they will be encouraged to deliver, and there is much to do. The scale of the change is unparalleled and time is short. Farmers need advice and time to make correct decisions about their future. We are not ready. If the Government are wedded to the transitional process which is to start next year, an additional year should be added to allow a smoother transition—eight years instead of seven. The gap between the demolition of the BPS and the availability of ELMS in 2024 is a serious problem, so my plea to the Minister is, “Mind the gap.” It is better that we take time and succeed in delivering this exciting new programme, than rush it and fail. There is too much at stake.
Thirdly, despite the focus on productivity, there is no reference in the Bill to skills and training, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Carrington. Having a highly skilled and professional industry is essential to improving productivity, reducing carbon emissions, maintaining high welfare standards and the successful application of ELMS. This should be included in the Bill.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, I regret the fact that there is no impact assessment attached to the Bill. I also support concerns that have been expressed about tenant farmers, and will raise these in Committee.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I remind the noble Lord of the speaking time.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]
In closing, I thank the Minister for his willingness to discuss the Bill in his usual open and friendly manner. It is appreciated.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. I welcome this Agriculture Bill, executing as it does the most major reform of the industry for over 50 years. No doubt it may prove challenging during transition, but the Bill will help build a brighter, better, greener future for British farming, clearing away the rigidities, complexities and perversities of the CAP. Moving away from a focus on the amount of land ownership to outcomes, it will be a catalyst and a driver to prevent any further decline in our self-sufficiency. The Bill will make improvements and create more robust and resilient domestic agricultural and horticultural sectors, giving scientists, farmers, plant breeders and animal breeders the same access to new gene editing technologies as the rest of the world.
I welcome within the new framework the important inclusion of environmental protection and the health and welfare of livestock and plants. After years of being subjected to the rules of the CAP, our environment has suffered. Policy which has been implemented in England, for instance, has discouraged tree planting by farmers, and of course agroforestry is not a short-term investment, as forests and woodlands are vital to supporting valuable habitats which have been eroded in the course of different farming directives and quotas. Consequently, farmland bird populations have suffered.
The health of our soil, on which future food production depends—quality and quantity—has been eroded. This should have significant importance in the Bill. There is much greater emphasis on removing certain practices and improving sustainable farming practices, including removing the dependency on pesticides, to ensure the protection of not only soil but water and air, as climate change is reflected in our ecosystems coming under increased pressure.
I welcome the commitment to increase food security, and to improve transparency and fairness in the agri-food supply chain, together with increased protection for agriculture producers selling to business purchasers and the protection of market standards. Of importance in the Bill is the requirement for regular reporting to Parliament on food security, including on where food comes from, its availability and the resilience of the food chain.
With overall annual funding remaining at current levels for this Parliament, and with a transitional period to phase out direct payments in England, we will maximise the potential of land for food production and the delivery of public goods. To deliver all this, greater support has to be given to those trying to access jobs and to helping new, talented entrants get into the sector, ensuring that they will be the future custodians.
With agriculture occupying over 70% of the land mass, investment and growth is necessary in our rural economy, not only for food production but for diversified industries such as renewable energy, tourism and the manufacturing sector, which generates £121 billion for the UK economy. Investment in new technology and equipment will also be necessary, to reduce costs, drive up food production and increase profitability.
I cannot stress enough the importance of having in the Bill a provision that all food imported into the UK must have been produced to standards equivalent to ours. Endorsing high standards of animal welfare must be embedded in the Bill. The same is true of the environmental protections associated with good food production that are required of our producers, and there must be an ability to ban imports that do not meet these ethical high standards. I will be so pleased when shipments of live animals are banned. This is not protectionism; it is about welcoming future trade deals, so long as they are on fair and level terms.
Finally, there is a need to keep customers well informed, with attractive information and labelling, so that they can easily make informed choices. In supporting our industry, from farm to plate, we all can gain.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I do not have any interests in the register in relation to agriculture these days, but I have a lifelong interest in agriculture and farming, having grown up on my father’s small tenant sheep farm back in the 1960s and 1970s. Even now, I acutely remember the onslaught of the European Union in the mid-1970s and the way in which the common agricultural policy, even on small farms such as ours, almost immediately started to have an impact on the long-term decision-making of the farmers in our immediate community. While the European Union has been good for the UK in so many ways—obviously, it is important to maintain and, in my opinion, improve the high standards mentioned by other noble Lords in this debate—nobody should mourn the loss of the common agricultural policy. This is an opportunity for us to set our own agricultural policy and legislation in the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister said in May, shortly after his return from hospital and when looking to the future out of lockdown, that we need
“a fairer, greener and more resilient global economy”.
He said that we need “to build back better” and that there is
“every need for us to work together to get our shared goals back on track, including … the Sustainable Development Goals”.
Those are the bold aims set out by our Prime Minister, and where better to start than in the Fisheries Bill and the Agriculture Bill that your Lordships’ House will debate over these coming weeks and months?
I was very pleased to hear the Minister’s commitment on behalf of the Government to link this legislation and our onward agricultural policies with the target of zero emissions. I would, however, be interested in how he sees this new legislation, and the policies that the Government will pursue, linking the agriculture and environment strategies to the sustainable development goals. It will be interesting to explore that in Committee and later debates on the Bill.
The second issue I want to raise is the relationship with the devolved nations. It is welcome that this newly drafted Bill makes appropriate amendments and rectifies some of the concerns over the earlier Bill, published in 2017, particularly on the red meat levy but on other issues as well. The Bill rightly respects Scotland’s autonomous jurisdiction in agriculture. Although agricultural policy and agricultural funding may be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Government, there will be aspects of UK government legislation and policy, not least in relation to the operation of the internal market and on other standards, where what happens in Scotland, England, Wales and, indeed, Northern Ireland will have an impact on each other. The co-ordination of those policies and decisions will be vital.
Therefore, will the Minister say something more in his conclusions about how the Government see decision-making operating in the UK context, where the Bill does not relate specifically to English legislation but to UK-wide legislation? How will the UK Government ensure that, in determining the future steps in that legislation, the different devolved Governments will be involved properly—on a consensual basis, we hope—in helping to determine the way forward? If we can achieve that at the same time as securing higher standards and working towards the sustainable development goals, the Bill will be a very worthy transition from where we have been.
Lord German (LD) [V]
My Lords, I echo the views of many speakers in this Second Reading debate: we need to ensure that imported foodstuffs do not undercut the high standards of UK food production. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he supports the view of Liam Fox, who said that putting such matters in the Bill would mean that
“the USA would walk away”
from a trade deal with the UK. Having had responsibility for constructing a trade deal with the USA, he may well know how the Americans were thinking so, like the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I think Liam Fox gave the game away: support chlorinated chicken and the like, otherwise no deal with the USA is possible. Does the Minister agree?
I wish to address the devolution aspects of the Bill, particularly as they concern Wales. In Wales, direct payments to farmers account for a much higher proportion of farm profits than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Direct payments account for an average of 81% of Welsh farm profits. This is very understandable, given the small family farm and upland nature of the farming industry in Wales: 40% of all Welsh lamb produced is exported to the European Union, so Welsh agriculture needs a trade deal with the EU more than anything else, and the Welsh Government should be part of that negotiation.
The changes envisaged in the Bill to direct payments in England are clearly not wholly appropriate to Wales. There are some welcome signs that the Bill recognises this fundamental difference, but there are equally some areas where the current level of independent action accorded to the Welsh Government is not clearly carried forward. Like the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and my noble friend Lord Thomas, fundamentally I wait for a framework agreement between all parts of the United Kingdom that encompasses the wide areas of the Bill. For example, a framework agreement is needed to provide a replacement for the state aid regime. It is important that the Bill is able to accommodate any agreements reached in due course by the UK and the devolved Governments in respect of the common frameworks, which are to replace the areas where EU law intercepted with devolved matters. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what progress has been made on the proposed framework agreement.
There remain outstanding matters of difference between the Welsh and UK Governments, which require resolution if the legislative consent Motion in the Welsh Assembly is to be passed. In particular, what is the UK Government’s view on the disagreement surrounding Clauses 40 to 42, on the World Trade Organization? I understand that some bilateral agreements have been made regarding those clauses. Will the Minister provide me with a copy of that bilateral agreement and place a copy in the Library? I am concerned that written intergovernmental agreements sitting behind powers in the Bill will undermine the ability to change in the future. Governments change, and written agreements, which are not recognised in the Bill, cannot provide the certainty that the legislation requires.
Concerns also arise on powers between the UK and Welsh Governments in the areas of the identification and traceability of animals, agricultural tenancies and the regulation of organic products. Will the Minister, in his response or in writing, outline what progress has made in each of these areas?
Most powers over agriculture are currently devolved, and I hope that the Bill will respect that level of devolution in this important agricultural field.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest in beef and sheep farming in Scotland.
This is a framework Bill, enabling the principles but not providing the detail. It still leaves farmers facing a high degree of uncertainty. I want briefly to set out what I see as the key needs of livestock farmers following Brexit. First, they need a market for their products. More than one-third of British lamb is exported to the EU. Without a free trade agreement, there is a very real risk that that market will effectively be lost. It is frankly not credible to suggest that it can be replaced by other markets on any realistic timescale. The loss of this market is an existential threat to upland sheep farmers. Will the Minister tell us how the Government propose to help livestock farmers in the event of no deal?
Secondly, farmers need fair competition. We are, rightly, subject to a wide range of environmental, welfare and other regulations. Other countries do not all face the same rules. This issue is often confused, sometimes deliberately, with food safety standards, and the Government have committed to not reducing them. However, it is not just about food safety standards. UK farmers are not frightened by fair competition, but it would be unfair to expect them to compete against imports from countries that have lower environmental, welfare and other standards, and therefore lower costs, even if our food safety standards are met, so I greatly regret that the Government rejected the amendment in the other place that would have put their manifesto commitments into law.
Thirdly, farmers need predictability. Farmers have faced uncertainty for some years now and, even with the Bill, we do not know how the various financing arrangements will work. Farming is a long-term business. If farmers are to invest, they need to be able to see how things will work into at least the medium term, and preferably longer. If the financing arrangements set out in the Bill turn out to be a series of short-term or one-off projects, rather than multi-year financing schemes, investment for the future will not be possible.
Fourthly, there is simplicity. We have heard about the shortcomings of the CAP, and I do not disagree, but it does have the merit of being relatively simple. In this Bill, we have a list of nine different purposes of financial assistance, many of which themselves have further subdivisions. It is easy to see how this could become extremely complicated, with an even heavier administrative and compliance burden on farmers than the CAP if it is not carefully planned and executed.
Finally, there is consistency. I started by declaring that I farm in Scotland. Agriculture is a devolved matter and we will have our own rules. But that introduces another concern, which a number of noble Lords have raised. When the UK was a member of the EU, our internal market was kept consistent by the umbrella framework of EU regulations. With that gone, we face the risk of different parts of the UK producing under different rules and different financing arrangements, potentially leading to unfair competition even within the UK. So it must make sense that the Government and the devolved assemblies agree a UK-wide framework to ensure that our internal market continues to work fairly.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests and to my membership of the Farmers’ Union of Wales. I am delighted to follow the comments made by the previous speaker.
The House knows of my opposition to Brexit, but it is happening, and probably on a no-deal basis, so we must mitigate its negative impact on agriculture. Clearly, new legislation must establish a framework for British agriculture, so Plaid Cymru does not oppose a Second Reading of this Bill. I do welcome three features of the Bill: the linking of funding to sustainable farming, the repatriation of the red meat levy, and the framework enabling the Welsh Government to bring forward their own legislation.
Agriculture is devolved, reflecting Wales’s special characteristics. It is essential that new arrangements facilitate Welsh farming’s ongoing viability, particularly Wales’s livestock and dairy sectors. But there are deeply worrying aspects of this Bill. Notwithstanding the Minister’s assurances today, I am extremely concerned at the absence on the face of the Bill of the means to uphold Britain’s food standards. It must be amended so that imported agricultural and food products fully conform to our existing animal health and welfare standards, and our plant health and environmental protection standards. The need for such safeguards has united agricultural unions, environmental campaigners and animal welfare lobbies.
The Conservative Party committed in its recent election manifesto that:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
Therefore, this House has every right to insist on having such safeguards on the face of the Bill. To claim that it is inappropriate to incorporate these provisions is curious. It ignores the fact that Clause 36 of the Bill specifies such an approach for imported organic foods.
The EU has for many years tried to set high standards for food production. The EU’s Food and Veterinary Office regularly inspects farms and processing plants in third countries. The EU has insisted on an equivalence on food entering the single market from countries with which it has struck a trade deal. It is totally unacceptable for us to facilitate a race to the bottom at a time when environmental, animal welfare and human health issues are at the top of the international agenda, reinforced by the coronavirus pandemic. What will the Government’s response be if this Bill goes through without such safeguards, but if the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments insist on such provision?
Will the Minister also confirm that nothing in this Bill relating to sustainable farming will be used to dissuade farmers from diversifying in order to maintain viable income levels, and that nothing in the Bill will be used to hinder farmers in supporting efforts to decarbonise our economy? Will the Minister also give an assurance that the creation of a British market will not be used to undermine initiatives taken by the Welsh Government to maximise local procurement and support local processing of food to gain maximum economic benefit locally from its production?
I shall raise issues at later stages concerning the mechanics of enabling Wales to control its own farming. For now, finally, will the Minister confirm that, under this Bill, the Governments of Wales and Scotland will be treated as equal partners with Westminster in all agricultural issues that have a UK or international dimension?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill, but none of us can be expected to discuss it during a pandemic. Indeed, going forward, the background against which we find ourselves will change our views about what is important to us.
Never have we been so grateful to farmers for making sure that our food retailers are well stocked during this uncertain period. It has highlighted the importance of sustainable, accessible and safe local food. As we move forward, our farmers want and deserve certainty about their future to enable them to carry on producing the high-quality food that we have all come to expect. However, that future must include continuing high welfare, food and environmental standards. Indeed, the Conservative manifesto stated:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
I welcome the letter that was sent this week by the Secretaries of State for Trade and Defra confirming that food standards will not be lowered during future trade deals. We need to hold them to this commitment.
Animal welfare is obviously a high priority going forward. The APGAW released a report yesterday emphasising the importance of local abattoirs, many of which have closed. They are central in supporting the rural economy, keeping our food local and upholding good animal welfare. As such, they should receive capital payments in our agricultural framework. Can the Minister reassure me on this point?
This is our chance to make sure that our voice is heard globally on welfare and food standards. With this Bill, we are looking at a new future. Farming can thrive and diversify, with strong market opportunities both at home and globally. Ahead of us can be an opening of new export markets for our farmers, and these trade deals can influence standards worldwide. To that end, I welcome Clause 17, which requires the Secretary of State to report every five years on food security and consumer confidence in food.
At long last, farmers in the UK are free from the constraints of the CAP. We can develop our own agricultural policy, leading to farmers producing more food in this country, which in turn will make us self-sufficient going forward. The future is most certainly “public money for public good”. As is often said, farmers are the custodians of our countryside, and the Bill enables financial assistance for environmental farm practices, along with support for agritech that will enhance productivity in a sustainable way. The Bill allows us to level up the rural economy, providing grants to improve productivity in farm businesses so that they can become both resilient and successful.
In conclusion, I thank the Minister for keeping us informed and for answering our queries before reaching this stage today.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. The nearest I can come to making a declaration of interest is that I live on the Isles of Scilly next to a farm which grows all kinds of vegetables and fruit, and which has pigs, cows and chickens. That farm is really suffering at the moment because of Brexit and transport costs, and the farmer has had to kill most of the pigs and chickens. That is just one example of the problems, mentioned by many noble Lords, of bringing forward this Bill at the same time as the coronavirus pandemic and Brexit. I support the key tests proposed by my noble friend Lord Grantchester regarding safe and traceable food, support for jobs, investment in research, and high standards. The Bill needs to deliver those.
On jobs, many noble Lords spoke about the need to improve skills for agricultural workers, but I believe that our immigration policy is putting the ongoing viability of many farmers at risk. Noble Lords will have read that several flights of workers from Bulgaria and Romania came in a month or so ago. None of them had social distancing on the plane. They were all exempt from the 14-day quarantine period, because there are no workers in this country. I enjoyed reading about the equivalent problem in Germany, where the chairman of their fruit and vegetable pickers association said that Germans are no longer the right shape to bend down and pick vegetables. I do not know what we will do, but the Government must set up some kind of long-term arrangement to ensure that there is a proper supply of seasonal workers in the sector and make them welcome.
On finance, I would welcome any scheme for agriculture that gives more support to local farmers and hill farmers, particularly those who have sheep. There is a double whammy here: I understand that in six months’ time, according to Professor Fiona Smith from the University of Warwick, if we do not get agreement on Brexit there will be a 51% duty on the export of sheepmeat to the European Union. How will farmers deal with this? It might be that the sheep can be exported elsewhere, but we ought to know a bit more about these things at this stage, with only six months before Brexit happens. The House needs a lot more time and much more detail.
My last point is that a lot of this traffic goes between the EU and the UK in trucks. There is still no border operating manual to tell operators and customers how they are supposed to move these goods, whether they are temperature-controlled fresh fruit and vegetables, meat or animals. Many of these journeys need phytosanitary controls. It is no good trucks queueing up for several days at Calais or Dover, because most of the product will be inedible or dead, sadly, before they get to the other side.
I hope the Minister will tell us a lot more about the information that operators and customers will need. I hope that he actually cares. I think that he does, but an awful lot of other people in the Government do not seem to care at all as long as we can get Brexit done and all our exports to the EU converted to the United States.
Lord Greaves (LD) [V]
This is a very important and huge Bill, with lots in it. I will concentrate on one tiny bit of it, Clause 1(1)(b), which provides that one of the purposes of financial assistance can be for
“supporting public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland or woodland and better understanding of the environment”.
Those are two important things. As a former geography teacher I could wax lyrical about understanding the environment, but I will talk about access. I declare my interests as vice-president of the Open Spaces Society and a patron of the British Mountaineering Council. I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on his sensible comments on this, and my noble friend Lord Addington, who I see is in his place, also made some extremely sensible and balanced comments.
The nation’s path network is a treasured asset that everyone should be able to enjoy. It is the primary way in which people access the outdoors and connect with nature. Going walking is the main physical activity that people do. It brings huge benefits to rural communities, local businesses and tourism, and it helps to improve our understanding of farming and the natural world. What happens as a result of the Bill will set the agenda for access to the countryside for years to come.
While the Bill says what may happen, it has no detail in it whatever—not even a broad framework—on how it will happen. If we assume that the ambition is to enable more people to access and enjoy the countryside, while at the same time rewarding land managers and farmers for undertaking the activities to achieve this, I think we really need more from the Government on how this will work, particularly how they will work with local access authorities to help achieve this. The local access authorities and highways authorities that look after public rights of way are responsible for producing public rights of way improvement plans—they are not flavour of the moment—and for dealing with problems when a footpath is blocked or falls into the beck and making sure that the infrastructure for things like stiles exists.
The common agricultural policy was not all bad. It included cross-compliance which, in respect of rights of way, was useful to local enforcement and access authorities—they could use it to persuade recalcitrant landowners to provide the minimum standards necessary. It is not clear how this will be replaced under the new system.
One major absence from the aims of this Bill is landscape. One of the main public by-products of goods from farming is our wonderful British landscape in all parts of the UK. People think that they are wild landscapes, but they are not; they are the result of land management and farming. This needs attention in the Bill.
The Earl of Erroll (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have an interest to declare as I am now running my late wife’s farm until we get probate, and maybe for a bit longer. I am very glad to see in this Bill that there will be continuing support for farmers, as many have a very low net income. People always point at the ones who are bigger and better off, but they are also probably very efficient.
Many noble Lords have spoken most eloquently about standards and their intentions are good, so I want to make some observations about the barriers that put many farmers off the environmental schemes. We have had environmental schemes here since the early pilot schemes and the stewardship schemes, so we have been doing it for a very long time. Environmental protection is important, but it must be balanced with food production. The Secretary-General of the United Nations said yesterday:
“Our food systems are failing, and the COVID-19 pandemic is making things worse.”
That is at the global scale, but it is something we need to remember. If we get this wrong, we will not be able to feed people.
The real trouble is that compliance with rules costs money. Our producers need protection from competition from countries where they cut corners and to which we have effectively exported our consciences, so that we do not see where they are broken. We think we can do this by having strict rules on imports, but people launder import papers—it is amazing how things can move around so that they appear to be okay. Most realistically, we must continue to support our home production and underpin it in some way, as we have been doing with the basic farm payment system.
If we want to see good environmental outcomes—we all do; I do very much—we must remember that rules do not often recognise weather. They are very inflexible about certain operations, because very often they just look at one single issue of what is being protected. They also do not take account of local variations in flora and fauna and the normal behaviour of these things. Blanket provision for the whole country, from the lowlands of the south of England to the northern Scottish highlands, are often too crude—seasons move and things ripen at different times.
Inspections should establish whether a land manager is trying to get it right overall or whether they are taking the mickey. Inspectors ought to look at the environmental objective, rather than focusing on minor issues where a mistake, usually accidentally, has been made. Some rules actually hinder achieving the intended objective and we need to work out how to get around that. Inspections should be interactive, and advisory where this would be helpful.
My general theme is to get a good take-up of ELMS. It is important for systems to verify compliance work simply, too. I have been filing our cropping electronically since 2004 or 2005, when it was IAX, so I have some experience of this, and of running digital mapping. The online systems must work reliably and simply. Even now, the BPS is unreliable. It regularly loses one or two fields for us most years—I believe that they are called “parcels in the system”—and I cannot see why. The land use codes do not take proper account of the farming and environmental schemes that are overlapping one another, which can cause confusion. It is quite hard to get your EFA declarations right. Remapping is exhausting and disruptive, and causes problems between schemes, but thank goodness the helplines are very helpful.
I hope that in future the inspectors can also be helpful advisers.
Baroness Rock (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
This Bill is the most critical piece of legislation for domestic agriculture for more than 50 years. I commend the Government on the significant improvements made in comparison with the Bill introduced to Parliament prior to the last general election. However, there are still some issues around food security, the importance of food production and supporting active farmers and tenant farmers that could be strengthened, alongside the important environmental priorities.
An issue of important debate relates to standards and trade. Although the other place voted to reject the amendment to the Bill, I know that my noble friend the Minister is sympathetic to the arguments that are being made. I am aware of ongoing discussions about establishing a trade and standards commission; this surely would provide a possible way forward.
The coronavirus pandemic has underlined the need to consider issues of food security. The Government’s own food adviser, Henry Dimbleby, has said that this must be included in the new food strategy. This Bill should have food security and the health and well-being of citizens at its heart by listing this as an objective within Clause 1. There is merit in the report to Parliament occurring more often than just once every five years. Is there any scope for that part of the Bill to be looked at?
In the context of this legislation being an Agriculture Bill, there is concern that the Bill does not adequately target either agriculture or farmers in the provision of financial assistance. In order to support our incredibly important farming industry, it must be necessary to restrict the financial assistance powers, such as they are, in respect of individuals who are operating units which are predominantly agricultural. Without changes to the Bill to introduce clauses to both define and target active farmers, how will the Government ensure that financial support goes to those individuals who need it most?
The Bill sets out the intention of a seven-year transition to phase out current direct payments, and that this period can be modified by the Government by regulation. Within the context of an uncertain trading environment with the EU beyond the end of the year, the impact of the coronavirus crisis and the significant delays that there have been in the development of the new ELMS programme, we need more time to develop the new agricultural policy framework, and we should be delaying the beginning of transition from 2021 until 2022.
On Schedule 3 on agricultural tenancies, as a tenant farmer myself, I am concerned that the provisions protecting tenants from landlords who refuse consent for them to enter a financial assistance scheme excludes tenants occupying under farm business tenancies. While I am aware that the government argument was that these tenancies tend to be shorter and more negotiable, I fear that this misses the point that they are often more restrictive than the tenancies let under the AHA 1986 and, as they now account for 50%—and growing—of all land let in England, these tenants need just as much protection. With these tenants facing some of the most restrictive clauses in their tenancy agreements, why have the Government chosen not to extend necessary protections allowing them to object to a landlord’s refusal to enter into a financial assistance scheme in the same way as their fellow tenants can under the Agricultural Holdings Act?
Our farmers and our agricultural industry are the lifeblood of our rural economy. We must support them.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to the Bill and for his time, and that of his officials, in providing briefings in preparation for our debate today. I agree with noble Lords who have complained about the time limit and sympathise with those not able to speak. Had this been a Brexit debate, two days would have been allocated. I congratulate all who have managed to speak and made such vital contributions to the debate.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the move away from payment for farmers based on the amount of land they are farming to a more equitable system of public money for public good. Under the previous CAP system, half of the payments in England went to only 10% of farms. Like the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester, Lord Teverson and Lord Carter of Coles, and other noble Lords, I look forward to hearing how the environmental land management pilots are progressing. Is the Minister able to give us an update?
To some extent, this public good is defined in the Bill, but there are gaps and the continued use of pesticides is one. A former friend who worked for Fisons many years ago warned that since man is much nearer to the physiology of insects than of plants, we would be wise to treat pesticides with more caution than we do weed-killers. The overuse of chemical-based fertilisers and pesticides does little to enhance the quality of the soil. I am sure we will return to that in Committee.
Like, I am sure, other noble Lords, I have received dozens of briefings in preparation for this debate, from large organisations and interest groups to individual members of the public. The vast majority welcome the Bill but are worried that an opportunity to make a real difference is being lost.
The Bill in its opening clause lists the Secretary of State’s powers on financial assistance. There is an extensive list of what this will include. But there is no mention of food production—a concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Only in Clause 4 is the Secretary of State required to have regard to “encourage” the production of food. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, does, I find this alarming. Now is a golden opportunity for agricultural land to be farmed in a sustainable and ecological way to produce healthy food for the whole nation.
Food security is the subject of a requirement for the Secretary of State to report at least every five years. I welcome the Minister’s assurance that this review will take place sooner than five years’ time, and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. Food security is vital and can alter dramatically with climate change and international conditions. It should be monitored more frequently, perhaps yearly.
I welcome the addition of measures to improve forestry productivity—as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain—peat restoration and soil quality. These are key in carbon sequestration and tackling flood prevention, providing a holistic approach to how land is managed for the benefit of farming and the public.
Turning to the section on agricultural tenancies, this is to be welcomed as it enables tenant farmers to benefit from their hard work and to receive the payments themselves. Not all tenant farmers have received this in the past. To encourage new entrants into farming, it is essential that tenant farmers should get the rewards they deserve for farming the land. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, have raised concerns about tenant farmers, and I agree with the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, just made. Can the Minister say whether the measures in this Bill are consistent with the direction of travel in the renters’ reform Bill?
I turn briefly to Northern Ireland. In the Commons my Alliance Party colleague, Stephen Farry MP, introduced an amendment to provide for a sunset clause in regard to Clause 45 and Schedule 6, on some measures which relate to Northern Ireland. There is a sunset clause in the Bill for some measures applying to Wales, as my noble friend Lady Humphreys says, while Scotland has already indicated that it will bring forward its own policy. I am concerned that Northern Ireland will be out of step with the other devolved nations at a time when it needs to build a food and farming system that is resilient, healthy and regenerative. We will explore this further at later stages of the Bill.
The Bill cannot be seen in isolation; at least two other Bills are inextricably linked to it. The first is the Trade Bill, which allows for trade with countries outside the EU. It has the possibility of allowing food and animal products into the UK which are not produced to our own high standards of animal welfare. There is grave concern among organisations supporting agriculture and farmers that their produce will be undercut by these inferior imports. It is vital that all goods are clearly labelled with the country of origin and other details which will assist the purchaser to make informed choices, as raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern.
The majority of people buying food, whether for the domestic table or for the hotel, catering and restaurant trade, will wish to support food grown and produced within our shores, not imported from thousands of miles away. I am grateful to the Minister for circulating the letter from the Secretaries of State for Defra and for International Trade but, as my noble friend Lord Burnett said, Ministers come and go. Since the Government feel it is important to state their intention on food security and animal welfare, does the Minister agree that reassurance can be provided by an amendment to the Bill? Thirty-eight of your Lordships speaking today have supported this and only four do not.
The second Bill with links is the immigration Bill. We have heard much about the dearth of workers to harvest our vegetables and crops, as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, and seen adverts on our television screens for workers to come forward to help. At first there was a good response but as British workers found the work was back-breaking—for 10 hours a day—the accommodation appalling and that they got very little pay in return, their numbers dropped off. There is an issue here about how we treat our agricultural workers. It is estimated that some 17,000 migrant workers are needed every year to fulfil the needs of growers. The immigration Bill allows for only 3,500 to come in per year. This is hopelessly inadequate. Are the Government going to allow fruit and vegetables to be left rotting in the fields, when people are crying out for fresh produce? Does the Minister agree that this is a scandal which the Government can easily avoid? Some effort must be made to see these three important Bills as a holistic package and not separate, if we are to protect agriculture and farming effectively.
The Bill has much to commend it but there is no mechanism for enforcement, as highlighted by my noble friend Lady Parminter, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and others. Can the Minister address this vital issue?
At a time when large numbers of people are dependent on food banks, it is a scandal that food is wasted from farms. My noble friend Lady Parminter and I will address this issue in Committee. I could say more but will save it for Committee, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to this important debate.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Bill and for the very helpful briefings that he organised for Peers beforehand. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken on such a wide-ranging and challenging set of issues in their very short speaking times. I should, at the outset, declare an interest as the chair of Rothamsted Enterprises. Like others, I regret that so many noble Lords were unable to participate in the debate today. We very much miss them. I hope that the Minister is able to confirm that future stages of the Bill will not be curtailed, and that we will have the opportunity to have a full debate in Committee and on Report.
When the civil servants were originally drafting the Bill, they could not have imagined that we would be debating it in such momentous times. The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the strains that imperil our food and farming systems. Businesses are failing, including many rural businesses, and the risk of a recession is obvious for all to see.
Life for the farming community now is tough. Farmers are subject to price volatility and market pressures that continue to put their livelihoods at risk; the added uncertainty of future trade deals with the EU puts their future export markets at risk; and the decline in UK food sustainability to some 53% of food and drink consumed means an unhealthy reliance on imported food from the EU and beyond. All this gives farmers cause for concern.
At the same time, we are in a climate emergency. The Government’s net-zero target of 2050 has been criticised by the Committee on Climate Change for lacking ambition or urgent measures necessary to meet the targets. Biodiversity, which lies at the very heart of a farming renaissance, is in steep decline and the UK is on course to meet only five of its 20 biodiversity targets. In this context, our challenge is to balance the interests of farmers and the environment so that both can thrive and play their part in the new, post-Covid world.
There is much in the Bill that we support. For example, public money for public goods is an important principle that we welcome. It is right that we should incentivise those who work on our land to restore and improve the natural environment. Of course, noble Lords are right that these policies need to be properly measured and monitored before any payment is made, but it is also important that in doing so we do not lose the core intention of the CAP: to deliver stability of food and security for farmers.
We also have some serious concerns about the Bill. First, many noble Lords have quite rightly raised concerns about the danger of domestic producers being undercut in post-Brexit deals by countries with lower animal welfare and environmental standards. Contrary to what some noble Lords have said today, evidence shows that the level of bacterial food poisoning in the USA is much higher than in the UK and the EU. As we know, the trade deals also threaten the very livelihoods of UK farmers.
This is an issue that our colleagues in the Commons pursued doggedly to the end. Our amendments would have enshrined in law a guarantee that our high standards would not be undercut. Of course, we have read the letter from the two Secretaries of State about there not being a compromise on this, but if that is the case it is a great shame that the Government felt unable to support these amendments. I give notice now that, when the time comes, we will work with colleagues across the Chamber to pursue similar amendments. We will also want to explore the wider animal welfare implications raised by the Bill and the potential of such trade deals.
Secondly, while we welcome the inclusion in Clause 17 of a duty to report on food security, along with a number of other noble Lords we do not feel that this provision goes far enough. For a Bill about food production, it remains remarkably silent on action to reduce food poverty, promote heathy food and reverse the decline in UK food sustainability.
Protecting the UK from cheap, low-quality imported food is important, but we also need positive measures to deliver top-quality food standards, incentivise local and regional specialisms, address poor nutrition and obesity and build our national reputation as a world leader in food excellence. We need robust measures to protect public health from pesticides and the overuse of antibiotics in the food chain.
We urgently need a national food plan, and we look forward to the Dimbleby report due later this year. But we need the key elements of a food plan enshrined in the Bill, rather than waiting for the Dimbleby report or the Government’s five-year report, and we will take steps to amend the Bill to this effect.
Of course, the future funding for farming lies at the very heart of this Bill. Our concerns, like those of many other noble Lords, lie with the practicalities of the transition from direct payments to ELMS. Whatever the failings of the CAP regime, it at least provided some certainty for the farming community. The delays in spelling out the new funding regime, the uncertainty over Brexit and the impact of the coronavirus lockdown have created a perfect storm in which many farmers are contemplating whether they have a future in the sector.
Despite the Government’s reassurance that the total pot of money will be protected during the transition, many farmers fear that their existing direct payments will be phased out before the new ELMS system is fully functioning. The impact of the devolved nations having different payments systems for farmers adds to that uncertainty. We will therefore want to explore in Committee whether the proposed timetables are realistic and what reassurances about future income during the transition can be given to farmers. We will want to ensure that a disproportionate share of the money is not siphoned off for consultants and advisers. We will also want to ensure proper support for smaller farmers, tenant farmers and new entrants to the land. Ultimately, we will look to government to provide more details about how the new scheme will work and to enthuse sceptical farmers that it will work both for them and for the national interest.
We welcome the measures to introduce greater transparency and fairness in supply chains and to recognise producer organisations. These are long overdue, but, as the recent crisis in the dairy sector has shown, the supply chain disproportionality squeezes the farming community at the base, when it is doing all the work for very little reward. We will want to explore in Committee whether more could be done to redress the balance and give farmers greater control over their contracts and markets. We will also want to explore whether the Groceries Code Adjudicator, or similar body, could be given greater powers to intervene to ensure fair practice throughout the supply chain.
Several noble Lords raised the issue of the status and pay of agricultural workers, and we share that concern. Some 474,000 people work in agriculture on a permanent or casual basis. Many of those jobs are physically hard, low paid and precarious, with a poor safety record and few of the employment benefits that other workers take for granted. The impact of the lockdown and the Government’s failing immigration policies show how reliant we are on overseas workers to harvest our crops. It will be interesting to see how many of the UK volunteers for the Pick for Britain scheme stay the course, given the arduous nature of the work involved. We will want to explore in Committee what more can be done to address rising poverty and inequalities in rural communities, and whether the reintroduction of something akin to the Agricultural Wages Board could play a role in improving pay and making UK agricultural work more attractive. In this mix, a drive to improve skills and training will of course be key.
Finally, we remain concerned that the Bill does not address the number one challenge of the climate emergency and the role that agriculture needs to play in delivering net zero emissions. Agriculture currently accounts for nearly 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. We would expect to see in the Bill a plan of action, and targets, to tackle these emissions across the farming community. They should lie at the heart of the future funding framework. Without action on this scale, we have no chance of reaching even the Government’s unambitious 2050 deadline, so we will pursue amendments to make sure that agriculture steps up to the mark.
I have been able to touch on only a small number of the many important issues raised in the debate today, but I look forward to working with noble Lords across the Chamber in the weeks to come to make sure that this Bill really is fit to deliver a vibrant food and farming programme for the 21st century.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, what an exceptional debate. It will be impossible for me to answer all the questions that have been posed but I will say what I always say: I will seek to follow up in writing those questions either that I have not covered or which require further embellishment.
I was struck by some noble Lords’ words because there are some elements of this debate that I think have been unduly negative, but I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord McConnell, that there are great opportunities for what we are going to be considering in the coming weeks. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referred to a welcome approach and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to a balance between the environment and food production. The noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Quin, emphasised that we have to work with farmers. None of this is going to work unless it becomes the farmers’ enterprise as well. That is what I will explain in further detail.
There were three Vs: “vision”, from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry; “viticulture”, from my noble friend Lord Naseby; and “the veterinary profession”, from my noble friend Lady McIntosh. All this shows the interconnection, the jigsaw puzzle that is the countryside, which so many of your Lordships know about.
My noble friend Lord Dobbs referred to innovation. I think we are on the cusp of a further agricultural revolution. Of course we need to use that knowledge wisely. I am conscious of the institutions that we have in this country that we need to prosper.
I want to clarify a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and perhaps my noble friend Lady Rock, in referring to food. Of course food is essential. It is essential for everyone in the world. However, in our view food is a private good; it is bought and sold. This is the key distinction of the philosophy of the legislation, because its value is rewarded in the market. These new financial assistance powers are intended to reward farmers and land managers for those outcomes that the market does not currently recognise. Coming from traditional farming stock, I can say that the reason why we see beautiful countryside is that many landowners and farmers actually want to embellish their landscapes.
I turn to trade standards. So many noble Lords have referred to this that I am not going to mention everyone by name. However, I want to refer to what my noble friends Lady Browning and Lady Chisholm had to say: in the negativity that I came across, let us not forget the British leadership that there has been on many of the activities raising trading standards across the world. That has been our influence. I know that our ambassadors raise standards across the piece and across the world. We should be proud of that.
My noble friend Lord Ridley referred to exports. I think it is the UK’s reputation for high-quality products that drives the demand for UK goods. Our success in the global marketplace depends on us continuing to maintain this reputation. I have said this many times, and I am starting to believe that certain noble Lords are determined not to believe me when I say it, but all EU food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards will be retained and form part of our domestic law. I emphasise that that includes all existing import requirements. Any changes to existing legislative standards would require new legislation to be brought before Parliament.
I should also say that in the UK food safety is regulated by the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland. Decisions to allow new regulated food products or processes—for example, food of animal origin treated with certain substances—into the UK market will be taken by Ministers in the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, informed by the independent advice of the FSA and FSS. This is a point that I would make particularly to the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and I emphasise it because I fear that we are getting into a determined position that everything is negative. That is why I refer again to my honourable friend the Minister for Farming, who stated in the other place that
“there can be no question of sacrificing the UK livestock or other farming industries for the US trade deal.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/20; col. 335.]
On labelling, raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs, I highlight the Government’s commitment to a serious and rapid examination of what can be done through labelling to provide reassurance that we intend to promote high standards and high welfare across the UK market. The Minister for Farming said that
“we will consult on this at the end of the transition period.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/20; col. 335.]
Obviously, the Government have ongoing trade negotiations with the EU, an issue which was raised, and we have committed to a free trade agreement, to ensure that there are no tariffs, fees or quotas across all sectors.
My noble friend Lord Naseby referred to horticulture. Clause 1(2) allows us to introduce support for anyone starting or improving the productivity of a horticultural activity. I should also say to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that, when discussing productivity—I was struck by this—it is in the context of sustainability. It is not about allowing something that potentially improves productivity but then does environmental damage. That is not what is intended at all; this is about sustainable productivity.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to the delivery of public goods and the measurement of such. The Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was right in what she said. The interconnected Environment Bill provides the office for environmental protection with the functions to scrutinise the Government’s environmental commitments, including those under Clause 1 of this Bill.
On the reference to our manifesto commitment, the UK Government’s election manifesto guaranteed the current annual budget in every year of the new Parliament, giving significant certainty on funding for the coming years.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that the first period of the multiannual financial assistance plan—in Clause 4—will cover a period of seven years, starting from 2021. It will set out the Government’s strategic priorities for agriculture policy during that period and describe which financial assistance schemes are expected to come into operation during that period.
My noble friends Lord Lindsay and Lord Duncan, and others, referred to future funding allocations for the devolved Administrations. In response to the Bew review, the Government committed to engage with the devolved Administrations to develop a fair approach to future funding allocations, and to consider the needs of farmers in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, recognising that agriculture policy is, and will remain, devolved. This work in ongoing.
On arrangements for Northern Ireland, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, that the deal with the EU makes it clear that Northern Ireland is, and will remain, part of the UK customs territory. This allows the UK to ensure unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB. The arrangements we introduce will reflect this. The Prime Minister has been clear that, beyond the limited changes introduced by the protocol, there will be no changes to GB-NI trade. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK’s customs territory.
Under the protocol—I say this wearing my biosecurity hat—agri-food checks and assurances will be required for the movement of goods from GB to Northern Ireland. This is to protect supply chains and the biosecurity of the island of Ireland, as a single epidemiological unit. The protocol establishes that Northern Ireland will align with EU sanitary and phytosanitary rules, including in relation to the movement of animals and products of animal origin.
I should say also to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, that we will want to bring down the level of checks to a pragmatic, proportionate level that recognises the high standards across the United Kingdom, in line with the protocol provision that both parties must use
“their best endeavours to facilitate … trade”,
and avoid controls at Northern Ireland ports as far as is possible. We will actively seek to simplify and minimise electronic documentary requirements for this trade.
As for the wider state aid framework after the transition period, this is a matter on which the Government will set out their position in due course. The Government will continue to ensure that agriculture support schemes, now and in the future, are compliant with the UK’s domestic legal framework. If necessary, the Government will work on any domestic legislation required, once they have set out their position on subsidy controls.
I turn now to Wales and the devolved Administrations. I emphasise that the reason I am so pleased to bring forward provisions for Wales and Northern Ireland is that they are at those Administrations’ request. The devolved Administrations have asked us to do this, so I can confirm to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord German, that Defra and the Welsh Government reached agreement on the WTO agreement on agriculture. The bilateral agreement was published on GOV.UK and the Welsh Government website in March 2019. My officials continue to work closely with the Welsh Government, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland and officials from the Scottish Government to agree and implement an administrative UK agriculture support framework. The aim of the framework is to ensure effective co-ordination and dialogue between the Administrations on agriculture subsidy, marketing standards, crisis measures, cross-border holdings and data collection and sharing. My experience is that, beyond the hyperbole, the arrangements and conduct of business with officials and Ministers between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government are very positive, and on these matters we are working very much to a common objective.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that it has been agreed that a joint approach on organics is beneficial to the sector and we consider a UK-wide power the best way to achieve this. I also say to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that we want to see consistent protection against unfair trading practices for farmers, wherever they are in the United Kingdom. We continue to consult widely and meaningfully with everyone who will be affected by our new codes of conduct, including the devolved Administrations and producers in those territories. Their views will be listened to and respected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, asked about the Livestock Information Service. This is a very important part of the programme. We shall work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we share data to allow seamless traceability across the UK. Each territory’s tracing system will be able to communicate with each other to support day-to-day business operations such as cross-border movements.
I turn to the issue of new entrants. As I made clear in my opening remarks, it is very important that we ensure that there are new entrants and that they remain for the long term. The industry relies on attracting new talent and we will offer funding to councils with county farms estates, landowners and other organisations that want to invest in creating opportunities for new entrant farmers.
On financial assistance for active farmers, a point raised by my noble friend Lady Rock, we anticipate that farmers will receive a large proportion of the financial assistance provided for in the Clause 1 schemes.
I turn now to the focus of the Bill. I emphasise what many noble Lords have said: a strong environment is the way in which you can farm well. If your soils are not in good heart, you will not produce the food we need for both domestic and export production. That is why it is important that we work together on ensuring that farmers will, as we hope and believe, help the nation in achieving our environmental goals and in producing food for people both at home and abroad.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of agricultural transition. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that the period was too long, while other noble Lords said that it was not long enough. We think that the seven-year period gives sufficient time for the sector to adapt to a new model. Delaying the start of the agricultural transition would just delay the many benefits of moving away from direct payments, which we believe are poorly targeted. The phasing out of direct payments will free up money so that we can start to introduce new schemes, which will be a more effective way of rewarding farmers for the work that they do and help to prepare them for the future. For most farmers—around 80% of them—our maximum reduction in direct payments for 2021 will be no more than 5%. I should also say that this is well within the usual payment fluctuations caused by exchange rate changes that farmers faced under the CAP. In this context, I have also referred to the manifesto pledge about funding.
However, I am very struck by what a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said about what has been described as the gap. I want to concentrate on this and will express my understanding of the points that have been made. We will offer a simplified countryside stewardship scheme for 2021-24 alongside productivity grants. Countryside stewardship will provide an additional long-term income stream whether it is for, for example, new hedges, wildlife offers, managing ponds or, particularly, livestock yards and manure storage to reduce pollution and improve water quality. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to that point and to how we work with farmers to achieve the climate change goals we set ourselves. Productivity grants will be available to invest in equipment, technology and infrastructure, such as efficient irrigation systems and precision slurry application equipment. The Government will ensure a smooth transition into the ELM scheme and no one with an environmental stewardship or countryside stewardship agreement will be unfairly disadvantaged when we transition to the new arrangements.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and particularly to the noble Baronesses on the Front Benches, that work on the collaborative design of the ELM scheme is well under way. There are 53 tests and trials up and running, and funding of more than £6.6 million has already been given. The ELM national pilot will commence in late 2021 and will run until 2024, when we intend to launch the full ELM scheme. A number of noble Lords raised upland and hill farmers and also lowland farmers. There are many environmental benefits, such as clean air and water, which will help, and benefits to landscape, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred.
A number of points were made on results. We will be working on that because we want to ensure that the approach achieves the results we need. On access, of course, all farmers and land managers will continue to comply with the regulatory standards, including those on public rights of way. We think the ELM can fund the creation of new paths and the maintenance of footpaths and bridleways, which will be very beneficial.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned GIs. The Government are setting up new domestic schemes which will provide protection for GIs after the transition period.
On the impact assessments, we will be providing analysis and will publish further evidence in the form of impact assessments at the point of secondary legislation or when we consult on new schemes under Clause 1: that is how we are undertaking that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, asked about cross-compliance. Again, we wish to retain standards. On forestry, again there are many points to be made. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked about animal welfare schemes. We will be working on that and considering different forms of animal welfare schemes. On the issue of food security, I am very happy to discuss this, but I will highlight that the report will draw on a range of regularly reported and publicly available statistics and data. The majority of data covered will be available between the reports—but I understand the points that have been made.
Data on food waste is one of many aspects that will be considered when assessing the global availability of food. Skills are very important. In the wider educational area, there are currently 28 high-quality apprenticeship standards available in the agriculture, environment and animal care sector, and I will write further on that.
On gene editing, again the Government agree that the EU approach is unscientific. We are committed to adopting a more scientific approach to regulation in the future. I have to say that the Government will not adopt a new approach without proper consultation, which I hope will provide assurances. On tenants and their eligibility, of course tenants will be eligible and will be part of the ELM pilots.
Change can be testing, so the Government will work closely with farmers to ensure that schemes work for the farmer and the country. Farming is the backbone of the countryside; farming communities are at the heart of the wider community. The food and drinks industry is vital to this country; so is a resilient and healthy environment. They must go hand in hand. I look forward to further stages of the Bill; I have a fair idea of the collision points that may transpire; and I hope we will do it in a spirit of friendship and, indeed, as an endeavour to do the right thing. However, I commend the Bill and I beg to move.
Agriculture Bill
Tuesday 7th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Committee - (7 Jul 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, a limited number of Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Other Members will participate remotely, but all Members will be treated equally wherever they are. For Members participating remotely, microphones will unmute shortly before they are to speak—please accept any on-screen prompt to unmute. Microphones will be muted after each speech. I ask noble Lords to be patient if there are any short delays as we switch between physical and remote participants. I should remind the House that our normal courtesies in debate still very much apply in this new hybrid way of working.
A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published and is in my brief, which Members should have received. I also have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments, or expressed an interest in speaking, on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members’ microphones will be muted by the broadcasters except when I call a Member to speak. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted and uncalled speakers will not be heard.
During the debate on each group, I will invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding, and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I draw to the attention of noble Lords that there is a very large number of participants wishing to speak in this debate, particularly on the first group. If noble Lords could be concise and non-repetitive in their contributions, it would greatly aid the smooth and swift passage of the Bill.
Clause 1: Secretary of State’s powers to give financial assistance
Amendment 1
The Earl of Dundee
Member’s explanatory statement
A probing amendment to clarify whether the Secretary of State will provide financial assistance for the purposes listed under Clause 1(1).
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 1 is connected to Amendment 74, also in my name. Both amendments address the Secretary of State’s new financial assistance powers outlined in the first clause of the Bill. Clause 1(1) indicates ambiguity of delivery:
“The Secretary of State may give financial assistance”.
Picking up this aspect of uncertainty, Amendment 1 therefore implies that giving financial assistance, as envisaged, might not necessarily work out as intended, not least taking into account how current forms of international competition threaten to curb the viability of United Kingdom food production. Yet, if, within the Bill, incentives should fail to produce intended results, to some extent Amendment 74’s proposal can provide a remedy.
In itself, Clause 1 is evidence of an impressive vision. The Government are committed to preserving the national environment; thus, competent environmental land management can become a clear aim for farmers, who are properly rewarded if they achieve this. Nevertheless, so far, in other respects the Bill is less clear. What are the Government’s plans for sustainable food production? Post Brexit, will they develop new and even higher standards than those of the European Union? Or will they set land aside for afforestation, public access and wildlife conservation while leaving agriculture to market forces, as do the United States and Brazil? Among those options, although unstated, no doubt the Government would prefer that which combines high standards for environmental land management along with those for sustainable food production. Yet, if so, how can these two objectives best be realised and British farmers perform and compete against cheap imports from the United States and those from EU states paid a high level of agricultural subsidies?
Perhaps some of the answer, beginning at home, would be that, in order to further these twin objectives, the Government might better prioritise and adjust existing incentives within the Bill. For if that adjustment is made now, in the first place, then there will be a greater chance that, through time and against external market forces, much of those current joint aims for the United Kingdom of good environmental land management and sustainable food production can be attained.
Clause 1 details 10 purposes eligible for financial assistance. It is certainly right that funding should be provided for each of them carried out by a farm. Yet, where multiple purposes are addressed, the Bill could now be amended so that a financial bonus would apply. For example, if a farm accomplished [Connection lost.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I shall have to move the amendment on the noble Earl’s behalf. I beg to move Amendment 1.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 1 and shall speak also to a number of other amendments in the group. I thank the noble Earl for tabling Amendment 1: it was something I was thinking about. Indeed, I spoke to the Table Office, because much of the discussion around the Bill has focused on the fact that it provides powers but not duties. I suggested to the Table Office that we could go through the whole Bill and change every “may” to “must”, and those in the Table Office persuaded me that that might not be the best way forward. I thank them for their patience and all their expert assistance. I think the noble Earl has managed to focus on the key part of the Bill, where “may” should be changed to “must”. I know he tabled it as a probing amendment, but we should think about this as a serious way forward: a duty to look after the key principles of carbon storage, ecosystems, the state of our natural world and healthy food. These should be a duty of the Minister.
Amendments 8, 22, 25, 31 and 50, in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, are all about air pollution, which is a huge gaping hole in the Bill. It looks at water, at soil and at our ecosystems on the ground, but does not talk about the air; yet it is all part of an interrelated system and we know that air pollution and farming issues are closely interrelated.
I have also attached my name to Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which says:
“Financial assistance may only be given for Environmental Land Management Schemes Tier 2 and Tier 3 if those individual schemes are in line with the local Nature Recovery Strategy”.
This addresses a crucial point: we need joined-up, systematic thinking about the nature of our countryside. At the moment, we have a number of silos. We have the Environment Bill, the Agriculture Bill and the now delayed food strategy, and we need to make sure that these are all joined up and working together, not at cross-purposes to each other. We need a whole-landscape approach, something the Wildlife Trust has been doing a lot of excellent work on, although we have to notice that what we see in the Environment Bill will lay new duties on councils, which, as we discussed in Oral Questions, already have enormous burdens on them.
Finally, Amendment 234 in my name, would add a clause headed “Agricultural extension”. It has notable similarities with an amendment in another group—Amendment 122, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Both of us are getting at the point that farmers need reliable, independent, secure, certain expert advice. In preparing for today I looked at the debates in your Lordships’ House back in 1996 and 1997 when the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service was privatised. There were some very telling words from the late Lord Mackie of Benshie, who talked about how, since the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service had started charging for its services, less use was being made of them. Some people —perhaps those who needed them most—could not afford them.
The state of our countryside and our agricultural land is a matter of national interest. It is something that we cannot leave to market forces. We have seen, in terms of agricultural extension and advice, a huge reduction, huge privatisation and a move towards many farmers being forced to take advice from the suppliers of agricultural chemicals and agricultural seeds, and even from their buyers, the supermarkets. Farmers need independent, expert advice. We need people to be able to develop careers in providing that advice. If we have an expert on growing potatoes in the south-west who spends decades focusing just on that, that is very hard to do in the private sector. If potatoes have a few bad years, no one can afford to pay that person and they do not have the chance to develop their skills in the way that they would in an advisory service.
We have to look at the whole system here. Part of a proper agricultural system has to be a government-run advice service. That is something that has existed historically for a very long time. It can a be traced back three millennia: in ancient China we know that there was a government Minister advising farmers on how to improve agricultural systems. This is a matter of national interest; it needs national involvement and a proper advice service.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 67 and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her support for it. My main interest here is in connection with the broader environmental policies of the Government as they bring these forward in legislation. As I said at Second Reading, I very much welcome the ELMS initiative; it is a major step forward in the use of state aid for the farming industry and how it is to be targeted.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. Amendments 5, 17 and 89 question the different wording in different sections of the Bill. Clause 1(1)(a) uses “protects or improves”; Clause 1(1)(c) uses “maintains, restores or enhances”; elsewhere, “conserves” is used, which is defined as including “restoring or enhancing”.
Using different words in close proximity in the Bill gives the strong impression that different things are meant by them and that words which are not included each time are therefore in some way excluded. For simplicity of reading, we should choose one word. I would choose “enhances”; I have gone with “conserves” because that is the Government’s choice. If we have one word which is defined to encompass all the other concepts, this clause will read more clearly.
With Amendments 27 and 28, I wish to check with the Government that we are not confining ourselves to additional varieties and species, but that we will be able to apply funds to new species of animal livestock and in particular to new plant crop species. Genetic engineering should mean that we can move many of the crops that now grow some way south of us a good way north and therefore improve the resilience and variety of our agriculture.
Amendment 86 checks where the boundary is for an activity such as coppicing. It was not clear to me from the words used that the whole process of felling trees and particularly extracting them from woodland could be covered by finance. If we are going to make it profitable for small woods in particular—I declare an interest in owning one—to supply coppice for the power station industry, for instance, we must look at how we will get that wood extracted. If not, there will be no benefit in extracting it and therefore no benefit in coppicing.
Lastly and most importantly, Amendment 76 addresses local nature partnerships. In the Bill we ought ideally to recognise the role that these have come to play in the negotiations between the various entities which have a finger in the pie of looking after nature in our countryside. They have been remarkably successful and I very much hope we will continue to support them and embed them in how we take decisions about nature and the countryside.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to my three amendments, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister, the Bill team and everybody for getting us to this stage. It is quite remarkable that we have a book of amendments almost as large as the Bill itself. I know the lengths to which my noble friend will go to accommodate us.
I will speak first to Amendments 24 and 104 in my name. I thank other noble Lords who have joined me in signing Amendment 24, which is for probing and debating purposes only. Obviously, I do not wish to see land taken out of “managing land or water” that will benefit from new financial assistance under the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend, who is responding today, and to our noble friend Lord Goldsmith for responding to my concerns, which I have also set out in Amendment 104.
There will be opportunities for farmers to create reservoirs, working either on their own or with water companies. This will be recognised as financial assistance, other than where they may already fall within a flood plain, which I think is the one exclusion. My noble friend said that the equivalent of 25 Olympic-sized pools would fall within the provisions of the Reservoirs Act 1975.
We are absolutely delighted to have the Slowing the Flow at Pickering scheme. I am sure that many other schemes like it will benefit from the provisions of this Bill. I welcome that. It could be not just for farm use, but caravan parks and golf clubs may consider storing water temporarily or more permanently on their land. However, could my noble friend be a little more precise? In my noble friend Lord Goldsmith’s reply to me in a letter on 2 July, he said:
“The temporary storage of floodwater on land would not necessarily constitute a raised reservoir and would therefore be exempt from reservoir safety regulations in England.”
It would be helpful if my noble friend could place that letter in the Library so that I do not need to refer to it in any more detail. Could we have an assurance today on what will be considered temporary storage and what permanent storage, to reassure those seeking to retain water temporarily as floodwater that they will not fall within the provisions of the 1975 Act, which are particularly onerous for reservoirs and would reduce it to 10,000 cubic metres?
Further, the reservoir we had initially sought for the Slowing the Flow scheme could not be signed off by the panel engineer from the Institution of Civil Engineers. Can my noble friend assure the House today that even water stored temporarily to retain floodwater on land will not fall into that category? That would be most helpful.
Amendment 24 relates to financial assistance for upland and hill farms in particular, which produce pasture-fed livestock. There are concerns that hill farmers may not benefit because many of them are tenants. In North Yorkshire and other parts, I think almost 50% of farms are tenanted. Later we will consider county council farms, which are almost exclusively tenanted farms by their very nature. This is a probing amendment to see whether my noble friend would be minded to use financial assistance to promote pasture-fed livestock farming systems. It is something that we are particularly good at in the United Kingdom, in parts of northern England, Scotland, Devon and, I am sure, Wales and other parts as well. The taste of the spring lamb off the North Yorkshire moors is hard to beat but that is not why we are here today.
Pasture-fed livestock farming is responsible for the management of a significant part of our landscape. The national parks have done a great piece of work on this, which we will come on to consider. But it is particularly important in this regard to seek financial assistance for the way the uplands are managed. Too often, calves and other animals that are fattened on the pastures come in for unnecessary and unwanted attacks from interest groups which perhaps do not understand how red meat is produced and how important it is to a balanced diet. The uplands also play a role as a carbon sink—storing carbon in the grasslands—and in harvesting carbon from the atmosphere on an ongoing basis. Given the wider benefits of pasture-fed systems, I urge the Government to address this sector within the realm of public goods, under Clause 1(1).
I make it clear that this is complementary to and supportive of the provisions on native breeds, whether on pasture or other systems. I acknowledge that native breeds are probably already recognised, so I nudge my noble friend towards considering that pasture-fed livestock also come under the provision, for biodiversity and public health reasons as well.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, whose closing remarks on pasture-fed livestock echo my own Amendment 78, which seeks the following:
“In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to maintaining support for hill farms and other marginal land previously designated as less favoured areas.”
I support what the noble Baroness said in praise—not just support—of those areas.
We need to recognise the geographical importance as well as the environmental, agricultural and food production importance. Less favoured areas in England cover the Pennines, the Lake District, the Yorkshire Dales —Yorkshire generally—Devon and Cornwall and most of Wales; and, of course, a huge chunk of Scotland, which I know is not directly covered by the Bill but this demonstrates how important it is. In those areas it is a very significant part of the local economy, in terms of employment, the environment, access and the general diversity of the economy. As the noble Baroness made clear, our uplands—our hill lands—are most useful for livestock rearing, grazing and pasture feeding, particularly of lamb and beef, and are not suitable, really, for cropping, other than in marginal circumstances.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I call the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. We lost the connection earlier, but I understand that we can now hear him.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
Thank you. I will resume at the point where I was cut off.
In itself, Clause 1 is evidence of an impressive vision. The Government are committed to preserving the natural environment, thus competent environmental land management can become a clear aim for farmers, who are properly rewarded if they achieve this.
Nevertheless, so far, in other respects the Bill is less clear. What are the Government’s plans for sustainable food production? Post Brexit will they develop new and even higher standards than those of the EU, or instead set aside land for afforestation, public access and wildlife conservation, while leaving agriculture to market forces, as do the United States and Brazil?
Among those options, and although unstated, no doubt the Government would prefer that which combines high standards for environmental land management with those for sustainable food production. Yet, if so, how can these two objectives best be realised? British farmers also perform and compete against cheap imports from the United States, and those from EU states pay a high level of agricultural subsidies.
Perhaps some of the answer, beginning at home, lies in how, in order to further these twin objectives, the Government might better prioritise and adjust existing incentives within the Bill. For if that adjustment is made now in the first place, there will be a greater chance through time and against external market forces. Much of those current joint aims for the United Kingdom of good environmental land management and sustainable food production can be attained.
Section 1 details 10 purposes eligible for financial assistance, and it is certainly right that funding should be provided for each of them if carried out by a farm. Yet where multiple purposes are addressed, the Bill could now be amended so that a financial bonus would apply. For example, if a farm accomplishes fewer than four of the purposes, it simply receives funding for each of them. However, if instead the farm were to carry out more than four purposes, such as five or six of them, it could receive a bonus grant for achieving that level of multiple purposes. There could be a further multiple purpose supplementary payment if seven or eight of them had been carried out, then a further and final one for achieving 10 purposes. For what we want to achieve is that farms should receive supplementary funding for carrying out many or even all the purposes. That is because doing so puts them at a commercial disadvantage to other farms, which might adopt only a few of the purposes—hence the connection between Amendments 1 and 74.
Amendment 1, as a probing expedient, seeks to illustrate that, while the Government’s vision to encourage both good environmental management and sustained food production together is much to be welcomed, nevertheless, the effect of their plans for delivering financial incentives is uncertain in two respects. The first is as a result of the challenge to UK food production from a combination of cheap imports from the United States and from the highly subsidised agricultural products from the European Union states. Secondly, and as already outlined, it is owing to the risk in the first place of an inadequate response to incentives arising from an inconsistent and anomalous delivery to recipient United Kingdom farms, whereby those best at multiple purposes are still insufficiently recompensed within the Bill as it is.
Amendment 74 offers a partial solution through a detailed bonus scheme, as already outlined, whereby farms carrying out multiple purposes would come to be rewarded better and in a fairer way than they are at present within the Bill. Through time, and in spite of international market competition, that would in turn also increase the likelihood that within the United Kingdom the Government could achieve more of the joint aims themselves of good environmental management and sustained food production.
Amendment 45, the third in my name in this grouping, seeks to encourage the purchase of domestically produced animal feed with the intention of reducing carbon emissions from imported feed. Considering the United Kingdom’s agricultural capacity relative to its population, it would be unrealistic to restrict imported animal feed too much. However, these imports have three major disadvantages. First, they undermine the United Kingdom’s food security; secondly, there is the carbon footprint arising from their production and transport; and, thirdly, there is the environmental damage which in the first place their cultivation causes in certain countries, notably soybeans in Brazil and Argentina. Efforts should thus be made to augment the supply of home-grown animal feed. At the same time, United Kingdom importers ought to be encouraged to buy feed from countries demonstrating similar environmental standards to those of the United Kingdom, with the process perhaps guided by international certification bodies. Hence, bearing in mind the Bill’s focus on environmental land management, this amendment on animal feeds simply calls for improved consistency of standards between what the United Kingdom imports and what it produces domestically.
Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in congratulating the Minister and so many other noble Lords on marshalling such a remarkable number of amendments. In fact, there are so many amendments that it somewhat gives the game away that the Bill means so much to so many people. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, it is something of a dog’s dinner. I would not be so disparaging, but I would also say that it is more than a single dinner—it seems to be everything the dog has eaten for an awfully long time.
The first four of my amendments in this group relate to the deletion of the word “water” in the provisions of Clause 1. That is because I believe this is the Agriculture Bill, not the aquaculture Bill, the Fisheries Bill, the Environment Bill or the water resources Bill. As drafted—as I understand it, there is no limitation to the definition of water—it could spread the impact of the Bill very far and wide. In proposing a number of amendments, I seek to focus the Bill on agriculture and to not let its very positive environmental aims spread too far beyond those reasonable limits. If the Minister were able to provide some clarity in concluding, it would help us to know what water this applies to.
Noble Lords should know that, as well as a farmer, I am also a holder of intertidal habitat and foreshore rights, and it is interesting to me whether the provisions of the Bill and of ELMS will be able to extend to intertidal habitat. As I understand it, intertidal habitat has enormous potential for carbon sequestration and other very positive aspects, but it is not clear whether the Bill as drafted goes to that area between high and low tide, which is obviously such an important area around the coast of Devon.
Amendment 21 also seeks to remove reference to livestock from Clause 1(1)(d). This is merely so that it conforms to the other paragraphs. It is not clear why livestock should be included in managing land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates climate change, when it is not included in managing land or water in a way that protects the environment. It is very unclear as to why livestock should appear specifically in Clause 1(1)(d) when it does not appear in (a), (c) and (e). I note the points that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made around reservoirs, but farmers are not water managers. They use water, and I very much agree that the environmental aim should be to prevent what they do on their land having an adverse impact on water—but they are not by definition water managers, and we should recognise that.
To continue with the water theme, I propose Amendment 91, which adds the term “wetlands” to “uplands” in the definition of cultural or natural heritage. There is lots of important focus on uplands, because they are such an important part of our natural environment. However, I do not want your Lordships’ focus to depart wholly from wetlands, which are equally important to our biodiversity. They are equally marginal in many respects as a form of agricultural land, and are equally important culturally. I took the train this morning through the Somerset Levels, and we all remember the terrible floods they suffered a number of years ago. The focus should not be just on uplands. The other point about wetlands is that, given their often low-lying presence near the mouths of estuaries and rivers, they are often very proximate to large urban settlements. The interface between a large urban population and a rural, ecologically sensitive landscape is very important; it is an important part of ELMS and it should be focused upon.
The final amendment in this group, which I am proud to propose, is Amendment 236, which is supported by the Greener UK group. It seeks to add some teeth to the enforcement of the environmental provisions. As they currently exist under European regulations, good agricultural and environmental condition requirements cover the management of soils. This is in the cross-compliance provisions of the current European legislation. That will be lost from January 2021, and it is not clear that there will be adequate enforcement of the maintenance of the quality and nature of soil going forward.
The amendment adds to the agricultural diffuse pollution regulations and provides the Environment Agency with some teeth in forcing farmers to maintain the quality of soil. Soil is obviously all-important to the management of our agricultural land. Over this past winter we have seen how soil runs off in heavy rain, but how, if you have good organic matter in your soil, in a very dry spring such as the one we have just had you can retain some moisture. It enhances the resilience of our agriculture, and as climate change takes effect, that is absolutely key to our agriculture. Those are the amendments I wish to speak to now.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, there has already been some discussion which hinges on the question: what is the Bill about? We start off with a very important clause which lists nine environmental aims, together with one aim concerning
“the health and welfare of livestock”,
which at least is about agriculture. Is this an environmental provision or an agricultural one? Those of us who are very keen on the environmental aspects of the Bill must nevertheless recognise that it is fundamentally about the future of farming in this country, not about the wider issue of the environment. It is unfortunate, as has been hinted at by at least one noble Lord, that the Environment Bill has not come first and we have not legislated on the Government’s new vision for the environment of Britain and then been able to fit farming into it. This is a problem that runs through the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised at Second Reading.
However, we have the Bill as it is. I was pleased to add my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on drainage schemes and so on, which are crucial. There is an important thing here which links to the proposals for the three tiers of the environmental management scheme. I think everybody is beginning to understand the importance of managing water on a catchment area basis; otherwise, if you do something upstream which affects something downstream, they are not co-ordinated.
The Government talk about peatlands and tree planting as tier 3 schemes, and it is easy to understand how they might work because of their nature. A catchment area scheme, by its very nature, will involve a very large number of landholdings and land managers. It can succeed only if a large proportion of them take part; otherwise, people may be persuaded to take part if they benefit but refuse if they do not. The whole catchment area must be treated as a unity. If such a scheme exists, will it be a condition on a landholding that is part of that catchment area, for all the other grants that it might want, to take part in the tier 3 scheme—the catchment area scheme? I ask the Minister that question because it is crucial.
I very much support what my noble friend Lord Bruce said about hill farming, and I added my name to his amendment. As someone who lives in the middle of the Pennines, in the north of England, I endorse everything he said. There is a tendency among some people to suggest that in such areas, land managers should be just that and that farming becomes irrelevant—in so far as farming takes place, it is there simply because the sheep are needed to manage the land in the way that people want, and hill farmers should become some special variety of civil servant operating on behalf of the Government, because that is the only way they can make a living. The hill farmers I have known over the years in the Lake District, the Pennines and Wales—and, indeed, in parts of Europe—are not the sort of people who want their lives regulated by officialdom. That is putting it fairly mildly. Will it really work like that?
It seems to me that in the hills, in the less favoured areas—in the Pennines, for example—farmers will continue to exist only if they can continue farming and can make enough of their income, their livelihood, from farming. They will not want to become land managers engaged by some bureaucratic board to manage the landscape in a particular way. There are parts where that will be the answer, but they will be a minority. By and large, if our economies, communities and landscapes in those areas are to survive, they will need to make enough money from what they produce. I see no way in which direct subsidy of the products they produce can be done away with in those areas. In the rest of England, perhaps so, but in those areas it will not happen. As we know, at the moment, people are producing milk for more than the price at which the supermarkets sell it; that is the cost to them. They are able to survive because they get the subsidy.
The only other thing I want to mention briefly is that I have two amendments, Amendments 80 and 81, which are amendments to an amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who has not yet moved her amendment, so it is a bit awkward. She is talking about big cities; I agree with everything I think she is putting forward, which is that in many urban areas, the rural fringe between the towns and the countryside is a bit of a mess. It is what some of us call the zone of tatty land. All I will say is that that applies to small and medium-sized towns, not just big cities.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 1 and 37. I understand what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said about Amendment 1: he seeks simply to probe in relation to financial assistance. We need to end the uncertainty felt by farming folk as we come out of the common agricultural policy and enter a new regime of funding. Therefore, there needs to be greater certainty about funding provided to farmers. Perhaps the Minister will provide some elucidation on that.
I support Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. To me, many of the amendments in today’s groups deal specifically with how we manage our land environment and new financial assistance powers which are grounded in Clause 1. Amendment 37 gives an opportunity because it gives the Secretary of State the power to issue payments to those farmers who protect or improve and manage the landscape. It is important that farmers are allowed to manage their own land environment for food and livestock production because, after all, they work that land daily, they know about the soil texture and the production levels that the land they farm is capable of. In so doing, they are then enabled to protect the flora, fauna and wildlife, which are all part of the natural environment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, Amendment 37 is about ensuring that that financial assistance recognises and is provided for the protection, improvement or management of landscapes and biodiversity through pasture-fed grazing livestock systems. She referred in particular to upland farming, and I recall that when she was in the other place as chairman of the EFRA Select Committee, of which I was a member, she had a particular passion for the needs of upland farmers. Coming from Northern Ireland and from an area where upland farming is a central part of farming, I fully understand that.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I believe there needs to be some co-operation between the devolved regions and Westminster, or Defra, on how this funding could be managed, how the less favoured areas classified under the old common agricultural policy, including those upland areas, could be managed and protected, and how farmers using that pasture-led grazing system can eke a subsistence and a living out of it and ensure a good farming life.
Always remember that the world’s soils represent the largest terrestrial carbon reservoir. In the UK, two-thirds of our farmland is pasture. Ruminants can effectively convert this into produce of value to us all. The capacity of pasture to build the fertility and health of the soil and the vital role of grazing animals in that process have been known for a long time. With a growing recognition of the environmental costs, and the cost of concentrate feed around five times that of grazed land, there is a shift to feeding ruminants increasingly on pasture.
Pasture-fed grazing livestock systems show a care for the animals, the environment, the land, the soils and the landscape. They bring value to the land, to the farming industry and to us as consumers. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, they produce good-quality food in terms of feed production. Pasture also provides a natural and unstressed environment in which ruminants can express themselves while producing nutrient-dense meat and milk that has measurable health benefits for us all and for the wider consumer market.
I believe this needs to be reflected in the Bill and am very content to support this amendment, which I have signed but is in the principal name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I hope the Minister can provide us with some elucidation on adding that as a purpose for financial assistance and ensuring that the purpose of financial assistance in itself is much more, shall we say, mandatory than simply permissory.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 79; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his support. This is a probing amendment. It aims to ensure that development of the land around our large towns and cities will feature in the Government’s strategy. By “large towns and cities” I am referring to urban areas with a population of at least 200,000, but of course priority is bound to be given to our great metropolitan cities—London, Manchester, Birmingham and others.
We know that green-belt land represents 13% of England’s land-mass: 1.6 million hectares. I believe the green-belt area doubled in size between 1979 and 1993. According to the Government’s official climate change advisers, the UK needs 1.5 billion more trees to absorb sufficient carbon dioxide and help restore wildlife. We can argue about how much agricultural land should be given over to trees, but there are swathes of undeveloped green-belt land. Surely we can do a great deal better than we do at the moment, not only for our urban populations but for the climate.
Mass tree planting is just one part of the solution to the green-belt wasteland, if I may call it that. Others include agricultural and horticultural development to provide the nearby urban populations with fresh food, in particular fruit and vegetables—avoiding the climate-destroying long-distance transport too often involved currently. Of course, an effective green policy for the green belt would need a shift in people’s attitudes to eating out-of-season fruit and vegetables. If people continue to demand to eat strawberries in December, however much we grow on the green belt will not help the climate as much as it should and could.
Finally, some investment on the green belt should surely be into energy products: solar panels and wind farms. Again, proximity to our metropolitan areas and other large towns and cities should be a driving factor for that. I hope the Minister will assure the Committee that climate-friendly development of the green-belt land will be an important element in the Government’s plan.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be here today and to contribute to a debate on this wide-ranging group. I was quite taken aback to be balloted out of speaking at Second Reading. I could barely be more steeped in agriculture. I was brought up on a family farm in Wiltshire and used to stand in gateways from an early age to help my father keep the cows in order; I even knew their names. My Civil Service career was mainly at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, where I was responsible for the farm woodland scheme and the Food Safety Act. I spent more than 15 years as a director at Tesco and devoted a lot of energy to farming matters and green issues. I was a director at 2 Sisters Food Group before joining the Government. Now, to declare my current interest entered in the register, I am chairman of Assured Food Standards—Red Tractor, as we call it—which is responsible for assuring some £15 billion-worth of British food a year from all four nations of the UK.
In my view, anyone should be able to speak at Second Reading, and I hope the powers that be have learned from the unjustifiable exclusion of several of us. I also express my concern that my noble friend Lord Dobbs was excluded from proceedings in Committee today owing to the loss of an email and the deadlines laid down by the House under Covid. All this underlines the need to get back to normal working, as Peers on all sides of the House are beginning to say. However, I put on record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Gardiner for the courtesy of a meeting to discuss my thoughts.
I turn to my Amendment 82 on impact assessment. This Bill, especially Clause 1, represents a huge change in farming and countryside management in the UK; just look at its extraordinarily long title. This needs to be quantified. We need to look at the economic costs, benefits and risks that the new framework will entail, so it is a perfect candidate for an impact assessment at the Bill stage, when the parameters are being settled.
Interestingly, the Regulatory Policy Committee, which has the important responsibility of independently—I emphasise that word—vetting the quality of government departments’ impact assessments, agrees. From its relatively narrow perspective, it advised on 20 February that the Bill will have “significant impacts on businesses”. I cite the radical changes to financial assistance and its tiers and conditions, and the shift in marketing standards and carcass classification, which we will discuss next week.
The fact is that impact assessments should have been submitted to the RPC for independent scrutiny, seen by Ministers and provided to Parliament. I know how valuable this can be to us. For example, DWP did a high-class job on the Pension Schemes Bill, which eased its passage. The RPC added value to an MHCLG assessment on plans to exempt extra floors on housing developments, pointing out the need to provide for the cost and risk of moving telephone masts—vital to HMG’s important plans for digital connectivity. Data, cost and risk assessment are essential to good government—allegedly one of the reasons why the Prime Minister and his consigliere Dominic Cummings are reforming the Civil Service.
Although the subject of my amendment is the framing of the financial assistance scheme itself, that stage would be far too late. I believe the Government could help themselves and Parliament by submitting an impact assessment for this scheme—and, indeed, for this whole Bill—now, and promising to act similarly for future Bills on the environment and trade. They might even adapt the assessment framework to encourage the sort of data analysis favoured by Mr Cummings. I hope the Minister will seriously consider my request before I return to the matter on Report.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will pick up a theme started by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, when he mentioned the importance of this Bill. This is an absolutely vital Bill—a watershed Bill in British agricultural terms. It is going to be a template for the future, very much as the 1947 Act was a template for farming for about 50 years. It is a privilege to be allowed to take part in these proceedings, which demonstrate how important it is for the Government to get the Bill absolutely right, because it will set the tone for farming for many years to come.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, was also right to question the wide spread of the Bill because the wider the Bill is spread, the less money there will be to go around, and important projects could well fall by the wayside. I too urge the Minister to clarify exactly how far this Bill is going to spread, whether reservoirs are to be included and whether the whole of forestry is to be included. There is a definitional problem here as far as I can see. In Clause 1(1) we talk about woodland and in Clause 1(2) we talk about forestry. Do these mean exactly the same things? I hope the Minister can be clear about that before we move to the next stage.
I added my name to two amendments in this group and I will first talk to Amendment 37, moved by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I was attracted to this amendment because it refers to
“protecting or improving the management of landscapes”.
Farmers do not exist in isolation but within a landscape, and farming is absolutely crucial to that landscape and its productivity. I am a great believer in multi-functional landscapes. There is no such thing as the average farmer: farmers vary hugely, as does the soil on which they farm. What is able to be grown in one field could be very different from that grown in an adjacent field, perhaps because the soil has changed from green sand to heavy clay and there are two different products to deal with it. Farming is therefore a much more complicated business than a production factory.
The idea of landscapes is gaining momentum, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said and I agree with him on this point. The key factor in making landscapes work sensibly is to work on a big, cohesive basis. The Minister knows a lot about the great success of the Northern Devon Nature Improvement Area, which is a template for how such projects could work. It is working on a water catchment area, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, and it brings farmers and other users of the countryside together to get the right policy for that area.
Amendment 7, which is a probing amendment, concerns growing crops for biofuel. There is potentially a very big future market for farmers growing bioenergy crops such as miscanthus for carbon capture and storage. I would not want them to be unable to obtain taxpayers’ money, considering the public good they would be doing. Can the Minister confirm that bioenergy crops are also included in this ambit?
Turning to Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I like the idea in principle of trying to attach the rewards of this Bill to the Environment Bill. Of course, there is a fundamental flaw in the noble Lord’s proposal. If, for instance, he had a farm that was subject to a tier 3 grant in a nature recovery area, he could well be signing up purely to get the money. If I were farming outside that area—not a nature recovery area—but wanted to increase my songbird population, I would be excluded by the noble Lord’s amendment. I hope the Minister will take up this point because it is key to the success of this Bill. We have to enthuse the farmer: I would much rather the farmer was enthusiastic about biodiversity and improving the ecology and the soil—wanting to spend the time doing it—than in the scheme purely in order to get the grants.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
I am happy to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I certainly identify with his comments on the 1947 Act and its significance. God help us if agriculture went back to the state it was in in the 1930s. There needs to be a reliable, transparent and dependable framework which our farmers and everyone involved in the countryside can depend upon. I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register.
This Bill applies primarily to England, although Wales will also come within its scope until such time as Welsh Ministers decide to have our own legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned a moment ago, Amendment 66 addresses the question of the relationship between Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland and the new regimes that will emerge. In the context of the European Union, there has been a framework for some understanding, whereas at the moment, unless some mechanism is brought in, there is a danger of us not having such a framework. My Amendment 66, which is in this group, attempts at least to flag up this question and seek an answer. This issue is probably better addressed later in the Bill, when we have already dealt with provisions relating to Wales—Schedule 5 and Part 7. Amendment 290, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, is probably a better point at which to address it. None the less, my amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to explain the initial thinking on it.
I agree with what was said in introducing the first amendment about the need for certainty and clarity. We need transparency regarding what exactly is going to replace the existing regime. The CAP can rightly be criticised for being expensive and bureaucratic, but it had one benefit: it brought certainty. It is important that farmers and others have certainty. In order to invest in the land, they need long-term certainty. We need to investigate that issue in Committee.
I also accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and others said about less favoured areas. We need clarity and certainty there, too, because they depended so much on the European regimes. I support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the question of reservoirs and water storage—an issue that might become even more important, given the climate change dangers we are facing. Having said this, many of these issues will be discussed in greater detail in considering later amendments, so on that basis, I will curtail my remarks at this point.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I will speak to my own Amendments 8, 22, 25, 31 and 50, which all relate to the issue of air pollution. I also support the amendments signed by my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Amendment 37, on pasture-fed grazing livestock systems, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
In this clause, there is near-unlimited potential for amendments, so we should all be commended if we manage to stay focused on our most pressing issues. As I said, the main focus of my five amendments in this group is on reducing the air pollution that results from farming and from land management, and on recognising the benefits of doing so.
Agricultural activities are a critical source of air pollution in rural areas—not just the fumes from machinery but the chemicals, slurries and manures that are applied to the land. Reducing this air pollution would obviously be of great benefit to the people who live and work on and around the land, but it would also benefit nearby towns and villages while reducing the accompanying smells. In most cases, farming-related air pollution is not an inevitable by-product of farming activity; it is in fact a huge waste of resources. For example, the offgassing of ammonia and nitrogen gases is an escape of nutrients that would be much better off retained in the soil.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I certainly support her in her concern about air quality. Clause 1(3) of the Bill reads as follows:
“Financial assistance may only be given in relation to England.”
Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to which I have added my name, adds to that,
“or to facilitate and implement the development of a framework for agricultural co-operation between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland relevant to the purposes in subsection (1).”
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, called for certainty and clarity, and I certainly support him on that.
I have no objection to the Bill being, in the main, limited to England, because Wales passed its own important legislation in 2015 on land management and sustainable development. The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 set out goals for Wales of a very similar nature to Clause 1, although perhaps with a rather wider scope. Goal 2 says that Wales is to be:
“A nation which maintains and enhances a biodiverse natural environment with healthy functioning ecosystems that support social, economic and ecological resilience and the capacity to adapt to change (for example climate change).”
Other goals call for:
“A Wales of cohesive communities”
and
“A Wales of vibrant culture and thriving Welsh language.”
The Act places all public bodies under a duty to carry out these goals, and it sets out the planning framework for achieving them. I have no doubt that there are similar aspirations in legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
In achieving the goals set out in the Welsh Act or the goals for which financial assistance is to be available under this Bill in England, each administration is constrained by the nature of the land: its situation and its climate within its jurisdiction. Soil depth and quality, slope, wind exposure, drought and flooding—as referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Devon—are factors that cannot be changed by government decree.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, pointed out, most of Wales is a less favoured area. Indeed, there is only one area of grade 1 land in the whole of Wales. It is some 400 acres around the village of Holt on the edge of the River Dee and the English border—some three miles from where I live. I do not have the happiest memories, I can tell your Lordships, of picking strawberries for two and sixpence an hour there as a schoolboy, with my nose pressed closely into grade 1 land.
Amendment 78, which I support, seeks to add to the goals for England set out in Section 1 an explicit reference to maintaining support for hill farms and other marginal land previously designated as less favoured areas. I support that amendment because it encompasses a large part of the agricultural industry in Wales.
However, suppose a conflict arises as to the level of support a Welsh hill farmer receives as compared to that of the Yorkshire farmer of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. This could lead to significant competitive advantage or disadvantage in the United Kingdom single market. Levels of support between the four nations are bound to diverge. I referred to this issue at Second Reading, where the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, said that
“I am struck by the absence of any hint of common frameworks for the devolved Administrations.”—[Official Report, 10/6/20; col. 1802.]
He asked the Minister to indicate progress in the area of agriculture.
A paper published a year ago by the Cabinet Office, entitled An Update on Progress in Common Frameworks, contained this paragraph:
“The UK Internal Market. The UK Government continues to seek development of a shared approach to the UK Internal Market with the devolved administrations, and, alongside the work being undertaken by policy teams, we are considering how to manage internal market issues across framework areas.”
The paper contained an extensive illustration of a framework agreement, but in the field of hazardous waste. It describes, in considerable detail, the policy area, the scope of the framework agreement, an outline of the legislation required, how decisions are to be made, the roles and responsibilities of each party, dispute resolution and many other sections.
Seeing that it is government policy to abandon the common agricultural policy in six months’ time, I think we are entitled to know where we are and to have the questions that we put forward at Second Reading answered. I am with my noble friend Lord Greaves; we do not want to have an agricultural industry, particularly in the Pennines or in Wales, that is paid to mow the grass, clip the hedges and mend the stone walls, while we get our lamb from New Zealand, our chlorinated chicken from the United States, our beef from Brazil and our pork from the Netherlands. We want a vibrant countryside producing food—and healthy food at that—short supply lines, local produce for local people and an internal market that reflects the diversity of our farming but allows the four nations fair and competitive markets.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I intend to be brief, as requested. I am very proud to be a member of the excellent organisation Peers for the Planet, set up by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and a number of other colleagues. I want to see a much more sustainable farming system that incorporates a good balance between food production on the one hand and environmental protection on the other.
My main aim today is to support Amendments 1 and 74, moved so well by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee—I am glad we were able to get back in touch with him after that technical problem. These amendments will ensure that the Government must provide the financial resources necessary to support farmers to change their practices and to make these aims possible.
I believe that there should not be just an opt-in button for the Government when providing financial assistance to farmers, with the vital support that they need. With major changes expected in how we farm and utilise the surrounding land to protect wider biodiversity and provide a more inclusive system—one that is for the wider public benefit—the Government must provide the necessary financial assistance to support these infrastructural changes.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and others have mentioned ELMS—the environmental land management scheme—which is of course a central part of the Bill. It needs to be effective and attractive for farmers, while being deliverable by the Government. There therefore needs to be much greater support from the Government, not only in funding for equipment but in supporting new technologies, skills development and providing advice on signing up for new schemes.
Finally, as one of the large number of Scottish Peers I am glad to see speaking in today’s debate, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Wigley, and others. I too am keen to highlight the need for strong co-operation among all four nations of the United Kingdom. We saw the recently published report of the Constitution Committee highlighting the concerns about relations between the UK and the devolved Administrations. Disputes between the UK Government and the devolved nations are in danger of becoming increasingly likely after Brexit. Can the Minister, in summing up on this debate, give the Committee an indication of what work the Government are doing to proactively and effectively engage with the home nations to ensure that, where there are areas of devolved competence, there is as much co-operation as possible?
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]
I speak in support of Amendment 66, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. If the UK had not been in the EU in 1997 when it started along the road to devolution, it would have been obliged to give more thought to the relationship between the four nations. As it was, EU regulations ensured common standards across a range of areas so that while agriculture was a devolved power in Scotland, most of the rules came from Europe. If the UK had not been a member of the EU when devising a system of devolution, there would have had to be much closer consideration of how decisions would be made on areas of common interest that cross territorial divides. That process would inevitably have resulted in changes to how Westminster interacted with the devolved Administrations and we may well have developed a more federal system of government.
However, we are where we are. In devising a way of recognising the rights and responsibilities of the four parts of the UK, there should be an acceptance that each Administration has parity of esteem. This will not be easily achieved when there is hostility, suspicion and concerns about Westminster power grabs. Whatever the reason for the lack of progress on common frameworks, the impact on the industry has been uncertainty, insecurity and concern for the future. For the politicians, it could further damage the prospect of ongoing co-operation, just at a time when that is vital for agriculture and other industries. However, I am pleased that the Minister will be moving an amendment that may alleviate some of the objections from the Scottish Government, who claim that the powers being given to the Secretary of State ought to require the consent of Scottish Ministers.
It is of course Northern Ireland that has been made integral to the withdrawal process. Just last week, your Lordships’ EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee completed a short inquiry on agri-food and the Northern Ireland protocol. The overwhelming view of those awaiting details of how the protocol will affect them was concern about the lack of meaningful government engagement. The fear is that any changes in standards will impact on the viability of Northern Ireland agriculture. There is real concern that the Bill does not provide sufficient safeguards.
If it is the case that we need a UK-wide internal market to replace the EU internal market, we have to work urgently to establish its rules of operation. It may have to involve a four-way arrangement, with each Administration having a right of veto. It cannot be the UK Government acting as a player in the discussions and then as final arbiter of the outcome. I hope that the Minister will take on board the issue of co-operation that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has raised with his amendment and that we can work for co-operation between the nations of the UK.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a Suffolk farmer. It must be a matter of real regret that the Second Reading of this important Bill was, in effect, guillotined. Only six hours were allocated for that debate, meaning that some 65 of the 90 Members who wished to speak were able to do so—and they had only four minutes each. Frankly, if there had been another two hours at least the other 30 Members could have been heard.
I am glad that we have my noble friend Lord Gardiner to shepherd us through what will be a complicated and controversial Bill, with this mass of amendments. He is one of the two finest Agriculture Ministers that we have had in the 29 years that I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House, the other being the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who sorted out the shambles with the Rural Payments Agency, which his predecessors had failed to do. Although I was not one of the lucky ones to speak at Second Reading, I have, of course, read the whole of the debate. This first group of amendments covers a wide spectrum, so I make no apology for focusing on the context in which they should be considered.
The move from the confines of the EU’s CAP is a moment of both opportunity and danger. We should remember that the three objectives when the CAP was first established back in 1962 have not lost their relevance today. They were market unity, protection of that market and the need for financial stability in rural communities. The late Lord Cockfield, who I think was the United Kingdom’s second Commissioner in Brussels, used to describe the CAP as the marriage contract for Europe between France and Germany. France would accept German manufactures and Germany would look after French farmers. Both countries flourished in this marriage: German manufacturers came to dominate Europe, while France led Europe with a highly efficient and constantly modernising agricultural system.
Agriculture has, over the decades, been subjected to huge pressures and swings between prosperity and depression. Much can be learned by following the price of wheat. It had been at dangerously high levels, causing much social distress, in the first half of the 19th century. During the Napoleonic wars it reached £28 a ton, without allowing for inflation. That price was not reached again until 1953. Those high prices were of course helped by the 30 years of protection under the corn laws. After the American Civil War and the railways opening up corn-growing in the Midwest, a great agricultural recession reached Europe by about 1870, with wheat prices reaching as low as £5 a ton by 1894. After a revival to £15 during the First World War, there was another major agricultural depression during the 1930s, already referred to this afternoon, when wheat went back to £6 a ton. After a revival of output during World War II, there was a prolonged period of agricultural prosperity.
Farming has become hugely dependent on the common agricultural policy which, for many medium-sized farms, comes to an average of 70% of any taxable profit. In some years, it is well over 100%, but it is seldom under 35%. The idea that agricultural production can be sustained if a large proportion of this money is—[Inaudible] —schemes is high risk, as far as any sustainability of the food supply is concerned. That is why the basic concept of a Bill that says that public money is payable for public good only, and that food production is not a public good, is dangerous thinking, not just for farming, but for the whole rural economy. Above all—[Inaudible]—must be protected not by tariffs—[Inaudible]—food production or imported food—[Inaudible.]
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has described why it is essential that, although agriculture is devolved, financial support decisions intersect to affect all the UK. Wales has led the way with its legislation to look at the future generations principle, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We must also look to future generations in this legislation, recognising all partners in the legacy of the land and all it produces. The infrastructure to recognise this in practice must be in place.
The approach of the Government, in listening to Wales, has resulted in government amendments that Wales requested and I support. Collaborative working needs to be locked into a framework carried forward for future generations through clear financial arrangements that recognise diversity across the UK. Less favoured areas must be supported, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, because support for variation in activities in farming results in far wider support to the economy in these areas. Devolution requires co-operation, and I hope that we will pursue Amendment 66 further.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
Rather unusually, my Lords, I speak not to support an amendment but to oppose some. I live in Devon, owned Dartmoor ponies and share the concerns of the Dartmoor Pony Society and other Dartmoor groups about some of the amendments to Part 1 on financial assistance. These groups have no criticism of the present clauses and the financial assistance proposed is much welcome. We are concerned, because the amendments should not be accepted. There are two in the first group about which I wish to speak, Amendments 17 and 27.
The effect of these amendments is either to exclude or to reduce the preservation of the semi-wild ponies on Dartmoor. Amendment 17 does not include native ponies, because the definition of wildlife does not include it, so there is a problem with using “conserves”. Amendment 27, by leaving out “native livestock” and “native”, would completely exclude the semi-wild Dartmoor ponies, which are such an iconic part of Devon and English heritage. I therefore hope that these two amendments are not accepted.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I asked to intervene on this group primarily to make a few general points, which relate to Clause 1 and the amendments to it, in this and subsequent groups. I also register my strong support for a couple of amendments that have already been spoken to. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, spoke about the amendment relating to air pollution, which I strongly support. Secondly, Amendment 51 and other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, relate to the public good that farming provides in relation to the rural community and economy.
I speak having been Agriculture Minister when the last dramatic change to the EU—and hence UK— subsidy policy was made in 2005 with the official reform. That did not go entirely well. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, it was introduced with administrative shambles here, although not quite so much in other countries. It was based on two premises that proved not to be the case. The first was that abolishing production subsidies would deliver us a multilateral trade agreement—the Doha round that never materialised. The second was that moving subsidy from production to the land would enable us to effectively ensure the environmental and agricultural status of all agricultural land, through a system of cross-compliance. Theoretically that has been the case and has worked in some places, but in many it has not, because of a lack of enforcement and clarity in the bureaucrats who were supposed to support it.
I strongly support the concept of public good in Clause 1 itself. However, we cannot get away from the fact that this introduces a system of subsidy that is substantially more complex than previous systems. The additional amendments, many of which I support in principle, probably make it more complicated. There is a need for farmers to relate to a much wider range of bodies than currently, not just in the way they practise farming but in their receipt of the subsidy—ranging from the Environment Agency to the water companies, private companies, local authorities and, presumably, the office for environmental protection and other bodies that will be set up by the Environment Bill and which we have not yet seen.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, warned us against putting everything into silos, and I recommend that the Government observe a number of principles in introducing this system. First, they should take it in stages. I therefore oppose any slow-down in the seven-year switchover period. Secondly, they need to require a system of whole-farm certification, in one form or another. That does not necessarily have to be onerous. It could include framework agreements for receipt of subsidies and be based on existing voluntary and commercial schemes. Thirdly, they need to provide a better system of advice and support to farmers. I mention ADAS; it does not have to be the same as ADAS, but farmers will need additional support. Fourthly and crucially, it needs to be made clear which bodies are responsible for which forms of support, and which for the responsibility of enforcement of standards and the conditions attaching support.
I favour multiple forms of support for farming, because farming has multiple outputs, but it is complex and the Government need to be clear, early in the process, what the bureaucratic structure is, how agencies will be co-ordinated, to what degree we can rely on commercial or voluntary arrangements and whether the agencies are adequately resourced and have adequate powers. If we do not get this right in the first year or two of switchover, there will be multiple problems later. The Government need to make this clear, because farming is not solely confined to itself. It is part of the rural economy and community, the food system, the nation’s health and diet, and the local, national and global environment. Government support needs to reflect all these dimensions but, for it to be a success, we need to be a lot clearer than the Bill and the Government currently are.
The Duke of Wellington (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to comment briefly on and support three amendments. I should declare my agricultural interests as detailed in the register. The first is Amendment 37, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, relating to pasture-fed livestock. There is much evidence that extensively grazing livestock on pasture, both lowland and upland, is the most efficient way to convert grassland into a food product for human consumption. Feeding concentrates to livestock is certainly a great deal less efficient in terms of use of resources. On arable land, cereals and similar plants should ideally be grown for human consumption. We have plentiful grasslands in the United Kingdom. They absorb carbon, if correctly managed, and produce food, if grazed by the right breeds of livestock, so I strongly support Amendment 37.
I also support Amendment 78, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Greaves. Hill farms are of great concern, particularly the smaller ones, to me and many others. They are all marginal, almost by definition. More than their total profit comes from current forms of financial support. I have an amendment in a later group which seeks to protect the basic payment for the next three years for smaller farms in less favoured areas. All these farms, almost without exception, lose money, and they survive only through financial support, so, using the words in the amendment, I certainly support that Ministers should,
“have regard to maintaining support for”
these small farms. When the Minister replies, it would be very helpful if he could give us some reassurance on this matter. I also hope that the noble Lords, Lord Beith, Lord Greaves and Lord Wigley, may support my Amendment 149 which comes in a later group.
The third amendment which I shall support is Amendment 91, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. He specifically refers to wetlands. I think he has in mind lowland wetlands, but in many upland areas there are very important wetlands. They are an important absorber of carbon. Many of these upland wetland areas have sphagnum moss and other plants that absorb a great deal of carbon. If the noble Earl believes that it is advantageous to include wetlands in the definitions, I am happy to support him.
These three amendments would improve the Bill and, if they are brought back on Report, I will be happy to support them.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I would like to make a general point about this group. We have a considerable number of amendments to Clause 1. They add further purposes for which the Secretary of State can give financial assistance. In my view, the Bill runs the risk of becoming a bit of a Christmas tree—everybody wants to hang a bauble on it. Many of these baubles are lovely. They highlight important activities which the new environmental land management scheme should support, such as integrated pest management and nature-friendly farming. I have signed to support some amendments, such as those on agroforestry and agroecology, so I am as guilty as many noble Lords in wanting to hang baubles on this Christmas tree as it passes. We all want our bauble to shine to impress on the Minister how vital they are so that he will consider whether these additions could be added to the Bill.
However, I think we need to examine our conscience and look at whether some of these proposals can be delivered under the current purposes in Clause 1, since they clearly come under the heading of improving the environment, mitigating climate change or improving soil et cetera. Many of them are about management practices rather than the purposes that those management practices are intended to deliver. So, although I will polish my baubles nicely when the amendments I have signed come up in order to impress on the Minister that they are important issues, I think we all have to ponder whether we really want the Christmas tree to crash to the ground overwhelmed by the weight of amendments in its first clause and to create an overly complicated framework for the future of agriculture and land management.
I shall also comment on those amendments in this group that could be interpreted as a return to payments directly for food production. We all know from the past that that distorted markets, encouraged environmental harm and ended up being a rather poor use of taxpayers’ money. The Bill needs to be much more visionary than that. It is a ground-breaking opportunity to set a new UK-based framework for agriculture. It needs to be focused with rapier precision, not a loose, baggy monster.
Finally, I support Amendment 1, which requires that the Secretary of State “must” fund the public goods that are listed in the Bill, rather than a discretionary “may”. We need a duty on the Secretary of State, not simply a power.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 37 and 78. A great many noble Lords from all sides of the House have done so with great eloquence, so I will cut my speech short. The Bill needs to be beefed up in relation to pasture-fed grazing systems and support for hill farms and other marginal land.
In speaking as I do, I declare an interest in addition to those set out in the register as a patron of the Exmoor Pony Society and as someone with a particular interest in the conservation of rare breeds. I follow on from the remarks that have already been made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Version 1 of the Agriculture Bill contained no provisions such as those which are now set out in Clause 1(1)(g), which provides the possibility of financial assistance for,
“conserving native livestock, native equines or genetic resources relating to any such animal.”
In tandem with the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who I think is going to speak later, if this version 2 Bill had emerged with the same deficiency, we had intended to try to introduce just such a provision, so I am grateful that this second version made good that deficit as a result of a number of approaches from the Rare Breeds Survival Trust and many others, assisted, I do not doubt, by the Secretary of State for the Environment’s personal knowledge and appreciation of the value of the British Lop pig, a breed on the endangered species list.
It was therefore with some dismay that I saw Amendment 27, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which proposes to widen the clause from native livestock to all livestock at a time when we all know that funds are going to be very limited. Were he to succeed, he would so water down the provision that the very purpose of this paragraph would be rendered pointless. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill say that it is,
“to provide financial assistance for measures to support the conservation and maintenance of UK native Genetic Resources relating to livestock or equines.”
A dilution of such funds as are likely to be available would necessarily weaken our ability to meet our obligations under Aichi target 13 of the biodiversity convention and United Nations sustainable development goal 2.5, both of which require us to conserve the diversity of our livestock breeds.
The amendment would remove something which I believe could be a means of encouraging and incentivising farmers to invest in rare and native breeds, many of which have gone already. We are only just at the very beginning of an appreciation of the genetic bank that we possess in relation to our native breeds. We are only just beginning to carry out widespread genetic testing, which is revealing just how precious and potentially valuable some of those genetic qualities are. A genetic ability to cope with extreme weather conditions, such as that possessed by the Dartmoor hill ponies of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the ability to thrive on inferior pasture, like the Exmoor pony, and docility, good mothering abilities and not running to excess fat, like George Eustice’s British Lop pigs, have not just an actual value but a potential one, which is as yet often unknown.
Some people still keep these breeds because they like them, out of tradition or sentiment, or due to local culture, which is not unimportant. However, without an incentive to farmers to conserve them, which is often the case at present, many have been lost and many more are under threat. Clause 1(1)(g) is their lifeline, and I hope that it will not be cut.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I wish to add to the remarks made by one or two participants about being balloted out of the Second Reading. That was most unfortunate. With other major Bills in the pipeline, I hope it will be possible to ensure that alternative mechanisms are found to enable people to fully participate.
I will speak specifically to Amendment 7, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, which refers to growing crops for biofuel. Biofuels are something that we in Northern Ireland know a little about, because we have had one of the greatest financial scandals ever on the back of them. The renewable heating scheme was designed to replace the use of carbon-based fuels with more natural products, but of course it collapsed. Nevertheless, the point made in the amendment is important, and we need to ensure that it is included. If we are to meet our environmental targets over the years, we need to include not only fuels that are currently available but fuels that may subsequently become available—otherwise a great opportunity will be lost.
A number of Members have referred to hill farms, and that is a huge issue for us in this part of the country. But there is a wider point I want to make to the Minister—one which is perhaps not fully understood. Whatever is in the Bill, the fact remains that, to all intents and purposes, we remain, in very large measure, within the European Union as far as agriculture is concerned. Therefore, amendments that we will come to later in the Bill, including one of my own on standards, become progressively more important.
In many respects, the Government have refused to concede or acknowledge the reality of what they have agreed with the European Union in the protocol that deals with Northern Ireland. Even this week, as we are having this debate, people here are talking about building border control posts and asking how many acres need to be set aside to provide for suitable inspections.
In many respects this Bill is taking place in a vacuum, in that some of us are still bound, as far as state aid is concerned, and will have to comply fully with all that. Perhaps the Minister will address this in his winding-up speech, but I wonder whether he and his colleagues fully appreciate the downstream consequences of this as we go forward. If trade deals are done with other countries and cheap food emerges, we in Northern Ireland will still be bound by European Union standards; our farmers will have to ensure that welfare and other matters are fully adhered to. So if imports are not protected and we do not get the adequate standards in the Bill, our farmers will be at a huge disadvantage.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to a framework, but the framework we already have is the CAP and the standards that flow from it. In other words, we will end up with a two-track agriculture system in the United Kingdom—and we should bear in mind that agriculture is a much more significant part of our economy in Northern Ireland than it is in the UK economy as a whole.
I hope that the Minister, in winding up on this group, will be kind enough to address this issue and tell us how it is proposed to ensure that we have at least a parallel process in the United Kingdom, given that one part of it will be governed by the European Union, into which we will have no input, and yet the rest of the country will not. That is the dilemma that we face here.
Lord Adonis (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to pick up where the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has just left off on the hugely important issue of co-operation between different parts of the United Kingdom.
Amendment 66, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, looks to be superfluous, as I assume that the Minister will tell us that there is absolutely nothing to prevent a framework for agricultural co-operation between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by the free will of their respective Governments. The issue, then, is not whether a legal power is needed—I assume that no legal power is needed—but what machinery the Government envisage will be needed to promote co-operation between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on agriculture and the environment; I am not aware that any such machinery is in place at the moment. I think that the Committee would be grateful if the Minister could address that point. It is about not just ongoing talks but what institutional machinery there will be to promote co-operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, has just raised a very important point. In respect of co-operating with Northern Ireland, that means co-operating with the EU. As so often in our debates, I am afraid that everything comes back to Brexit.
This relates also a very important amendment in this very large group which has barely been discussed, because there are so many other issues. Amendment 234, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, proposes that:
“The Secretary of State must establish a service to provide a means for farmers to associate, and to support, advise and assist them to deliver improvements in food security, nutrition and environmental standards.”
In respect of agriculture and the environment, this strikes me as a very similar role to that which NICE—the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—plays in respect of the NHS, as an independent body promoting best practice on the basis of thorough research and engagement. Most people who have experience of the NICE arrangements in the NHS think that they work well, have by and large promoted good practice, and to some extent have helped to depoliticise what would otherwise be very thorny issues.
Amendment 234, and the body that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, envisages, looks to me to be a very good move, and I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate a willingness to consider it. It may be that we could work this up into a proposal between now and Report. I cannot think of any good argument against it, including from the Government’s perspective, because it is in the interests of the Government that a body of impartial evidence and the promotion of best practice are encouraged.
This comes back to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in Amendment 66. I am a supporter of devolution, and it is to my great regret that, in the past 20 years, Scotland and Wales have tended, as a matter of reflex, to define themselves against what England does. I think that sometimes they are right to do so and sometimes they are wrong to do so. To my huge regret, often what happens in Scotland and Wales is not a decision about whether or not policies are better than those in England, but just wanting to be different from England.
There is a real danger for the management of environment and agricultural support that Scotland, Wales and to a lesser extent Northern Ireland—Northern Ireland is effectively still part of the EU—will seek to define themselves against England for the sake of doing so. That would be hugely regrettable. Therefore, machinery to promote co-operation is important. An impartial best-practice body of the kind envisaged in Amendment 234 could act as a means to promote co-operation between the constituent parts of the UK. It would not be the Government in London seeking to promote in any partisan way their own policies and the interests of England; rather, if this works well, it would be serious experts and a serious process of promoting consensus that could, if that is done, even though it starts off being in respect of only England, have an impact on promoting co-operation between Scotland and Wales. It could also interact with the European Union, which would be good in its own right, but also enormously beneficial for relations with Northern Ireland.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
I will speak to Amendment 83 to Clause 1, in particular the work that my noble friend Lord Greaves mentioned. I will highlight the issue of catchment areas and draw attention to the fact that, while they create great difficulty in some areas of the country, they also do so in some of the most favoured areas, if I may put it that way.
The catchment areas in question are a series of spring-fed chalk streams and their seasonal winterbournes, which define the landscape around Winchester in north Hampshire. Many people know that they are famed for their world-class fly fishing for the most favoured in the rivers Test and Itchen, and for the watercress industry around Alresford. The unique landscape is a product of human as well as natural history, providing drinking water for Southampton and, at one time, pure water for banknote watermarking at the De La Rue works near Basingstoke.
In the last 50 years—certainly while I have lived in the area—more than half of all wildlife species have declined across the UK, never more so than in Hampshire’s winterbourne and watercress landscape, including its conservation areas, sites of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Historically, efforts to protect rivers and their ecology focused on the channel and possibly the immediate floodplain. There now needs to be an increasing awareness that a river system is inherently linked to and affected by its wider catchment.
The water framework directive recognises this and requires a holistic view of the needs of the freshwater environment. It identified the pressures affecting Hampshire’s seven headwater chalk streams and set targets for the improvement of the chemical and ecological status of each. It also required stakeholders to be involved in local decision-making and delivery. Clearly, the quality of the water in these headwater chalk streams is critical, contributing as the streams do to the Test and Itchen river systems and the groundwater resource they share.
It therefore has to be a cause of considerable concern that recent surveys have shown that all the streams are at risk from excessive levels of nutrients, sediment and pesticides, the worst case being the River Alre, which is literally on my doorstep. The lake behind a weir, built in the 16th century to control the river waters before entering Alresford’s watercress beds, is heavily polluted with nitrates and phosphates, largely due to agricultural run-off. The Environment Agency is understood to have recently tested the water in the River Alre above the lake and found it below standard. An industrial-scale salad-washing plant is nearby and is licensed to use the river water to wash all pesticides and other chemicals from salads imported from Europe and elsewhere for distribution across the UK.
Apparently, the Environment Agency is required to negotiate with polluters over infringements rather than close them, with predictable results. The Agriculture Bill should present an opportunity to strengthen this rather toothless organisation to tackle this extremely harmful abuse. To give just one example, Salmon & Trout Conservation considers the presence of these pesticides responsible for the marked decline in Gammarus freshwater shrimp, the foodstuff of the trout of the river.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to the UK Progress on Reducing Nitrate Pollution report from the other place. Have the Government taken action to take up and recognise the recommendations made by the committee that produced the report? They will be essential to tackle this hugely damaging problem of nitrates in our watercourses, water tables and water catchments.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as one of the silenced ones at Second Reading, I must begin by declaring my interests in the register. In particular, I point to the fact that I farm, have land and am involved in land management in Cumbria. I endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and a number of other noble Lords about the condition of the uplands.
Although this afternoon should have been the second day of the Second Reading—after all, the Bill is not due to conclude until September—I do not propose to make a Second Reading speech. Rather, perhaps unusually, I intend to follow the recommendation of the Government Front Bench not to be repetitious. I have heard the various contributions made across the Floor of the House and it is clear that they run with the grain of my thinking through this discussion of the first group of amendments, many of which would improve, refine and calibrate the general principles on the Bill. It is necessary to be clear what the generalities might in turn entail.
Many of your Lordships have said that we are at a very important point of change—perhaps as important as joining the CAP or even the great radical changes of the 1940s. In fact, I suspect it is a more important change, because we have not only political and administrative changes; they are combined with very far-reaching scientific and social change and a great deal of enhanced environmental consciousness. That is why I join a number of your Lordships in saying that it is a great pity that this legislation is not being run in substantive tandem with the new environmental legislation due to come on to the statute book. The underlying reality is that many of the Bill’s provisions cannot be free-standing in their own terms. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, were particularly important in this context when he talked about the complications and importance of systems and administration.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my interests, all unremunerated so far as they are relevant to the Bill, are listed in the register. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, as he listens to these amendments, will be encouraged and proud that he has stimulated so much interest among his fellow Peers and that so many are anxious to help him ensure that the Bill is as effective as it should be. I always enjoy following the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. As someone who lives in Cumbria, he has illustrated again today why he is held in such widespread respect. He always speaks with knowledge, experience, balance and wisdom and we should be grateful for that.
I strongly support Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—in many ways, I wish I had put my name to it. If financial assistance is to be effective, it must be informed by reconnaissance and strategic understanding of all that is associated with the specific objective for which it is being given. This amendment makes a terrific contribution to the quality of the Bill by pointing out that it is essential to look at all the other activities, many of which will be receiving government assistance in their own right, and to make sure that what is being done fully harmonises with them. It strengthens the effectiveness of what is being sought. It also makes for better financial accountability, because it is possible to see how relevant the financial support really is. It does a great deal to enhance the potential contribution being made. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has done a great service by bringing to bear his considerable experience on the front line of local government and rural affairs. I hope that he will pursue this issue on Report, if necessary, and that the Minister will feel able to respond positively.
Lord De Mauley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendments 5, 17 and 27, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. I declare my interest as a landowner and land manager, and as Master of the Horse. My concerns centre on the fact that the breeds of semi-wild, native ponies on Dartmoor and Exmoor, and in the New Forest, are, in some cases, on the critically endangered list, yet represent important gene pools which we lose at our peril. These genetic resources could offer a sustainable way to increase food production and/or improve our capacity to adapt to climate change. They could also help us tackle the emergence of new animal or plant diseases by contributing to a breadth of genetic traits. As has been found in areas such as plant science, genes from ancient species can help us tackle 21st-century problems. These ponies do not fit neatly within the definition of wildlife, any more than they do within that of livestock. Amendments 5 and 17 could mean that the potential financial support and protections currently offered by the Bill for semi-wild pony herds is significantly impaired.
For the same reason, like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I have significant—perhaps greater—concerns about Amendment 27. Removing the word “native” would destroy the whole reason behind the clause, changing its meaning entirely. The Explanatory Notes point out that the clause is concerned with
“the conservation and maintenance of UK native Genetic Resources relating to livestock or equines.”
As the noble Baroness said, Amendment 27 might also inhibit the UK’s ability to comply with our obligations under Aichi target 13 of the biodiversity convention and sustainable development goal 2.5, which require us to conserve the genetic diversity of the UK’s livestock breeds. If Amendment 27 were upheld, it could lead to the waste of a great deal of public money because it would support investment in any breed, without differentiation. I am afraid that I cannot, therefore, support these amendments.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of Amendment 78. I come from a long line of sheep farmers and I have no financial interest to declare, other than that my brothers, nephews and nieces continue the long family tradition. As I said at Second Reading, I am fully aware that the Bill applies to England and that it is for the devolved Governments to phrase their own financial provision, as they should, agriculture having been devolved. However, there is, allowing for divergence, an emphasis on a single UK market. For some years, the agreement reached with the Welsh Government will make that provision. My noble friend Lord Adonis coupled Wales with Scotland. He failed to understand the different approaches of Wales and Scotland in the agreements they have reached. The Welsh Government will, I suspect—hope—take fully on board what happens in England in the way agricultural support is drafted, and draft legislation suitable for the needs of Wales.
I will make three points. First, hill farmers operate on very narrow margins and survive, to some extent, on the present financial assistance. Secondly, there is only limited opportunity for alternative uses of the hills and marginal lands. Thirdly, there are possibilities for encouraging other financial uses of premises, particularly for tourism. It would be a great loss to the country, and to my nation in particular, if any substantial part of the hill farming industry went out of existence. The loss would not be confined to those engaged in the industry; it would affect those who enjoy the countryside and who visit the area from time to time.
Bearing in mind Gray’s elegy, an empty countryside would be very much less attractive to everyone. Hence, we need a policy for hill and marginal land. Do we believe in maintaining them, and to what extent? What financial support should we contemplate? This is crucial, so that such farmers can plan for the future. It would be an enormous loss to the whole country if we allowed hill farmers and marginal farmers to wither on the vine. I am therefore anxious to hear the Government spell out in detail their plans, so that those farmers know where they stand, what they can look forward to and what other financial support they can hope to receive.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, in the new farming environment there will be many challenges, which undoubtedly will affect some, if not all, of the four nations of the United Kingdom. In these circumstances, co-operation is not just desirable but necessary; that is why I support Amendment 66. Looking around us, we see the absence of co-operation between all four nations in relation to the virus. This should be an example to us of the importance of co-operation when it comes to agriculture. It is better to have an existing framework for Westminster, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast than to deal with issues on the basis of ad hoc responses.
I have a few comments to add to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie on Amendment 78. Support for what used to be the less favoured areas constitutes a set of public goods. First, it allows farming to continue in a viable business fashion. Secondly, it avoids the risk of land abandonment. Thirdly, it helps to maintain continued agricultural use. Of course, all three help to combat depopulation. But it goes further than that. Agriculture support helps to preserve communities and services such as education, and to maintain social infrastructure in areas where population is thinner than it is in the towns. Amendments 66 and 78 warrant support.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have enormous sympathy for my noble friend on the Front Bench. This debate is all-embracing; I take a specialist interest in horticulture and forestry, but I feel almost out of my depth here. It reminds me of the Maastricht treaty, but I remind my noble friend the Minister: that was a Bill of four clauses, 500 amendments in order and 25 days of sitting, with three all-night sittings. Having said that, I am going to be brief, as there are only two amendments that I wish to comment on.
One is Amendment 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, in which he suggests substituting “conserves” for “protects or improves”. In the debate, he reflected that “enhance” would be better. I think he is right, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider that.
Secondly, Amendment 7, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, is quite important, inserting the phrase
“including growing crops for bioenergy”.
This is a vital area. I had the privilege of being on the energy Select Committee when there were the beginnings of some thinking about this. That was quite a long time ago, but if we are serious about carbon capture and storage, as I think we are in this country—there is a great deal moving forward on that—farmers must be encouraged to grow crops for bioenergy, assuming that the soil is suitable, et cetera.
I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept my noble friend Lord Caithness’s Amendment 7.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, when opening the debate, observed that Clause 1 gives Ministers powers, not duties, so the financial assistance objectives of the Bill are only permissive and thus inevitably subject to the economic context in which it all becomes operational. It is all very well trying to allocate the most appropriate slices of the financial cake, as all amendments in this group do, but the overall size of that cake is the more critical issue for 2021 and beyond. Every single one of the bids for inclusion is at risk if the cake is drastically shrunken.
I said at Second Reading that I have no interests to declare, but in addition to substantial constituency and Commons responsibilities, until last year I had a small shareholding in a large farming company, and over the years, that enterprise had dairy and substantial arable interests, as well as renewable energy projects. I hope I can claim, therefore, to take an informed interest in the economic health of agriculture and rural areas.
The Bill is a legislative pig in a poke. Perhaps inevitably, but with dire consequences, it is entirely dependent on its context, and in the last week, since Second Reading, the likely context has deteriorated still further. First, the Government, for absurdly obstinate and dogmatic doctrinal reasons, refused to even consider giving the Brexit negotiators more room for manoeuvre by extending the transition. Secondly, Mr Frost then failed again to make any progress in the current discussions. Growers of fruit, vegetables and flowers are all too familiar with substantial frost damage. However, this frost damage is on an incalculable scale. We seem destined to charge towards a really bad deal for British agriculture, or, even worse, no deal at all. In his otherwise very comprehensive letter to us all on 29 June, the Minister completely failed to acknowledge this unprecedented uncertainty. He could make no concrete commitments. How could he, with the Covid-19 recession heading towards us at breakneck speed?
There are global trends to which our industry is especially vulnerable; for example, the failure of Trump’s attempt to build a market for US crops in China has left powerful American agribusinesses desperate to dump into the UK. On top of those major challenges, the combination of the Covid-19 recession and the Brexit failures is producing a uniquely unfavourable financial combination for UK farmers and growers, and the longer the crisis lasts, the nastier the results will be. For example, farmers will start to produce less. We are already experiencing the impact of having few of the 90,000 pickers we usually have from Europe. There will be resultant harvest losses. Then there is scarce credit. As operations slow down, loan terms are extended, cash is trapped and lenders are reluctant to finance commodities and are wary of volatile currencies. Governments everywhere will get scared. Export controls or attempted bans will cause price rises and shortages, with deprived communities hit disproportionately hard.
This all adds up to all the sectors of UK agriculture and horticulture finding it impossible to plan or invest in a climate of unprecedented uncertainty, just as the Government will be grappling with the worst economic crisis since the Second World War, and here, I thought the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, were very relevant. In these circumstances, Ministers can hardly be blamed for being so vague about the multiannual financial assistance plan specified in Clause 4. I am willing to bet that this appears only much later in the year, long after the Bill has reached the statute book.
In his letter, the Minister wrote:
“The Government intends to provide more detail about the early years of the transition, including Direct Payments and future schemes, in the autumn.”
I warn farmers and growers not to expect a cheerful Christmas present. With all the other competing claims—the NHS, the care sector, schools, reviving our already hard-pressed manufacturing sector and trying to stabilise service industries that are forced out of Europe—the Treasury is never going to be very generous to farmers.
Clearly, No. 10 plans to bury Brexit under the Covid-19 recession, but it risks burying large numbers of farmers and growers in the process, with calamitous consequences for consumers and for the nation’s food security. These amendments are crucial. They require the Government to be realistic and frank, because empty promises are literally worthless.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be back in the Chamber after nearly 15 weeks, and to reflect on what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and others have said about the need to accommodate more Members and get back to normal as quickly as possible. I have a personal interest in that I have discovered that I am very poor at reading a speech into a computer microphone, or even improvising, and whatever skills I have in oratory, humour and irony are absolutely wasted when online—not that I intend to draw on all three of those this afternoon.
I want to reinforce points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and to comment on the speech by my old—not in age but in longevity of friendship—friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. For those who do not know, the city of Sheffield incorporates in its boundaries a substantial part of the Peak District; in fact, a third of the landmass of Sheffield is in the Peak park. For the benefit of the noble Baroness, I can say that it is not, like some other cities, tatty—I think that was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—land on the edge of the city. It is an essential part of the Peak park, as well as a breathing space, as it always has been, for the city itself.
The reason I mention it is that, as lockdown diminished—this was not one of those forays to discover whether I could drive a car safely—I went out into the area, still in Sheffield, around the Redmires Reservoir, and heard a curlew, one of the greatest sounds you can imagine. As the speeches this afternoon have emphasised, I simply want to say that in conserving as well as developing our agriculture, we should nurture the natural environment. I am all in favour of growing trees—they have to be the right trees—but we need our moorlands. On a point about water-gathering and conservation, we need to understand the essential nature of upland wet areas, particularly the peat bogs, which 13 years ago dried out to the point where, at around this time, in late June or early July, we had the most enormous flooding. At that time, civil servants told the Secretary of State, who happened—and continues —to be a friend of mine, that we were exaggerating when we said we had a problem. When the RAF lifted people by helicopter off the Meadowhall shopping centre, and when a 14-tonne piece of equipment was lifted out of its moorings and swept 100 yards from the Forgemasters factory in the lower Don Valley, I think they may have changed their minds. We need to be aware of what we do, how it affects our environment and why the Environment Bill that is to be brought forward and this legislation should go hand in hand.
I want to comment briefly on land management. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right to indicate that small farmers—tenant farmers, herdsmen—have a job surviving; they use their skills to try to make a sufficient living from keeping the countryside working. But I say to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that there are large landlords who, like the Duke of Devonshire—no relation —have been struggling to manage the watercourse. They have been working to defend the river running through the land around Chatsworth House from the scourge of American crayfish—which is not one of the breeds that I hope we will be protecting so Amendment 27 is, perhaps, not appropriate after all. They have been trying to do this by persuading Defra to give them a licence so that, having dealt with these crayfish under proper regulations so that nobody thinks of farming them, they can dispose of the fish in a way that allows them to cover the enormous costs involved. I am talking about 20,000 crayfish per year from a stretch of water of just two miles, which destroy the embankments, undermine the area around and are incredibly dangerous in relation to flooding.
All these things go hand in hand. My plea this afternoon is that, as we go through this Bill in Committee and on Report, we reserve for amendments those things that are in synergy with each other, to ensure that the Bill comes out not as a Christmas tree but as a good English pine.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and strongly endorse his remarks with respect to the need to get back to this House properly, as soon as possible. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Fonthill Estate in Wiltshire, as listed in the register. I have read and considered all 36 of the amendments in this group and believe that the majority are unnecessary, even if they are well intentioned.
My noble friend Lord Lucas likes to use the verb “conserve” and attributes to it a meaning wider than words such as “protect” and “improve”. I sympathise with his intention to broaden the scope of the purposes for which the Secretary of State may provide financial assistance, but I am not sure that his suggestion to use “conserve” actually clarifies approved purposes, except in the cases of species of animals and plants.
My noble friend Lord Dundee and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seek in Amendment 1 to clarify whether the Secretary of State really will provide financial assistance for the activities listed in Clause 1. I should have thought that this was obvious, but I welcome this amendment if it will encourage my noble friend the Minister to be much more specific in informing your Lordships of how much financial assistance will be made available under the ELMS scheme, and whether it will completely compensate for the loss of direct support payments, which will hit farming businesses hard in 2021.
It may be true that the larger estates are better able to survive the withdrawal of direct payments, but it is also true that the larger farming businesses employ a large majority of agricultural workers, and the prospects for those currently furloughed to return to the payroll will be enhanced if the Government can give a lot more clarity on how businesses can mitigate the loss of direct payments. Indeed, it should be made possible for those who are particularly innovative and active in introducing new, environmentally friendly practices to receive more than they have been receiving under the present system.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, we have engaged in a long and wide-ranging debate on part of the first clause of this Bill, as tends to be your Lordships’ practice in Committee. The first clause of any Bill sets the tone for the rest of the Bill, and in this case, since agriculture is moving from direct payments under the EU CAP and into UK law, it is quite right that the powers surrounding financial assistance should be at the front of the Bill.
As we have seen from the debate on this group of 36 amendments, there are a range of views about what measures should or should not be included in the list of purposes for which the Secretary of State can give financial assistance. Some 40 Peers have spoken this afternoon, only 20 fewer than took part at Second Reading. The way that Second Reading was organised shut out a list of important Peers from contributing to this debate, and that could have been avoided by spreading the debate over two days. Like other Peers, I believe that the Government have a lot of lessons to learn from that.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, feel that the Secretary of State “must” give assistance to all items in the list, and that this should not be left to his or her discretion but enshrined in the Bill. I support that view but there is a question mark over the number of additions that would be made to the list. There is huge uncertainty in the farming community about what is going to happen and how those who manage the land, grow crops, tend animals and produce food are going to make a living. The Bill presents an opportunity to move forward and away from what many saw as the straitjacket of the CAP funding, but this needs to be done in a way that will provide reassurance for all concerned, especially farmers. While I would normally support flexibility as likely to provide the best solution, in this case I feel that “must” is the only way to produce that reassurance.
My noble friend Lord Teverson spoke about the need for the nature recovery strategies to work together with ELMS. I support this view but note the objection to it from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
Water management is key to land management. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, would like water removed from the list in Clause 1(1) while the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would like to know how flood mitigation will be provided for, how new reservoirs will be funded and whether that will be under the Reservoirs Act 1975. How we make provision for the management of our water resources is key to the success of land management and food production. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made links with the Environment Bill and I support that view; it is key that the two Bills are worked together.
Opposition to Amendment 27, which would take out “native”, has come from several noble Lords: the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I support them in opposing the amendment; I think it unwise to broaden the clause.
I was interested in Amendment 7 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, regarding growing crops for bioenergy, and others have supported it. However, we should tread carefully here. The spectre of growing bioethanol crops in South America to power domestic vehicles in the West led to the start of the destruction of the rainforest in a gallop to plant palms to provide oil for this purpose. We have all seen the disastrous results of that and the massive loss of habitat of some of the world’s most iconic species. Great care is needed.
Many noble Lords have referred to the very wide range of the Bill, expressing concern that the agricultural budget will be spread too thinly. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s response on that.
The reduction of air pollution is important and needs to be a thread that runs through the various clauses of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
Several noble Lords also spoke about how co-operation between the devolved Administrations will take place. These include the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Foulkes and Lord Empey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bryan of Partick and Lady Finlay. It is really important that the devolved Administrations are fully involved in what is going on.
Many noble Lords are attempting to widen the scope of Clause 1 to be in effect a catch-all. Hill farming, as described by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie, has been the subject of many debates in this Chamber. Despite warm words from the Government, we have still not received a firm commitment that hill farmers will receive support—that is, unless the contribution from Defra to suggest grazing bison on the uplands is serious. That would appear to be in direct conflict with one of the main aims of the Bill, improving accessibility to the countryside. There is a world of difference between walking along an open footpath through a hillside of sheep and attempting to do that through a herd of bison. These areas are heavily dependent on subsidies but are part of the public good and deserve support in future, despite being classified as less favoured areas.
Given that the Bill is only a framework, it was inevitable that increasing its scope would be a prime objective for all taking part in this opening debate. Many of the amendments are vital to the success of a proper agricultural policy in England. Many deserve to be covered in other Bills, some in the upcoming Environment Bill. We have a long sitting in front of us and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on their amendments today. We have indeed had a very wide-ranging debate, and many of those amendments have set the scene for more detailed discussions that we will have elsewhere in the Bill as we journey through it. However, we do not get the opportunity to reshape the future of agriculture in the UK very often, so it is right that we debate and test the boundaries of what is possible within the constraints of a public subsidy as far as it can go. The fact that so many amendments have been tabled is a measure of a real enthusiasm among noble Lords to shape the legislation for the next generation into something that we can be proud of, but also something with which we can learn the lessons of the past.
As many noble Lords have said, their amendments are probing amendments, which do just that. As such, we welcome many of the intentions behind those amendments. I will come back to some of the specifics shortly, but I will make a couple of general points first.
First, we believe that the Bill is broadly on the right track and we welcome the improvements that have already been made since it was introduced. The underlying principle of public money for public goods is important and it is right that we should incentivise those who work on our land to restore and improve the natural environment.
Secondly, however we look at it, we are dealing with a limited pot of money. It would be a brave person who thought that we would get more than the £3 billion a year which the Government have already promise and— who knows—the economic crisis might even put that promise on the line. We will deal with the detail of how that money is to be divided up and allocated when we discuss amendments to later clauses, but we need to be wary of spreading too widely the purposes for which that money can be allocated. This point was well made by a number of noble Lords, and I liked my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone’s analogy of a Christmas tree, with its baubles crashing down, overweighed with good intentions.
What we do not want is for existing active farmers, with the good will and enthusiasm to embrace good environmental practices, to find that they cannot access sufficient financial assistance to make their farm pay. I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty that there is a danger of creating a very complex system of payments and tiers of regulations which is no better than the system that we had in the past. We do not want farmers to find that that very bureaucracy prevents them accessing the money to which they are entitled. We cannot make light of this, because the impact of the Covid pandemic has illustrated all too starkly that many farm incomes are indeed in a perilous position. We cannot replace one bureaucracy with another, and we need to make sure that the income of our farming communities, when they agree with the new ambitions that we have, is secure. As I have said before, this is a delicate balance between the environment and agriculture, and it is our responsibility to make sure that we get that balance right as we work our way through the Bill.
Thirdly, the one fundamental area in the Bill where I do not think the Government have got it right is food policy—the importance of farmers producing healthy food and contributing to greater UK food stability. We will return to this in later groups, but it is flagged up in this group in Amendment 234 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which talks about better advice for farmers in order to deliver improved food security and nutrition. I agree with all of that, but the advice should be expert advice. We have some later amendments about the need to put some limits on the number of advisers and consultants who will try to move into this space, when really what we need is for the money to go to its core purpose.
I turn to some of the amendments. The noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Dundee, and other noble Lords referred to the need for farming to play its part in mitigating climate change. We agree, and that the management and protection of soils and peatlands can play a huge role in good agricultural practice, as well as mitigating climate change. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raised the important issue of the impact of agriculture on air pollution. We agree with those points. Our Amendment 272, which we will deal with separately, sets out in more detail what we believe to be the Government’s responsibilities to ensure that agriculture meets all the Paris Agreement targets on climate change.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and other noble Lords sought to spell out in more detail what good environmental policy should look like. They referenced pasture-fed livestock, the protection of soil and the link with natural recovery strategies. They rightly raised the need for those policies to have a synergy across other Bills, such as the Environment Bill, and environment policies. We agree with these points and feel that there ought to be a way of embedding those principles in the Bill but also making sure that we have a common approach on these issues. We also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the many other noble Lords who have spoken on this issue that hill farmers and upland farmers have a particular need and desire for reassurance about and support for their future. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some of that reassurance in his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, this has quite clearly been an extensive debate; it has been most rewarding for me to hear such a range of views on Clause 1 and financial assistance. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch: there will be disagreements along the way—I have no doubt—but I think we should all be enthusiastic about the opportunity that we have.
I open by declaring my farming interests as set out in the register. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that I agree with the sound comments he made in many respects. That is precisely why there is an agricultural transition period of seven years and why we are working with farmers on tests and trials, so that we get this right.
Turning to the amendments, as I must and will, I may ask for your Lordships’ indulgence and support in my discussion with the Chief Whip if I go a little over time, because I want to address all the amendments properly.
On Amendment 1, we have chosen to use the term “may” rather than “must”, which is entirely consistent with other legislation. Free from the constraints of the common agricultural policy, the Government need the flexibility to reprioritise and adapt in response to changing environmental circumstances and new evidence. “May” also gives the flexibility to establish and fund schemes for a range of different purposes. The Government set out their long-term vision for what we will use public money to fund in the 25-year environment plan and the policy document published alongside the Bill. I emphasise to all noble Lords and absolutely confirm that there is no doubt that we will introduce new financial assistance.
I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord Trenchard that the construction of the Bill is deliberately broad so that we can embrace almost everything raised on many of the matters. I will have to say that the Government are very clear on some amendments. If, when we come to it, I mention ponies and other breeds, that is the context in which the Government have problems with some of the amendments. We want to ensure that we have it broad deliberately, so that many of the points noble Lords have made are embraced.
On my noble friend Lord Dundee’s Amendment 74, the Government recognise that farms should be incentivised to deliver multiple purposes. However, it will be very hard, if not impossible, to separate farms into single-purpose or multipurpose farms in this way. To take an example, if financial assistance is given for
“managing land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment”
under Clause 1(1)(a), many of those actions are likely to contribute to other purposes, such as mitigating or adapting to climate change in Clause 1(1)(d), reducing environmental hazards in Clause 1(1)(e) and so forth. This would tie the Government into creating systems that attempt to unpick the complexity of the natural environment to meet a bureaucratic requirement—albeit, I accept, a well-intentioned one. I think this was a point the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made from his experience: beware of creating a bureaucratic monster by trying to have a perfect form.
In Amendments 4, 16, 21, 91 and 236, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, seeks to limit the scope of the purposes for giving financial assistance to the management of land by removing “water”, thereby narrowing what the Government can pay for under future financial assistance schemes. There are critical actions related to the management of water, and indeed of livestock, that the Government would want to pay for, particularly through ELM. For example, the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change can be supported by encouraging farmers to manage their livestock feed, to help reduce emissions that are emitted from livestock. Protecting and improving our environment or our cultural and natural heritage may involve the management of water. For example, creating, maintaining and restoring water-based habitats on farms can support a healthy ecosystem and ensure that we meet our commitments to biodiversity. This may involve the management of ponds, lakes and ditches, which would not be included in a definition of agricultural land.
I take this opportunity to refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, about nitrates. The Government have taken action to mitigate nitrate pollution by placing farmers under regulations and providing them with grants. Farmers in nitrate-vulnerable zones are bound by the nitrates regulations.
The requirement of
“managing land or water in a way that maintains, restores or enhances cultural or natural heritage”
includes the management of our wetlands. Just to clarify, the marine environment is not in scope of the Bill, but I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, mentioned curlews. A much longer conversation with the noble Lord is required on crayfish. I have worked on this, and there are difficulties. At a later time I will perhaps spend some time explaining the issues.
Clause 1(1)(j) provides for financial assistance to be given for the protection and improvement of soil. This assistance will further aid in meeting this ambition for sustainably managed soils. Soil is clearly one of our greatest natural assets and the Government are committed to having sustainably managed soils by 2030, as set out in our 25-year environment plan, under which we are developing a healthy soils indicator. I also say to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that the Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018 define environmental outcomes that land managers must take account to avoid, including soil run-off and erosion. Indeed, civil sanctions are available.
On Amendments 5, 17, 89, 27 and 28 from my noble friend Lord Lucas, the Bill already allows funding for the management of land and water in a way that conserves the environment or our cultural or natural heritage, which could include “conserve” habitats. On the amendment that would expand the definition of “conserve”, Clause 1(5) already includes creating, protecting and maintaining.
Clause 1 allows support for the conservation of species and habitats if it contributes to protecting and improving the environment or maintaining, restoring and enhancing cultural or natural heritage. For example, ELM could support farmers to manage moorlands using traditional grazing techniques and native breeds or provide funding for the creation of new woodlands or flood plains. Clause 1(1)(g) and 1(1)(i) could be used to incentivise farmers to rear rare and native breeds or support measures to utilise crop wild relatives, thereby safeguarding those genetic traits that may offer a way to sustainably increase food production or improve our capacity to adapt to the emergence of new animal or plant diseases. I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord De Mauley that the Government are wedded to the current drafting of the Bill. I say to my noble friend Lord Lucas that the Bill already caters for support for the conservation of newly established crop species that contribute to the provision of public goods.
Amendment 45 touches on existing work taking place to support the development of the UK’s domestic animal feed production. We are already funding research in this area through the Pulse Crop Genetic Improvement Network, a project due to end in 2023. A key part of our programme looks at how to produce better-quality animal feed and potential alternatives to imported soya protein.
On Amendment 76, the Government’s current proposals for the ELM scheme already include a significant space for the direct involvement of local groups. Local nature partnerships would be ideally placed to apply their expertise and ensure that tiers 2 and 3 of ELM are designed to support land managers in the delivery of environmental outcomes by providing the right things in the right places. The Government are already working closely with many of the organisations involved with local nature partnerships.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received requests from a number of noble Lords to speak after the Minister: the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Teverson. I call the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
Earl of Devon
My Lords, I apologise for keeping us a little longer on this group of amendments, but I would not do so were it not for a very important issue. I refer to Amendment 236 in my name relating to soils. In August 2019, Defra stated explicitly
“we will not allow environmental standards to decrease when we leave the EU.”
If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that the GAEC standards I referenced, particularly standards 4 and 5 on maintaining minimum soil coverage, will not be replicated in domestic legislation—those standards will be lost and standards will decrease. Could he clarify that point?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I want to make sure I get this right. I referred to the 2018 regulations for England about environmental outcomes that land managers must take action to avoid. There is no suggestion of any diminution of standards—in fact, quite the reverse. I will have to write and will put a copy in the Library. I want to make sure that I get all the regulations and how they are interconnected right. There is no intention from the Government on soil quality other than to enhance it, because that is the route to vibrant agriculture. I am most grateful to the noble Earl and will provide full details of all the requirements that will remain.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie [V]
I thank the Minister for his very positive response to my amendment, which I never doubted he would provide. When he says that the scheme will be farmer-led, how will that come about and how soon? Is there any timetable for when the structure of direct support for farmers in the context of rural payments will be clarified? I am sure he appreciates that the hill farming sector is extremely vulnerable, fragile and anxious to get a clear steer. How and when will that be provided?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I did not have an opportunity to flesh out the tests and trials. The tests and trials on the ELM are designed to work with ranges of farmers in different topographies and tenures in all parts of the country. There are schemes that will be suitable. In this case, there are clearly tests and trials with hill farmers in the uplands so that we can ensure that those schemes are in place. Some are under way already and farmers are receiving financial assistance for participating in them.
When we roll out the entire ELM in 2024, we want to follow the success in the recording and improving of those tests and trials so that we can ensure that, in the case of the noble Lord’s concern about hill farmers, these schemes will automatically work for them. Hill farmers are key to ensuring that the environmental enhancements we all want are available. I am confident that, working with those hill farmers, we will get the sorts of schemes that will be of benefit and that the farmers will actively wish to be engaged in.
Lord Teverson
I thank the Minister for his extensive reply. I was particularly pleased that he mentioned the shared prosperity fund. I realise that it is not a Defra issue, but it is an important structural issue and there has been very little information about when this fund, which is a Conservative Party manifesto pledge, will actually start. While I would like to ask him that question, I am sure he does not know the answer to it as it is not a Defra issue. However, will he really press his colleagues in Government to get this fund going? The EU structural funding is going to end very soon. There will be an end there, and it is very important that the rural parts of that funding start. Will he press his colleagues to get announcements here so that people can prepare and not have this gap?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Clearly, rural-proofing means that anything we do across Whitehall should be considered in terms of the impact on rural communities, and UK shared prosperity means rural communities. I am also grateful because I can assure him that the whole of Defra takes this approach and, as Minister for Rural Affairs, I get my teeth into this regularly because clearly we need to work with MHCLG so that this goes across all communities and will benefit rural communities, which, after all, have so much to offer the country.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming and supporting the Bill, and I thank the Minister for his helpful responses to this Committee debate, which has covered a wide range of matters concerning sustainable food production and a well-cared-for environment.
Proposed amendments have included: requests for better soil management; the mitigation of floods—whether or not these may have been induced by crayfish, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, warns; the reduction of air pollution; a focus on the predicament of farmers having to deal with hill and marginal land; the case for being ever alert to promote innovations, such as further developments in energy crops or new livestock species; the case for improved management of land around towns and cities where it is not being used for housing development; the need for timely advice to farmers on how to raise and maintain standards in terms of the Bill; the need for impact assessments; and, not least, the desirability that all parts of the United Kingdom should benefit together from the Bill’s useful prescription.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on my Amendment 74 about how incentives might be paid slightly differently for those farms that are responding to what is already offered by the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg to withdraw Amendment 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or any other amendment in this group, to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 2
Lord Addington
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the origins of this amendment are fairly straightforward. As we go through this Bill, we talk about great changes to agriculture. We start off with a list of changes and where things are going to change in relation to government support for agriculture. We do not actually define those whom we are going to support, and I feel that they should be on the face of the Bill. If they are not on the face of the Bill, we should know exactly where that list is.
All the positive changes that might affect the environment and people’s access to it, which I will discuss at considerable length in the next group, are going to be dependent upon farmers taking much of the action and getting through financially in what they need to do. Unless the Government pay them, it is not going to happen. Unless we are getting some sort of new force that is going to go marching into the countryside equipped with whatever it is and on whatever legal authority it is—which I have seen no hint of anywhere —we are dependent on those involved in farming and related industries actually to fulfil this for us. The only way we can reasonably expect them to do it is if they are properly paid, so there is a symbiotic relationship there: they get money for changing their behaviour.
The change of behaviour for farmers is going to be difficult: culturally, financially and in every other way, it is going to be a change in a way of life in many cases. To what extent and where depends on who they are and in what situation, but that is what I am trying to get on the face of the Bill. I do not pretend that this amendment is perfect because I literally went through and thought, “Good, this is in the Bill or that’s in the Bill” and at the end of it, I said, “What about land managers? Let us try to get some idea about this.” They are the delivery system for the other changes set out in the Bill, so let us make sure that they get some support. It does not really go much further than that, other than to say that we have to make sure that they are there and identified. If the identification comes somewhere else, that is great, but if it means running down a list saying, “By the way, if you look across and go legally through and jump across sideways, that’s where the definition is,” that is the classic way to make mistakes. The lay person will not be able to find out what is going on. We have all, in this Chamber, been involved in situations where somebody said, “Legally, it was there,” but we could not find it. It might be slightly more straightforward here than in some of the cases we are talking about, but that is what I am trying to get at.
There is another amendment in my name, Amendment 115, on the accountability system for taking on any action. That probably would have read better in the next group, but if the Government have any undertakings on this, let us find out what is going on. That is really what my initial thinking was about, and I look forward to hearing from those who are going to speak on the rest of the group, but that is my primary motive for moving this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I will speak to three amendments in my name in this group and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and my noble friend Lord Caithness for supporting Amendment 65. The purpose of this amendment is again to probe the Government. As was said in conclusion by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, we have a limited pot of money being spread very thinly. I hope that we can focus where the money goes on farming, obviously within the remit of agriculture, horticulture and forestry.
In keeping the focus on farming, I will turn to Amendment 103. Just before I do, I will take the opportunity to ask my noble friend the Minister about the types of activities that he feels may be covered. For example, there have been sectors in the past that have received no support but have spent huge amounts of money—I am thinking in particular about antibiotic use, which we have reduced at some considerable expense, although I think this has put Britain in the driving seat with regard to the reduction of antibiotics.
There may be possibilities of supporting, for example, pigs through outbuildings and storage facilities, which will help to tackle climate change and bring a number of benefits while improving the way that we manage—or rather pig producers manage; I do not, obviously—manure and slurry reduction. While it has not been beneficial in the past, I hope that it will help to tackle climate change and increase production. Is that something that my noble friend thinks might be supported?
I want to flag up something that I am sure we will return to in later groups: the potential funding gap between when basic farm payments phase out and when ELMS—which I know we are going to explore in more detail in further amendments—will come in. How is that going to be addressed? I am also looking at the socioeconomic aspects of this, where natural capital seems to have been the focus of great emphasis, although it benefits only those who own the land, for the most part, and it cannot necessarily be shared with tenant farmers, who actually do much of the farming on that land in many circumstances.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for supporting Amendment 103. I am sure that my noble friend will recognise this text because it has come, in great part, from the Government’s own paper Health and Harmony. The public good is very ephemeral and opaque, and I give him the opportunity to put more meat on the bones and reward activities that are related directly to the production of food or farming in its broader aspects and, furthermore, activities from which tenants may benefit. We might focus too much on trees and the planting of crops like special grasses that soak up the water and have many qualities, and I want to make sure that landowners and tenants will benefit.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to two amendments I have tabled in this group, namely Amendments 118 and 121. These aim to ensure that we get a strong regulatory framework to enforce this new system of paying public money for public goods because, as it stands, the Bill says that the Government only “may” introduce regulations to do this. It should be not just a power but a duty to do so, given that what we are talking about is ensuring public confidence in the money spent to deliver societal goods.
We know that the current regulatory framework for farming is not fit for purpose. It is estimated that only every one in 200 farmers will get inspected, and the Government have known this for some time. They commissioned a review in 2018 but have not done anything since then to overhaul the existing regulatory framework, so it is really important that the Bill states that the Government have a duty to put together new regulations and work quickly with relevant stakeholders to draw up a new framework to give the public confidence. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for supporting me in that amendment.
I appreciate that this is almost two sides of a coin. I am talking about the regulatory side that we need to ensure is in place to manage the giving of public money in the future. I am very much in support of other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who have talked about the vast majority of farmers; we know that they are doing and want to do the right thing, and there is a real need to ensure that, alongside a strong regulatory framework, there is good provision of advice. I want to ensure that Members do not think that I think all farmers are bad apples; they are not. However, we need to ensure that good farmers have their reputations preserved by a strong regulatory framework.
I would find it very helpful if in winding up the Minister would say something about the Government’s current thinking on the timeframe and the consultees—almost the how and the when—when they are producing this new regulatory farm framework, so that the public can have confidence that taxpayers’ money is being properly spent to deliver the environmental and animal welfare benefits that we all want.
Lord Lucas [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 108 and 109. I am looking for two reassurances from the Minister. The first is that we are going to look at a system of risk-based regulation. We have a lot of changes and improvements to make. We need a system of regulation which, supported by science, supports change without destroying older technology, in both of which aspects the EU system has proved deficient. Secondly, I want reassurance that we will permit local variation—indeed, individual variation. This ought to be a bottom-up system of support. No farm is the same as any other farm. No set of geology or human geography is the same. Everything will need to be local if it is going to work well. I very much hope that this is the way in which the Government are looking at regulation.
Amendment 110 has been stranded in this group. I will speak to this subject under the group beginning with Amendment 29. Suffice it to say that, as far as I am concerned, the answer lies in the soil.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for not taking part in the Second Reading of the Bill due to logistical issues on my part.
I shall speak to Amendment 115 in this group, to which my name is attached. I support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. There are many opportunities through amendments to the Bill to establish a different and positive way for more people to access the countryside. Existing public rights of way are the primary means by which people can get outdoors. The return on investment will be enhanced where existing access is well maintained so that the public can benefit from enhancement in, for example, biodiversity, cultural heritage and air quality.
It is also important that the regulatory framework that encourages farmers to keep paths clear as a condition of receiving payment from the public purse is right. I would like to see increased creativity in how we move forward with this Bill in creating paths, circular routes and links to connect communities with transport hubs and amenities and, close to my heart, in improving surfaces and infrastructure, such as gates and stiles, with less restrictive alternatives. They are often put in place to stop misuse but are a huge barrier for to wheelchair and handbike users. It would open up much-needed space.
A set of conditions, including those relating to public access, provides clarity for farmers over the baseline standards expected. It also helps to create a level playing field within the sector. Many farmers fulfil their legal obligations, so it would be unfair for those who do not to be treated equally, without any sanction for their failure to keep access open.
To sum up briefly my support for this amendment, I believe that, in the interests of transparency, information published should include details of the conditions of receipt of financial assistance and evidence of compliance with these conditions. As the money is from the public purse, it should be clear that recipients of funding under the scheme are meeting any conditions set by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I was also excluded from the Second Reading by virtue of being a surplus Peer when we were not able to get all of us into our virtual Chamber. I am sure that that was in the early days of remote working and could not possibly happen again on any future big Bills.
I have signed three amendments in this group—Amendments 65, 103 and 106—which are all in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Clause 2 could be greatly improved so that the legislation and the resulting funding schemes reflect the scale of ambition that the Government are laying out. Amendment 103 would better target financial support to specific environmental and social outcomes. The conditions would help focus schemes around specific purposes, rather than leaving so much room for ministerial discretion. I know the Minister will soothingly reassure us about why this is all better left to ministerial discretion, but your Lordships’ House may favour the greater wisdom contained in our greater numbers. That is what I am hoping, anyway.
The other probing amendments in this group are about ensuring funding is directed to the most effective places to achieve the aims of the Bill. Funding must be available for a wide range of land managers, so that whatever are the most environmentally and socially beneficial activities can be encouraged. That said, it is worth probing the Minister on how the Government will ensure that that will be the case so that money is not put into the wrong hands. We must remember that these are large sums of money, so we must target them well and be able to explain who is eligible for public funds and why.
Some noble Lords have taken the opportunity to lobby for a return to the new normal of us all returning to the Chamber. I would just like to point out that many of us like remote working. We do not want to risk disease and death. We have to remember that coronavirus is likely to be part of the normal for the next few months and possibly years, so let us take advantage of the fact that we can be a hybrid House, unlike the House at the other end of the building.
The Earl of Devon
The amendments I have tabled in this group largely go to the same issue which the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Jones, have touched on, which is who is to receive payments under the ELMS and for what specific land they are to receive them. Noble Lords will see that I have suggested that it should be agricultural land. As I said previously, this is the Agriculture Bill. I would hate these payments to go to highways, Heathrow or Hyde Park. As the Bill is currently drafted, it strikes me that environmental land management in all those non-agricultural spaces would qualify. For that reason, Amendments 3, 15, 20, 23 and 30 focus the Bill and Clause 1 specifically on agricultural land.
In Amendment 85, I have lifted the definition of agricultural land from the current rules for the BPS. However, I added to that definition “common land” because, under the current rules, there is some uncertainty around whether common land, which is often found in uplands which we have discussed a great deal today, qualifies, as the right to claim BPS for common land is quite opaque. I would appreciate it if, in summing up, the Minister could address how common land will be treated under ELMS, because a major concern for common rights holders on Dartmoor and elsewhere is whether they will qualify and how.
Amendment 64 suggests that ELMS payments should be directed to farmers and those who are active in the management of agricultural land. This amendment and its wording find favour with the NFU and is therefore strongly supported by the agricultural and farming community. It allows us to determine exactly who should be the recipients. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, we do not want the money to be given to people who are not engaged in agricultural practices.
Lord Greaves
I have just been told that because I was not here at the beginning of this group, I cannot speak. I thought that it was a Committee where you could wander in and out all the time. It is not a desperately important point that I want to make, so I will discuss it afterwards with people.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 106 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. There are two principal points here. The Government want this Agriculture Bill, which is a major Bill and the first in many years, to be about public money for public goods. The second point was raised by the previous speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Devon: who is to receive those funds?
I believe that money should support those actively involved in farming activity. They used to be known as active farmers but, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, that definition has probably broadened now to the wider issue of agricultural activity. If that is the case, and the Government support it, then we can ensure high standards in environmental works on the farm and in food production. We can ensure high standards of food security and perhaps in so doing, we will be able to ensure, along with good food security, good accessibility to food for all in terms of the food chain.
On reallocated entitlements, applicant farmers must be able to demonstrate that they enjoy the decision-making power, benefits and financial risks attached to the agricultural activity on each parcel of land for which an allocation of entitlements is requested. That is right and proper; it is also ethical and moral.
Furthermore, the Minister referred during the previous group to the ongoing work and discussions between Defra and the devolved Administrations. What actual work has been done on broadening agricultural activity? Who will be eligible for such payments and what grades of activity will be eligible? Land ownership probably varies throughout the devolved Administrations compared with what pertains in England. Coming from the Northern Ireland context—there will possibly be some separate legislation for Northern Ireland—I know that we have a conacre system, which is an ancient Irish system whereby people keep land under conacre for one year. It differs from the tenant farmer situation that exists in Britain. What discussions have taken place on agricultural activity between the Minister, his ministerial colleagues in Defra and ministerial colleagues in the devolved regions?
The Earl of Caithness [V]
In introducing the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that farmers would have to get paid to do all these good works in the future. We should pause and thank all the many farmers doing exactly these now without any money at all from the Government. They are doing it of their own free will because they love the land that they farm—they might have been farming it for generations—and the biodiversity and nature that goes with it. We must pay them a big thank you for continuing the work.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, jogged my mind. It slightly irks me that we paid farmers to take hedges out and destroy landscape and biodiversity. We are now going to pay the same farmers to put those things back. It is worth remembering that a lot of farmers did not take out any hedges and kept the biodiversity but got no money at all for that.
I put my name to Amendments 65 and 106 and I was pleased to do so. Amendment 65, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would add the words,
“agriculture, horticulture and forestry in England”
to the end of Clause 1(3). At the moment, the wording just stops at “England”. It seems logical to put the words in the amendment into the Bill.
While I am on forestry, my noble friend Lord Gardiner did not say on the first amendment—I am not surprised —what he actually means by “woodland” and “forestry”. Are they the same or two different things? If there will be grants for help for forestry and biodiversity, presumably there will be no grants for people planting vast acres of Sitka spruce, which are biodiversity unfriendly.
Forestry also raises another issue covered by Amendment 106: who gets the benefit of these payments of public money? I will focus on tenant farmers, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering did. When I was a land agent, my experience was that pretty well every tree was not in the tenancy agreement; it belonged to the landlord. Tenants were not allowed to plant woodland. That was excluded and outside the tenancy agreement.
We have an imbalance here and two different classes of farmer. We have the owner-occupier, who can do everything on their own land, and the tenant, who will be severely restricted. Who will get the benefit from these payments? If the tenant signs up to a scheme, I know many landlords who will say to them, “Thank you; I’m glad you signed up to that scheme. I’m glad you’re getting the money. Your rent is now going to increase and I’m going to take most of that money from you because you can afford to pay it.” Who will get this money? Is there a way one can incentivise tenants to do these schemes and reap the benefit that they deserve for putting the risk, capital and expertise at stake in doing so?
Lord Wigley [V]
My Amendment 94, which I will speak to solely, addresses a central weakness in the Bill, identified in this debate and the preceding one: the open-ended nature of the powers given to the Secretary of State under Clause 1, which states that money can be used for
“managing land … in a way that … improves the environment”,
or cultural heritage, or mitigating climate change, or improving the health of livestock, presumably including racehorses et cetera. That strikes me as far too open-ended an approach in a Bill that is, after all, an agriculture Bill.
Therefore, later in Clause 1, at page 3, line 12, I propose that these words be added:
“‘land’ means land that is used for agricultural, horticultural or forestry purposes or which is intended to be so used, or used for purposes ancillary to those functions.”
That gives a clear definition, to my mind, of the purposes of Clause 1(1). Without something along those or similar lines—no doubt the wording could be improved—it is far too open-ended. Although the present Minister and Secretary of State would want to work within the confines of the Bill, once it is on the statue book it will be open to all sorts of abuse. I do not think that is the intention of an agricultural Bill and that is why I propose this amendment.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my farming and land-owning interests, as set out in the register, in particular my receipt of basic payments over the years. I support Amendments 2, 3, 15, 20, 23, 36, 64, 85 and 106, which aim to concentrate this agricultural Bill on farming, horticulture and forestry, with the associated aims of encouraging sustainable farming, strengthening food security, and improving animal welfare, access and the environment. However, we need to consider the starting point and existing situation, if the Bill is to succeed.
Currently, farmers are governed by the CAP and receive area-based payments. Figures show that 25% of farmers are profitable without the BPS. Direct payments account for around 58% of average farm businesses’ income. Figures rise for both beef and sheep. Although it is accepted that area-based payments are going and that payments will be made in exchange for public goods, there is little understanding among farmers of what this means. This is not helped by the almost complete lack of detail. Only 10 days ago, I received the policy discussion document on environmental land management schemes. It says all the right things, but clearly demonstrates how much more is to be done. The low take-up of current environmental schemes is due to them being both complicated and bureaucratic.
Farmers are not a homogenous group of wealthy landowners; nor is land homogenous. Farmers have very different levels of education and expectations of life. The Bill will shock most of them, because so much detail is missing and may not be available until 2024. This brings into question the Minister’s statement that there is a seven-year transition period. We will be clearer about what we are transitioning into only after 2024, which makes it a four-year transition by some definitions. Many farmers will just close their eyes and continue to farm as they know best.
For the Bill to be a success, there needs to be a high take-up of the new ELM scheme, otherwise farming profitability will sink, farmers will go to the wall and important farming skills will be lost. To avoid this awful scenario, ELM details are essential as soon as possible. In particular, we need to know how much farmers will be paid. Area payments have worked well, in the absence of any other reliable measurement, so do not discount them, although they sound like winding back the clock.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is my first opportunity to speak on this Bill, as unfortunately I did not make the cut at Second Reading. I would like to say briefly that, having been involved in the backroom in a previous iteration of this Bill, as adviser on the environment to Theresa May, I know the immense hard work that has gone into it by many civil servants, the Bill team and Ministers. This is a pretty difficult circle to square, because there are so many interests—as we have heard today. I would also like to pay tribute to Michael Gove, who had the inspiration to bring forward the innovative and ground-breaking idea of money for public goods.
In that capacity, I was fortunate enough to make a series of visits to farms. I have no direct farming interests, although if you were to go back three or four generations, I think you would find that my family worked on the land. I echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness: farmers are custodians of the land. They want to look after the land, and they want to know what they have to do. By and large, they care for their land in a way that perhaps those of us who only visit it cannot really understand. I also echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Having been in a family business myself, as the fourth generation, I understand exactly the problems and concerns of family businesses. As the noble Lord said, these are not just businesses; the family lives on the land. Those are important issues.
I understand the general drift of the amendments in this group, particularly those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. There is a great danger of narrowing the recipients. Farmers and farming businesses are, of course, going to be the primary beneficiaries of the management of public goods. However, the aim of the Bill is to make it a little wider, mainly because the environmental land management scheme will also be the principal mechanism for delivering many of the ambitions of the 25-year environment plan. We should not, therefore, limit the scope to agricultural land only. I have a great deal of sympathy with Amendment 103, which talks about other things that should be included. For example, I do not think that blanket bogs would be classed as agricultural land, yet they will play a vital role in future climate change mitigation.
I also associate myself with the words of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about social prescribing and the merits of getting out into the environment and nature. It does not always have to be in the countryside. Agriculture and farming are not exclusive to rural areas. In my former constituency of Uxbridge—from where I am speaking now—there are several farms, and most people would not realise that. They are not something that you get only in the rolling landscapes of England.
Baroness Butler-Sloss [V]
My Lords, I was delighted by what the Minister had to say about native breeds. None the less, there are a number of amendments in this group which I would like to identify as potentially limiting the financial assistance for native breeds such as Dartmoor, Exmoor or New Forest ponies. They are Amendments 10, 15, 30, 64, 85 and 103. There is a particular concern about Amendment 64, which appears to suggest financial assistance only for agriculture, leaving out the native breeds. Amendment 103, after Clause 1, would limit the benefit of financial assistance in such a way as is likely to be a disincentive for landowners to use native ponies for conservation in other regions. Dartmoor ponies are currently used as conservation grazers right across the country.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to speak at Second Reading; I was not sworn in to your Lordships’ House due to illness. I am having trouble with my broadband, so I will make this incredibly brief. I will comment on Amendments 106 and 103, which I see as key.
On Amendment 106 in particular, I am very much opposed to the money going to the person who is not taking the risk in managing the land on a day-to-day basis or in occupation of the land. During my two spells as a Farming Minister, in MAFF and in Defra, I did many farm visits. I remember on more than one occasion being taken to one side privately by a farmer to spell out the fact that they were doing certain things that were improving income and diversifying but the landlord had started to interrupt and take a slice. I would be very much opposed to the National Trust, for example, being a big recipient of this money on behalf of tenant farmers. We should be quite ruthless about where the money goes. It is essentially farm income; it is not for other bodies. I am not singling out the National Trust, but I can think of two or three examples where it was the main culprit.
I very much agree with Amendment 103. I would like to make a couple of points that impinge on the next group, on which I will not speak because there is an overlap. First, on the monitoring of animal health and welfare, farmers have to be proactive. There is of course a fear that leaving the CAP might mean less form-filling and more of a free-for-all. We cannot afford that; there has to be really proactive monitoring of animal health and welfare, and farmers have to be encouraged to do that. Secondly, in respect of public access, better paths around field margins to replace unsafe lanes, deliberately creating circular routes rather than single routes, have to be of great benefit to the public.
I will give the Committee a good example to go and look at. In the Langdale valley in Cumbria there have been massive changes in recent years to allow access on the floor of the valley to wheelchair users. What has happened there has been quite dramatic. I would say that that example, above all the others that I came across, is absolutely fantastic. I will conclude there.
Lord Burnett (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. He was a distinguished Farming Minister and it is good to see him back with us.
I declare my interests as set out in the register. I will speak to Amendment 2 in the names of my noble friends Lady Scott and Lord Addington. The effect of the amendment would be to limit financial assistance to those involved in agriculture, horticulture, forestry and land management. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to continue to maintain financial support for agriculture and other activities specified in the amendment. Farmers, growers and others are, like so many other businesses, extremely apprehensive about the future, especially when the transition period ends on 31 December this year. They understand from media reports that the Brexit negotiations seem to be going nowhere, and it is becoming more likely by the day that we shall leave the EU on WTO terms. The financial shock to our whole economy of such a crash-out will be immense, and farmers, growers and others described in the amendment will need all the support that they can get. I mentioned at Second Reading the likely disastrous effect on stock prices, especially in the sheep sector but also quite possibly in the beef sector.
Over the years, farmers and others have wholeheartedly embraced policies to protect and enhance the environment and the countryside, to farm extensively and to achieve high standards of animal welfare. They have diversified as much as they can. Our farmers are aware and proud that they are the custodians of our landscape, including the uplands and the vast bulk of the landmass of the country that is turned over to agriculture and forestry. Farmers strongly resist the cheap and dangerous solutions practised elsewhere, such as the use of growth hormones and toxic pesticides. They value our landscape and our countryside. Farmers and growers embrace their role in producing the bulk of the food to feed our country. However, all this comes at a high cost, not only a high capital cost but often a cost in the diminution of future income.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I am no expert on agricultural questions but, as a Cumbria county councillor, I am deeply interested in them because they are so important to our local area. I hope that the Government will listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, has just said. The prospect of failing to avoid tariffs in agriculture in our current discussions with the EU represents a serious threat to the agricultural sector and, frankly, makes our present considerations under this Bill look relatively insignificant.
We have an opportunity to create a better system of support for farming and for the countryside. The debate on this group of amendments brings out my view that there is a lack of clarity about the objectives. Is this about farmers or about the wider rural economy? I strongly support Amendment 103, which outlines a broad set of objectives for financial assistance. I would be interested to know the Minister’s reaction to that amendment. Are the Government supportive of it, or do they think that it stretches the definition of eligibility for the ELM payments too far?
I have another concern. The common agricultural policy, which had many faults, was introduced as a measure almost of social assistance to facilitate economic transition on the continent from a rural to an urban society. In the 1950s, 30% of people in France worked on the land, while 25% did so in Germany and 40% in Italy, yet we saw in the decades after that a tremendous move to the cities. This was achieved with little social friction, and the support for farming was an important part of that transition. Of course, the way it was done had serious snags to it. Initially, it was done by giving subsidies to production. Why was it done that way? Because there was no other way of regulating it—no other simple way of handing money to the agricultural sector when it was in this process of transition.
I have two doubts about the Bill, both of which I think are relevant to this group of amendments. The first is: what are we setting these objectives for, farming or the countryside, and who will be eligible to receive the payments? How will these objectives be regulated? The Government give us little detail on that point. How are we going to tell whether farmers have met these very worthy objectives that are being debated in this set of amendments?
My second point is that, while I dare say economic assessments have been done—this is an economic question—when it comes to the problems of low-income farmers, who fulfil a vital social function in areas such as the hill farms of the Lake District, can we be sure that this new system of setting them environmental objectives will give them a sustainable living? That is what matters: are they going to get enough money to continue to do their job? The answer is that I do not know. What the Government are saying about environmental land management sounds very good and of course I support it—who would not?—but how is it going to be done and what will its economic consequences be for different farming communities? The Government have to give better answers to those questions before we can give proper consideration to the Bill.
Lord Marlesford [V]
I want to follow on closely from what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, was saying. I believe that the Bill has to be changed somewhat. First, the emphasis should be more on the rural economy, of which farming is of course a key element. I believe that the way forward is to consolidate and formalise the diversification approach that many farmers have already moved on to. We should do so through the concept of the rural business unit, or RBU, as originally set out in 1992 in the Bunbury report of the CLA. At that time it was not adopted by the Government, but the CLA, of which I am a member, has developed the idea and recently presented it to the Treasury.
Historically, farmers have been among the earliest entrepreneurs, always open to new ideas of how to make the best use of areas of land, large or small. Equally, they have always seen themselves as being custodians of the land. That custodianship must continue to be buttressed by a strong and sensible planning system. The planning system that we have in this country is, together with the NHS, one of the two great inheritances from the post-war Attlee Government, and I have been rather concerned at stories that the Government are in some ways aiming to try to dismantle part of it. I say right away that they will have no support from me if they weaken the planning system.
The sort of activities that should be encouraged through the rural business unit include, obviously, tourism in its many forms; the protection and enhancement of the landscape; conservation and encouragement of our diversity of flora and fauna; forestry, as has been referred to, especially hardwoods; the provision of additional housing, especially through the sensitive conversion of redundant farm buildings into dwellings; the development of premises for small businesses to use, whether for homeworking, offices or manufacturing; the provision of additional access, with facilities for walkers and riders; sporting facilities, including shooting and fishing; and, certainly not least, the adding of value by processing the products of agriculture or forestry, whether arable, vegetable or animal. All this may involve changes to the tax rules to offer the same advantages of accounting integration that have long been encouraged for other industry and commerce. I hope that the Minister might look favourably on this approach.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am a bit puzzled as to the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, with Amendment 2. I should have thought that, by engaging in activities to support any of the purposes listed in Clauses 1(1) or 1(2), someone must by definition be involved in one of the four activities mentioned in the amendment. Therefore, I feel the amendment is unnecessary.
We have already discussed Amendment 4, proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and perhaps his Amendment 3 would have been better grouped with that. However, I cannot support his intention to exclude managers of land other than managers of agricultural land, which would exclude forestry, horticulture and other landholdings.
The noble Earl rightly challenges the drafting of Clause 1(1)(b), on “supporting public access”. It has always struck me as interesting that public access in Scotland is much more freely available under the right to roam legislation. However, most of Scotland has very much lower population density than England, and I believe the Government should tread carefully here. Many birds and animals may benefit from less intensive agriculture but will surely suffer as a result of greater disturbance caused by increased numbers of walkers and perhaps a more intrusive network of public footpaths.
As for Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Earl, I agree that the word “enjoyment” in relation to the countryside, farmland or woodland seems a little strange. I would support the inclusion of “health and wellbeing benefits”. Perhaps the term “natural capital” is a better and wider term than “environment”, and I think “awareness” is better than “understanding”, which may be too subjective.
In Amendment 64, the noble Earl seeks to restrict those who may be entitled to financial assistance, but I am not sure that his amendment is necessary. There are many farmers whose businesses have diversified into other activities, but it is clear that their ability to receive financial assistance relates only to the purposes set out.
As I thought about the noble Earl’s amendments, it occurred to me that “financial assistance” is not quite right as a term to describe the Government’s intentions. It sounds as though farmers are being helped because they are in need. Some may be in need, but others are not. Surely, what is proposed is that farmers should be appropriately rewarded for the value they add to the land they own or occupy. I do not think that a company provides “financial assistance” to its employees for doing their work in a diligent manner. Perhaps “support” or “compensation” would be better.
In Amendment 106, my noble friend Lady McIntosh seeks to ensure that financial assistance is targeted at active farmers and land managers. However, what about an estate owned by a person or persons not in day-to-day management control of their land because they are busy in other businesses and have appointed agents or managers to run the businesses? They retain ultimate control through their ownership of the land or farming business. It is not clear whether the amendment might disqualify some estates from the scheme.
I caution against adopting Amendment 108, proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas. We have heard a great deal about following the science, but we know that science is based on different scientists’ different interpretations of the facts: it is not absolute and is very subjective. I agree with his intention on soil management contained in Amendment 110, but I am not sure why he thinks it necessary to spell that out here, when it is arguably covered in Clause 1.
I briefly mention Amendments 114 and 116, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I think he is right both to seek assurance that the design and purpose of schemes is not delegated to non-governmental, non-accountable bodies and organisations and to strictly limit the publication of information relating to the recipients of financial assistance.
Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]
My Lords, I am afraid that I want to take a different position from several noble Lords who have already spoken about the amendments in this group. I speak specifically to reject Amendments 64 and 106 and other amendments in the group that would restrict payments to agricultural, horticultural and forestry land only. This Bill is about delivering public good through land management, and the environmental land management scheme will be one of the major ways in which the Government’s 25-year environment plan will be delivered. Therefore, although many of these public goods will be delivered by farmers and farm businesses, not all of them will: for example, restoration of non-agricultural habitats, such as blanket bogs, and the creation of non-commercial woodlands, such as community woodlands, both of which are important for combating climate change. I therefore do not support these amendments, which would limit the scope to agricultural, horticultural and forestry management rather than wider land management. These would reduce the Bill’s effectiveness in delivering its key purposes.
A number of noble Lords have said that this is an Agriculture Bill and so it should be about farmers and food production. I do not agree: I believe that this Bill is not about modest changes in the way we support and incentivise farmers but about how in the future we support anyone who manages land to deliver the things that the nation needs from the land. This will include food production, but it will also include a wide range of other things. This Bill is not simply about filling the gap left by leaving the common agricultural policy; it is about setting a vision for the future of the way the scarce resource of land is managed. Farmers will form a vital part of this transition and need to be helped and supported to make this transition, but it cannot be about farmers alone. Can the Minister assure me that the restrictions in these amendments will not be accepted?
I turn to Amendments 118 and 121 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I share her view that the checking, enforcement and monitoring of the new financial support schemes cannot be optional: they have to be required on the face of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has scratched, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Empey.
Lord Empey [V]
My Lords, one theme that has come up today has been the theme of definition. In the last group, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, led to a discussion of the differences between “conserve” and “enhance”. In this group, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has drawn our attention to the difference between “enjoyment” and “health and wellbeing”. I am inclined to agree with him on that, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, did so as well. When we look at access to the countryside, clearly a balance has to be struck: where large amounts of taxpayers’ money are being invested in the countryside, then quite clearly many people wish to seek access to it. I understand that, in certain cases, people who seek access to the countryside under certain circumstances can cause harm in so far as they can spread diseases and so on. Lots of people feel that, as part of the country, they need to have access and have a right to have access, so it is a question of getting the balance right. The point that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, was making was that by making health and well-being a public good, it categorises something. Enjoyment is such a broadly based point that it lacks any kind of clarity. Those terms should be revisited.
On the general point about access to the countryside, we encourage people for health and well-being purposes to go there if they are resident in cities. However, we have to remember that many people live in the countryside who are not farmers, and there are many parts of the agricultural sector that are not farms. Some people have this idea that it is the job of people who work in the countryside to make sure that the hedges are well trimmed so that when the city dwellers come out at the weekend, it all looks very pretty. That is not what it is—it is not a museum. It cannot be maintained in aspic. The rural areas are living, working workplaces in many cases, and we want to ensure that that continues. However, I say to the Minister that the question of balance requires some consistency in how we define these matters, particularly when we are establishing public good. The general thrust of the Bill is good, but we must put more effort into consistency of definition.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. We cannot hear him so we will move on to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and will try to get the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, back later.
Lord De Mauley [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 103, the impact of which would be to limit the range of activities benefiting from the Secretary of State’s financial support outlined in the Bill. In line with my comments on the last group of amendments, I consider that to do so would risk closing off the incentives for farmers and landowners to use native equines for conservation grazing in regions away from where they are traditionally bred. For Dartmoor, for example, this would dramatically shrink the size of the sink where the rare genetics of the Dartmoor hill pony, whose benefits I spoke of in my comments on the last group, would be safely held.
Such ex situ sinks are essential if the populations on Dartmoor ever need to be replenished: for example, if the semi-wild herds on the moor were devastated by disease. That would risk the loss of the rare genetics such ponies hold, which are so important to surviving and grazing on the uplands, creating habitats for wildlife. It would shrink a market selling native ponies as conservation grazers and would exacerbate animal welfare problems. If not sold, semi-wild native ponies, which must leave the upland herds in order to comply with number limits imposed by Defra agri-environment schemes, will be culled. So I am therefore very concerned by this amendment.
Lord Morris of Aberavon [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 106, which I support in spirit. It is good to see my noble friend Lord Rooker back, and I look forward to sitting next to him when the House resumes in its proper role.
I will be very brief and will ask the Minister a question. We know that under the CAP system, as I understand it, there is no restriction as regards the receivers of EU money. I believe that this is untenable in the future. The amendment sets out new limitations to confine financing assistance to those actively engaged in farming or land management. I support the spirit, as I said, but the amendment may need redrafting. There is no other justification for spending taxpayers’ money. I ask the Minister specifically: will there be any restrictions or limitations on who payments will be made to in future under the Bill?
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, forgive me if I turn off the video, because my signal is very poor. I declare my interests as in the register; my background is in livestock production in a hill area. As a Scottish farmer, I am particularly interested in the outcome of the devolution framework negotiation.
I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Marlesford saying that we must emphasise the context in which we are. Behind it all, we have to bear in mind that as a country at present we should go out and buy exotic food or cheap food as and where we can find it, but we need to remember the warnings in the Beddington report that before too long these other parts of the world will need most of what they produce to feed themselves.
The Bill as it stands already opens up 10 headings of activities or causes for which the Government propose to offer financial assistance. Many noble Lords have tried to define a more focused approach to the payments. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, told us of his rationale for focusing only on agriculture and how he envisages rural support to be directed. I was interested to hear that he had drawn his definition of land from an EU definition.
In Amendment 64 the noble Earl envisages limiting the land eligible for assistance by the type of activity it supports, but those of your Lordships who have been involved in existing support schemes will be familiar with the difficulties that were dreamed up when the rules were made in Brussels to start to try to make clear what was agricultural land, starting off with a mapping exercise. Very many in my part of the world had to spend a great deal of time identifying what were rocky outcrops, patches of impenetrable scrub, bracken or bog on a field-by-field basis. I seem to remember that Northern Ireland faced a huge fine for claiming on areas with these conditions. I am glad to see that in Amendment 91 in the previous group, the noble Earl added a role for managing wetlands as part of cultural or natural heritage.
Following on from my noble friend Lord Randall’s concern, many noble Lords have drawn attention to what the EU now describes as “areas of natural constraint”. There would be a problem if we went solely down the line of production. There is a difficulty in dealing with the more awkward parts of what, in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, was described as
“mountain, moor, heath or down”.
Some of these areas support agricultural production but, since the advent of the current basic payment scheme, some areas have no livestock on them at all. They are perhaps given over to conservation or peatland restoration. Are these to be excluded from any development assistance as we go forward?
As I said, many amendments are trying to direct more defined targets for funding. As we go forward, it will be interesting to see whether any wording will be found that will be acceptable to my noble friend the Minister.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I will first say that I strongly support Amendment 118 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. If we are talking about public funds for public goods, it makes absolute sense that there must be regulations to oversee the system. I cannot understand why we would want to leave that as optional. Her amendment does not specify the regulations or get into detail on what might be in place in future, but she quite correctly highlights the need for this to be a priority. A substantial amount of public funds will be distributed following the passing of this Bill, and clearly there should be regulations to check on the way in which these funds are being spent.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, after the noble Lord, Lord Judd, speaks, I will call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, again.
Lord Inglewood [V]
My Lords, with the first group of amendments, we did the easy bit: we discussed the generalities. Now, as we move towards specifics, it becomes harder. I will not speak to a specific amendment, for the simple reason that I agree with them and I disagree with them. It is all a muddle. My starting point is very much the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and my noble friend Lord Marlesford. After all, at the end of the war, it was clear that agriculture was coterminous with the rural economy. That is no longer the case. The remarks of my noble friend Lord Marlesford about the Rural Business Unit, merit very serious consideration and have an important part to play in the evolution of policy in this area.
As far as the immediate matters we are discussing are concerned, the crucial thing is to think about the provision of public goods. This is not a form of outdoor relief, but an arrangement for the acquisition, in the public interest, of things it is desirable for the public to have. Their acquisition divides into two separate things. First, it is an ongoing product which is essentially a function of maintaining land, but to do that, in certain circumstances it is necessary to invest capital. If you start looking at the economics of it in that way, it becomes more understandable.
The other thing that I have learned from farming is that just about all you can be certain of is that things go wrong. In this country, as we know, an awful lot of agriculture is conducted under the landlord and tenant system, but this disguises a whole range of arrangements between landlords and tenants. In those arrangements, the various parties contribute very differently and the risk is carried differently. In any event, if you are thinking about these subjects, how do you deal with the landlord and tenant system separately from that of owner-occupiers? How, in financial terms, is an owner-occupier with large borrowings different from a tenant who is borrowing “money” from a landlord? That makes it very difficult.
In addition, there is not only one form of land tenure. In the north, where I come from, there is a great deal of common land, as we have heard this afternoon. The problems with common land have caused considerable injustice in the way in which they have locked, or failed to lock properly, into environmental payments. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, spoke about conacre in Ireland, which I have heard about but never come across personally.
Furthermore, in looking at public money for public goods, we have to be clear that what is suitable in place A is not suitable in place B. Different bits of Britain are completely different from one another. I live in Cumbria, on the edge of the Lake District, but I spent a number of years in East Anglia on the edge of the Fens. They are as different as the automotive industry and the aerospace industry. We have to be very specific and careful and start by thinking about what advantage the public can gain from any particular place.
In terms of money, it seems axiomatic that there should be proper audit. This must be accounted for properly because, in any commercial transaction and wherever public money is involved, you have to be able to see what is going on and trace it properly. However, confidentiality is also important, a point which I think has been made. I am a dairy farmer; we have had our supplier on to us about security in the face of animal welfare activists.
At the end of the day, it is for the Government to work out what they want to buy under the principle of public money for public goods. As I and others have said, they are pretty vague in their own mind about what they want to do. In dealing with the consequences for the people on the ground, as much as possible—this has been touched on by a number of speakers—if it is appropriate to find an agreement between the various interests involved in the use of land, that must be a very good starting point to take it further forward.
Lord Judd [V]
My Lords, I return to the basic amendment for this group from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. It makes sense. It spells out more fully the range of activity which I am sure the Government intend to cover and specifies some of these areas more clearly. At this point in our economic history, which is not very cheerful, horticulture may become very much more important than it is even today. It may become an important part of our way of life and an important way of generating income for a cross-section of people. This will not be altogether a bad thing. It will lead to a better quality of life for them, frankly, than what they may have been involved in before. For all these reasons, we should be grateful for this amendment. I certainly support it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I regret that we have been unable to reconnect with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, this group of amendments moves us to the question of what type of land will qualify for financial assistance. My noble friends Lord Addington and Lord Burnett are arguing for a widening of this to include agriculture, horticulture, forestry and land management. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I have added my name to Amendment 65, which would ensure that the Secretary of State focuses his financial assistance on the issues we believe should be covered in the Bill: agriculture, horticulture and forestry.
I look forward to clarification from the Minister on this matter, especially around the rights of tenant farmers, so well set out by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and my noble friend Lord Burnett. As I am nearly the last speaker on this group of amendments, all the relevant arguments have been successfully made by others, but I wish the Minister to be aware of the depth of feeling over this issue and of just how important it is to be absolutely clear what functions and services are to be eligible for financial assistance.
I support Amendments 118 and 121, in the name of my noble friend Lady Parminter. I believe that consultation and what is to be consulted on are vital.
I turn to Amendment 103, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I have added my name. Others have already spoken on this amendment, so the Committee will be pleased to hear that I will not speak to all its proposed paragraphs. I would like to draw attention to paragraphs (a), (b), (e), (f), (h) and (j) in subsection (2)—but do not worry, I will not be that long. This is not to say that the other paragraphs are not important; I just do not want us to be here at 10 pm this evening.
Mitigating the risk of flooding is very important, not only on the uplands. Rural communities are rarely flat and the way in which a farmer ploughs his sloping land has an impact on how the water drains away during heavy storms. Although I have seen leaflets encouraging farmers to consider run-off from their land, some seem unable to grasp this. Beautifully neat rows of soil look good, especially when planted with maize, except during heavy rainfall. Then, the water streams down the furrows, through the gate and out into the roads—where, carrying topsoil and silt as it goes, it cascades down them and into the drains, blocking them completely within a short space of time. This ensures that the water continues on its way down into the village, causing distress and mess to those living there. Financial incentives seem to be the only way to alter the behaviour of some farmers.
The Minister will be expecting me to mention peat bogs. In Somerset, the extraction of peat on the Levels has been a local industry for a very long time. However, we now see a move away from peat extraction and towards improving and enhancing what is left behind. In many Somerset villages, the peat workings have been enhanced so that there are now wildlife and wild-flower sanctuaries, with public access along and between the lakes which have been created. The county council, along with the peat producer organisations, has been key in assisting this to happen. Financial assistance should not be given where peatbogs are exploited and not restored. Peat moors and bogs are essential in carbon sequestration, and this should form part of the financial equation.
Paragraphs (e), (f), (h) and (j) are interlinked. Environmental enhancement and protecting the environment improve air quality and contribute to addressing climate change. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has long been a champion of rural proofing and productivity; I have heard him speak eloquently on the subject on many occasions. But still we find that the government policies handed down have a detrimental effect on those of us living in rural towns and villages. Under the Bill, we have the opportunity to ensure that the financial assistance to be linked to the various measures in it is fully rural proofed, ensuring the protection and sustainability of the environment and contributing to addressing climate change.
Finally, I will state what we all know: during April and May and the early part of June, the roads were quiet. The skies were not full of aircraft and even the railway lines were much quieter. Those of us lucky enough to have gardens heard the birds singing and watched them collecting materials for their nests. The air we were breathing was clean. Those of us with asthma found that we did not need our medication as often as previously. We all want this to continue. For one thing, our physical and mental well-being is dependent on it. We do not want to return to wholesale pollution. Air quality and climate change must move to the top of the agenda. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this important group of amendments.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank all Peers who have tabled their amendments in this group. At the start of each day in Committee when I am speaking, I shall declare my interests as at present receiving payments in relation to my interests, as declared in the register.
I will speak to one amendment in this group, Amendment 121, to which my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch has added her name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for proposing this amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to conduct a consultation on the strong regulatory framework for those in receipt of financial assistance under her Amendment 118. This must be a wide-ranging consultation with participants on the impact of the overarching approach of reward for public goods in relation to environmental impacts. It is important that the Government commit at this stage to consult on the overall framework and impact, not merely on the various regulations that will come as secondary legislation.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for what again has been an interesting debate which has taken us into a range of issues. I shall begin with Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, Amendments 3, 10, 15, 20, 23, 30, 64 and 85 from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, Amendment 65 from my noble friend Lady McIntosh and Amendment 94 from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, all of which deal with eligibility for financial assistance.
This is of course the Agriculture Bill, and the powers it contains have been designed with agriculture in mind. Schemes are overwhelmingly designed to work for farmers and land managers, and we intend that they will reap the benefits of providing public goods across agriculture, forestry and horticulture. Farmers will, and indeed must, be at the very heart of future schemes, as I have said before.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that, yes, we want to avoid bureaucracy, but one of the reasons to have these tests and trials across the nation is so that almost all the ranges of what is in Clause 1 are tested, so that we can come forward with a national rollout which we think will be dynamic and work for farmers.
The ELM scheme will pay farmers, foresters and other land managers to deliver environmental public goods identified in the Government’s 25-year environment plan. About 70% of land in England is farmed so, as stewards of our land, farmers will play an essential role in this. That is why tier 1 of the ELM scheme will focus on supporting farmers to farm their land in an environmentally sustainable way. Other schemes, such as those aiming to improve animal health and welfare, will focus on supporting livestock farmers. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, used a word which is important in all of what we have to do: “balance”.
One of the areas where a number of noble Lords have taken contrary views is on assigning this just for, say, agricultural land. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose was right to highlight some of the issues and complexities, as did my noble friends Lord Randall of Uxbridge and Lord Trenchard and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. Woodland, rivers and wetlands, among many others, may well be able to deliver important public goods. This is an issue that we need to think through. When we try to be so precise, we might end up missing out if we were to accept some of these amendments. I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, mentioned the restoration of peatland. Many of these features will be managed by farmers on their land, but if we define it as just agricultural land, are we in difficulties about woodland, rivers and wetlands, all of which make a major contribution on one’s farm to how one can enhance the environment? Restricting eligibility to those managing land for agriculture, horticulture or forestry would mean that we risk missing out the important benefits that can be gained when land managers work together. For example, we would not wish for all those managing land in a particular river catchment to lose out on the possibility of joining a scheme just because one parcel of land in the catchment was not agricultural.
I am very mindful of what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord De Mauley said about native breeds. The Government are currently developing the details of the ELM scheme with stakeholders, including eligibility criteria. The ELM discussion document was reopened on 24 June. The Government’s view is that the Bill as drafted strikes the right balance between affirming the Government’s support to fund farmers, foresters and land managers under future schemes and providing a helpful degree of flexibility in designing future schemes.
There was a very interesting discussion about well-being. We had important contributions. Clause 1 could be used to contribute to the delivery of societal benefits, including engagement with the environment. The ELM could fund the creation of new paths, such as footpaths and bridleways, and could support access to water and waterways, such as lakes and rivers, which allow for—yes—enjoyment of the countryside. I have a bit to do with this very important area, particularly in relation to loneliness: I represent Defra on the ministerial task force on that. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, also mentioned social prescribing, health and well-being. Defra and the DHSC, working jointly, are bidding, through the shared outcomes fund, to develop a mental health project to support scaling up nature-based preventive and therapeutic interventions, working with PHE, NHS England, the MHCLG and Natural England. I am genuinely interested in how we craft the Bill. We think that “enjoyment” covers all that would be required. If a farmer was going to engage with something like social prescribing or health and well-being, then that is part of environmental enhancement. I am not promising anything, but I am interested in a conversation on how we encompass all this. With what the nation is going through with this crisis, the Government place great importance on this area for health, well-being, mental health and social prescribing.
I turn to Amendment 106, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh. It was great to see the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, even if it was only on the screen. The Government recognise that schemes should, of course, be available to tenant farmers. It is the Government’s intention that the ELM scheme will provide funding to those carrying out the management of the land or water to deliver the environmental public goods. My noble friend Lord Inglewood, an experienced land manager, spoke wise words when he referred to the range of issues. The Government are engaging with a wide range of different types of farmer and land manager, including tenant farmers, to inform the development of ELM and to understand and address any particular issues, including in relation to tenant farmers, to which my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s amendment refers.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, I say that the Government are designing future financial schemes to be accessible to as many farmers and land managers as possible, including those who work on common land.
I turn to amendments which deal with conditions placed on recipients of financial assistance. I reassure my noble friend Lady McIntosh that the Government recognise the importance of the issues listed in her Amendment 103 and are committed to supporting their delivery, both through schemes that will be delivered under Clause 1—I will not go through the list of what they are—and wider government initiatives. On the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I say that we already have robust domestic regulatory protections in place that require all farmers and land managers, irrespective of whether they receive financial assistance or not, to meet stringent standards. I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, said. These rules include the farming rules for water, which protect against water pollution, and the welfare of farmed animals regulations, which protect farm livestock, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to. These protections will continue.
The Government are reviewing, in partnership with industry, where we can make improvements to our regulatory regime. There will be some areas where the Government will raise standards. As announced in the clean air strategy, the Government will require and support farmers to take more action to reduce ammonia emissions, for example. Where appropriate, we will look to provide greater scope to remedy underperformance before sanctions are applied. The Government agree with Dame Glenys Stacey that advice has an important role in an effective regulatory system.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester.
Lord Grantchester
I rise merely to press the Minister on his statements around the different levels of tiers and how payments may differ as the higher tiers are approached. I wondered whether this was going to become clear in the regulations or whether there is a bit of experience of how many people will be applying under the different tiers. Will it be defined in regulations?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Clearly, we know that there are 80,000-plus claimants under the BPS at the moment. Obviously, the range of opportunities, with regard to numbers, will depend on clusters and how many farmers will want to group together—as we have had with farm clusters in other schemes—and those that wish to have individual, predominantly tier 1 consideration. Again, clearly this is why the trials are going on; they will show how that is going to work with the varying tiers and indeed how they all interrelate.
I do not think I would feel comfortable taking it any further than that at this stage, only because this is work in progress. I should think it will go on beyond enactment, but what I will do is make sure that—obviously, there will be continuing work on this and regulations will be coming forward—when we get to further stages of how ELM is coming forward, noble Lords are kept informed.
Lord Addington
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his usual courteous and informed reply. However, the point that I was trying to raise seems to have got slightly lost: namely, where do we find out who is going to be eligible? If the answer is “We do not know”, I think we might have to come back and dig again to find out exactly where that is placed, but at the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 6. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or any other amendments in this group, to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 6
Lord Addington
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that where financial assistance is provided for the protection or improvement of the environment, public access enhancements are, where appropriate, incorporated so that people can experience and benefit from the actions taken.
Lord Addington
My Lords, we come to a rather more honed group of amendments. We are talking about access, inspired by
“supporting … access to and enjoyment of the countryside”
in Clause 1(1)(b). It is a pretty fundamental change here that you are getting finance for that purpose, and I believe we should take quite a long and hard look at this. It is changing everything that goes on inside the countryside, but it cannot sit by itself in agriculture. If you are talking about access, you are talking about getting access to activity going out there. We are going through a crisis caused by a disease which does not affect people with decent cardiovascular systems as badly. There is a public health element. There is a sports and recreation policy element here—it affects everything else. There is a tourism element here. If you have good footpaths, you can sell that weekend in a cottage. You can go on and on here, but I will not insult the intelligence of this Chamber by doing so at any great length. The fact is that access matters, both as a principle, as being of practical value to the rural economy and, I hope, to farmers directly now as well. If they are providing this access—the point I was trying to make earlier on—they deserve to get some payment, but we deserve something back for that activity. It is a two-way street. I hope that these amendments will open up a discussion that goes through.
I should also mention that these amendments were created in conjunction with the ramblers and the canoeists. There is a huge amount of activity on waterways which hits all those targets we are talking about: public health, access, enjoyment—it is all connected with the waterways. There are the canoeists—the paddlers—and the wild swimmers can be included here as well. That group’s activity probably becomes more attractive for most of us during the summer months, but it happens. We could have gone to other groups. I have some sympathy with the Minister, because these groups have a reputation for squabbling with each other. Anglers and canoeists are not traditionally the best of friends but they should get on together, and the defence of reasonableness that runs through British law should be applied to all of them. Those on scrambler bikes and those who might occasionally use a byway or a bridle path rather annoy those on horses. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and my noble friend Lord Greaves on Amendment 100, as somebody who has, shall we say, a strong equestrian influence in my household—it was rather remiss of me not to bring them in. All these groups slightly compete for access, but they all have to get in there. However, to draw the Minister’s attention to some of the other amendments here, the idea of enhancing access runs through many of these amendments.
If you start talking about footpaths, you get the vision that a footpath is a path that runs across some countryside, often following a historical road. That does not fulfil many of the criteria I have been talking about. If you simply have a muddy path, it can become not easily used by many people incredibly quickly. Some of the amendments here are designed to reward farmers to make sure that these remain useful. There is the buggy and self-propelled wheelchair test—the buggy test is probably the most applicable one here. If there is a muddy path on a winter’s day, especially if it is on a route that people can get to, it will have a habit of getting holes and then puddles in it, which expand. That damages any land around it, either as regards its environmental or agricultural purposes. If you reward farmers for making sure that that has a toughened surface, it will take much more use and will cause less damage to the things around it.
Other people then sometimes contradict this. I remember we did it during the passage of the CROW Bill—my noble friend Lord Greaves, I think, has the scars from that—and we have not yet got anywhere near the number of amendments we had on that; I like to clang the death knell every now and again. There was a great deal of discussion then. People in motorised wheelchairs gained a great deal of traction, which was fair enough—they like access to the countryside—but their issues are not the same as those of a person with a slightly bad knee who needs that surface.
Where is it appropriate to use a gate as opposed to a stile? How do you maintain it? I have heard many a farmer say, “Yes, great, we could put a gate in there. Do you have any idea what they cost and how difficult they are to maintain, and about replacements?” The answer, of course, was that I did not at that time. We must make sure there is a structure here that rewards that sort of help, which will help everybody else here, too: if you need to get to a waterway, for example, you will have a path that is useful and allows access through. These amendments are not so draconian that they would say exactly what the enhancement must be. There will be somebody who lives on the Wiltshire-Berkshire border and somebody, like my noble friend Lord Greaves, who lives in the Pennines, where the hills are steeper and more formidable—he says they are not; he is being kind—but I come from East Anglia and the change was pretty substantial: there, a hill is an event. The point is that different bits of the countryside will need different practices going forward.
Part of the answer here plays into other areas. The Agriculture Bill may be predominantly about agriculture, but it must be aware of what else is going on. I hope the Minister will at the very least be able to give us an idea of how this important aspect of the Bill will be tied into other policy and enhanced. If we do not do this, we are missing a trick. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, like some other noble Lords, I fell victim to the Second Reading cull. Had I been able to speak at Second Reading, I would have focused entirely on the question of public access, so I am very pleased to have the opportunity this evening of supporting my noble friend Lord Addington’s amendments and saying a few words.
We are all agreed that the principle of reward for public good is the right one, and it feels to me as if public access is one of the most important public goods that we can put in the Bill. We know that open-air activity in the countryside—not just walking but all sorts of activity—has a huge contribution to make to individual health and well-being. I think it should sit alongside access to good-quality food as an important outcome of the Bill. I was very heartened to hear the Minister’s response to the last group amendments, when he talked about the importance of projects for well-being and partnership working with other departments.
But it goes much further. There is, of course, an economic development argument, with people coming to visit farm shops, cafés and pubs, but it is even more fundamental than that. One thing that has troubled many of us is the real disconnect between people, the food they eat and the way that it is produced. Noble Lords have tabled a number of amendments later in the Bill to deal with that. Regular access to the countryside is one important way of helping to stimulate this interest in and understanding of the way that our food is produced. It is also a way of exciting young people into thinking, potentially, about careers in agriculture, land management or forestry—individuals who come from towns, not necessarily just country dwellers. The same can be said about biodiversity, landscape, animal welfare—the more access people have to the countryside, the more committed they will be to those things.
For a decade, I chaired a rights of way committee in Suffolk. I know that some landowners are more accommodating than others and that some users do not behave in ways that we might like them to, but this stand-off really does need to end, because going forward, the link between individual taxpayers and farmers will be much clearer than it was in the days of the CAP. If people have a perception that they are somehow not welcome in the countryside, they will ask, “Why should my tax money support you?” I think that it would be in everyone’s interests to begin to think much more carefully about public access.
In the interests of time, I will not go through the amendments, but there are two categories. There are the ones that seek to make sure that nothing in the Bill makes the situation any worse. An example is the important question of cross-compliance: making sure that we do not pay for farmers and landowners who do not even comply with their duties under the Highways Act. Nor should we be using taxpayers’ money to help them to do what they should be doing anyway. So we have one set of amendments that are negative in focus, but then the much more positive ones which talk about enhancement and all the things we do to improve public access—not just public footpaths and rights of way, but access more generally, and particularly how we should think about getting people from towns and cities out into the countryside that we all enjoy. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Grey-Thompson [V]
Many of the amendments to which I have added my name cover issues around water. I welcome the comments of the Minister when he summed up on the earlier group and the discussion about how we could be more creative. I was also delighted to hear many noble Lords raise the issue of social prescribing.
I would like to declare an interest in that my daughter is a kayaker and has previously been on a British Canoeing junior development programme. Because of that, as an individual I have spent countless hours trying to get better access to the countryside and to water which, as a wheelchair user, is not easy. Indeed, it is often not easy for disabled people to access anything much beyond a car park—if they are lucky enough to find somewhere to park. So I welcome all the amendments that seek to offer financial assistance to help increase and improve access for everyone.
Although I have not specifically raised the issue of disability access in any amendments, it needs far more consideration. I have said previously that too many barriers have been put in place which stop wheelchair users getting around. I have been discussing this with the all-party group on cycling and I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for widening the issue out to discuss scooters and families with buggies. I should also like to thank British Canoeing and the Ramblers for helping to clarify some of the points that I wish to raise.
I believe that it would advantageous to define the term “waters” within the Bill so as to be clear about what is or is not included. There is a lack of clarity in the scope that may lead to inconsistencies in how the text is interpreted. There could be an assumption that public access and enjoyment should be supported only on land. The definition should be broad enough to ensure that financial support can be given to the widest range of farmers and landowners who are seeking to improve the use and maintenance of or access to the water that falls within their land.
The annual waterways survey estimates that around 2.1 million people go paddling every year, 35,000 of whom have direct contact with British Canoeing. However, a similar number of people swim outdoors and the 2018 survey showed that 50% of them had experienced conflict around access and 84% of that was on rivers. Of the 42,700 miles of inland waterways, only 1,400 miles are uncontested. So less than 4% of all rivers have a statutory right of access. This can be a huge barrier to participation, so I believe that there is scope for the Bill to support farmers in making more space for nature and for people.
I also believe that wider contact with an environment that is rich in wildlife will help to increase understanding of the need to protect it and it will increase people’s ability to be physically active, but it is necessary to support farmers and landowners to do that. I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who talked about access in the previous group. England may be more densely populated than Scotland, but we have to educate walkers, paddlers and anyone who is accessing the countryside to not damage or disturb wildlife.
With regard to water, I would argue that it is more damaging to restrict people to using just a tiny amount of water. If we could spread that use out, the burden on existing pressure points would surely be eased. It goes without saying, however, that those who use these spaces need to be respectful. I know from my daughter’s experience that people are taught about the environment and flooding, as well as how to look after an area, clean up litter and report things that they see along the way. They would want to protect certain areas, for example where fish are spawning, and not cause damage.
With improved access to and along waterways, we need to be looking at places to launch and land, and access around dangerous obstacles, such as weirs. We should not forget that through our communities, our towns and cities, we are perhaps more disconnected from water than we have ever been. Including these amendments will be a crucial stepping stone for the Government to meet their objectives in the Defra 25-year plan and be part of a green recovery. I believe the Government can help farmers and landowners to make this happen.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 6 and 18 and I am very happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on those. I am very keen on getting more public access, but it is not just about creating new footpaths and so forth; it is about improving what we have as well, as he said. If footpaths are very muddy, that will put people off. I have examples locally where we used to have a bridleway. That got very muddy, the hooves churned it up and it is now very good for horses, very good for cyclists and very good for walkers, so this can be done and is, I think, very important. I have taken a great interest in getting more access to the countryside. It is not just about wheelchair users, although that is very important.
I got a great deal of assistance from an organisation called Birding for All and a gentleman called Bo Beolens, whose blog goes under the title “Grumpy Old Birder”—I was rather sorry that he got there first. He pointed out to me the problems you can have. For example, he can be given a key so that he can drive his car to a car park—somewhere walkers cannot go but he can get to a hide or something—but he has to get out of his car, assemble his wheelchair, go to the gate, unlock it, get back to the car, take his wheelchair down, go to the other side of the gate, get out again and repeat the process. It takes a long time and a lot of effort, so there have to be some innovative ideas. However, as I said, it is not just that. Something he pointed out that I think might have some resonance for many Members of your Lordships’ House is that, as you get older, sometimes you want to sit down on your walk, calling for provision of some resting place. It does not have to be a fancy seat; it could be an old log appropriately placed, or something like that. So, there are lots of things that can be done.
The other thing that has not been mentioned is getting access for those people who are very nervous of going out into the countryside, or even into nature. It does not have to be into the countryside; as I said earlier, we have lots of suburban areas. They are normally referred to as BAME, but there is another expression, which is the “visible minority ethnic” population, who feel very nervous about going out into areas where they do not see many other people who look like them. If we want to encourage more people to get into and understand the countryside, including farming, this is something we have to look at.
The Minister echoed the word “balance”, which was used previously, and balance is all-important here. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned the fact that there are competing desires. As somebody who goes out to enjoy nature, I am not always entirely chuffed to find myself in an area where there are lots of cyclists hurtling around when I am trying to spot a butterfly or something else, so there has to be balance.
I also well understand that landowners and farmers are nervous because, as we have seen in recent weeks and months, where people have been going out there seems to be an increase in irresponsible littering and fly-tipping, although that is a slightly different thing. I can understand why they do not want to have open access too much. We must also not forget irresponsible dog owners. Although it is probably a minority, you need only one person or a couple people to leave things around to put people off allowing access. Even on those areas that have public access, about a month ago a very important heathland in Surrey was set on fire. almost certainly by people using portable barbecues. I think that has also happened elsewhere. I can understand why, if I were a farmer, I would want there to be a balance in letting people in. We have to persuade and educate people on how to treat wild open spaces with respect.
That said, this is an important area that we should look at. For those people getting payment for public goods, public goods could well be encouraging people to use the countryside.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, yes, there have been fires on Pennine moors during the hot weather and lockdown, almost certainly caused by barbecues. I am one of the people pressing the Government to ban the use of mobile barbecues on open spaces. The sooner it happens the better.
I have been musing on the fact that I cut my teeth in the House of Lords on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill almost exactly 20 years ago. At least three of us here in this debate are survivors of the all-night sitting we had in Committee—one of 11 Committee sessions. The Opposition at that time, the Conservatives, wanted 23 if I remember rightly. It was negotiated down to 11. If Members here think that they are hard done by, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
At that time there was also a pretty strong anti-access lobby in the House of Lords that was vociferous and quite angry. It is interesting that that has almost entirely disappeared and even those who raise questions are now reasonable and polite about it, which was not always the case at that time. That is a result of the success of the legislation that the then Labour Government brought in 20 years ago, which I was very proud to have been associated with in a very minor way.
I got together a speech to make today about how important access and recreation in the countryside are, but it is not necessary any more because it is generally accepted that that is the case. The value of recreation in the countryside for mental as well as physical health is generally accepted and that argument has been won.
As my noble friend Lady Scott said, we are talking about trying to make sure that things do not get worse and that they get better. Better small-scale facilities such as signposts and stiles that you can get over without demolishing dry stone walls in the process—I have done that twice in my life, simply because the facilities had deteriorated and it was a little-used footpath—help proper use and help land managers and farmers to cope with people walking across their land. It is win-win.
I am particularly supportive of Amendment 59, which is about enhancing access infrastructure. I am very fortunate to live in Pendle, on the edge of the town, with access to wonderful Pennine countryside, up on the Yorkshire border with Lancashire. Over the years, a huge amount of work had been done there on providing this kind of access. It is now beginning to fall apart a little, partly because the county council does not have the funding for it and partly because the schemes under which the work was done are not there anymore. It is very important indeed that the replacement and maintenance of facilities is part of what we are talking about.
I want to say something about the work that is going on in the Mendips by the Trails Trust, which the Minister will know about, as part of one of the trials looking at the provision of better and improved access. Will the Minister comment on that and tell us whether that kind of thing is going on in other areas? The trust is finding a lot of new bridleways, and those will be highly valuable. Indeed, I signed my name to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, about better bridleways.
One thing that is forgotten about is cycleways. Cycleways are not just urban things—they can be rural. They can be combined with horse riding and walking on local byways; indeed, you can cycle on a bridleway, but very often the surface is not all that good for cycling. They are not part of the rights of way legislation, because, at the time when that was based, cycles did not exist—they had not been invented. This is something that should be looked at now.
I ask the Government to look specifically at the problems raised by my noble friend Lady Scott concerning the ending of cross-compliance. Rights of way authorities have found cross-compliance requiring landowners to adhere to the Highways Act 1980 valuable, basically because they could threaten them for not doing it if they were getting grants. If that is removed, will a cross-compliance-type ruling be automatic, particularly in tier 1 grants and schemes, insisting that cross-compliance on rights of way on the land continues to exist—it would not be called “cross-compliance” but it would be the same thing—as a condition for getting the grant? Even if the grant does not cover rights of way at all, will landowners still be required to adhere to cross-compliance?
Finally, I come back to rights of way improvement plans, which I mentioned at Second Reading, and which the access authorities are supposed to have in place. Very often, the enthusiasm that went into these plans has gone, because rights of way departments have shrunk under the cuts to local authority budgets. The Environmental Land Management Policy Discussion Document, published in February, says that tier 2 outcomes are
“locally targeted environmental outcomes”
with
“some form of spatial targeting and local planning”.
This seems to be ideally suited to rights of way improvement plans across an area. Is that the kind of thing that the Government will look at and consider favourably? Will they encourage rights of way improvement authorities to put forward plans and try to integrate them into the new environmental land management system?
Lord Lucas [V]
My Lords, the amendments in this group are crucial to the success of this Bill—or at least, the spirit behind them is. When I was young, a family t-shirt read: “Farmer Palmer says ‘Get orf moy laaand!’”. Things have changed, and I am delighted by that, but it is not just offering access that is important but labelling access: making it practically possible for the people paying for these payments to farmers to enjoy the outcome. As my noble friend Lord Randall said, it includes things such as a resting place, information, enabling enjoyment when you get there and even some provision for the dog poo fairy—a range of things to make the visit worth while, a positive experience and something that people really engage with and appreciate.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 100 in my name. I welcome the opportunity to take part in scrutinising this legislation. It was a great disappointment that the Government did not allow more time for Second Reading and prevented me and other Members of this House from taking part. I declare my interest as a director of a company that owns some farming land. Also, I recently served on the Rural Economy Select Committee and, some time ago, on the Farm Animal Welfare Committee and the FSA animal feedingstuffs committee. I am a member of the BHA.
Amendment 100 is a probing amendment. First, there is no definition in the Bill of “public access”. I also raise the issue of allowing walkers and riders access to agricultural land. While there is a good number of footpaths, in some parts of the country bridle paths are in short supply. Horse riders have access to only 22% of the public rights network, which is the only real way they have of accessing countryside.
Certain responsibilities and liabilities go with creating bridle paths, which means many landowners are reluctant to create more. With the number of cars and bicycles now on the roads—cyclists can be a real danger to horse riders too, as they seem so silent and frightening to horses—there are far fewer safe place for horse riders to go. Access to agricultural land would give the benefit of opening up more safe places to walk and, especially, to ride.
Lord Judd [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is to be congratulated on this group of amendments. They are vital, and I am very glad to be associated with Amendment 111. I would have been associated with more if there had been spaces when I came to put my name down.
In our modern society—urbanised, digitalised, impersonal—it is serious for the whole future of humanity that so many people have totally lost contact with the countryside. Whether it be about the inspiration, an uplifting experience, or the spiritual or physical enhancement of being there, enjoying it and being active within the countryside, it is just not a reality for many people. We have a major challenge to put this right. It seems that all of us who have engagement with the countryside have a big responsibility for it—whether the land be in private ownership, public ownership, national parks or whatever—to make sure that people are re-engaging with what is, of course, in the end, fundamental to the well-being of society and to people’s own well-being in terms of food and the rest.
There has been too much surreptitious—sometimes quite sinister—cutting off of access to the countryside. We should take this very seriously indeed. It is wrong and it is very dangerous in terms of what I have just been saying. For these reasons and many others, these amendments are crucially important and I am very glad to be able to support them.
The Earl of Devon
My Lords, I am amazed to hear that there were 11 days in Committee for the then CROW Bill and we have four for this much larger and more extensive Bill. It is amazing how things have changed.
I have been steward of the family farm for only a few years. During that time, I have experienced a number of issues with public access. We have had IRA bombs hidden in the woods; we have had oysters stolen; I have seen lambs mauled by dogs; I have seen sheep bludgeoned to death with baseball bats. We have chestnut blight throughout our woods spread by spores, which are carried on feet, and asbestos fly-tipped in ancient forests. I have just restored the belvedere tower that was burnt down by vandals more than 50 years ago. Public access to the countryside is quite sobering and your Lordships might be surprised that I am very supportive of it. It really needs to be managed, because it has incredibly dangerous and negative implications if it is not handled well.
It requires more than 45 minutes of this debate to really do justice to the issues but, as I see it, access is principally about education in what the countryside is about, how it works and how it is managed. I am encouraged that some of these amendments really focus on that. They focus on education on the countryside and what farming is about. Farming is about life and death, uncomfortable decisions and balancing the well-being of animals with the well-being of humans. The more that ELMS can be used to encourage responsible, sustainable and resilient access to the countryside for the benefit of people’s health and well-being, the better for all of us and, particularly, the better for land managers, whose management of the land suddenly becomes relevant to a much wider swathe of the population.
I am pleased with the positive reaction to the suggestion that health and well-being benefits are the purpose of access. Can the Minister comment and think about how we are funding this access, and whether it is just ELMS or whether we could perhaps look to the national health budget to provide additional financial support if we are doing so much good for people’s health and well-being, particularly their mental well-being? Perhaps some of the health budget can be directed towards land management for the benefit of public access.
We really need to think very firmly about biosecurity. I mentioned the chestnut blight, but there are so many diseases that are rampant in our countryside. Farmers do not exclude people from the countryside just because they do not want them there: they often exclude them because it is very damaging to have people all over the countryside, particularly in sensitive areas where one is dealing with disease and pestilence that is really ravaging so much of our native flora and fauna.
There is also physical security. Many in rural areas live in isolated houses; free access to the countryside can cause all sorts of issues with rural crime, fly-tipping and health and safety. Who pays when someone trips and falls? How does insurance cover that? All these things need to be worked through if we are to encourage more access to the countryside, as I hope we will be able to do.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support the general aim of Clause 1 to move to a system of public payments for public good, and putting in the Bill a list of purposes for which assistance could be provided. Amendments 6 and 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, add to this clause that measures which would ensure enhanced public access to the countryside can qualify for financial assistance. This is welcome and necessary as, despite improvements to our beautiful countryside in recent years, in many places access is not guaranteed. This can be because the routes are inaccessible or do not exist. By introducing these amendments, landowners and others will be encouraged to support greater access to the countryside by improving rights of way, stiles, gates and signage and developing new paths along field margins. If the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, is not minded to accept these amendments, can he set out clearly how the Government intend to achieve the intent behind them and encourage greater access to the countryside?
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and others on their focus on access to and enjoyment of the countryside, and the sport and recreation policy element, which I know the Minister shares.
These amendments seek to establish a clear commitment from the Government that, under these new arrangements, public funds will be directed towards delivering improvements in public access to the countryside in a balanced way for all users, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, rightly emphasised, particularly for those engaged in sport and recreational activities which have over the years established a good, close and effective working relationship with farmers and landowners, particularly where rights of way exist, not least to and on water. I am pleased that point was emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It is also important to recognise in this context the strength of argument put forward by my noble friend Lady Hodgson on the important equestrian issues at stake. The Bill provides an excellent opportunity to bring improved public benefits. I hope farmers and landowners will be encouraged not to restrict access for any person on any inland waterway or lake which forms part of that land for the purpose of open-air recreation.
I hope the Minister will find ways to ensure fair and equitable access to our countryside for all sustainable recreational pursuits on land and water at a time when fitness and activity levels are in crisis. I hope he will also agree that we should strive to deliver a new and improved regulatory regime that drives and enhances improvement and access to the maintenance of existing public rights of way for all users of the countryside. Enhanced access to the countryside and improved protection of the existing path network have been called for today in your Lordships’ House. I hope the Minister will signal his support for these objectives, to which I add my strong support. I believe he can, because I hope he will emphasise that in Clause 1(1)(b) it is possible to deliver these aims. In future, I hope that we in this House will hold this and future Governments to the important effect that that clause should deliver in the interests of a wider sport and recreational policy and an enhanced enjoyment of the countryside.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests, as on the register. I too regret that I was unable to participate in the Second Reading, but I will be mercifully brief with my comments on this group of amendments.
My worry with this group is the same as that which I had with the first two groups, on which I desperately wanted to speak but, through my incompetence, I notified the Whips incorrectly. My worry is that these amendments, like the others, are too prescriptive and not necessary to achieve the objectives on which all noble Lords agree. I counted and, if all the amendments in the first two groups are agreed, Clause 1 of the Bill will have 42 new and additional purposes added to it. I think that is unnecessary.
I am very keen on access to the countryside and to all green space, and I share the views of my noble friend Lord Randall that we need to increase the number of people from minority groups who visit the countryside. Studies show that the problem is that some youngsters will not go to a park 500 yards from their home. In such circumstances, it is difficult to get them into the wider countryside. This is a huge educational problem.
I do not support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Randall and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on a small but important technicality. I believe that the word “supporting” can include “enhancing”; therefore, changing it is not necessary and could be damaging. If the definition is simply enhancing, it may freeze out farmers who have done a lot of access work, above the minimum, but can do no more to enhance it and would not qualify. It would therefore be a bit unfair if those farmers, having already reached a high access standard, got no payment, but those who had done little got payment for enhancing by just a small amount. I submit that the word “supporting” is adequate and can do all the enhancing work that colleagues suggested.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that the NHS and Public Health England are working with lots of organisations, including Natural England, on something called social prescribing. I believe that, until a few months ago, about 2,000 NHS staff were being trained in GPs’ surgeries to get people to do various things other than queue up for pills. That put it rather crudely; I do not mean that to be unfair on people who need pills. But social prescribing could save the NHS billions. Once this Covid-19 crisis is over or under control, I hope we get back to social prescribing.
On Amendment 34, I agree it would be good if the wider or urban public understood what agriculture does or where their food comes from, but this is not a job for government. Farmers themselves and their organisations—the NFU, CLA and Tenant Farmers Association—through farm open days and schoolchildren visits, must promote public understanding and engagement with agriculture. That is their business. No one knows it better. They are the best people to educate the public, rather than the Government.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Government deserve congratulations for bringing forward this Agriculture Bill. It offers the same potential as the Attlee Government’s efforts in 1947 and the common agricultural policy that has dominated us for so long. I am particularly pleased that the Government have realised that farming is changing and changing quite dramatically. I sometimes feel that those at the centre do not quite understand the subtlety of those changes.
I have an advantage: I live in the area where I started work, on the land, 50 or 60 years ago. I can determine the changes in agriculture. I will come back to that in a moment on these clauses. This has been a particularly interesting eight hours of debate. There were issues in the previous two groups of amendments related to those we are discussing now, but I held back because I wanted to speak on rights of access, which I think are critical.
Before I develop that, it seems as if this has been a Second Reading debate, made even more confusing by the considerate and detailed response of the Minister, who has gone out of his way to sum up, on two occasions, which has been an advantage. One point has kept coming up about forestry and woodland. There is confusion on what the Government have in mind; perhaps they have not got their sights completely set at this stage. I was led to believe that certain parts of woodland, and certain forests—which were a bit different—might receive a public grant. We were certainly looking at huge areas of new woodlands being created up here in Cumbria, just outside the national park. There is a great deal of potential for access in and on forestry land.
I had the honour of being chair of the Forestry Commission for nine years. It will be no surprise to the Minister that I was very keen to promote the right to roam in forests. We were not covered by the legislation—that was mountains, moorlands and heath above a certain height. But, when I was chair, we decided that there would be a legal right of access in all our freehold Forestry Commission land. This has not caused any fundamental difficulties in running our forests. I press the Minister to look at the possibility of permitting access to forestry land as well.
I also want to make the point that, amazingly enough, quite a lot of forestry land is near the centres of big towns, cities and urban areas. There is great potential for access in those areas. You can often get there much easier, but there are difficulties. I remember trying to negotiate access to a large forest within two miles of the centre of Newcastle. The Forestry Commission—we the people—owned the freehold, but I could not grant access, because when the land was bought it was agreed that the shooting rights in the forest would remain with the original vendors. To this day, people in a concentrated, built-up area are not allowed to use that forest, because of the shooting rights. I hope it might even be possible that some of the money available under the new government proposals could be used to buy out those rights. I know that there are difficulties, but I cite this because it is the way we ought to be moving forward. The holistic approach which the Government are taking to agricultural support in the future is the right one.
I mentioned earlier the subtle changes. Just outside the Lake District National Park in the lower levels of the valleys there were a lot of small mixed farms. Those farms provided employment and were viable, but I can tell the House that in the Bowness-on-Windermere area in which I live, I cannot think of a farm that has a single cow. There is the odd steer about, but all the land is grazed by sheep. That means that most of the small farmsteads have been sold off to be converted into country cottages. We are now finding the cost of that. Field upon field which used to be pristine hayfields are now covered in reeds. Stone walls which were maintained and rebuilt if they fell over—you had to do that to keep the cows in—are now left unbuilt. It is a real problem when you are trying to have countryside that deals with so many people. The Lake District National Park—I tell the House this repeatedly, and I do not apologise—has 19 million visitors a year, a vast number.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
We have pressures on our time, so will the noble Lord draw his comments to a close?
Lord Clark of Windermere [V]
I was going to do that. We have 19 million visitors. In order to accommodate them, there need to be facilities. If we are going to have public access, we need small car parks and public transport to get people to the attractive areas.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I shall be brief as I do not have amendments in this little group. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Overall, access has been a phenomenal success although we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that that is not always the case. My concern is that the flip side of access should be responsibility on the part of those using the access. Over the lockdown period we saw regrettable behaviour by a few irresponsible people which unfortunately tarnished it for many.
I remember that when I was growing up there was something—I think there may be a later amendment on this—called the countryside code. It was on television. There were adverts saying simple things like, if you walk on the Pennine Way, which is near where I grew up, you close the gate if there is livestock in the field and that it is dangerous to enter a field where there is a calf, as the cow will defend it to the death. We have even seen a vet, who was walking their dog through a field, killed in the past two years. Like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I cut my parliamentary teeth next door on the CROW Bill, so I bear the scars. We ran one or two very unsuccessful exercises as an opposition, I recall. How can the Government ensure that the flip side of access will be responsibility and that the costs will not be disproportionate to the enjoyment? I hope those using the access will behave in a responsible manner. We saw some malicious fires—It was not just fly-tipping; the materials were burned to get rid of them so they could not be traced—and the irresponsible use of barbeques. When there are crops growing in a field, you cannot have access until the crops have been taken out. We need responsible behaviour so that the cost will be proportionate to the enjoyment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington. As somebody who over the years has supported access to the countryside, I fully understand and appreciate that. However, I come back to the principle, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the Minister, of the balance of competing rights: the right of people to enjoy the countryside, and their right to have access to it while at the same time respecting it. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I am well aware that during lockdown there was a certain despoliation of the countryside—a considerable level of littering and probably interference with farm animals. It comes back to the issue of getting the balance right. After all, access to the countryside can be a pretty disputatious issue if it is not managed properly.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, first, how nice it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, back with us and participating. We have missed him; I wish him very well and good health for the future. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, for picking up the question I have asked the Minister twice, so far, about forestry and woodland. I hope that, third time lucky, we might get a reply from him.
I want to address the provision of public access; we will come to the consequences of public access in two amendments’ time, so I am not going to mention those. I am a great supporter of public access. It was absolutely crucial to me when I came out of hospital, and was being pushed around in a wheelchair, to be able to get out into the countryside on footpaths that could accommodate a wheelchair. They were quite difficult to find but we found them. It did my health and whole well-being a power of good. Having got out of the wheelchair, I have been using the footpaths to get as fit as I can. Some footpaths have certainly been good, but the bridleways are an absolute nightmare for anybody with bad knees or bad feet, and who has to use sticks.
What does the Minister mean by “public access”? There is no definition in the Bill. I believe that this is the beginning of the right to roam in England; I am sure that will come as a logical consequence of the Bill. Many farmers fear that public access will turn parts of England into a recreational theme park, rather than places with farming communities. The problem with public access is that it is a legal minefield. What public access is to be granted? Is it to be a permissive path or a bridleway? Will it be a BOAT—a byway open to all traffic—or a restrictive byway? We do not know. As my noble friend Lord Gardiner said, we want farmers to participate in this scheme, but they will not do so until they know what the consequences of these amendments are and what they actually mean.
Balance was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan. We all would like a sensible balance in this, but there has been a huge amount of warfare between farmers and public access groups. There is a big history here. Let us take the example of two schools that have had huge problems just trying to divert footpaths: Helmshore Primary School in Lancashire and Wardour Catholic Primary School in Wiltshire. The ramblers have refused and have contested every opportunity to deviate the path along the edge of the field rather than through the playing fields, meaning that a school has lost a large chunk of its playing fields and, because of coronavirus, has had to fence that path off. That path must be monitored by staff when the children are out and cleared of dog mess regularly. It has caused the school a whole lot of problems. That has not helped in getting towards a balanced system.
Similarly, as the Minister will know, there is a huge backlog of applications to create rights of way where there may not be any at the moment. He will be aware that the South Somerset Bridleways Association has 261 applications to create new routes under the existing legislation. If we cannot get the existing system right, people will be very fearful of the future system. The British Horse Society trying to open a bridleway in Derbyshire contributed to the suicide of one of the owners; a suicide in Somerset was also linked to the aggressive attitude of Somerset County Council when trying to open a right of way that did not exist. There is a big history here. We must get this right, and that will take a lot of resolve by the Government.
One must also look at what the Open Spaces Society says on its website. If we are talking about balance, where is the balance in saying that your position is to oppose path changes? That is a complete no-no. It does not want any path changes. It goes on to say:
“Diversions out of farmyards should normally be opposed”
and that if spreading disease is given as a reason, it is invalid. How can it be invalid with coronavirus rampant?
We have a massive problem with the existing legislation. It is a legal minefield, it is costing owners thousands of pounds to prove a negative in many cases, and we are now faced with a Bill in which public access is to be opened up. I approve of that, but there will have to be a huge effort by the Government to get the present situation under control to reassure farmers about the future situation.
What will happen after 2026? If a landowner agrees a scheme over a public right of access before 2026, will it retrospectively become a bridleway or a public footpath? Will they be able to claim that when it was on a temporary basis or part of some project? These are the legal questions that farmers must face, and the Government must face up to, because at the moment it is a mess. We debated this in the Moses Room, and afterwards, a number of people who had come in to listen were very heated about the lack of progress.
I know that there have been problems and staff have been seconded to look after the Covid-19 situation, but can the Minister tell us where we have got to in trying to correct the present situation regarding footpaths?
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, to begin, I take my reference point from the Book of Genesis, where Adam and Eve were told that they had to be stewards of all creation. That was further defined in the Book of Leviticus, which makes clear that the use of land is to provide abundant crops but also that it is to be a place of sanctuary. Of course, Leviticus goes further, for those who wish a literal interpretation and application of the holy book, because it says that all land must be owned for only 50 years and then passed back by the owner. So landowners who have had land for many centuries need to bear in mind that their tenancy over that land also incorporates long-standing rights of access.
I was a little surprised to hear the noble Earl, Lord Devon, suggesting not just that the NHS budget be diverted to landowners but that access was a major problem. It has certainly not been a major problem at Powderham Castle for the hundreds of thousands of revellers who have visited to watch Noel Gallagher, Coldplay or the range of other concerts that have taken place there. We need the facts to be accurate in these debates.
Health, sanctuary and well-being are fundamental to humanity. Society cannot function without them. Access to the sanctuary of quietness away from the towns and cities is fundamental to the physical and mental well-being of the citizens of this country. There is therefore a balance to be struck between the subsidies demanded and received by the farming community year on year—be it through the new government policy or, previously, the excessive common agricultural policy—and the right of citizens to access rights of way without hindrance, to go out into the fresh air into the sanctuary, as Leviticus defined, in order for our well-being to be preserved. At this time, with the horrors of coronavirus, those rights of access are fundamental. In my view, these amendments are apposite in getting the balance right.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I want to begin by saying, “There endeth the lesson”. Having sat here now for well over seven hours and heard virtually every speech, I am glad to have the brief opportunity to say a few words.
The Government must learn the lesson of the Second Reading. Time and again we have heard today from people who were excluded; I myself was one of the 22, or whatever the number was. If we had had a two-day debate on the Bill, I think we would have moved a little more expeditiously through Committee because a lot of Second Reading points have been made.
I urge my noble friend, for whom I have enormous regard, to discuss with his colleagues the inevitable extension of the Committee stage of the Bill. It will not get through in four sessions and, frankly, it should not.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 6, 9, 98 and 111 in this group. For many people, Covid-19 has provided an opportunity —or perhaps a necessity—to go on and discover local walks in their own immediate neighbourhood, to get exercise and fresh air and not spend the whole day in their own home. A crucial feature of the Bill, as we know, is the introduction of a new system of financial assistance for farmers to replace subsidies paid as part of the EU’s common agricultural policy. In future funding will be in exchange for the delivery of public goods, which includes better public access.
Clause 1(1) states:
“The Secretary of State may give financial assistance for or in connection with any one or more of the following purposes”,
with paragraph (a) reading
“managing land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment”.
Although this is helpful, it does not acknowledge the value added of enabling people to experience some benefit from improvements in environmental quality. Amendment 6 adds
“and people’s access to it”
and seeks to ensure that where financial assistance is provided for the protection or improvement of the environment, public access enhancements are incorporated, where appropriate, so that people can experience some benefit from the actions taken. This is particularly important near centres of population, where the recreational value of new woodlands or better access to paths across open land is far higher than in more remote locations.
Clause 1(1)(b) refers to
“supporting public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland or woodland and better understanding of the environment”.
However, as landowners or occupants, farmers are already required by law to keep clear public access to their land, so “supporting public access” could appear to be providing funding for doing something for which there is already a legal requirement. There is thus no certainty that funding will be provided for new public access or for making existing paths more accessible, yet this is important in enabling more people to get outdoors. Natural England estimates that 20% of people cannot use rights of way because they cannot use stiles or gates or they are with someone who cannot.
Amendment 9 replaces “supporting” with “enhancing” to express more clearly that financial assistance will be provided to enhance public access to the countryside by improving accessibility beyond the legal minimum of existing rights of way. It also helps ensure that funding can be provided for the creation of new access opportunities through, for example, the provision of paths along field margins as alternatives to unsafe country roads and at the rural-urban fringe to increase the connection of communities to nature and the rural world.
Clause 1(1)(b), which enables the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance for
“supporting public access to and enjoyment of the countryside”
is welcome, but more clarity is needed on the outcomes in terms of public access to and enjoyment of the countryside that will be supported through further financial assistance to farmers. Amendment 98 seeks to do this by adding to Clause 1(5)
“‘supporting public access to and enjoyment of the countryside’ includes the provision of new public access or improving the accessibility of existing public rights of way”.
Thus the amendment provides certainty that financial assistance may be provided for new public access or steps to make existing rights of way more accessible, and also that the new financial assistance scheme will provide direct benefits for the public through better access to the countryside.
Clause 2(2) states:
“Financial assistance may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Landowners and land managers are required under the Highways Act 1980 to keep rights of way on their land clear and accessible to the public. The duty was reinforced by the system of cross-compliance governing payments to farmers under the EU’s common agricultural policy, which required, among other things, the fulfilment of legal duties for rights of way as a condition of receiving funding from the public purse. The Government are committed to ending cross-compliance and have suggested they will establish a new, simplified regulatory regime.
The principle of financial assistance being subject to conditions, as introduced in subsection (2), is welcome. What it does not do is specify what those conditions will be. Amendment 111 provides that:
“The conditions may (among other things) require the recipient to fulfil their duties for public rights of way under the Highways Act 1980.”
It will thus help ensure that landowners’ and occupiers’ duties for public rights of way are among the conditions that the Secretary of State may attach to the provision of financial assistance. This is important because existing rights of way are the primary means by which people can get outdoors. It is, therefore, vital to have in place a regulatory framework that encourages farmers to keep paths clear as a condition of receiving payments from the public purse.
The set of conditions, including those relating to public access, provide clarity for farmers over the baseline standards expected, and it also—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said earlier—helps create a level playing field within the sector. Most farmers fulfil their legal obligations, so those who do not should not be treated equally and without any sanction for not keeping access open.
I hope the Government will give careful consideration to this group of amendments and the objectives they seek to achieve. It would be helpful if the Minister could say, in his response, whether they are also government objectives, either in whole or in part. If they are but the Government do not feel overexcited by these amendments, I hope, like my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, that the Minister will spell out very clearly in his response why the Government believe that the wording in the Bill—and which wording that is—already provides, without any doubt, the safeguards and assurances that these amendments to which I have referred are intended to provide.
Our farmers must have, and deserve, a fair deal as we leave the EU, and we need to make sure this Bill delivers precisely that. However, our countryside should be accessible to all and, in return, those who visit the countryside must exercise that right responsibly and in a manner that does not adversely affect those who earn their livelihood from the land and who provide us with a basic necessity of life—namely, food.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, whilst I can support reasonable extension to public access, as I said earlier it is indeed a double-edged sword. In those parts of the country where agricultural land is close to towns or cities, significant opening up of more footpaths, or increasing the numbers of people entering land used for agriculture, forestry or horticulture, may cause disturbance to birds and animals and exacerbate a littering problem that has got worse during the lockdown anyway.
It is likely that farmers, whose financial rewards are going to depend more on the quality and condition in which they maintain their land, are going to be reluctant to encourage more public access unless they are paid to provide it. They need to be paid because they will need to make good, or mitigate the damage to, the land, crops, fences, gates and wildlife habitats that will result from increased public access in those parts of the country near significant population centres.
Perhaps the amounts that farmers should be paid for public access would have to be more than is justified in terms of the numbers of people who would benefit. We should also remember that you do not need to have access to the improved environment in order to benefit from it in terms of better air quality, higher standards of food products and cleaner water in our rivers.
I sympathise with the intention of my noble friend Lord Lucas in Amendment 34, but I believe this is already covered by subsection (1)(b), whether the drafting of that is changed or not.
Amendment 59, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seeks to enhance public access not only to land but also to water. Would my noble friend the Minister not agree that farmers and riparian owners would have to be compensated for the significant additional costs of this? Would he also concede that compensation should be paid to owners of fisheries whose catch numbers would be damaged by an increase in kayaking and boating on rivers and inland waterways?
Lastly, I slightly fear that too much path surfacing, signage and waymarking may make the countryside more like a cross between a golf course and a public park, which, in extremis, will urbanise the appearance of the countryside and remove its wildness, which is so valuable.
The Duke of Montrose [V]
My Lords, I start by asking my noble friend the Minister whether, in his mind, the definition in the Bill of the countryside, farmland and woodland excludes water. One would think that water would be included in that, but obviously the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would like to have it added to the Bill.
It is quite useful that the Bill is to support the provision of access. Presumably it allows the land occupier to direct the access where they can cope with it, if necessary with access to water. My noble friend Lord Trenchard just mentioned the Scottish attitude to right to roam. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, lives far enough away not to have ready access to the Scottish right to roam. In many ways it conjures up a nightmare for most landowners, in that people can go anywhere they like other than the curtilage of a dwelling house. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard mentioned, the pressures in Scotland are not as great as they are down south, although I happen to live by Loch Lomond and the pressures there are certainly equal to any other area in the country—so much so that the national park has brought in a prohibition on drinking alcohol on one side of the loch, because the public were wont to make a nonsense of that.
One aspect of this power in the Bill is that nowadays farmers are almost necessitated to have an element of diversification in what they do. Very often it is a question of having some feature that the public will come to and offer payment for. The powers that the Government are providing will be taken up with enthusiasm by these people, because it will give them a more attractive way to have people come and visit them and enjoy what they have to offer.
However, like my noble friend Lord Trenchard, I have considerable reservations regarding all that is contained in the descriptive Amendment 99. It seems to conjure up access even to ditches or anything with a bit of water in the bottom of it and then to ask for access even to the banks of those. That makes a bit of a mockery of the remaining legislation in England that access must only be by an approved route so that all the interests in establishing the route can be considered.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, this group of amendments is primarily about financial assistance being provided for public access to the countryside and waterways. My noble friends Lady Scott of Needham Market, Lord Addington and Lord Greaves have given extremely good reasons why public access is a public good. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, supports improving current footpaths rather than creating new ones, and I share that view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, has defined public access to include horse-riding. Certainly, horse-riding is a very popular pastime, and it is extremely healthy. The enjoyment of the countryside, whether walking, riding or canoeing, should be encouraged wherever possible. However, I share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that there must be a balance. Not all who use rights of way respect them in the way they should.
There is nothing better than going for an energetic walk along a right of way and ending up at a pub for lunch. However, I stress to all that it is important that the countryside alongside the footpaths, bridleways, watercourses and RUPPs should be respected by those who use them.
There are a number of rights of way across the country open to the disabled and mothers with pushchairs. The Tissington trail in the Peak District and the Tarka trail in Devon are two such. I would like the Government to encourage more landowners and farmers to create more level access for people with disabilities and small children, as set out by my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.
I have little sympathy for enthusiasts who insist on applying for footpaths through domestic homes and gardens just to prove that there once was a right of way along a route years ago. In these cases, there are often perfectly adequate footpaths on a nearby route that provide an alternative. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that the Ramblers do themselves no good at all with their intransigent attitude. That said, it will be incumbent on landowners and farmers who have rights of way running across their grounds to keep them clear and safe for the enjoyment of all who wish to use them. Bridleways should be kept clear, especially of overhanging branches and brambles, as should watercourses which canoeists will be using.
Access to the countryside is extremely important, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the many other noble Lords who spoke on these amendments. It seems that I spoke too soon when I said in the debate on the first group that a level of consensus seemed to be developing. The more we get into the details, the more divides begin to appear. Indeed, I started off with some certainty and now I have more questions than answers. I hope that, as we go through the Bill, some of my questions will be answered or dispelled. It is important that we get these issues out on the table, and some of those difficult issues to do with rights and responsibilities need to be addressed. Obviously, Committee is the right place to do that.
As president of the Friends of the South Downs and a former long-standing member of the Ramblers, I very much support greater public access to the countryside. For example, I am proud of Labour’s record on delivering the right to roam and our network of long-distance footpaths. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who rightly raised disability access, that clearly a great deal more needs to be done to improve access to our countryside. As the president of the South Downs society, I have to say that many of the issues we have are about elderly people walking the paths who cannot climb the stiles or find it difficult to access some of the more difficult terrains and so on, which could easily be adjusted. It is not just about people with disabilities but about making sure there is public access for all.
We know the public can gain huge benefits from being in the open air and walking in the countryside. As many noble Lords have said, we have learned that very acutely during the recent Covid crisis, when people have been denied that access. The point made on the previous group by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, is important: fundamentally, this is about health and well-being, and we need to bear that in mind.
It is also important that public understanding of farming and nature is enhanced. I have seen some fantastic examples of school visits to farms that have really enthused young people for the first time about the importance of the countryside. We need to encourage those sorts of visits. That will clearly have the effect of persuading young people to respect the countryside more and will go some way to addressing some of the concerns that a number of noble Lords have raised—the noble Earl, Lord Devon, did so rather vividly—about some of the problems when young people do not respect the countryside: littering, fires, vandalism, fly-tipping and so on. At the same time as creating access, we need to create respect.
Supporting public access to the countryside and providing a better understanding of the environment are already in the financial assistance set out in Clause 1, so the issue we have here is what further wording we need in amendments, beyond those rights already spelt out and the existing legal minimum. That is the challenge for us today: to make sure that if we make adjustments and additions, we get them in balance.
My noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere made an important point about access to forests. Until he explained it, I had not quite understood what some of those issues were, but it is important, particularly as we look to extend the planting of trees. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that question and explain the Government’s plans for giving us greater public access to forest areas.
The amendments we have been looking at also specify access to waterways. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, talked about those issues and the importance, for example, of canoeing and wild swimming. I do not doubt that all those activities should be encouraged, but I have a genuine question as to whether this falls within the original intention of the Bill, which was to support agriculture, food production and the environment. This might be something the Minister can shed some light on in his response.
On the other groups, we talked about the Bill’s connection with water, and I am still struggling to understand quite where the boundaries of that lie. For example, I had assumed that the references to “managing land or water” in Clause 1 were meant to address the impact of farming activities on the quality of adjoining water rather than encouraging a wider responsibility for recreation to take place on local rivers. That is an issue that a number of noble Lords raised, so we need to understand the interconnection between what is essential, what is voluntary and what are the real advantages to us of access to that water. That is a genuine question and I do not know the answer to it.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords. This has been an important debate. When preparing for today, I never realised that we might hear references to Leviticus—but it is an interesting way forward. I will begin by replying to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I will also take in Amendment 100, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hodgson.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Public access to the countryside provides a huge range of benefits, including improving physical and mental health, and supporting local communities and economies. Spending time in the natural environment, as a resident or a visitor, can reduce stress, fatigue, anxiety and depression. It can help boost the immune system and encourage physical activity, and it may reduce the risk of chronic diseases such as asthma. It can combat loneliness and bind communities together.
Here, the word “balance” comes up again. In my experience, the countryside is about balance. It is overwhelmingly not in the interests of any farmer to fall out with their neighbours, because, in the end, we all have to find a way through. My noble friend Lord Cormack, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the two noble Baronesses from the Front Benches spoke of this.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, said that these things need to be handled well. Well, we all need to try to handle things well, but this is an area where inflammatory language is extremely unwise. I do not think that we are going to get anywhere unless we work collaboratively. That is why we have this power. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that we have a power in the Bill to provide financial assistance to support public access to, and enjoyment of, the countryside, farmland and woodland. That is a good basis from which we should be working.
The Government are supporting and enhancing access to the countryside in a number of different ways. I am very pleased that tourism was raised. The completion of the England coastal path—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, knows I have written to him—was delayed, unfortunately, because of coronavirus, but we are working on this. Not only domestic but overseas visitors thoroughly enjoy walking in this country, so we are supporting our network of national trails and ensuring that rights of way are recorded and protected, as well as developing ways to support access through the environmental land management scheme. One of the most rewarding elements of my responsibility for the England coastal path has been to join many people of a range of abilities and disabilities at openings of some of the England coastal path. For instance, there are platforms that settle well into some of the dunes to enable people in wheelchairs to get out into the dunes while keeping away from tern nests. Again, it is all about balance in how we organise these things.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that there are three ELM tests and trials looking at issues concerning access, and these will help us understand how the scheme could work in a real-life environment. For example, the ELM scheme could fund the creation of new paths, such as footpaths and bridleways, which provide access for cyclists, riders and pedestrians where appropriate. It could support access to water and waterways on someone’s land. In particular, the Mendip Hills trials will work with farmers and land managers in the Mendip Hills to explore a range of issues relating to creating access infrastructure—another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. The tests will conclude in 2021 and will be very helpful. I say also to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that funding may be given under Clause 1(1)(b) to support access to water bodies and waterways in the countryside, farmland and woodland, which could provide access to those locations. Our ELM scheme will reward land managers for the public goods that they deliver, which could include granting of public access to water.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard asked about trials. We need to have these trials and that is why I do not think the discussion we are having is immensely valuable. We should not try to ring-fence the detail at this stage in this primary legislation; we need to be pragmatic to get the right results, because it is by getting those right results that we will encourage more farmers to feel that this is their scheme and access is not a forbidding element of the financial assistance package. Defra continues to liaise regularly with other key stakeholders, including the NFU, of which I declare my membership, Ramblers, with which I have a lot of good relationships, and the British Horse Society, of which I declare my membership, among others, to discuss access and Covid-19 recovery opportunities.
I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that one of the ways we are going to get this right is by getting people around the table. That is why Defra has a stakeholder group advising on rights of way reform that brings together landowners, users and local authorities to develop a consensus on areas for change and the necessary implementation. I am anxious to get this as far forward as possible, and my noble friend Lord Caithness keeps me on my toes. He ought to recognise, and I am sure he does, that we are dealing with a number of issues in terms of legislation and it has not been possible to bring forward the deregulation package on rights of way reform that we all desire, but I cannot engage in a mission impossible when we have many other demands on the Government’s legislative plate and the delays because of coronavirus.
On the conditions land managers must meet in order to take part in the scheme, the current wording enables a range of different conditions to be set and, again, we will work with stakeholders to develop these. Of course, land managers’ legal responsibilities in relation to access over their land will still be applicable.
The noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Greaves, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan raised points about meeting baseline regulatory standards. We expect farmers and managers to meet regulatory standards, regardless of whether they are claiming an ELM payment. This is voluntary; I would resist entirely if noble Lords thought this was an opportunity to start instructing people what they should do on their land, beyond their legal responsibilities and requirements. In the ELM discussion document published on 25 February, the Government explained that they are also exploring whether establishing compliance with relevant regulatory requirements should be an entry requirement for tier 1 of the ELM scheme. The Government are committed to maintaining a strong regulatory baseline, with proportionate and effective enforcement mechanisms. All farmers and land managers must continue to comply with regulatory standards and obligations, including those on public access.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Devon, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised the Countryside Code. The messages in the Countryside Code are being promoted widely, via Natural England’s local and national partner organisations, as well as landowners and managers. Defra and Natural England have recently released some targeted communications to tackle specific issues such as wildfire and littering. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, there was a discussion in Defra about this. Local authorities already have the powers to make bylaws to prohibit barbecues in public spaces. That is the way it should be done, because that is the way that local communities and local authorities can work together. There is legal provision for that, so it can be placed in the local context.
Footpaths, bridle paths, byways, and open-access land are all important in making sure that as many people as possible can enjoy our natural environment. However, it is important to ensure that the Bill enables public support for all types of access, including access to water, and access on other legally designated types of path.
I turn to Amendment 88. Clause 1(5) clarifies that
“‘better understanding of the environment’ includes better understanding of agroecology”.
The clause, as drafted, already allows the Secretary of State to give financial assistance to support farmers, foresters and other land managers so that they can improve public understanding of the environment, for example through educational visits.
On Amendment 34, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, Clause 1(1)(b) states that the Secretary of State may give financial assistance for or in connection with
“supporting public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland or woodland and better understanding of the environment”.
This will allow us to pay for matters such as educational infrastructure, to ensure that our farmers have the right facilities to host farm visits, including school visits.
In response to my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, last year was the Year of Green Action, a year-long drive to get more people from all backgrounds involved in projects to improve the natural world. Due to the positive reception from all audiences, young people will continue to be able to take up these opportunities and provide a crucial viewpoint on these important matters.
There was mention of young people and littering. My experience, I am afraid, is that people of all generations are culpable on this. We have to engage young people in the quest to improve our environment. Candidly, dropping litter should be an anti-social behaviour. We should all lead on this as best we can.
I am chided by my noble friend Lord Caithness. I might get tetchy with him if he starts saying that I do not answer questions. I endeavour to do so as often as possible. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clark, my legal advice is that Clause 1(1)(b) allows support for access to forestry land equalling woodland. I hope that is helpful to my noble friend Lord Caithness.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Lord Addington
My Lords, the Minister has done his usual thing of being thorough and charming at the same time—and I have now damned him with praise. However, I cannot help but feel that we should take a look at how we expect these trials to go through and see whether we can clarify that at a later stage. With that caveat, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Agriculture Bill
Thursday 9th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (9 Jul 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, a limited number of Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Other Members will participate remotely, but all Members will be treated equally wherever they are. For Members participating remotely, microphones will unmute shortly before they are to speak. Please accept any on-screen prompt to unmute. Microphones will be muted after each speech. I ask noble Lords to be patient if there are any short delays as we switch between physical and remote participants. I should remind the House that the normal courtesies in debate very much still apply in this new hybrid way of working.
A participants’ list for today's proceedings has been published and is in my brief, which Members should have received. I also have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments or expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members’ microphones will be muted by the broadcasters except when I call a Member to speak. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard.
During the debate on each group, I will invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments.
In putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when they are speaking in the group.
Clause 1: Secretary of State’s powers to give financial assistance
Amendment 12
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
“(ba) increasing understanding, knowledge and skills relating to the environment, farming, food production, and the impact of climate change on agriculture;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to provide specific financial assistance for the work of furthering understanding, knowledge and skills. It differentiates the ‘public good’ resulting from educating and engaging people from that which arises from supporting public access and enjoyment.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as listed in the register. This group covers quite a wide range of topics; I will focus on Amendment 12. The subject of this amendment was referred to in the debate on Tuesday, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and in the winding-up speech by the Minister, which I found very encouraging. In fact, this amendment feels as if we are picking up where we left off on Tuesday evening.
We are, quite correctly, spending a lot of time debating the definition of public goods and what activities should be included within the ELM scheme. There can be absolutely no doubt that the education of our children and helping them to understand the importance of the management of the countryside, the value of farming, the value of the environment and the importance of food and their diet, particularly in the light of the obesity crisis, is a public good and, I suggest, one of the most critically important we will discuss in debating the Bill.
I must declare an interest, in that we created a classroom on our farm and hosted lots of school visits, many from socially deprived areas of Newcastle, supported by the Country Trust and Farm and Countryside Education. This has long been a passion of mine. Some children who visited our farm had never set foot in the countryside. They had never seen an animal, never mind touched one, other than domestic pets. They had no idea how food was produced. The experience is transforming, provided the visit is linked to curriculum-based subjects and is seen as part of an integrated programme. However, this is not just about contributing to academic achievement; it is also about character development and providing an enriching, life-changing experience. More than 19,000 children currently visit farms as classroom visits every year, and many more visit with their parents through events such as Open Farm Sunday.
There is a serious disconnect between the 66 million people who live in Britain and what takes place in the countryside. This is of fundamental concern and of the highest priority, in my view. If we are to change attitudes and bridge this chasm, we need to invest in our children, and the Bill is an opportunity to help.
I will not duplicate what was said on Tuesday evening, because the debate was very detailed, but a
“better understanding of the environment”,
as it is worded in the Bill, is too narrow. Understanding the environment is essential, but so is an understanding of farming and food production, diet and health, and climate change. Therefore, “educational access” should be included in the wording. Public access is far broader than just keeping footpaths open and being able to ramble and enjoy our beautiful countryside, as was mentioned on Tuesday. The countryside is also a place for therapy and rehabilitation. Its potential contribution to the nation’s health needs to be given far more prominence and recognised much more by the Department of Health and Social Care. Social prescribing, as mentioned in the debate by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and others, is important. I declare an interest as president of Social Farms & Gardens. Care farming has a huge role to play in this regard. The omission of educational access as defined in the amendment leaves it as discretionary—an ad hoc and passive attitude to this issue, rather than a commitment.
I urge the Government to ensure that public support for public goods includes stand-alone educational access payments for high-quality farm education, rather than just being tied to the higher-tier settlement within the ELM scheme, as I understand is the current plan. That could exclude large numbers of farms which provide an excellent experience for thousands of schoolchildren. We should be even more ambitious and commit to all schoolchildren having the opportunity of at least one meaningful countryside experience. That will require significantly greater farm capacity for school visits than we have at present, not less, which could be the case if support is limited to the higher tier. Perhaps the Minister could reassure us on this point. I beg to move.
Amendment 13 (to Amendment 12)
The Earl of Caithness
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 13, which is a very simple amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has made a simple and correct speech about his amendment, but his amendment does not include a reference to “forestry”. However, forestry is included in the Bill, in Clause 1(1)(b), which refers to “countryside, farmland or woodland”. I believe that it is just as important for people to be educated in forestry as it is for them to be educated about farming, the environment and climate change, and that is why I propose to add these words.
I totally support what the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has just said. When I was a trustee of the Queen Elizabeth Castle of Mey Trust, we had a small area that was set aside for children’s visits in order to educate them. The noble Lord was absolutely right to mention the huge disconnect between rural communities and the urban people of this country. However, there is also a disconnect in rural communities, because there were people in Caithness who were living very close to farmland but did not know how the farms worked or about the management of sheep and cattle and why it was so important in terms of the effect that had on the environment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
With great respect to colleagues, I do not intend to speak on these amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
In that case, I will call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 12, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and of course the amendments in the group tabled by my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I also should probably have signed Amendment 13, moved by my colleague the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, but I am afraid that sometimes these amendments just get away from me.
A direct experience of land, farming and wilderness is hugely important to understanding our place as human beings in the world and the impact that we are having on the environment and on our climate. As we begin to make the transition to a more sustainable, ecologically sound society with net-zero carbon emissions, public education is more important than ever. Education is a public good, and Amendment 12 reflects that fact, opening the door to enterprises that combine land management with education and training. I hope that the Minister will take these amendments away and ensure that environmental education and training is not left out of the Bill.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 12 and I shall speak to Amendment 13, in the names of my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Colgrain. I ought to declare my interest as a member of the National Farmers’ Union.
Education is key to producing future generations of efficient farmers and land managers. While there are excellent world-class agricultural education facilities in this country—such as Harper Adams University in Shropshire and the Royal Agricultural College in Cirencester, to name but two—over the past few years a number of them have closed, such as Wye College, while a number of other establishments have downsized their activities considerably. In my opinion, it is vitally important that we have a world-class agricultural education system for this multifaceted agricultural industry.
I am pleased to have added my name to Amendment 13. I do not believe that “forestry” widens this Bill in the context of agriculture; I believe that forestry is a part and parcel of agriculture and the countryside, and therefore it should be included in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I support the amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thoroughly support Amendments 12 and 13. It has been very evident to me, since I moved out from a long career in London to live on the south coast, that even here, where we are surrounded by the most magnificent countryside, there are many people who are not connected to it. It is not enough just to provide opportunities; we have to invite people into the countryside by providing them with really good educational opportunities, particularly aimed at schoolchildren but for adults too. To my mind, that is a vital part of the strategy that underlies this Bill, so I am thoroughly in favour of Amendments 12 and 13.
I have tabled Amendments 32 and 33 in this group, which tackle rather different subjects. Over the next 25 years, we will face huge challenges in agriculture. Agricultural yields have been stagnating for a while, as the results of the last agricultural revolution reach their limits. We need to make some serious progress on increasing yield to have better productivity and to put less pressure on the demand for land. We need to make a lot of progress on biocides, so that we can start to reduce the side-effects that they have on wildlife and on the quality of our environment generally.
There are huge opportunities in these areas. The science of genetics is getting to the point where we can start to look at a whole new generation of crop varieties and indeed different crops, which should enable us to tackle both yield and disease resistance. The advances that we are anticipating in robotics will allow us to use much lower doses of biocides. Indeed, one British company is looking at killing weeds in mechanical ways rather than chemical ways.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and I congratulate him on his school for kids to come to; I am sure they had a splendid time. I thoroughly endorse his amendment about education.
I add my support to Amendments 43 and 54 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. They are mostly about localisation, which also has a great part in education and the connection between citizens and food. While most of us understand that local food is a good thing, most of us have very little sense of how local food is produced. I am in Somerset; we have lots of supermarkets around and are just as divorced as you can be in a city. It can be very difficult. There are many reasons for this, but a key one is that local authorities have insufficient cash to provide the essential infrastructure to allow local food economies to flourish.
Here I divert briefly to my own experience of once running a smallholding in Somerset. We went into pig breeding and were lucky enough to have a local abattoir that dealt with our animals in a quick, precise and compassionate way. I remember being completely shocked on my first, nerve-racking trip to the abattoir, with two of my favourite pigs rattling around in the back of the trailer. We were early and had to wait, and I was amazed that outside the door to the slaughter room were four pigs happily snoozing in a companionable heap. This was as stress-free as it could be, the food miles were minimal and I was able to sell the meat in complete confidence that the animals had had a good life and a good death.
There has been a long-term decline in the number of abattoirs in this country. According to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, there were 30,000 in 1930; that dropped to 249 in 2017, a 99% decrease. Of those, 25 are in danger of being shut. The alternative is huge abattoirs where animal welfare is low on the list and the distances need to be extensive and thus increase the stress and cost. I believe you cannot have a local food economy if you do not have a means of taking your animals to market.
I urgently recommend that the Government look at funding to restore local abattoirs within reach of most people, to ensure that we have a thriving economy. There are interesting examples globally that we could follow, such as the mobile abattoirs now introduced in France, New Zealand and Australia. We have one based in Nottinghamshire that believes its service can aid animal welfare and meat quality. It is something worth looking at.
The second thing I will talk about in support of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is county farms. Recent investigations have shown that the number of county farms in England has halved over the last 40 years. Why does this matter? The county farm is a farm owned by the local authority and let out to young and first-time farmers, often at below the market rate. They are a vital first rung on the ladder for farmers in a sector that on the whole has incredibly high up-front capital costs—unless, of course, you are lucky enough to inherit. Through their provision of land and farm buildings, young people can become farmers. With the average age of farmers in this country at 60 and the price of land quite prohibitive, this is something we should really investigate and try to support.
Specifically, the acreage of county farms across England has plummeted from 420,000 in 1977 to just 215,000 now. For instance, Dorset Council just sold six of its county farms, 14% of its entire estate. When Michael Gove was Secretary of State for the Environment, he talked lavishly about equipping a new generation of farmers, but the facts all point in a different direction. You cannot be a farmer if you have nowhere to farm. If we value our farmers, local food and rural economies, community and county farms must not be allowed to slither into obscurity.
Finally, I will speak briefly about Amendment 47. I am a meat eater, but I want to eat meat that has been reared on pastures or in humane ways. Specifically, I do not want to eat chickens or any animals that have been grown in inhumane environments. The UK has come a long way in protecting and preserving standards of animal welfare, but there is one area in which we are not doing well, and that is local chicken production.
In the county of Herefordshire in particular, there is a rapid growth in the intensive chicken industry, which is generating a wave of vast industrial complexes across the landscape. The visual impact is not the only concern. Many environmental organisations are increasingly concerned by the growth and proliferation of these ILUs, particularly the impacts of ammonia, nitrogen deposition and phosphate on biodiversity and human health. These concerns include, but are not limited to, the pollution of water—streams, rivers and ponds. There has been news in the last few weeks of massive algae blooms in the River Wye, which are killing fish.
These chicken farms—which are owned not by British people but by global internationals—affect our health and environment. The companies, such as Cargill, contract with local farmers to put up the factories yet pay only farming rents and rates. These birds lead miserable lives and have miserable deaths, and this is something we should stop. Without a doubt, this leads to less good local practice and lower animal welfare standards. If we want to move towards a sustainable, holistic farming system in which local people can play their part, we have to work against these giant conglomerates.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and to agree with pretty much everything she has just said. I support Amendments 43 and 54 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
It is at times such as this that I realise that—although in the difficult circumstances it is highly commendable that we are operating this Committee in any sensible way at all—nevertheless, the sooner we can back to proper Committees, the better. Normally I would wait for the noble Baroness to move her amendments, then if I wanted to say something about them I would rise after her and comment. Given the hybrid Committee, I understand that the way in which we are now operating, with a speakers’ list, is essential, but it is nevertheless restrictive. I hope that when we come back in September, people will try to get back to normal Committees as quickly as possible, even if it means that a few people who are particularly restricted by Covid still have to come over the air, as it were. The basic Committee ought to be here. We also ought to be able to intervene and have a proper conversation. Committees in this House are traditionally and properly about conversations and discussions, not a series of speeches.
Lord Greaves
I got a bit diverted by that. I thank the noble Lord for his intervention from a sedentary position, which under our present rules is not allowed.
In order to comment on the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I need to mention what they say. The first seeks include the words:
“supporting the development of strategies to assist in the distribution of agri-food products which are locally produced and sold by microenterprises and community enterprises”
and
“developing a supply chain infrastructure for the purpose of assisting in the supply, processing and sale of”
such things. The second amendment consists of definitions. This is something that the Government really ought to take seriously. We live at a time of big supermarkets that are highly centralised and operate on the basis of just-in-time deliveries. If a shelf becomes empty one evening, it will be filled again by the morning; certainly where I live, a truck will have hauled the goods up the M1 and the M6 overnight.
I understand that system. I understand why it operates and why it helps to produce cheap food. For many people, it is very convenient to be able to go to the supermarket and buy food. That is not going to go away, but we ought to move away from it a bit and get a bit more balance; there was a lot of talk about balance on Tuesday in this Committee. There needs to be a lot more involvement of, for example, people in Lancashire, where I live, growing produce of the right kind for sale in Lancashire to people in Lancashire. I very much support these amendments.
There has been a lot of talk recently about parts of the country being left behind, and the way in which left-behind places, particularly small and medium-sized towns such as former mining communities and industrial areas in the north of England, have even changed their politics as a result, and that something has to be done about it. The role of those towns will be crucial to the recovery of this country following the present coronavirus crisis. The Government’s approach to that, which I do not disagree with per se, is to put a lot of money into what they call infrastructure. However, building lots of new fast railway lines and roads going through places—or, and this is a key point, past places—will not do very much at all for the places concerned. Even providing more education and training is not going to do a lot.
What is essential for those areas is the rejuvenation of towns, from small towns to medium-sized towns, and even those that pretend to be cities. I am not talking about Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Liverpool and the like; the big regional centres are going to do okay anyway, and by and large they are. It is the areas in between: the places on the edge, the places that used to depend upon one or two basic industries that have disappeared, and the places that are increasingly rootless and increasingly lacking a future. I believe that developing local agriculture and local farming, and local markets for that local farming, can contribute to the future of those areas. That is why I think that this idea, among others, is so important.
The other amendment that I support, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has not yet been moved. It hints at discussions that we will have later in Committee about the potential conflicts between productivity in agriculture and all the environmental and social improvements—the public goods—that we want to see on the other side. There is a conflict and we really need to discuss it, but this is probably not the time.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as recorded in the register. I shall speak to Amendment 57 in this group. What I will say follows on very much from the last few words of the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. In the past 60 years, there has been a trade-off between producing more food from agriculture and protecting the environment. In the UK, we have increased productivity, but at a cost: destroyed habitats, lost species, polluted and over-abstracted water, and an increased carbon footprint. This has been highlighted in many reports, including the one published on Monday by the Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Select Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing.
It is also spelled out in the 2019 State of Nature report, which monitors trends in thousands of species in Britain. The report concludes, for instance, that the total number of breeding birds in Britain went down by 44 million between 1967 and 2009. It also concludes that the Government’s own assessment is that they will not meet most of the global 2020 targets that they are committed to through the convention on biodiversity. The report further concludes that agriculture is one of the most significant causes of these losses in biodiversity.
The Bill is our opportunity to change the way in which we farm, and Amendment 57 seeks to plug a gap in the Bill. As it stands, Clause 1(2) could be a get-out-of-jail clause. The Government could subsidise productivity gains at the expense of the public goods listed in Clause 1(1). Can the Minister reassure us that public goods will not be sacrificed on the altar of productivity?
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has so clearly articulated, new technologies provide the possibility of enhancing productivity with less damage to the environment. This is particularly important when you consider that agricultural productivity is usually measured as a ratio of output over input, which in itself has some very odd features. It means, for example, that if farm A produced 9 tonnes of wheat with 1 tonne of agrichemical from a certain piece of land, while farm B produced 90 tonnes of wheat with 10 tonnes of agrichemical from a piece of land the same size, both would have identical productivity—but the two would have very different implications for both food supply and environmental pollution. Farm B produces 10 times as much food as A, but with the potential for 10 times as much impact on the environment.
More importantly for Amendment 57, productivity does not include any reference to protecting the environment. If the Government are serious about rethinking the relationship between agriculture and the environment, is it also time to rethink how we measure agricultural productivity? For instance, should it be measured as kilogrammes of potatoes per skylark, or tonnes of wheat per pyramidal orchid? I look forward to the Minister’s reply on the Government’s plans for how they will measure productivity in future and how they intend to balance the increasing productivity that is referred to with protecting the environment.
Lastly, I add a footnote on Amendments 12 and 13, on education. We know that in this country there is a plan afoot to plant many trees. The climate change committee’s target is to plant 1.5 billion trees as soon as possible if we are to meet our 2050 net-zero target. How many forestry graduates are produced each year in this country, and are there enough to provide the expertise to manage this huge change in tree planting?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I very much endorse his committee’s report and urge noble Lords who have not read it yet to catch up with it. I also endorse his comments about Amendment 57, which is vital. We have seen so much focus on productivity measured purely as calories or tonnes per acre, which I will come back to in later groups.
I will speak primarily to Amendments 43 and 54, which are interlinked. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, already introduced them so I will not repeat that, but I thank him, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for supporting them. I also thank the noble Baroness for setting out so clearly the huge importance of county farms in allowing opportunities for new farmers and young farmers to get into the industry. It is crucial that this network is protected and, indeed, significantly enhanced.
I also reflect what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said about local food and its importance in all communities, particularly those often labelled as “left behind”. Strong local food networks and strong local food-growing systems up and down the country mean that the economic benefits are distributed round the country. What we have in our economy in so many different ways is far too much concentration of economic benefits in London and the south-east. However, I have a word of warning about what the noble Lord said about cheap food. I always want to put scare quotes around “cheap food” in supermarkets. We always have to remember that cheap food is costing us the earth and our health.
I come to Amendments 43 and 54 and pay tribute to work of the Landworkers’ Alliance, Sustain and the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which all had input into them. They highlight how local food systems deliver benefits on a scale from the local to the global, but have suffered from decades of underinvestment. Many of the people involved in them—the producers, processors, retailers and caterers—are small and have limited management and financial capabilities for collaboration and sector development, although I note that other elements of the Bill seek to encourage that. It is something we want to see the Government support across the board.
The benefits of local food strategies and infrastructure are that they reduce our reliance on imported food. That means reducing exposure to volatile global markets and to the uncertainties of a world that now looks increasingly uncertain indeed. Local food systems have the capacity to meet up to 80% of the UK’s food demands through UK-based production, over 50% of which can be produced within 100 miles of where it is consumed. Think what a different system it would be if the majority of the food on your plate was local, with all the economic benefits circulating in the local economy.
This would also have the global impact of reducing “ghost acres”—the land in other countries which should be available to feed their own populations their own local food, but which is currently used for growing export crops. It would allow producers to gain a higher share of the retail pound through short supply chains, make farming enterprises more profitable and make a valuable contribution to those local economies. It should never be forgotten that farmers now get a lot less than 10% of the benefit of every pound spent on food.
On the broader economic benefits, there is evidence from Nourish Scotland that for every pound invested in local food, £6 to £8 is returned to local society and over 50% is retained in the local economy, while with non-local enterprises, such as supermarkets, only 15% to 30% of the money is returned. Local food means that public health priorities are catered to and local communities have fresher, more nutritious, more affordable food. There is also increased interaction with local vendors and the satisfaction, perhaps, of volunteering at local farms and of community-supported agriculture. It also means that we can have more diverse, sustainable, mixed farms that produce multiple products. That would enable more on-farm recycling, lower inputs, reduction of food waste and other environmental benefits.
A five-year mapping study from 2012, Mapping Local Food Webs, estimated that 103,000 jobs across England could already be attributed to the local food economy, with 61,000 flowing from local food sales. Spending in local food outlets supports an average of one job for every £46,000 of annual turnover, while in the three major national chains it is one job per £138,000 to £144,000. We are talking about a system that works for people and for the environment, so I commend Amendments 43 and 54 to your Lordships’ House.
I will also refer to Amendment 61 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to which I attached my name. It refers to growing under glass. I not sure that “glass” is quite the right word, but I am sure everyone knows what we are talking about. It talks about using renewable energy and there are real possibilities, such as using waste heat, reducing carbon emissions and using energy and resources well. This is an area in which the UK has very much been left behind compared with countries such as the Netherlands. I express my concern here. I have already tabled a Written Question to the Government about the low-carbon heat consultation, which currently excludes the potential of large-scale heat pumps, which could be fed into this area.
I will also briefly refer to Amendments 12 and 13. My noble friend Lady Jones attached her name to Amendment 12 and has already referred to both of them. It is vital to understand where our food comes from. I refer noble Lords to a fascinating study from the British Nutrition Foundation that found that one-third of primary school pupils thought that cheese came from plants. We have a long way to go to ensure that we have a full understanding of where our food comes from, the importance of food security and how our entire economy is a subset of the natural world.
Baroness Rock (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. I too add my support to Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. I will speak to my Amendment 62, which would give the Secretary of State additional powers to enable the support of diversification activities on farms where the purpose of that activity is to support or maintain the agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity undertaken on that holding.
This is an agricultural Bill and, as such, it should be about ensuring the resilience of the agricultural sector and supporting public benefits from the farmed environment. There is a real danger that vital support could be lost to our farmers. Therefore, it is important to ensure that we support those individuals bearing the business risk and carrying out the day-to-day management tasks. The key for making the case for financial assistance for diversification projects under this Bill is to look at farm business income. Many farmers make a loss from core farming activities, so diversification becomes an important tool for sustaining a farmer’s income. Some 65% of farmers already have some diversified element on farm. In 2018-19 the total income from diversified activities was £740 million. Diversification is about creating income opportunities for a whole farming family and offers the chance for other family members to use other skills to support and maintain a family unit on farm or by staying in the local area. I think in particular about encouraging young people in rural areas, which can only benefit the local economy.
Given the current reliance on BPS, many farms will need to look for additional sources of income once direct payments are phased out. Enabling the Government to provide financial assistance for diversification activities could help to fill this gap and allow farming businesses to build their resilience and sustainability.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this group of amendments and to follow my noble friend Lady Rock, who I had the good fortune to serve alongside on the House of Lords Artificial Intelligence Committee. My noble friend, as much as anyone, understands how the combination of human-led technology makes a difference in so many areas—agriculture and horticultural chief among them. I also add my support to the amendments concerning education and to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about trees.
As much as anything in nature, trees are such wondrous elements of our planet—oaks that have stood for half a millennium, yew trees that have been in existence and have watched over us for thousands of years. If we conducted some opinion polling today, I wonder whether people might think that “yew trees” is a social media platform where pictures of trees are shared.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 101 seeks to improve the Bill’s current definition of a producer. It broadens that definition, so that instead it reads
“starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity”.
This would make clearer which relevant parties stand to benefit from financial assistance.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I now call the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. There is a problem with connecting to the noble Lord. We move on to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, I think we have all been slightly caught out there. For all the amendments on which I may speak today, I declare my interest as in the register.
I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lord Lucas. While I am in complete agreement about the need to improve agricultural technology, robotics and genetics, I just do not think his amendment is necessary, since my reading of subsection (2) is that it does just that. It says that the Secretary of State may give financial assistance to
“starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity”.
To me, that seems to cover what my noble friend has suggested in his amendment.
I agree entirely with him that we need a huge leap forward in technology, especially in the horticultural sector. I have read that one side-effect of President Trump’s curtailment of cheap Mexican and Latin American labour has been a big increase in robotics and technology in the United States to plant and harvest crops. We need to do exactly the same here. Exciting robotic machines are now being developed in the UK. In swotting up for this amendment, I looked at a recent video showing a machine operating in a vegetable-growing area; it had what I would call very fine fingers or tines knocking out the weeds between the plants but leaving the lettuces completely intact. Technology is the solution, not cheap eastern European temporary workers.
I also look forward to changes in the rules when we leave the EU so that we can do gene editing—not genetic modification, just gene editing. It is terribly important that we move to do that as quickly as we can when we leave the EU. We do not need anything in this Bill to give us the powers to do so.
I cannot support Amendments 43 and 54. These small local community farms do a good job, and they may currently qualify for support under ELMS, but they cannot feed the nation. I do not accept that they can supply up to 80% of the food this country needs. Huge changes are coming to mainstream farm production. I want all Defra’s efforts to be concentrated on the big picture of delivering ELMS and not diverted on to something nice but at the moment irrelevant to feeding the nation. It is quite possible that many of these local enterprises may qualify under the ELM schemes when they are fully developed. We should leave it at that.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 12, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and Amendment 13, which improves on the original amendment. We confirmed last time that forestry was included in the Bill. Amendment 13 spells this out, making the link between forestry and climate change. We all appreciate that trees have a massive beneficial effect in capturing carbon and climate change. We all want to try to take that forward.
I spoke in the first day of debate on this Bill about trying to open up forest areas for public access. I explained how the Forestry Commission had decided that all its freehold land should give access on foot under the right to roam legislation. Since then, issues have been raised. Could the Minister take these on board and give them some thought, not necessarily today but moving forward? We in the Forestry Commission, as a government department, took the decision to dedicate that land for open access in perpetuity. It has been suggested that, if the land is sold, that right falls. That is not what we thought was the case at the time. What is the case?
This has a bigger implication for how we work and give farmers greater freedom to farm in upland areas, where there is a lot of opportunity for increased tree- planting, which helps the economy of the area and the farm, and helps with climate change. If a piece of land on a hillside, currently subject to the right to roam under the freedom to roam access legislation, is converted to forestry, does that right of access fall? These two examples are quite important, because it might affect how this piece of legislation will help build the future sustainability of upland areas—or not.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have a few swift comments on Amendments 12, 13, 32 and 43, noting my interests as stated on Tuesday.
The focus on education in Amendment 12 is key. One issue that has been made transparent by this debate, which was raised on Tuesday by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, is the lack of diversity among those involved in farming and food production. I may not be the appropriate person to discuss this, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, identified on Tuesday; my family has farmed the same plot of Devon soil for over 700 years. We are not a great example of diversity. However, I note that over three days of debate in your Lordships’ House, the Members debating have had a considerably monochrome appearance; it is surprising that our food and farming debate itself lacks diversity.
I draw notice to the work of Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones, known as “the black farmer”, who is very keen to encourage more urban interest in farming, and Michael Morpurgo and his wonderful charity Farms for City Children, which does very much the same. I also echo the support for county farms and the way they bring atypical farmers on to the land, because that is an important task.
On Amendment 32, on agritech, I note my interests as an IP lawyer for a law firm representing a number of exciting agritech start-up businesses. We are seeing all sorts of businesses in the fields of insect protein, urban and vertical farming, and robotics. This is an area in which our country could lead the world. However, I question whether these are public goods. There is a huge amount of investment in these areas and they are increasing our productivity dramatically, but all that has a commercial imperative. While I have read Professor Dieter Helm’s book on public goods, I struggle with the economic concept and the exact definition of what a public good is; as I understand it, IP technology is not necessarily a public good. Could the Minister comment on that and the role of technology in agriculture? Do the Government really think that it is a public good?
I am keen to support the food procurement amendments. We should recognise the work of the Great South West LEP and the launch, just this week, of the South West Food Hub, which is focusing on the provision of local food to local consumers. What is distinctive about the programme is that it is working hand in hand with the Crown Commercial Service, which provides food to all the public bodies—schools, hospitals, prisons and the military. I do not know whether we need to focus on this under ELMS because the Government, through the Crown Commercial Service, already have the power to commission and procure food from local sources. We should encourage the Government to do that more, because local food is traceable and identifiable. If people know where their food is grown, they can be educated about the source and nature of it.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I repeat the declaration of interests that I made on Tuesday. Many things have been said on this wide-ranging collection of amendments; I will focus briefly on just a few of them.
I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, about the intrinsically unsatisfactory nature of discussing a Bill in Committee in this form. I know it cannot be avoided, but it falls far short of the great advantages of proper extempore interventions in the Chamber.
I very much support my noble friend Lady Rock on the subject of diversification, which is crucial to the future of the rural economy. I referred to this on Tuesday and I will refer to it later on, under a more suitable amendment.
Today, I will talk only about the question of an extension of education: getting people to understand where food comes from and the need for people to visit the countryside as much as possible when they do not live there. I want to talk about local food from local areas, locally supplied.
I live in East Anglia, which is, in effect, one of the larders of England; a lot of food is produced and consumed there. We have had a great advocate over the years in Lady Caroline Cranbrook, who has continuously promoted the cause of local food and local farm shops. One interesting thing is that Covid has proved to us the life-saving nature of local shops. When other sources of food were difficult, and there were great big queues and shortages in the supermarkets, local shops and pubs stepped in and provided local food. That was hugely important. We should emphasise the need to encourage local shops and local food outlets, which is of course a way in which farmers themselves can add value to their product.
I will also say a word about food fairs. They have the great advantage of bringing the producer and the consumer face to face, which again helps in the education of where food comes from, what it ought to taste like and how it is produced, and it encourages people’s desire to have local food from this country.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I will make a small contribution, focusing on Amendments 12 and 13. Education, training and skills development in the whole area of farming, agriculture and the environment are vital. When young people are educated about farming, agricultural and food production, and the food system, they can begin to fully appreciate the rural environment, its value and its importance to our overall economy. That form of education, training and skills development is important.
I also agree with the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which seeks to insert
“forestry, and the impact of climate change”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, said, one adds value to the other. I can see that there could be some compromise between the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and that in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. If we believe in the principle of public money for public goods, we should ensure—I urge the Minister to pay particular attention to this—the provision of funding for education, skills and training in our local environment, agricultural industry, the food system and forestry, closely aligned with the impact of climate change. Our environmental system and our food system are directly linked, and people—particularly the young—need to be educated about that. I do not see how the amendments conflict; one adds to the other, and I would like to think that they could both be accepted by the Minister in some form of compromise.
Can the Minister advise whether any discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations as part of the ongoing conversations about the Bill and how it will impact on various regions? Perhaps he could specify whether there has been any particular discussion about the environment, education and training. We must make sure that environmental and agricultural education and training are not diminished or missed out in the Bill, or in any part of the UK.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 43 and 61. Although in the form they are tabled, these amendments appear at first glimpse to be making two different propositions, when combined, they produce a very new approach to developing microenterprise. Amendment 43, with its proposal for the local production of agri-foods, and Amendment 61, with its call for subsidised energy costs in selected areas of the agricultural economy, combine to offer a strategy that could greatly aid in the post-Brexit world of import substitution, which we must all want.
The advantage of that approach is that it reinforces an argument that I used to employ in the Commons, years ago, when representing a constituency with high peripheral regional unemployment: you can use energy costs as a tool in regional policy. Cheap energy will always attract footloose, energy intensive enterprise—paper, board and chemicals are good examples of this. If you combine cheap energy availability and labour-intensive micro-agricultural production in the areas outlined in these two amendments, you will create the conditions in which you can influence the movement of investment capital.
I argue that that incentive is as good as any regional development assistance as provided under former assisted area programmes. Indeed, it has an advantage, in that it is not a one-off allocation of grant aid. On the contrary, it can be profiled in such a way as to provide sustainable assistance over the longer term, tapering away as enterprise becomes more established. This form of assistance can be of real value in the development of labour-intensive microenterprise in food and in other areas of the agricultural economy.
I strongly support these two amendments, as they cause us to think out of the box on the use of energy as a regional incentive. I hope that both movers will combine to bring forward a new amendment on Report. Furthermore, I hope that the Government take a new look at the potential for subsidised energy to be of real assistance in the new economy that must now be built post Brexit.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer as set out in the register. I support Amendment 12, set out by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. As it says,
“increasing understanding, knowledge and skills relating to the environment, farming, food production, and the impact of climate change on agriculture”
should be in the powers to give financial assistance.
Among the many purposes of the Bill is the aim of revitalising the industry through facilitating retirements, new technology and, most importantly, encouraging new entrants to the industry. As the current generation of farmers retires, we need to replace its valuable skills, and the amendment recognises that. The Agricultural Productivity Working Group, chaired by Sir Peter Kendall, highlighted that issue and called for action to address the low uptake of agricultural skills and training.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate, and I begin by saying how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The sooner we can get back to proper debating, with interventions—not too many, but pointed and at the right time—the better. At the moment, we are in a one-dimensional Parliament, which is not able to adequately hold the Government to account or fully debate these subjects—a point rather brilliantly illustrated, perhaps not intentionally, by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, a moment ago, when he talked of all the attributes of the ideal farmer.
I want to address a few remarks to Amendment 12, but I want to look not at the accomplished man or woman who is a farmer, but at our children, and young children in particular. We all pay lip service to education, and there are parts of the country where a number of farms have regular farm visits; there are many in my native county of Lincolnshire, where I live, and many in Staffordshire, which I had the honour of representing for some 40 years in the other place. But we need to co-ordinate more. We need to try to ensure that there is a place on every syllabus, in every school, for some acquaintance with farming—perhaps by visiting, perhaps by welcoming speakers from the NFU and elsewhere into the schools. But we need to make sure our young people understand their food and where it comes from, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said earlier in this debate. We want them to value, cherish and—as we said in the debate on Tuesday—share the enjoyment and protection of wonderful countryside. Countryside and farming are indivisible.
The other point I would like to make in this brief intervention is to say how much I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, when she talked of the grotesque, indecent factory production of chickens and the devastation it causes in one of the most beautiful areas of our country—the Wye Valley. There have been photographs in the papers in the last week or two that shame us all. As she said, many of these are industrial units producing—entirely for profit—food I would not give to a dog.
We need to have regard for the standards with which food is produced. We are quite rightly making much of this in the negotiations with our European friends and neighbours. In the talk we are having of doing deals with other countries, our standards are, on the whole, good, but they can be better, and it is very important that we have an intelligent, well-educated electorate, who will not accept the indifferent or the downright bad. I will return to some of these points in the debate later this afternoon, but I hope my noble friend will acknowledge that these are important points.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
I support Amendment 57 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, so ably laid out by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. This amendment is vital to ensure that, in making payments for productivity improvements under subsection (2)(a), they do not counteract the purposes—the public goods—listed in subsection (1). There is no point in payments being made for public goods, such as environmental improvement, if public money is given for productivity improvements that could result in environmental down sides. I am not saying payments for productivity improvements should not be made; I am simply saying that we must make sure that these are not, in themselves, environmentally damaging. The amendment would ensure that productivity improvements were environmentally sound.
It is a slippery slope: we more fundamentally do not want to see polarisation, where some farming is effective and productive, and other farming is environmentally sound, where some land is sweated intensively for production, and some set aside for biodiversity in the environment, like zoos.
There was a time in the not-too-distant past when a previous Secretary of State for the Environment—for the avoidance of speculation, let us call her Secretary of State Truss—had a vision for the future of agriculture and the environment which had highly intensive agriculture in the lowlands and biodiversity and the environment shuffled off into the uplands. We have come a long way in sophistication since then. We all want all agricultural land to efficiently deliver food and for the environment. Amendment 57 would be important for this, but if the amendment cannot be agreed to by the Government, can the Minister tell us how he plans to ensure that productivity support does not result in environmental down sides?
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in Committee, and for the purposes of all the Committee stage, I declare my interests as a retired farmer and landowner, as chair of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and chair of the steering group of the Government’s Global Food Security programme.
This is a strange grouping, and I wish to speak to three completely different aspects of the group. Starting with Amendment 12, I join most of my colleagues in emphasising the importance of helping farmers to welcome schools, families and other citizens to their farms. It is vital that people from all backgrounds, especially inner cities and the BAME communities, are helped to make that all-important personal connection to our wonderful countryside in a way that is more meaningful than sitting and watching it on telly. It is vital that both the joys and hardships of rural life are understood by as many people as possible.
We are a very crowded nation. I believe England is the fifth most densely populated country in the world. Yet we still have some of the most fantastic countryside. I would like to hope that that countryside, and the farmers who created it and now manage it throughout all seasons—hot and cold, wet and dry—will continue to be an inspiration to our children and grandchildren, and that it will always be part of that unique heritage which we pass on with pride to those who come after us.
I turn to Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the advancement of technology. As you might expect, I am very keen on agriculture and environmental technology and the advancement of robotics. I have an amendment later on genetics, so I will keep my powder dry on that, but robotics has huge potential as well, using small or mini tractors in each and every field. I hope that these tractors will eventually be not be much bigger than, say, a large suitcase with arms on wheels or tracks, even, which would be great for avoiding soil compaction. Let us hope that they will also be cheap enough for African smallholders to own.
They will come out of their small electric charging sheds, probably in the middle of the night, check that it is not raining and that the soil is dry enough to work, then using minimum tillage techniques, plant the crop. In Africa, of course, they will emerge only if the automatic connection to the local weather station says that it is going to rain in the next few days, because the timing of planting crops in Africa, in relation to the coming of the rains, is crucial.
After this small robotic machine has planted the seeds, it will wander around the growing crops looking for signs of pests and diseases and then either warn the farmer, hoe the weed or squirt each leaf with whatever treatment it needs to make it healthy. Note that it will squirt only the individual leaf, not the whole plant, let alone the whole field as is done at present, so the use of pesticides and herbicides will be reduced to an absolute minimum, partly because only the individual leaf is being treated and partly because the treatment will be carried out the moment the problem has appeared, thus, one hopes, preventing it spreading throughout the rest of the crop. Such robotics will revolutionise the growing of crops in our country and, more importantly, in the developing world. What is more, we in this country are at the forefront of these developments and with the right funding we would be the leader in the field, so I support Amendment 32.
And now for something completely different, I turn to Amendment 43 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others. I welcome the tenor of this amendment, although I also recognise the Government’s desire to limit the ambitions of ELM schemes to what is already in Clause 1. There is no doubt that ELMS cannot be all things to all men, although we in this House might like to hope so. However, it is always good to have a debate and to get the Minister’s response on the Floor of the House, and I hope that in this case other bodies, such as local authorities, local town councils, national park authorities and even public-spirited companies, will pick up on this issue and take it forward in the spirit of the new rural environment we hope to create with the Bill.
When I chaired the Countryside Agency, a long time ago—at the turn of this century—we looked carefully at local food chains and what we could do to help. We realised that “Buy British”, for instance, was a forlorn gambit that had never and would never work with the buying public, but all our research indicated that customers really liked the idea of supporting local growers and local businesses—ie, Farmer Bob and his daughter down the road. Incidentally, under Covid, new supermarket research has shown that the “buy local” trend is now really taking off. So at the Countryside Agency, we sponsored and helped to promote farmers’ markets. In many towns local shopkeepers loudly objected to this “undercutting competition” as they called it, but they soon discovered that on market days the town was rammed with punters, which of course made their turnovers boom as well. Every town should have a farmers’ market or a local market, but they need kick-starting, usually with some form of public money to begin with, even if it is only rent holidays for stall-holders.
At the Countryside Agency we also had our “Eat the View” campaign, which tried to persuade customers who loved their local countryside that the best way to support it was to eat its products. The phrase “eat the view” came from curmudgeonly farmers of the 1980s who complained about the emphasis on the environment over food, and used to say, “It’s all very well but you can’t eat the view”, and we said, and I still say today, “You most certainly can.”
Another relevant scheme we had was our market town initiative. We had some good rural supporting projects at the Countryside Agency. If a market town was going to act as a hub for tourism and its surrounding villages, it needed to promote itself with a local theme, usually involving local products from either a local business or a farm. A very good example of this was Bridport in Dorset, which was brought low by the demise of its rope-making industry, but has now reinvented and revived itself as a thriving must-be-at destination, largely based on local food. It has a brilliant local market on Wednesday and Saturday every week of the year, and it hums—or at least it did before Covid-19.
What I am saying is that given a small amount of pump-priming and organisational help, such projects can make a big difference to local farmers and businesses and would be totally in line with the Chancellor’s desired economic boost. The difference would be particularly apparent where the farms were small and the land did not lend itself to large agricultural enterprises. We should remember that it is just that sort of land that is probably the most highly prized by the British public, because it tends to be the most beautiful, and it is just those farmers and land managers whom the public would expect their taxes to support.
So, we must have local ELM schemes, locally envisaged and run by locals for locals. Perhaps I can end with a good example from the Blackdown Hills AONB in Somerset. Two or more decades ago, with lottery and local authority funding, the Blackdown Hills Business Association, including many farmers and small businesses, was started. It has training sessions for its members in everything from IT to marketing and takes a large tent at the local show to market its wares. With now more than 100 members paying membership fees, it funds itself, but it needed funding for its first 10 years. It is the encouragement and flexibility of that sort of funding that we are asking for here, so that, for example, farms and businesses who are not lucky enough to be in a really good AONB can also hope to get that kind of support.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and in particular that I sit on the rural affairs group of the Church of England. I apologise if I failed to mention that on Tuesday. I support Amendments 12, 13 and 62. My comments are more in the form of questions.
We have before us the policy statement. What is its status in relation to the Bill? In responding to this group, will my noble friend the Minister bring us up to date?
On Amendments 12 and 13 regarding educating children, from which budget should that come? I am a great supporter not just of farm visits but of visits of schoolchildren to country shows. When I was at school in Harrogate I had the great good fortune to visit the Great Yorkshire Show. We had a day off for the purpose. Will my noble friend use his good offices to liaise with his counterpart in the Department for Education to ensure that such visits continue? I am a member of the Yorkshire Agricultural Society and know that it is very keen to receive those visits. For the first time the show will be online, like a number of rural shows across North Yorkshire. It is a wonderful opportunity to engage children without them having to leave school or their home. However, I think it should more properly come out of the education budget.
My noble friend Lord Holmes referred to crops under glass, on which our noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach is obviously a great expert. Will my noble friend the Minister liaise with BEIS to ensure that, if we are to benefit from energy from waste, we educate the public about its benefits, even though it means using incinerators? In Denmark, Germany and Holland this is not a problem for the public, and we should not hold our farmers and horticulturalists back by a lack of understanding in this regard.
I pay tribute to the work of Fera at Sand Hutton and the Rothamsted institute. Will that type of research fall under the new financial assistance proposed in Clause 1 or should it more properly come from R&D budgets elsewhere? That clarification would be most helpful.
I support Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lady Rock. Diversification lies at the heart of our future farm policy. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take this opportunity to identify those who can advise our farmers, particularly smallholders and tenants, about the best thing to use.
In supporting Amendment 101, which relates to new entrants, I refer to the policy statement, which points out most helpfully on page 39 that regrettably those farmers
“after the reference period are unlikely to be eligible for delinked payments.”
Will my noble friend do what is set out here by making it easier for farmers who wish to retire to do so and who, by delinking, will free land for new entrants? We have to support new entrants as far as possible. This, together with the expected reductions in rent prices we are told about, should help them to get a foothold in the industry. That links to the amendments I will move later relating to tenancy holdings. This could be very useful. We need a bit of flesh on the bones in the policy statement.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 12 and 13, and I endorse what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and other noble Lords, on the importance of robotics in agriculture. I well remember being involved in this in the 1980s. We were the world leaders in new robotic developments, but of course, constrained by the state subsidy rules of the European Union, we lost out to Japan and the United States, where, in particular, the use of contract compliance with state orders for the military gave them the competitive advantage to protect their fledgling industry.
My appeal to the Government as we leave the European Union is this. In this country, state aid is generally seen as protecting old, dying industries, but, at its essence, it is to protect fledgling industries that need link-ups with universities and the ability to experiment to get products that work to market. In robotics and artificial intelligence, not least in the area of agriculture, our potential is huge. If we were to win that battle, we would be more self-reliant and more competitively advantaged internationally. We should grab those opportunities before it is too late, not least because China is doing the same thing; it is leading the market and getting that market advantage.
At the same time, we should not copy the Chinese model for GM food. One thing that most surprises me about the debate on agriculture in this country is how we have allowed a form of quasi-communism to run it. Look at the role of the supermarkets: every strawberry and carrot must be identical in size and taste. This is specified by supermarket contracts, which farmers struggle to meet and make a profit under. The answer is not to move towards GM food—the ultimate communist dream of every product looking the same and tasting the same—but to go in the opposite direction. Something far more radical than farmers’ markets is needed, although they are a good starting point, conceptually. The whole basis of the tax incentive system for local food needs radically overhauling in his country. The incentives should be for real production, as the farmer sees it taken to the local market, to take out the food miles and to challenge directly this communism of the supermarkets in making everything the same. Again, in leaving the European Union, we have the opportunity to give that incentive to those local markets, and we should be doing so in a very big way.
Finally, I have a comment on trees and forestry. Pit timber used to grow alongside the collieries of this country in a very big way. We failed to learn the lessons of that in our forestry planting. Forestry planting has been seen as the preserve of the rural economy, yet on former coalfield sites we have huge swathes of reclaimed land, once brownfield and often still laid to waste. It would be ideal for reforestation as an industry, exactly as was done for those pit timbers 100 and 150 years ago—the remnants of which still exist. That would also give an amenity to local communities over the next 50 years. We should rethink precisely where our forests are being planted.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 43 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and other noble Lords, which provides for
“financial powers to develop local food strategies and infrastructure and to support small farms and/or community agricultural businesses with the purpose of improving public access to fresh and nutritious food, improving farm viability, reducing transport associated with agricultural products and securing our domestic food supply.”
I welcome this amendment, as in many ways it goes to the heart of my community’s concerns for preserving, protecting and enhancing our countryside, our farms and our food supply. Earlier in Committee, I described our concerns over the pollution suffered in the catchment areas of the chalk streams in Hampshire, which feed into the rivers Arle, Itchen, Test and others, and which, by extraction, provide a third of the domestic water supply in the area. In his response, the Minister reminded us that farmers were now constrained from allowing nitrates to wash into our watercourses. This is very welcome, though I am reminded that scientists believe that it can take 60 years for water to percolate through chalk aquifer and reach the watercourses. I recall that, in about 1992, through the good offices of the late Lord Ross, I was able to put a Question down in your Lordships’ House on the effects of pesticides on the chalk aquifers and our future water supply. If I remember my engineering geology, it is not unusual for chalk to reach 40% saturation in its natural state.
There are others in the food supply chain besides farmers. In my Alresford locality, close by the river Arle, we have an agriculture processing factory, operated by the Bakkavör Group, which has plants around the UK, in Europe, the USA and China. It imports salad products by road to the plant in Alresford, from as far afield as Spain, in 40-tonne lorries, squeezing through the narrow streets of our ancient towns to get to the processing plant. That is totally at odds with the aims of this amendment and, I would hope, of this Bill. I understand that at the plant they use water from the chalk streams and lakes under licence to wash the salad free of chemicals and fertilisers, and possibly nitrates, which end up in the watercourses and lakes. Can the Minister confirm that these agroindustrial operations are subject to the same regulations as farmers? Who is responsible for their enforcement and where are enforcement levels monitored?
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, nicely and clearly described the situation in Bridport. In Alresford, like in many ancient market towns, while under pressure from urbanisation to meet housing demands, the opportunities to support small farms and community agricultural businesses to secure our domestic food supply are at risk of being overlooked. I support my noble friend Lord Greaves in his comments on this amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I enjoy the benefits of a community market, selling homemade products, and a series of farm shops ranging from simple rustic sheds to sophisticated top-end establishments with extraordinary ranges of goods and produce, all two or three miles from my doorstep.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest. My wife and I own 40 acres of woodland which is registered in a 10-year plan with the Forestry Commission, whose work I pay tribute to.
Before I get on to Amendments 13 and 61, I must say that I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and my noble friends Lord Marlesford and Lord Cormack. It is not productive to a good debate on long and difficult Bills such as this one to sit in front of a screen for six or seven hours, and frankly, nor is it healthy. Purely by luck, I stumbled across the code of conduct for Cambridge University, which says that you should not be in front of a screen for more than one and a half to two hours. I suggest to the House authorities that we have a duty of care to all Members. I hope that they will reflect on that.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We are going to try to return to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. His connection, however, may not be good enough to sustain the call.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I hope that you can hear me—[Connection lost.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The connection has not been adequate to connect.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I am sorry, Lord McConnell, I am afraid that your connection is not going to work. If you will forgive us, we will move on to the next speaker.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is a suite of amendments relating to financial assistance for additional purposes. Amendment 12 would amend Clause 1(1)(b), which currently reads:
“supporting public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland or woodland and better understanding of the environment”.
This is vague and woolly. It gives no indication of the nature of the public access to be provided; nor does it give any indication or recognition of what the public want or expect from the access they are expected to pay for. Do people go into the countryside just to enjoy it? There are highly beneficial elements to the public through green travel, education, leisure, recreation and sporting opportunities. There are highly beneficial elements to landowners in the public having an improved relationship with food and farming. The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, set out the case for education extremely clearly. Amendment 13, to which the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, spoke, seeks to insert “forestry” and stressed the importance of education to that.
The CAP farm support favoured intensive units and the big estates but considerable damage was done to the environment in the production of milk and wine lakes, along with grain, butter and cheese mountains, until measures were introduced to protect the environment. Areas that had never been cultivated were ploughed up; I well remember the grants to clear hedges and trees, and to drain areas never drained before. Then the mood changed and grants were given to replant those trees and hedges—too late to save vital habitats for wildlife. At the same time, this introduced the devastating tree diseases into the country which the Minister has debated with us on many occasions. I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on the various skills which a farmer will need to survive in today’s climate.
Amendments 32 and 33 would add financial assistance for agricultural technology, including robotics and genetics, and the research and development of improved farming systems. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke on this theme and I was fascinated by the description by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, of how robotics can assist farming and production. The Nature Friendly Farming Network believes:
“Society should support farmers to create a better system by encouraging them to use the best technology and providing more information to allow them to make targeted improvements to their land management plans.”
The Government need to lead or support research that brings clarity to these issues, such as how to maximize the carbon sequestration of pasture.
Amendments 43 and 54 seek to develop food strategies and infrastructures. Greener UK believes that:
“Small farms are just as well placed as larger farms to provide the public goods that the bill lists in clause 1. Large farms are, however, more likely to have access to business planning resources and expert advice; the bill must therefore include the provision of advice to help smaller farms adapt to the new system.”
I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, thinks that larger farms are better than smaller ones. We need more innovation and local food production to help smaller farms. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Boycott, have supported these two amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, spoke passionately about the environment and animal welfare, as did my noble friend Lord Chidgey. I too support them and know that encouraging the public to eat more fresh and nutritious food—while encouraging its production on our local farms—would save the NHS millions of pounds as the population became healthier and less prone to life-threatening diseases, such as diabetes. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, reminded us that the production of cheap food is quite literally costing the earth. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, explained the virtue of farmers’ markets. I agree totally with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, about the uniform way in which supermarkets produce fruit and vegetables, which is not necessary.
There are some conflicts between these amendments. Amendments 43, 54, 61 and 62 look to encourage a wider interpretation of financial assistance for additional purposes. The noble Baroness, Lady Rock, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richard, pressed the case for this, along with others, whereas in Amendment 57 the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch—when we hear from her—and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, seek to ensure that the productivity improvements which may arise from the additional measures do not undermine the provision of public good.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, gave examples of falling numbers of birds and decreasing biodiversity. I fully support this amendment, but we must ensure that there is no conflict in financial support between environmental protection and productivity. It is essential that, in the final Bill and its interpretation, we have the widest possible scope for financial assistance that protects the public good at the same time. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, raised the very real worry that the right to roam on Forestry Commission land will be lost when some of it is possibly sold off. There will obviously be questions on the interpretation of public good as we further dissect the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s own interpretation of what public good might look like.
Before I sit down, as they say, I want to say that I am afraid I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Greaves or the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Naseby, about this current way of working. It suits me perfectly. My office is in Millbank. I do not have to rush down to Marsham Street to have a briefing with the Minister; I can have it in my office with others. I do not have to rush over to Portcullis House to take part in an APPG; I can do it from my house —I have all my notes in front of me and can participate fully. If we are trying to encourage farmers to adopt innovative ways of working and use new technologies, here in the House, we should practise what we preach.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as being in receipt of funds as well as my other experiences in the rural economy, as recorded in the register. I thank all noble Lords for their amendments in this group, which probe the financial assistance arrangements and how far and for what purpose this finance could be applied. Whereas it should perhaps be stressed that care must be taken that the effects of financial benefits are not cast so wide as to diminish their impacts, it is nevertheless also important to enable as many as possible to contribute to the worthwhile merits in the new system, in ways that best suit their land and their perspectives. I welcome these amendments, which enable the Minister to clarify the Government’s position.
I speak on behalf of these Benches to Amendment 57, tabled by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Greaves, for their remarks and for adding their names in support. This is an important amendment, as it seeks to clarify and emphasise that financial assistance is to be provided for public goods defined as providing environmental benefits in relation to agricultural, horticultural or forestry activities. We support the opportunity given in this Bill to link financial support to environmental outcomes, in contrast to the present system, whereby payments are made merely in relation to the amount of land each participant occupies, albeit that there are cross-compliance requirements to fulfil.
Where it is understood that productivity improvements would be included for assistance under Clause 1(2), these improvements must be consistent and not undermine payments made for public goods under subsection (1). In this regard, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for her remarks about the conflicts that might arise and how these may be reconciled. Improvements must be mutually enhancing in promoting sustainable agriculture. Of course, the work of the agricultural colleges has been and will continue to be vital here, as will their role in providing an understanding of the countryside.
I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, in furthering the understanding of rural matters by hosting and encouraging visits to the countryside. I thank him for Amendment 12, the lead amendment in his group. I am also grateful for the other amendments, which make more explicit the various interpretations of furthering the “understanding of the environment” through the various ways financial assistance can be provided.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, this has been another very interesting and, indeed, thought-provoking debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it. I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
I have to say that, in opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and my noble friend Lord Caithness demonstrated textbook brevity: they got absolutely to the point of their amendment, and I should remember that brevity myself. Clause 1(1)(b) allows us to pay for educational infrastructure to ensure our farmers have the right facilities to host farm visits and increase wider awareness among the public, and especially school pupils, about the crucial role our farmers play in maintaining our countryside and producing the food we eat.
On the word “forestry”, I agree with my noble friend Lord Caithness; as I said on Tuesday, I see “forestry” and “woodland” as coterminous. I expect that for many farmers who have woodland, part of the educational visit offered is to go from the wheat field to the barley field, to the sugar beet and to the woods—a complete package, showing what happens on so many farms. As outlined on Tuesday, Defra has a significant programme of public engagement, which incorporates the voices of young people in particular. Defra has used this input to make environmental policy more accessible to young people; as I said before, the year of green action is extremely important.
I have noted a number of points which I may not be able to answer, partly because of time but also because of the detail involved. I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that I very much agree with the point she made. I will speak to the DfE about the importance, as part of looking after the interests of young people, of making clear that connection with the natural world and the environment.
I am very conscious of the work that goes on in forestry. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and my noble friend Lord Caithness that Clause 1(1)(b) allows the Government to provide funding for
“supporting public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland”
and “woodland”. Just as educational visits on farms are covered, so would be visits that take place partly or fully on forestry land. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, spoke of many parts of the country where woodland would be a very important feature—I agree. The National Forest is a prime example of where land that went through industrialisation has been restored and become a great educational resource and source of much broader enjoyment. Government can do only so much, but an important aspect of what happens in the countryside is the way agricultural associations, the NFU and all the farming organisations, the CLA, the agricultural colleges, Kew, the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, the Forestry Commission and all such bodies, private and public, are engaged in public awareness and providing educational resource, as I know from personal experience.
I will get back to the noble Lord, Lord Clark, particularly on commercial transactions of Forestry Commission parcels of land. My understanding, from way back in my memory, is that very little Forestry Commission land is sold and any proceeds of sale go back into further forestry. As to any commercial arrangements that involve access issues, I do not think that it would be reasonable for me to reply to him or the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, without a full legal analysis of the arrangements. I hope that will be acceptable to the two noble Lords.
On forestry graduates, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—I know it is also of particular interest to my noble friend Lord Caithness—that Forestry Commission England supports the industry-led Forestry Skills Forum, which is dedicated to promoting education, skills, learning and development across the forestry sector in England and Wales. Nearly 30 forestry employers, associations and educational providers have pledged to work together to attract the very best of young and new talent into the sector. As for the number of forestry graduates, the detail I have is, I am afraid, for 2016-17, when there were about 150 graduate students in forestry. However, the headline number disguises the fact that forestry employers recruit from other disciplines that offer supplementary training.
I was very pleased that my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury highlighted that an important element of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is the importance of an appropriately skilled workforce. Agricultural and forestry technologies are transforming farming and creating new types of jobs and requirements for new kinds of skills. It is important that the industry is supported in its ability to respond to these changes.
Clause 1 has been purposely broadly drafted to allow the Government to account for existing or emerging skills gaps. Activities “connected to” any of the purposes listed in Clause 1 can already be funded, which already covers protecting the environment, mitigating against climate change, conservation, forestry and measures to improve the productivity of agricultural and forestry activities, among many others.
From my personal experience of this, I remember going with a school from Lambeth with Kate Hoey to an agricultural college. We arrived and the children were asked to run through strips of oats, wheat and barley. I was horrified, but it was a very good idea. They were asked to pick the ears and, when they came back, the question was: “What food comes from those crops?” I have to say, quite a number of children were on to it and knew. We then went into the dairy, where there were shorthorns—we used to have shorthorns in the family; they are a very good breed to manage and look after—and the children held their brushes. They were not sure, as they did not like the smell, but afterwards they really got involved in it all. So, if anyone wants to ask me, “Do you know how inspirational these visits can be to children of all backgrounds, and particularly from inner city areas?”, I am absolutely with it.
The connections we can have from encouraging the countryside and urban areas to work together are profoundly important. That relates not only to the Bill, but to what so many charities and bodies are already doing. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my noble friends Lord Marlesford and Lord Cormack all made those points. My noble friend Lord Cormack said that this is an important point. I absolutely get the point that it is not only important, but imperative that the next generation know more than perhaps this generation about the interconnection between farming, the environment, the production of food and everyone’s well-being.
I noted down that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to “multitasking” but, in fact, with all the tasks that the noble Lord mentioned, I then put “magician”. There is no doubt in my mind, coming as I do from a farming background, about how versatile farmers have to be. They are versatile in the first place in dealing with every weather condition, but I also have some sympathy with the paperwork that is no doubt put before farmers. That is why the whole emphasis of what we want to do is to concentrate on making this practical by working with farmers to ensure that it works for them and that it is their project, so that they do not think what on earth have this Government done to them.
I acknowledge the instrumental work of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in the Skills Leadership Group and I express my gratitude to him. Defra officials are engaging with the Skills Leadership Group as leaders in the industry to develop plans for a proposed new professional body, which is intended to be an independent and self-funded organisation, precisely to bring forward skills in all the sectors that I have mentioned. The Government believe that this kind of industry-led initiative can be instrumental in creating clear career development pathways and promoting the sector as a progressive, professional and attractive career choice. If we are looking at the recovery from what this country is going through—a green recovery as well—these are clearly areas where we must encourage the next generation to feel that there are worthwhile careers; it is very important for the national interest.
I turn to some of the other points. I agree that Amendments 32 and 33 raise some essential topics. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for raising them, but they were also echoed by the noble Lords, Lord Krebs, Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Mann. I echo the points that my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised. This Bill will not be a way in which, suddenly, all the research demands of the natural world and agriculture will be found. I say that rather softly, in so far as we would look for other sources of funding across Whitehall for some of these really significant research projects. But it is important—indeed, essential—that robotics and genetics offer great potential for agriculture. Innovation and technology are key to boosting productivity while, I emphasise, enhancing the environment and feeding a growing world. I leave it to scientists such as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others to ensure that the science is directed in a way that clearly enhances production of food in an environmentally important way. Existing legislation, such as the Science and Technology Act, already enables the Government to support research to enable the development of new technology and practices in food production.
The Government are planning to use these powers to launch an ambitious agricultural innovation research package, which will enable more farmers and agri-food businesses to become involved in agricultural research. Having been to the laboratory at Harper Adams University, it is extraordinary what is in prospect in terms of an agricultural revolution, so that we can improve the productivity, sustainability and resilience of farming. For example, people are developing remote sensors which use artificial intelligence for the early identification of pests and diseases, so that with integrated pest management we can be much more cautious with the use of those materials.
Lord Adonis (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has just given an excellent and really passionate account of agricultural education, and we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Curry, for raising this at the beginning. It has become clear in the debate that there are two distinct issues. The first is agricultural, forestry and related skills, and I thought the Minister gave an excellent response on that. The other, wider issue—particularly important as we set in place a framework for the future of agriculture in what is predominantly an urban and metropolitan society—is awareness of rural and agricultural issues. When I was Schools Minister, there were three distinct way in which we sought to promote that awareness: the rural studies GCSE, school farms, and city farms. In the letter that the Minister has just said he will write to us, can he give us an account of what the trends are in all three of those respects over recent years? This might inform what further steps we think it could be sensible to take on Report. My impression is that we have moved backwards on all three over recent years—that fewer are taking the rural studies GCSE and that city and school farms have been closing—but it would be good to have some facts. I would be grateful if he could write to us on that.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. Those are very important points, and I will be happy to provide answers to that further range of questions.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I first thank my noble friends Lord Colgrain and Lord Shrewsbury for signing my amendment; that was very kind of them. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken in favour. I think half the noble Lords who spoke specifically mentioned and approved of my amendment and nobody spoke against it, so that was good to hear.
I spoke only on my Amendment 13, but that does not mean I do not support a number of the other amendments; I do. I have one specific point on another amendment, that of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I ask my noble friend Lord Gardiner whether Defra will be able to support vertical farming, because that could be a great and very environmentally friendly source of vegetable production.
I very much like what my noble friend said in reply to my amendment. I was particularly pleased to hear his comment that he would like to see the educational groups that would go to farms go to the wheat, the barley and the sugar beet, and then into the woods. Does this indicate that Defra is now taking much more of a whole-farm approach? Will we see this in ELMS? One of the great drawbacks of the current system is that farming and forestry have been split. Does he now envisage a whole-farm approach in everything Defra will do? That would be a useful answer to get.
My noble friend did not explain particularly clearly to me why he thought the rather vague wording in the Bill was better than the more specific wording of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and me. I think he said that there might be other issues the Government would like to fund that are not covered by a more specific wording. Do I take it that more specific wording will come in regulations that we will debate in the House? Before I decide what to do, I would be grateful if he could give me an answer to that.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am getting conflicting advice as to when there should be further questioning of a Minister, but I am happy to answer as best I can.
The tier 1 ELMS will be to the farmer across their farm. My understanding of most people’s farms is that they involve agricultural land and may involve copses, covers and other parts that would be involved in a whole-farm project. Tiers 2 and 3 are on a wider landscape level and may involve a range of either farms or other landowners. We discussed the different tiers before, so I am a little confused as to whether my noble friend thought that a farmer was going to apply for tier 1 for the arable land and work for environmental enhancement and Clause 1 objectives, and then have a separate application for what they might do with their woods and covers. No, this will be a farmer undertaking work on their farm.
My noble friend is right that, as I said—I thought I said this on Tuesday as well—the Government distinctly want to have a broad definition, not to curtail it, because we want to work with the farmers, foresters and growers to ensure that when we devise the scheme we do not find ourselves ring-fenced because noble Lords have decided that they have an important point that they must have in the Bill. That would start to make it more difficult. That is precisely why I have said that our definitions are deliberately broad in order to enable us to work with the farmers, the foresters and the growers to ensure that we get the right schemes for them.
I am not sure whether I was permitted to reply to my noble friend in this way, but I intervene now because it is important that he realises that a lot of what we are going to be discussing is best discussed with regard to the regulations, many of which will be made by the affirmative procedure. Then we will we have more flesh on the bone, having had the result of our work with the important people who are going to make all this happen for us.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said, which has clarified the position. I think that I am perfectly entitled to ask such questions in Committee for elucidation of what he has said—as he will appreciate, I cannot ask him a question about what he has said until he has said it—and that is the great value of Committee stage. With that, I am happy not to move my amendment.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]
My Lords, I welcome the support that all noble Lords who have participated in this wide grouping have given. I thought that many of their comments were extremely interesting and helpful on the need for local food, sustainability, productivity, ensuring that our environmental objectives are being met and, of course, diversification. I am particularly encouraged by the support for Amendments 12 and 13.
I thank the Minister for his usual excellent, comprehensive, fulsome and detailed response, a lot of which was extremely valuable. I am grateful for the endorsement of the importance of education and of the educational experience of schoolchildren. I absolutely agree with what he said of his experience of that: it is life-changing for schoolchildren, as he described, to experience running through crops and to experience how milk is produced. I stress to him that this support is provided at all levels within the ELM scheme. It is essential that we maximise the benefits available through farms that are willing to host school visits.
In the interests of brevity in my introduction, I resisted the temptation to mention the senior leadership group on skills and the intention to establish a professional body. I thank the Minister and welcome his comments on that and support for it. As he said, it is a critical and essential development. Through him, I thank his department and officials for the invaluable support, advice and guidance that they have given on this issue. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, we come to Amendment 14. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 14
The Earl of Caithness
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to highlight the extra costs that farmers and foresters can face and discuss the effectiveness of the Countryside Code.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I fear that I might not be quite as brief as I was when I spoke to my last amendment. My concern is that at present the Government give access to farmland without compensation or appreciating the impact on the farm. The coastal footpath is one example of farmers having access rights forced on them and this even goes as far as public access to private beaches free of charge. My amendment simply seeks to rectify that by allowing the Government to pay compensation where there is damage and for public access. I believe that the Bill only makes matters worse and I fear that, if we are not careful, the Government will, sadly, start to alienate the farming community as the consequences of this legislation become more apparent.
On Tuesday we talked about rights and the provision of access. Today I want to discuss the consequences of those rights and the other “R” word—responsibility. It is a word that does not seem to crop up much now in the way that we work and it is often ignored. When we talk about responsibility and the countryside, it is the mess that people leave behind that I want to focus on, although there are other issues that I will mention. We have all seen the dreadful amount of detritus that has been left on recent visits to the countryside and parks: the glass, the laughing gas canisters, the soiled nappies, the plastic bags, the fast food containers and every other sort of rubbish. The 25-year environment plan has a lovely picture of Durdle Door in Dorset. Three tonnes of rubbish were collected in one day off that beach alone. In Morecambe Bay, 25 black plastic bags of rubbish were picked up and 12 tonnes of rubbish was taken off Bournemouth beach.
Litter is a hazard to animals and wildlife as well; it is not just an ugly sight for us human beings. In Port Meadow in Oxfordshire, five horses and 10 cows needed treatment and a cow died from eating plastic. We are talking about people’s livelihoods. Sadly, what is not being left on the land is now being washed out to the ocean. We saw yesterday comments about the number of face masks that are being washed out into the seas as people chuck them away after use to try to combat the virus. It was rather dismaying to read that one face mask alone could kill a whale. It is we human beings who are making all this mess and putting such a hazard in wildlife’s way. The RSPCA receives over 7,000 calls a year over litter-related incidents.
The removal of litter costs a lot of money. In the last month it has cost Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens nearly 20% more than at the equivalent time last year to pick up the amount of litter that has been thrown down.
This is not a recent aberration and it is incorrect to blame it on the excitement of being able to get out after lockdown. A survey last year showed that one in five visitors to the Royal Parks left litter behind after their visit. The LitterAction group tells us that the problem in rural areas is more than it can contend with. Worst of all, the Hygiene Council has proclaimed us the dirtiest developed country in the world. That is a bad record to have.
Fly-tipping is a cause of litter, and the Defra figures published last November show that local authorities dealt with over 1 million fly-tipping incidents in the 12 months to the end of March 2019. That was another annual increase, this time of 8%. What should be done about this? I was delighted that my noble friend the Minister said on Tuesday that
“dropping litter should be an anti-social behaviour.”—[Official Report, 7/7/20; col. 1104.]
I hope my noble friend who replies will not use the facile comment that there is going to be another anti-litter campaign. We tried that in 1987, when I was Minister for the countryside. The Secretary of State, Nick Ridley, persuaded the Prime Minister to get involved and there was a great photoshoot in St James’s Park. It helped for a bit, but we seem to have an ingrained ability to forget about these things and to continue in our bad, old ways. Will my noble friend the Minister consider on-the-spot fines or an alteration of the law to increase fines—and to not only increase them, but to enforce them?
The Earl of Shrewsbury [V]
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. I believe it to be an extremely important one and I congratulate him on the way in which he moved it. It is a very wide-ranging subject. I have no problem at all with public access to land, so long as no damage is caused to property or to livestock. I believe firmly that if such damage is caused—not everyone who benefits from access to the countryside acts in a responsible manner—it is only fair that the owner or tenant of the property in question is compensated for the cost of that damage and its reparation.
To give an example, during the recent very hot spell, and with lockdown and social distancing in force, a field on the River Dove, very close to where I live in an idyllic part of the world called Dovedale—an area of outstanding natural beauty—was invaded by a large group of people, who picnicked there and swam in the river. The litter they left, both in Dovedale and by the river down in Mapleton, was like a carpet of detritus. It was atrocious—bottles, plastic bags, human waste and all sorts. It was cleared up and disposed of by the landowner at his own expense. Under the terms of my noble friend’s amendment, that landowner would have been reimbursed for his trouble. That seems to me to be only fair and right.
The other day, at Questions in your Lordships’ House, I asked my noble friend Lord Goldsmith whether it was the case that the landowner or the tenant should not be responsible for paying for the clearing of fly-tipping on their land. The answer that I got was less than satisfactory. My noble friend told me—to paraphrase—that the landowner or the tenant should pay for this because it was part of his responsibility of farming the land. That could not be further from the truth, and I think that is a pretty rough statement to make.
I support my noble friend’s amendment and I look forward to listening to what my noble friend the Minister has to say in this regard.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on this amendment. I shall be brief, because it covers many of the points that I made on the third group. I also thank the Minister for adding Clause 1(1)(b), but I have questions for him. What form might the compensation take? Is one of the problems perhaps that rural crime is not taken as seriously as it might be?
I believe that such prosecutions come under the Environment Agency rather than the police. Should there be a wider use of cameras in rural areas believed to be prone to this? Where there is shared access between, for example, a county council as well as a different user of the land, should there be some arrangement to negotiate between them about who is responsible for policing this? How does my noble friend intend to police the current provision under Clause 1?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to take part in this brief debate, and it is nice to have a debate on one specific amendment, dealing with a particular problem or series of problems.
I do not suppose there is a single one of your Lordships who was not totally disturbed and revolted by the photograph of that wonderful, 500 year-old oak tree burnt down last weekend in Herefordshire as a result of irresponsible barbecuing. That is a totemic picture and shows—alongside the graphic descriptions by my noble friend Lord Caithness, who moved this amendment splendidly—what we are up against.
I have a specific suggestion to make to my noble friend the Minister. I was taken by the explanatory statement of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on the Marshalled List:
“This amendment is to highlight the extra costs that farmers and foresters can face”—
he has done that graphically and splendidly—
“and discuss the effectiveness of the Countryside Code.”
I understand that the code is in the process of being revised, which is good. However, I do not suppose that very many of those people who created squalor in Dorset or who burnt down that beautiful old oak in Herefordshire have a clue what the Countryside Code is.
My suggestion to the Minister is this: I have spoken in your Lordships’ House before on the subject of citizenship, and I believe that every young person leaving full-time education should go through a citizenship ceremony, having studied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship for a year at least. One of the prime responsibilities of being a good citizen is to help to look after and enhance the environment.
There should be compulsory education on the Countryside Code and looking after the environment, which we have inherited and have a duty to pass on to successive generations. I would very much like to see, as part of the graduation process from school, the issuing of a countryside passport that young people are proud of and can carry with them. If they transgress—of course, it is not a problem of young people only, but one has to start somewhere—there should be exemplary fines and penalties. A cancelled passport should be one of these, because those who have shown that they do not appreciate and care for their environment and for the countryside should not be allowed to trespass and transgress upon it. I do not use “trespass” narrowly.
If we really mean what we say, and if we really want to strengthen the Bill in the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has suggested, we must have not only compensation but, at the forefront of our mind, the creation of a culture where compensation will not be needed because people will not despoil and damage their environment. I recommend to my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, and to my noble friend Lord Gardiner, who has been meticulous in his attendance, devising some sort of system along these lines.
Lord Marlesford [V]
My Lords, I have no problem at all in supporting this amendment; I have for a long while campaigned on this issue. In fact, in July 2013 I introduced a Private Member’s Bill on littering from vehicles. It did not get anywhere at the time but, as quite often happens with Private Members’ Bills, the idea was incorporated into subsequent legislation, and it is now possible to fine the owner of a vehicle from which litter is dropped without identifying the person who dropped it. Previously, anonymity or a dispute as to who dropped the litter meant nothing ever happened.
There is a real problem in this, of both littering and, more seriously, fly-tipping. There is a distinction between the two, because littering is one of those anti-social things where people probably do not feel a great moral obligation not to do it; it is often thoughtlessness and they do not feel it is a moral point. Fly-tipping is another matter. It is a criminal activity, often deliberately undertaken by people who, as it were, make a profession of it. They offer to dispose of goods and household waste for people for a fee, and then they ruthlessly and callously fly-tip it.
In answer to both these problems, I am not sure we need new legislation—if the Bill can in some way strengthen existing legislation, so much the better—but we need proper enforcement. If we take the first example, of littering from a vehicle, practically nobody does anything about it. It ought to be possible for wardens to take the number of a vehicle and issue fines on the spot, perfectly happily, rather like a parking offence. It is not a criminal offence, but it is a stiff enough fine that you simply do not do it again—once you have paid £80 or £100 for dropping a pack from your hamburger outside, you will not do it again.
Fly-tipping is much more serious, and I think proper prosecution is needed here. This is basically already the responsibility of local authorities, which in general they do not fulfil for various reasons, one of which is—I am afraid to say—that they sometimes know who is behind it all: criminal elements they fear to upset. Sometimes it is for less obvious reasons.
Where I am from, in Suffolk, we had five examples of fly-tipping one particular moment and we were able, with the help of the local authority, to pick up the litter. The people responsible were foolish enough to identify themselves and exactly where they came from, and there was no doubt about it. When the local authorities approached them, they merely said that they had paid someone, who had paid someone, to do it. When we asked if the authorities would prosecute, we were told it was too sensitive.
That is not good enough. There is a very simple answer to fly-tipping: the size of the fine should be a multiple of the cost of taking litter to an authorised litter dump. At the moment it is less; it is cheaper to pay the fine on the rare occasion that one is issued than to pay for a truck or the cost of going to the dump. The remedy is perfectly simple. It is a community problem; it is for the community to enforce it. It should be enforced primarily through local government, but central government, through Bills such as this, can do something to stiffen up the action taken.
I have talked only about litter. I agree that there are other problems from access, but private littering and criminal littering in the form of fly-tipping are the main problems. They are very serious.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I agree very much with what was said early on in the debate, but I must say to both noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Shrewsbury, that making the argument requires a positive approach to access. It came across certainly in the first few minutes of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that he would be very happy if there were no access anyway. He then went on to deploy the arguments and consequences of access.
Access is here to stay, whether it is the coastal path or access to the countryside. However, I could not agree more that in a small country it must be managed. Think about this: you go to a countryside car park for a walk. You will probably pay something, but there will also be a sign saying that every month the costs of removing the litter germinated by the car park and its users will be shared by every car parked there, and that by paying to park there you accept that. That might be a salutary warning to those causing the trouble, and to those who see trouble and do nothing about it.
I have been a walker in the Lake District for more than 30 years and I freely admit that I have never seen any seriously bad examples of fly-tipping. On the other hand, I have seen really bad examples elsewhere. I do not accept that it should be the responsibility solely of the landowner. There must be more enforcement, more cameras and more forensic examination of the waste. Given the kind of stuff that is so carelessly piled up in serious fly-tipping, the evidence that people leave can be traced back to where it came from. There is an argument about who actually did it, who was responsible in the end and where the waste came from, but the police should take some responsibility—they do not take rural crime seriously enough, and this is a rural crime. I very much agree with what was said about the broken windows theory, which is fundamental.
I am in favour of a crackdown. We have automatic number plate recognition cameras all over the city and in different areas. We need a bit more of it in the countryside, with some warnings about responsibility. That being the case, I realise that it is very difficult, though not impossible, to provide a proper enforcement system, but to be honest, there is no enforcement system at the moment. We ought to start to generate one.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, as I said on Tuesday, additional public access, however beneficial to people whose livelihood does not depend on agriculture, is a distraction from farmers’ primary responsibility to manage their land efficiently to produce food for the nation and to assist our balance of trade by producing high-quality food products for export around the world.
I congratulate my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Shrewsbury on their eloquent and persuasive introduction to their amendment. They are absolutely correct that the new scheme must properly compensate farmers for the damage and additional costs they will incur as a result of the obligation they will face to provide more public access. Littering has been getting worse in recent years. So has fly-tipping, which has got much worse through lockdown, as my noble friend Lord Caithness observed. I wholeheartedly support the amendment and look forward to the Minister’s reply.
As my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury said, the answer from my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, which I heard as well, was unsatisfactory and rather ambiguous. It seems that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, also considers fly-tipping to be at least partly the responsibility of the landowner, which I was rather surprised to hear him state. Could the Minister clarify the Government’s policy on responsibility for fly-tipping and what my noble friend Lord Goldsmith actually intended to say?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those occasions where you have rather more sympathy with what was said than what was written, because the amendment can be taken, and probably would be by many, as an attack on greater access to the countryside. On Tuesday I moved a series of amendments tabled in conjunction with the Ramblers and British Canoeing. I can give noble Lords an absolute assurance that both those bodies would agree with those sentiments.
As someone who lives in the Lambourn valley, close to Swindon and the M4, I know about fly-tipping. Usually a pile of rubbish occurs where there is access to a road and somewhere quiet. It will not be enhanced by a footpath, because people do not carry old fridges up footpaths to dump them—or if they do, I would steer well clear of them. Let us not confuse the issues. The incident the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury—who has been here even longer than I have and is a friend—talked about was just trespass. It was not to do with access. The two are not that closely related.
The general points about taking these problems more seriously, with criminal enforcement, are a serious matter. A lot of littering comes either from unplanned, uncontrolled gatherings where you do not have bins, et cetera, or close to urban centres. It is not just the young; grey hair does not stop you dropping litter. I have seen it myself. For any noble Lords who have travelled on the Tube, it is a bit like face masks; the young are only as bad as their seniors. It is engrained.
I totally approve of the attitude of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on the last amendment and of the Minister’s response. I am afraid it is rather unanswerable —I cannot ask you about what you have said until you have said it. I appreciate how it was taken down and I hope that flexibility will come in during our discussions on this, because it would make it work better.
This amendment raises issues, but it would be totally against the spirit of the rest of the Bill. Greater access would not cause most of the problems here. On being irresponsible in a Royal Park close to an urban area, I am sorry, but people have access to go there anyway. Extra access will not make it worse. On specialist paths for ramblers and other groups, these groups are more likely to report people—a path that ramblers use regularly will discourage fly-tipping. The general public all have a phone with a camera. Telling people that they have a responsibility to use them may be something the Government can do; they can certainly make it easier to report and get the reports back.
I do not think that we will get more of these problems every time we expand access to the countryside. They are there already in uncontrolled access. Having better control and understanding of the problems—integration, the odd use of cameras, not having better reporting infrastructures—is a better way to go about it.
On the final comment about a farmer resenting having to take time off because someone fell and broke their leg: if somebody falls in the street, would you stop and help them? I know I have done it a couple of times. Was it inconvenient? Yes. But come on—there are limits.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
The amendment in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Shrewsbury, seeks to allow farmers to have compensation for damage caused by some public access. I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment. There have been many times when, walking footpaths, I have seen saplings damaged, litter strewn around and gates left open. The National Trust, during lambing season on its land, warns walkers to shut the gates and keep their dogs on the leash. Most do this, but occasionally some thoughtless person does not.
We heard in our debate on Tuesday from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and other noble Lords, who gave some examples of damage done by those who treat the countryside carelessly, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, gave more details today about the litter left at Durdle Door and Bournemouth. In April 2019, the National Trust issued a plea for the public to follow the Countryside Code after a fire started by a barbecue tore through Marsden Moor, destroying blanket bog and vital habitats for ground-nesting birds. It is estimated that more than £200,000-worth of investment in restoring wildlife habitat in the area has been lost. Curlew and mountain hare populations are believed to have been hardest hit by the blaze, which covered more than 1,500 hectares. People can make all the difference in limiting this risk by just following simple measures included in the Countryside Code.
I envy the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, living as he does so close to Dovedale, which I have visited on several occasions. Fly-tipping is a scourge and should be heavily penalised. Often it is down to sheer laziness on the part of the perpetrators. Clearing up after visitors and fly-tippers can cost landowners and farmers many thousands of pounds.
Some of your Lordships have advocated notices warning walkers to keep gates shut and respect the land they are walking on. However, on Tuesday, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, felt that the countryside would be spoiled if it was, as he put it, “littered with signage”. Signage is not as intrusive as fire damage. It is much better to have signs inviting people to be more careful and not damage the countryside than to have it ruined by thoughtlessness.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, promotes compulsory education of a countryside code or a passport for young people. It is certainly true that the younger people are when we educate them into respecting the countryside, the better that will be. However, I would not make that compulsory. Those living in blocks of flats are unlikely to have been to the countryside; nor, sadly, are they ever likely to go. A much better way would be to promote and regenerate the Duke of Edinburgh’s scheme, which, due to a lack of youth service funding in many areas, no longer takes place. That is an excellent way to encourage young people into the countryside and into respect for it.
If damage, including littering, is done, landowners should be compensated and the perpetrators found, prosecuted and fined to help cover the cost of rectifying the damage they have caused. The legislation is there for this to happen now but it is not enforced, and it should be. ANPR could help with that, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said. I have sympathy with all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, but I fear that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, probably did not help his case with some of the examples that he mentioned. Nevertheless, I support this amendment.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
This amendment is to examine whether, or indeed how, a better balance can be struck between the interests of landowners and members of the public who wish to access the countryside.
The ability to access so much of Britain’s countryside is one of our great national traditions, and it plays an important role in leisure, education and our wider economy. I am indeed fortunate to live in a country within the wider UK where so much natural beauty is literally on my doorstep. From the Vale of Usk to the Brecon Beacons and the magnificence of the post-industrial south Wales valleys, the beauty and elegance of our countryside is a joy and treasure that must be protected and balanced for the preservation of our future generations. Indeed, as noble Lords have noted in the debate, rights and responsibilities must be evenly balanced. As a former leader of a local authority, when residents’ complaints came in, I was often quoted as saying that the council does not have a littering department; it is in fact people who litter their rural and urban environments and leave it to councils to clear it up afterwards.
The Countryside Code is a readily available and easily accessible document which aims to ensure that guests are respectful of the local community and to continue the preservation of the condition of the countryside. In addition, we welcome the fact that a revised Covid-19 code was published in an attempt to drive home the key messages at a time when more people may have been visiting the countryside. We hope this simpler messaging will be carried forward, even as the public health situation improves.
However, as with any form of ownership, owning land involves a balance of rights and responsibilities; rights of access are established, and the responsibilities and costs associated with them should therefore not come as a surprise to the landowner. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, access is here to stay but it has to be managed, and serious fly-tipping must be followed up and traced back to where it came from. Indeed, the police should take a greater role in such enforcement. There may be some merit in exploring what more can be done to minimise extra costs on landowners, but that should not necessarily come at the expense of wider support for agriculture and horticulture.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I believe that we all share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Caithness about the cost to landowners, local authorities and the National Trust and other bodies of littering and fly-tipping. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, spoke powerfully about this issue on Tuesday. He was also very generous in not seeking to prevent others enjoying his land so long as no damage is done—a positive approach also promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. As we just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, rights come with responsibilities. However, I point out that the provision of access to private land is still voluntary.
As we discussed on Tuesday, public access to the countryside provides a huge range of benefits, including improving physical and mental health and supporting local communities and economies. I understand that, at times, providing such public access can bring about some extra costs and risks to land managers. We will be working closely with stakeholders to understand the full costs of providing access, to make sure that the system works for land managers.
I thank my noble friend for raising this issue. It is important to make sure that the Countryside Code is as effective as possible in promoting responsible behaviour. As my noble friend the Minister said on Tuesday, and my noble friend Lord Cormack also mentioned, Natural England will soon start work on refreshing the Countryside Code to ensure that these messages are communicated effectively.
It is vital that young people are taught about the environment, and a number of noble Lords mentioned the importance of education. For that reason, related topics on the environment and the countryside are included throughout the geography and science GCSE curriculums. As part of that, the national curriculum programme of study recommends that pupils should use the local environment to support their learning in these areas.
A number of noble Lords mentioned enforcement, and a number of bits of legislation that cover littering are already in place. The main piece, which covers littering and refuse, is Part 4 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Crucially, Section 87 of that Act states that it is an offence for a person to drop, throw down, leave or deposit litter in a public place, and it carries a maximum fine of £2,500 and can be tried in a magistrates’ court. Furthermore, current by-law legislation allows local authorities to restrict and enforce the use of disposable barbecues in public parks and spaces. There are existing powers in legislation which can be used by authorities. I should point out that in our manifesto we committed to increasing the penalties for fly-tipping.
The Bill includes powers to provide financial assistance to promote better understanding of the environment. Better understanding of the environment could include, for example, help for land managers to communicate to visitors the types of messages which are in the Countryside Code. All these actions will help to ensure that the impact of public access is as positive as possible and that any risk of damage is kept to a minimum.
A number of noble Lords mentioned fly-tipping and the hazards it has created in the countryside. I, too, have observed hideous instances of fly-tipping in my small village where farm gateways are regularly used to deposit mattresses and fridges which then get burned out, so I share the concerns raised by my noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lord Shrewsbury and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, but I do not agree that it is just laziness, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. This is criminal behaviour which is addressed through the criminal courts.
It would be good to think that eventually, with education, we can change the culture of whoever it is, from the dog owner in Richmond Park to the people who at the end of lockdown enjoyed the beaches but left so much litter behind. With that emphasis on education and with proper enforcement, littering will become as anti-social as drink-driving has now become.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I have received two requests from noble Lords to speak after the Minister.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there is a price for increased access. I totally agree with what my noble friend Lord Rooker said. We cannot turn the clock back, and nor would we want to because we recognise how important it is for all of us physically and mentally to be able to get out and enjoy the countryside. However, that price has been paid up until now largely by farmers and landowners. It is considerable and it is clearly going to grow, which is why I hope that the provisions in the Bill will be used in ways which respect, perhaps more than some of the existing access arrangements have done, the people who own the land. I am told that it is only a tiny minority who cause trouble. Perhaps that is so for genuine walkers, but it also gives a legitimate right of access to other people whose purpose for being there is not legitimate. Near houses or through the farm, it is a perfect way to case the joint. You just have to speak to some of my neighbours down here about the vandalism that they suffered during the badger cull by people using access legitimately for illegitimate purposes.
I heard the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, speak about a litany of problems. Having had a very much-used part of the Chiltern Way going straight through my garden, I can endorse everything he said. I hope we fulfilled our obligations by repairing stiles and putting in kissing-gates and beside them gates that would open for anybody who was disabled and could not use the other two, but over the years we had gates left open, stock straying and dogs chasing and attacking sheep, which is a major problem nationwide. We had poaching. We had theft of fencing and from farm buildings and at one stage, until I learned that I was a philanthropist, I was offering a free take-away service from my farm diesel tank. When I sadly came to sell the smallholding on which I lived, I was told by all the agents that the footpath, which had by then been diverted from the front door through the fields, would still knock a substantial chunk off its value.
Sadly, I do not expect the Government to accept this amendment, but I hope that those who regularly request access give thought to who pays the price, not just in money but in loss of security and peace of mind.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a landowner and an arable farmer. I support my noble friend’s amendment in principle. However, I would like to distinguish direct damage caused to farmers’ livestock by, for instance, out-of-control dogs and leaving farm gates open. That is definitely connected to agriculture, but I note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the problem of dumping refuse and fly-tipping can be considered more as an environmental issue. They may be more suited to the forthcoming Environment Bill. Does the Minister have a view on that?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I think many noble Lords will have every sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and her experiences on her smallholding. Damage, theft, poaching and the theft of diesel are all criminal acts. If the perpetrator is caught, they can, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, correctly suggested, be charged with trespass, which can be brought by farmers and owners for damage done while trespassing. The criminal justice system already has these things at its disposal.
My noble friend Lord Northbrook makes an interesting point about the difference between direct damage to livestock by dogs off leads and such things, but I do not believe that fly-tipping has a place in the Environment Bill. It is already covered in legislation. The key to all this, as many noble Lords have said, is better enforcement and perhaps more video cameras installed by landowners so that some of these perpetrators can be caught.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the discussion of this amendment. I am delighted that I degrouped it from the group that we discussed on Tuesday because it was well worth a discussion in its own right.
Let me first say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—I am delighted to see him back with us—that I am not against access. As I said on Tuesday, access to the countryside was essential in getting better after my accident. I was on footpaths in a wheelchair and then on crutches and on sticks, so I am a great believer in public access. What I am trying to balance is the right for us to go to the countryside and get all the benefit from it and what is going to happen to people’s livelihoods and property.
We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, of some of the problems that she faced. The Minister’s reply was “Well, they’re criminal offences anyway”, but they are not being enforced. Rural crime is rising, and there is great concern among those in rural areas that they are being left out. There are not enough police to go around, and the police are too busy to take rural crime seriously. There is a fundamental problem here that the Government need to address. I hope that the Minister will take this a lot more seriously than she appeared to do when she replied.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that there is going to be no fly-tipping on footpaths. Let me draw his attention to the Defra statistics. In the 12 months up to March 2019, fly-tipping on footpaths and bridleways rose from 164,000 cases to 187,000 cases. That is a substantial increase. Footpaths and bridleways cannot be ignored in this problem. If there is a place that people can fly-tip or drop litter, they will do so. As the statistics from the Royal Parks show, one in five people is prepared to do that. Yes, we are talking about a minority, but it is a minority that can cause severe damage and impinge on people’s livelihoods.
This comes back to enforcement, and I hope that the Minister will spare time between now and the next stage to meet me to discuss this. I think the Government’s intention is right and that their hearts are in the right place, but action is not going with it. I am very frightened, as, indeed, are a great number of farmers, that the provisions of the Bill are not going to help. Yes, they want public access, and I am against farmers who do not give that access and embrace it enthusiastically, but it is only fair that the balance is set out in a better way than it is at the moment.
I thank the Minister for her reply. I hope she will write to me on the questions that she did not answer, such as about what has happened to the fire severity index, and a number of other questions that I posed to her. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 19. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear during the course of the debate.
Amendment 19
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, in moving Amendment 19 I shall speak also to my Amendments 52 and 102. I remind the Committee of the interests I declared at Second Reading. I should have done this when I spoke on Tuesday, but I forgot. They are more relevant to our debates on Tuesday, but never mind.
Amendment 19 in this small group seeks to probe the Government on one issue, that of whether farm-based schemes could include the reintroduction of native plants and animals that have become extinct nationally or, what is more likely, locally. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on this point. I want to concentrate on an issue that is of growing interest to many people, that of rewilding. I shall explain in a minute what is meant by that.
First, I want to make clear what is not meant. A lot of misrepresentation has been made by tabloid media of a few proponents of rewilding who frankly go over the top and, in my view, do not do the cause any good. Rewilding as it is used here does not involve the reintroduction to the English countryside of animals such as bears and wolves. Unfenced reintroductions for some species may be justified—beavers may be a case in point, and who can deny the glory of peregrine falcons and red kites, as well as locally extinct species of butterflies and reptiles—but it is not what rewilding as such is about.
Rewilding is also not about the wholesale transformation of whole regions into some romanticised version of this country before its widespread cultivation by the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes and their descendants. Nor is it about the creation of nature reserves as we know them conventionally, where the ecology of the flora and fauna in a local environment is carefully managed, sometimes in tiny detail. However, a success rewilding scheme could in due course become a very special but different kind of nature stronghold. Nor, finally, is it a means to just abandon large areas of land that are devoid of economic value. Indeed, it can be a means by which landowners increase their income by diversifying in areas where farming alone may no longer be viable. If I can drop into government speak for a moment, it can deliver public goods at scale both efficiently and effectively.
Amendment 52 would add rewilding to the list of activities that can be financed under Clause 1. A two-tier scheme could involve the rewilding of all or much or a largish farm, if that is what the landowner would like. I keep prompting the Minister for examples of tier 3 schemes involving things other than peat restoration and tree planting, but perhaps the rewilding of a broad upland valley could qualify for such funding. Rewilding could mean allowing coastal land or floodplains to revert to wild marshlands. It may be that while the Government are not averse to rewilding schemes as I have described in appropriate places, they would prefer to them to be funded in other ways and through other budgets. If that is the Minister’s response, can he or she set out what those other ways could be?
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on these three amendments and to support the arguments that he has advanced. It is encouraging that these are narrower amendments, which means that the debate will be less slightly less prolix. It is clear from the debates in your Lordships’ House on the Agriculture Bill that there is general agreement about the revolution going on in the countryside, which is not only technological, but intellectual, psychological and emotional. Against that background, what is known as rewilding, as defined by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is in fact a real part, although obviously only a part, of a new era for the nation’s rural landscape.
Of course, as the noble Lord said, the populist perception of rewilding means releasing sabre-toothed tigers on Hampstead Heath, or perhaps slightly less melodramatically, what is happening on the Knepp estate in Sussex. That kind of rewilding may well have a role in the future countryside, but it will certainly be only a part of that future. Rewilding covers a whole range of things from plants and insects to animals. Since the beginning of time, our environment has been evolving and changing, sometimes quickly and at other times almost imperceptibly. It is absolutely clear that our flora and fauna are always in a state of flux. Look at what has happened to the landscape and the plants and animals in it since the last ice age.
During that period, we humans, as part of creation, have been one of the vectors. In some instances, our involvement has been benign, and in others, particularly in the case of some alien introductions, it clearly has not. But it is as legitimate, subject to proper consideration, to interfere with the ecology of the relatively unaltered parts of our land as with that of the more intensively cultivated parts, when it is called farming or forestry. That is why I believe rewilding, however exactly you define it, should be an element, but only a part, of the future. Natural and rural agricultural policy should encompass it, and hence, it should become part of national policy.
Lord Lucas [V]
My Lords, I look forward to the Minister’s reply on Amendment 19. Our ability to repair the landscape is obviously crucial to getting our South Downs back in order. Kew is immensely helpful in this regard with its seed bank, which gives us some species we have long lost. We have to play an active part in getting our countryside back and not just wait for it to happen gradually over the next few centuries.
As for wider rewilding, yes, Knepp is wonderful—I have been there—but it requires fences. If you fence an area and you want nature taking care of itself, with very light-touch management, you need large herbivores and top predators. Otherwise, as in Knepp, we have to be the top predator. So, we have to accept our role in rewilding—we are the top predator. We have a role to play in a rewilded landscape. If you try to do it without boundaries, the herbivores leak; I do not think Knepp’s neighbours would be much pleased if all the Tamworth pigs started straying across their wheat crops. It is a concept that takes some very careful working out. We ought to learn the lessons of the rebellion in Wales, when the rewilding attempt failed. I encourage the Government to look in this direction, but with a good deal of scepticism.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. First, I would like to address the reintroduction of native species. Down in Devon, we have seen the relatively successful and very interesting reintroduction of beavers—ironically, in the River Otter. That has had some success but also some major challenges, not least for landowners, whose land gets flooded unexpectedly, requiring the proactive management of those beavers and moving them on.
Discussion is increasing around the reintroduction of pine martens as a means of controlling the grey squirrel population, although it is pointed out that grey squirrels live in urban centres where pine martens do not, so it would be very difficult to control grey squirrels that way. In the wilds of Scotland—the Glenfeshie Estate—the reintroduction of large herbivores is being considered. I was at a talk given recently by the brother of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the Minister, who made reference to the reintroduction of wildcats to Dartmoor. I have resisted the urge to stray into the Dartmoor Hill ponies area, since they are so ably represented by a number of noble Lords. However, I would resist the reintroduction of wildcats to Dartmoor, if only for the dear Dartmoor pony’s sake.
Rewilding is a very complicated issue. I congratulate the Knepp Estate on its huge enthusiasm and the interesting research it is doing, but nature does not take care of itself in this landscape. We have created this landscape, we are responsible for it and we cannot divorce ourselves from that responsibility.
Rewilding is not a new concept. Three hundred years ago, the landscape around me was heavily farmed and ornately gardened. About 270 years ago, it was rewilded with the creation of a deer park, which exists to this day. That is a form of rewilding, creating a primordial, idyllic landscape with deer grazing under trees and eating conkers and acorns. It is, I agree, a fantastic landscape with remarkable biodiversity and it provides a healthy harvest of venison, but it is not profitable. It is heavily subsidised by HLS and ELS, and even then, it is not profitable. The only way we make it break even is with a series of concerts, which were so ably promoted on Tuesday by the noble Lord, Lord Mann.
Rewilding does not necessarily create a profitable and vibrant landscape, and we need to be very cautious in imagining it does. However, there are areas of the country that may benefit from it—I am thinking of marginal areas that are not profitable farmland but that should not be allowed to go completely to wilderness. They could be rewilded, but only if it can be done on a landscape scale, creating landscape-scale environmental corridors and providing remarkable benefits for all in joining up environmental and species habitats.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, Members of the House will probably know of my interest in this Bill through my family business, as listed in the register.
Noble Lords may also know that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was a sparring partner when I was a Minister in Defra and, of course, a former comrade in arms when we were in opposition together. His rhetoric always encourages me to speak, but I must challenge some of his assumptions. His view of landscape and local nature, as defined in these amendments, is principally retrospective, and I am not sure I can agree with this approach. The contribution of other noble Lords has raised similar doubts.
I do not disagree with the noble Lord’s view, as Amendment 19 proposes, that the reintroduction of native species can be laudable, but he rightly uses the word, “appropriate”. That judgment is much harder to make if its purpose is to re-create a sustainable wildlife and ecology in changed landscape scenarios. Undoubtedly, landscape and ecology in relation to place are of the essence, but this is not static, and nor is man’s interaction with it.
Perhaps, I can illustrate this. Much has been done to address the need for natural ecology even in the fens, an area of the most intensive cultivation and agricultural and horticultural production. That landscape is my home. It is a consequence of human intervention: almost perfectly flat and an acquired taste. It is none the less an important centre of commercial production; pastoral, it is not. But every aspect of that landscape—the rivers, dykes, banks, fields, roads and droves—are man-made. Some of the best-known reserves of natural habitat are situated in the Vermuyden washlands; our legacy is a consequence of the 17th-century adventurers who created them. Turning the clock back in such a situation is not an alternative.
Some noble Lords familiar with the east coast main line will see, south of Peterborough, a project stretching through the Fens, as far as Wicken Fen near Ely, to re-establish a fenland ecology. This can be achieved only by a recreative process just as complex as the original drainage itself. Meanwhile, the on-farm projects which the Bill encourages are equally studied and managed. These illustrations are not rewilding but deliberated. I support this process and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say that this is exactly what the Bill recognises in Clause 1(1)(c).
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is not on the call, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow my old and noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach; a fellow Lincolnshire man who is regarded with great affection in all parts of your Lordships’ House, he struck a note of caution.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for giving us an opportunity to debate this subject briefly, but I am not absolutely sure whether we need to amend the Bill. If we look back over the last two or three decades, we can see a number of changes, some of which have been very good and others perhaps less so. I remember when I used to drive through the Chilterns, on my way from Staffordshire to London, and suddenly those wonderful red kites would emerge; it reached the stage where one never had the journey without seeing red kites. They were of course despised scavengers in Elizabethan London, but, in the Chilterns, they are wonderful, soaring, graceful birds. There was a time when the buzzard was on the verge of extinction, but no more; that too is marvellous. But much as I admire the largest of all our birds of prey—the sea eagle, or the white-tailed eagle—I understand that farmers on the Isle of Wight are somewhat apprehensive for their flocks.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for making it clear at the outset that he is not one of these nutters who advocates bringing back the wolf. Although he did not stray on to that territory, I also suspect and infer from what he said that he is not necessarily championing the return of the lynx—about which farmers are again somewhat apprehensive. However, we should bring back, and replace, certain things. There cannot be a Member of your Lordships’ House who does not inwardly weep at what has happened to the elm tree and the ash. At the moment, dieback is ravaging a tree that has been admired in this country for centuries. Then again, we have to ask ourselves what exactly is indigenous or native. If we were to go outside and ask people, many would immediately say the rabbit, but the rabbit came here with the Romans and was then cultivated by the monks as a source of food. One has to be very careful and balanced in all this.
While I would greatly welcome the conservation and increase in numbers of wildcats in Scotland, I entirely sympathise with what the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said about wildcats on Dartmoor. Of course, it is difficult to find a true wildcat, as there has been so much interbreeding with feral cats; again, that is something that we have to bear in mind. Similarly, although they are in many ways attractive and exciting to watch, I am not sure that the reintroduction of the wild boar, through escape, has been exactly what we would have wanted, yet they are now prolific in parts of Gloucestershire. If ever a subject deserved the moto “festina lente”—make haste slowly—it is this one. It is right for us to be discussing this, but it is also right to realise that it is not something we should accelerate without very careful consideration.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, talked about the beaver—wonderful creatures; there was a wildlife film about them on television the other week. They are totally fascinating, but some people who live in the areas where they have been introduced would not exactly rejoice, as the noble Earl indicated in his speech a moment or two ago. Of course, we have seen what has happened when non-indigenous creatures have been introduced. There is the grey squirrel, which has put our native red squirrel in such peril, and, of course, the mink, which is a scourge. I fear that we in Staffordshire played a part in that, because a mink farm was broken into by animal liberationists and the mink spread all over the place. What was the result? Mink and no otter. I think one has to have balanced reflection and discussion.
I conclude by saying that I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. It is good to raise the subject, but I urge caution upon the Minister. I very much hope that we will bear in mind that conserving and preserving our indigenous wildlife is what we must concentrate on.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is now not intending to speak, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Greaves tabled these amendments, because it has given us a chance for debate and for the Minister to give us an idea of the Government’s thinking on this particular form of land management.
I recognise that, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, mentioned, rewilding—whatever we called it then—has been around for a long time. The other week I was in Wicken Fen: I am not sure if it was ever unwilded, but it is certainly pretty wild there now. This is not new, but we have to recognise that rewilding is now being discussed more, and there is a lot more thinking about the role that landscape management can play in improving diversity, which we all know is in pretty steep decline. I am very pleased that these amendments, which I regard as probing, have been tabled.
I was struck when, in winding up on Tuesday evening, the Minister talked about balance, and we have heard a lot about that today. Among the things that make a Bill such as this so tricky are the multiple balances we are trying to strike; for example, between public access and safety, and between food production and biodiversity, and so on. Rewilding has a part to play, albeit a modest part, in helping redress some of those balances. It is possible to have a long-term approach to some habitats which will improve biodiversity but will not have a big impact on food production. They can be accessible and enjoyed by the public in a way that does not bring biosecurity risks and so on, which we discussed the other day.
I know that most noble Lords are concerned about the economic outlook in rural communities. There is a contribution to be made by rewilding, even if it is modest and hyper-local. Today’s Independent, for example, carried a story about a rewilding project near Loch Ness. It will involve some 500 hectares of land, with the restoration of peatland, native tree restoration and a focus on biodiversity. The estate will employ local rangers, and a small number of eco-cottages are being built by a local firm. In that small area it can make a big difference. Wildlife tourism is actually quite a big generator of income. In Scotland, interest in ospreys is estimated to bring in about £3.5 million a year in revenue. Rewilding can have huge benefits to individuals, who can better connect with nature, whether it is to relax or to learn about the countryside, which we spoke about in earlier amendments.
I recognise the problem of rewilding as a contested concept, with the fundamentalists on one side and the realists on another. There is a really good balance to be struck, which is about some of the concepts of rewilding and conventional environmentally friendly land management approaches.
Very close to me, the Suffolk Wildlife Trust is doing this very well in the Black Bourn Valley on former arable land. It is letting the former fields rewild to a certain extent, but there will be some grazing, which will help with the complexity of the vegetation structure. Turtle-doves, which we know are in steep decline, have really benefited from the development of these scrubby areas. Even here, within what is thought of as rewilding, there will need to be some intervention to keep the valley’s pond habitats in good health and to keep the variation there, so that the current biodiversity does not decline.
It comes down to this word: balance. For me, the key thing is not so much having everything absolutely nailed down in the Bill—you never get that—but having the assurances that this sort of approach will not be ruled out.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for introducing this topic. It is obviously one that can do with some discussion. I thank the noble Lord for picking his words carefully and reading out the content of Amendment 102, because that illustrates what he is looking for. Following my noble friend Lord Cormack’s argument, I feel it must all be done with great care and attention.
I will add to my declaration: I am a member of NFU Scotland, and I do not know if I dare mention that I fairly regularly have an osprey nest in my property. Most of my experience and evidence of various kinds of rewilding are in Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned, there has been an extreme element to that movement, which he is obviously trying to rein in. I live on the edge of the highlands, and some people once regarded the whole highlands as due for rewilding. Anyone familiar with Scotland will have heard of the Langholm Moor experiment, in which all management was withdrawn. It was most amazing. From a peak of grouse, it became a peak of hen harriers. Then there was nothing for the hen harriers to eat, so they crashed. Luckily it is being left to nature at the moment, and we all wait to see what develops.
Another thing that other Peers mentioned is that we have big areas in Scotland dedicated to various forms of rewilding: millionaires are buying up vast acres to carry out rewilding without any assistance from the Secretary of State. Given the nature of this Bill, I wonder whether they will benefit from the money the Government are likely to make available if they have a large number of animals, birds or whatever they reckon to encourage.
One element we need to be aware of is that some people’s idea of rewilding is to see the removal of anything that cannot be described as totally native. Where I live, it is quite hard to take in that we are told that we must remove all sycamore and beech trees, because somebody has done some research and seems to reckon they were not around immediately after the last ice age, which other Peers have mentioned. I back the proposal put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that it will take more than a light touch of management.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who speaks with great authority and knowledge on these issues. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for introducing this little group of amendments and for the opportunity to discuss native—and, perhaps I might say, non-native—species. I will limit my remarks to Amendment 19. The biggest threats to native species, as I see it, are the uninvited, unwelcome guests of non-native species. For example, I have seen first-hand the damage that Himalayan balsam can cause, particularly along the length of a stream; how difficult it is to eradicate; and the time and expense taken up by land managers in this regard.
When I was on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the other place, we looked at this in a report on Chalara, which causes the ash tree dieback. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister sums up she will confirm that the practice by which, for some bizarre reason, seeds used to be exported from this country to others such as Denmark, Poland and others where the disease existed, and then we reimported those trees as saplings from those countries, has been stamped out and will not be repeated. It brought a high level of infection to this country. We now have a number of endemic diseases in the horse chestnut, which I fear may go the same way as elms did. We heard only this week in the Lords of a new threat, particularly to lavender and other plants, from Xylella fastidiosa.
I again commend the work of Fera—I know that it has changed its name, forgive me—which does great work in this regard, as well as on ash tree dieback. If the Government were to look favourably on this little group of amendments, I invite my noble friend to consider whether farmers and land managers could be reimbursed for the work that they do in trying to protect our native species from these unwelcome and uninvited non-native species.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Lord Marlesford? If the noble Lord does not wish to speak, we will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, this has been a very interesting little debate on this subject, which I am incredibly interested in. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for introducing these amendments. The debate has shown that the problem is to some extent with the term “rewilding”. Although he gave the definition, there are a lot of misconceptions about what it might mean because a lot of people have different meanings that they put on it. As we have heard, they go from the reintroduction of apex predators down to just changing an area. There have been some very successful examples of rewilding. However, we would do better to talk about restoring. A lot of that has been going on, and I have a feeling—the Minister will explain—that this is already part of the Bill. This would be something for public goods.
There have been some very successful reintroductions of formerly native species, not necessarily those that have been mentioned, but some of the butterflies, such as the large blue and the chequered skipper, and cirl buntings, which in the south-west were almost extinct. I was rather shocked when, a year or so ago, I mentioned to someone that I had seen cirl buntings in the Chilterns, and they looked at me as if to say, “I’ve actually met someone who saw cirl buntings in the Chilterns”. I did not think it was that long ago, but that is how we end up as we get older. I would love to see them reintroduced. It would not be a huge problem. Perhaps if farmers or land managers in those areas could be given some financial assistance. There also may be other people who could do it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, mentioned Wicken Fen. A large, unprofitable carrot farm, I believe, up near Lakenheath is now the RSPB Lakenheath Fen Nature Reserve, which was established because the RSPB was concerned about the rising sea levels affecting a lot of the species currently along coastal areas, such as bitterns and bearded tits. That has been highly successful. These are the sorts of things that I would like to see included.
I want to see a helping hand, and it does not have to be on a large scale. Some of us do not entirely mow the lawn but let some of it grow wild to encourage insects and other flower species; that could be called rewilding, but that is not large scale.
I am very impressed by the extensive knowledge of nature, which I should have known there would be, in your Lordships’ House. I have been passionate about nature since I was a boy, and I recommend to anyone interested another good book besides the rewilding one regarding Knepp. It is Rebirding: Rewilding Britain and Its Birds by Benedict Macdonald, which shows that some of the species that we are talking about were here go back further than just a couple of centuries. It is a very worthwhile read. I await the Minister’s remarks, but this has been a fascinating debate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I call the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere. We do not have the noble Lord, Lord Clark, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, the amendments from my noble friend Lord Greaves in this group encourage financial assistance for the reintroduction of native species or animals and plants that have become extinct, and I thank him for the opportunity to debate this. He has set out what rewilding is and what it is not.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, mentioned the rewilding at Knepp. This has led to a large number of rare and beautiful butterflies and insects returning to the land. The Rare Breeds Survival Trust provides the information that, between 1900 and 1973, the United Kingdom lost 26 of its native breeds of livestock. I welcome the return of the red kite, the sea-eagle and the golden eagle in Scotland. The breeding programmes for these birds require a delicate balance. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the beauty of these birds.
Currently, there are about 30,000 herds and flocks of native breeds in the UK. They contribute over £700 million to UK local economies. Native breeds were bred for the British landscape and can thrive on even marginal grassland with a minimum of expensive inputs. It is important to preserve our national identity and heritage and, where possible, to reintroduce native breeds. All this can assist biodiversity, as my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market has said. Balance is everything, and butterflies are much more welcome than beavers.
The Crop Protection Association tells us that the crops that our farmers grow must compete with around 30,000 species of weeds and 10,000 species of insect pests and countless diseases. However, statistics show that nine out of 10 adults in England are concerned about the increasing threats to the natural environment, with nearly two-thirds specifically worried about biodiversity loss. Farmland birds have declined by 54% since 1970. So is now the time to be thinking about rewilding schemes?
A huge amount of investment is needed to get rewilding started, and often huge grants are required to keep the funding going. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has indicated, that could be through fencing. In the last couple of years, there has been an increased interest in rewilding from landowners, including farmers, not only here in the UK but throughout Europe and indeed across the world. However, it is not a short-term fix and it has proven to be economically unviable on a large scale. It is undoubtedly true that rewilding has a place in agriculture and in the make-up of our land as we go forward, but the way in which it will be funded is not straightforward.
The Rare Breeds Survival Trust tells us that the meadows and pastures we value so much came into being because they were grazed by our native livestock. If we want to restore or even create more of them then the Government should be incentivising farmers to keep native livestock, but a softly-softly approach is needed. In addition, native cattle, with their unusual appearance, horns, long coats, colours and so on, add much to the quality of the landscape.
Wholesale rewilding without thought to neighbouring landowners and farmers is not likely to find favour. It is undoubtedly true that the countryside is a much more interesting and attractive place when it has been rewilded, but will that be sufficient for the practice to become more widespread than is currently the case? I look forward to the Minister’s comments, as I am in two minds about this group of amendments.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport [V]
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. We have had a very interesting debate on this amendment. While the core focus of the Bill is on agriculture and horticulture in terms of food production and environmental improvement, the cultural and heritage aspects of agriculture also deserve our attention. We therefore welcome the tabling of Amendment 19, which would support the reintroduction of native species that have become locally or nationally extinct. I note the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that that does not include bears and wolves but, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, we already have wild boars in nearby Gloucestershire. I am delighted to inform noble Lords that Wales is one of Europe’s best wildlife watching secrets and can rival anywhere in the world. These wonders might be anything: rare sightings of ospreys, a frenzy of red kites, the world’s largest Manx shearwater colonies or one of the best places in Britain to see puffins and porpoises.
On Amendments 52 and 102, we are indeed sympathetic to the arguments for providing some form of financial assistance to large-scale rewilding schemes where such schemes would bring tangible benefits in terms of biodiversity. Could the Minister confirm what schemes, if any, are already available? What kind of budgets do such schemes attract? Is it his opinion that such schemes fall within the scope of the Bill, or do powers to initiate or fund exist elsewhere?
The Deputy Chairman of Committee
Is the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, still on the call? No. In that case, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for Amendments 19, 52 and 102 on the subject of rewilding and native species. I am very grateful for his elegant elucidation of what he means by rewilding and what it does and does not include.
I can confirm that the Government are committed to providing opportunities for reintroductions where the environmental and socioeconomic benefits are clear. Perhaps at this stage I should draw noble Lords’ attention to Clause 1(1)(4). In the words of my noble friend the Minister, there is a balance to be struck. Clause 1(1)(4) says:
“In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and its production by them in an environmentally sustainable way.”
We understand how the reintroduction of species can play an integral role in increasing biodiversity and restoring natural processes, as well as in other environmental outcomes such as climate change mitigation and adaption. The Government have already supported the reintroduction of native species in this country, such as the pine marten, the red kite and—as I am sure my noble friend Lord Randall and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, will be pleased to hear—the large blue butterfly. A number of noble Lords also mentioned other initiatives. We are keen to explore, through ELMS for example, where the reintroduction of species could be effective in delivering diversity and carbon benefits. My noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned the excellent work of Kew, with the provision of its seed bank.
However, my noble friends the Duke of Montrose and Lord Taylor of Holbeach and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, all injected a note of caution into the debate. These initiatives can often need more management than is anticipated. Beavers, mink and wild boar have all created some severe consequences for landscapes. Natural England is analysing the results of the Devon trial on the reintroduction of beavers. There are a number of other experiences of beavers across the UK and in other countries. Alongside the trials, there is a beaver management strategy framework that will help to inform decisions on the future of the Devon animals and the status of the beaver in England, including the Government’s approach for future reintroductions, management and licensing.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering raised issues to do with importing diseased trees. She will be reassured that the importation of invasive species is now prohibited. The Government already pay for the control and management of invasive species through an agri-enhancement scheme. We are considering how to manage invasive species as part of the whole ELM design. Clause 1 would allow this.
The purposes set out in Clause 1(1) are purposely drafted broadly and could cover the reintroduction of species, should it align with our strategic priorities, as set out in the Government’s multiannual financial assistance plan. We will publish the first report by the end of this year.
Several other rewilding projects are already under way in England. For example, as my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and others mentioned, at Knepp, in West Sussex, agri-environment funding has helped create extensive grassland and scrub habitats, resulting in significant benefits for biodiversity. At this stage, I also endorse wholeheartedly the plug from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for the opportunities for wildlife watching in Wales.
With these reassurances, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for giving us the chance to have this important discussion and the Minister for her answer. In what is ranked as the 189th most nature-depleted country in the world, this is surely something we have to be talking about.
I am really pleased that so many Members of your Lordships’ House expressed excitement about the pine martens. I confess that I saw these from a bicycle, so I got quite close up in France. They are truly wonderful beasts, and I very much hope that someday soon—when we see rewilding of the Peak District near Sheffield, from where I am talking—I will be able to see them closer to home. I will also comment briefly on some of the discussion about the lynx—perhaps to throw a cat among the pigeons, or a lynx among the deer—and say that we may well have to look at that in future when restoring an ecological balance.
I pick up particularly what the Minister just described as severe consequences from some of the rewilding experiences. I have asked the Government a Written Question on beaver strategy, and unfortunately we still do not really have a timetable for that; it would be lovely to see one for them to be reintroduced around the country. Those severe consequences are that when you let nature run free, what is going to happen is not always predictable.
The philosophy of the 20th century has been one of tidiness—putting things in straight lines and everything being under human management. That was perhaps one of the great faults that the common agricultural policy encouraged. Can the Minister reassure the House that the current provisions in the Bill—or possibly a provision such as the one the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, proposed—ensure that we can allow the countryside and land under management to do its own thing, operate according to all the natural systems and re-establish those natural systems?
In more practical terms, we talk a lot about funding for tree planting, but sometimes it is simply necessary to ensure that land is protected and you get tree regeneration. That can be far more productive and effective and produces an appropriate range of species—the right tree in the right place. I am really seeking reassurance that the Bill will ensure that letting nature go will attract financial support when necessary.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I can of course reassure the noble Baroness. Indeed, it is the first point of Chapter 1 that
“The Secretary of State may give financial assistance for or in connection with any one or more of the following purposes … managing land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment”.
The whole thrust of the Bill is to do just that.
I also take this opportunity to say to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that my noble friend the Minister is of course happy to meet him at any time.
Lord Greaves
That answers the first thing I was going to ask. All I want to say is that I was bowled over by the encyclopaedic knowledge of British birds of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—the good ones, the bad ones, what they do and where. I could wax lyrical to him about the occasion in the Uig hills in south-west Lewis in bright, shining, sunlit mist, when I was the subject of interest of a wonderful golden eagle that could have known a bit more about social distancing for my state of mind. The great thing about birds is that they cannot be kept in by fences. Having seen the white-tailed eagles on the Isle of Lewis, I for one will be delighted if they penetrate to the north of England. That is nothing to do with the amendment, and what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said was nothing to do with rewilding as I am describing it.
I thank everybody who took part in this little discussion with great expertise and knowledge. It was an extremely useful discussion—I am thrilled by it—and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 26. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 26
The Earl of Shrewsbury
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure there is not a disproportionate focus on either animal health or welfare, and that they are considered as interdependent.
The Earl of Shrewsbury [V]
My Lords, the prevention of disease among livestock is critical to ensure a vibrant future for UK farming. The outbreak of disease can cripple farms, cause chaos for farming communities and, ultimately, cost the British economy. For example, the foot and mouth crisis in 2001 led to over 2,000 cases of the disease, and in each individual case it meant a farm having to cull all its livestock. I know at first hand about that; I was farming right in the centre of it and all my neighbours had their livestock taken out. It was horrible.
Globally, it is estimated that as much as 20% of animal production is lost from disease. Furthermore, preventive measures to tackle the disease in the UK remain too low, particularly in the case of endemic diseases. Just one example is severe foot rot, which is found in 90% of lame sheep, despite a preventive vaccine being available. Sick animals are of course less productive, have reduced welfare, and place a major burden on farmers.
The Bill represents a real opportunity to reduce this burden and build a resilient and sustainable UK farming system. It is welcome that the Bill makes provision for financial assistance to be provided to protect or improve the health or welfare of livestock, which is recognised as a key public good in Clause 1(1)(f). Yet one crucial nuance in the language of that provision must change. It states that financial assistance can be provided for the purposes of
“protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock”.
The health and welfare of livestock is not an either/or matter; they are of equal importance and, from my perspective, this opinion is well understood and shared by many, but especially by livestock farmers and vets. Therefore, the Bill must read that financial assistance can be provided for the purposes of protecting or improving the health “and” welfare of livestock.
The current wording risks effacing the interwoven nature of animal health and animal welfare. Preventing diseases is conducive to good animal welfare. Indeed, the reality it is impossible for animals in poor health to have good welfare. Moreover, it is not only important that we get this right from a legislative standpoint but, given that this line appears in the opening section of the Bill and that it epitomises the objective of the legislation—to provide farm support for the public good—it is critical to establish the right tone in relation to how the UK approaches animal health and welfare issues. As such, that is why I tabled this amendment, which proposes to replace “or” with the little word “and”. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
I thank the noble Earl for his introduction to this section on animal welfare, and I commend to your Lordships’ House Amendments 68, 125, 136 and 225 tabled by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I also express my support for Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, which essentially expresses opposition to factory farming—a form of food waste that may come up in other sections of this debate.
However, my primary interest in this group relates to Amendment 77, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for supporting it. It is something of an orphaned amendment in that it relates to Amendment 47, which is in group 9. However, I can see why it was put here, because it refers to consulting with
“persons and organisations who represent animal welfare interests … relevant non-governmental organisations, and … other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I would like to support Amendment 26 in the name of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. When I read the Bill, I was surprised to see that
“health or welfare of livestock”
is mentioned in Clause 1(1)(f). Welfare and health have always gone together. When I was a land agent and was much more involved in farming, it was always health and welfare, not health or welfare. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury was absolutely right to point out that the terminology is important.
There is a doubtless a very good reason why the legal eagles and the department have used these words, but it is going to change how we look at animal welfare. If it is now “health or welfare”, a cultural change will need to take place throughout British farming. This will not take place easily, because that is not how farmers look at their livestock. They look not at one aspect, but at the whole situation.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury was also right to raise the question of making us more resilient against disease and health problems. We are susceptible to more diseases as a result of climate change. This is an area on which the Minister, with his biosecurity hat on, is particularly knowledgeable; it would be useful to hear his opinion. What further action is being taken to update our defences, particularly once we leave the EU, against further diseases coming in? I think bluetongue came here from Europe, so defence against disease is going to be important to any livestock farmer and to the health and welfare of our animals. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this; it is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 26, in my name and in the names of my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Shrewsbury. They have—[Inaudible]—so I will not repeat what they have already said. [Inaudible]—and thus need more health interventions, and I am thinking particularly of indoor poultry and pigs.
I hope that we can transpose “or” with “and” to ensure the highest welfare for poultry and livestock.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We are having problems connecting to the noble Baroness, I am afraid. We shall move on to the next speaker and come back to the noble Baroness later. I call the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am enthused by Amendments 68 and 77 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Mouslecoomb and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but I think that they explain themselves. They are set out well, they stand for what they stand for and the two noble Baronesses will speak to them. I think you have heard enough from me for the time being, and I will say no more.
Lord Lucas [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful for the draft of the Bill, and particularly for the definition of “livestock” on page 3, which
“includes any creature kept for the production of … drink”.
I had to look that up on Google. I will not repeat most of what Google suggests. The most printable is seagull wine, but I had not realised that we had such industries in the UK.
My amendment would make the definition “in connection with” the farming of land rather than “in the farming of land”. I want to quiz the Government on why they have drawn the boundary in that way. It seems to me to exclude a number of common inhabitants of the farmyards I grew up on, such as dogs, pigeons, cats and, indeed, horses. I do not know how horses, even New Forest ponies, come in under the definition of livestock in the Bill and I cannot find a place for maggots, although maggot farming is still an active business in this country. Other than that, Amendment 68 seems on the prescriptive side, although it reminds me of my cousin, who was shipped out to Australia with a one-way ticket and found himself on Intercourse Island in Western Australia castrating sheep with his teeth.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
Amendment 44, which is in my name, seeks financial assistance to encourage the rearing of livestock outside as opposed to factory farming. Outdoor rearing of animals reduces the use of antibiotics. Too many of those in farming have already undermined the efficacy of antibiotics in British medicine. Equally, animal-to-human transmission of diseases is far more likely to occur when animals are farmed indoors—for example, Covid-19, SARS, swine flu, avian flu et cetera. The grazing of animals outdoors also benefits crop rotation, since they keep soils healthy without the overuse of synthetic fertilisers. Animals reared on good quality pasture also produce less CO2 and methane compared to those reared indoors and fed on animal feed.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, I am speaking to my four amendments in this group and I obviously heartily support Amendment 77, which was tabled by my noble friend Lady Bennett. My amendments are focused on improving animal welfare. They would also ensure that minimum standards are enforced and that no public money is given to the most harmful farming practices. Amendment 66 would prevent financial assistance being given to a number of cruel farming practices such as mutilations, including debeaking, tail docking and tooth pulling without anaesthetic. Castrating sheep with your teeth would also most definitely be included. The amendment would require publicly funded farmers to keep animals in species-appropriate numbers, not exceeding specified stocking densities or certified levels of illness and disease. Public money should not be used to support animal cruelty. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Amendments 125 and 136 would require the Secretary of State to consider animal welfare specifically when planning and reporting financial assistance. These amendments are important in putting animal welfare at the forefront of the Minister’s mind, and in ensuring that the health and happiness of our farm animals does not fall behind other priorities, such as profit.
Finally, while much of the Bill is focused on offering farmers and land managers a financial carrot, my Amendment 225 will bring a big stick for those who refuse to adopt even the most basic standards of environmental protection and animal welfare. I loathe the concept of new criminal offences, although I accept that sometimes they are necessary, and I think this is necessary. While the Government might not choose to adopt such a harsh approach as imposing criminal liability, I want at least to draw attention to the apparent lack of any plan to raise the standards of those who consistently fall behind and refuse to bring themselves up to modern standards of farming and land management. As always, I look forward eagerly to the Minister’s assurances on animal welfare and hope that he or she will specifically address what will be done about those farmers who lag behind.
Baroness Boycott [V]
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and all the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, just addressed. We currently have 65 billion farmed animals on this planet, and 80% of livestock is kept at the moment in various kinds of cage. That is a truly terrible thing for us all to know. They are kept in cruelty, in the main. I always say that if, as a country, we factory farmed Labradors, the whole country would grind to a halt in about two minutes. I used to keep pigs, I played football with them, and they are just as engaging as any dog.
I add my support to Amendment 77, which is about community engagement and involvement, and I want to bring to the Committee’s attention a scheme called Capital Growth, which I started when I worked for the then Mayor of London, who is now Prime Minister. We began it in 2008 with a plan to create 2,012 new community gardens in London. Now, 12 years later, we have 2,500. We have 200 acres of London that were derelict and are now growing gardens with 100,000 volunteers. I have listened today to many speeches, including the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, talking about city farms, which are much more difficult to achieve, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, talking very eloquently about rubbish. He mentioned the fact that if an environment is in decay, people do not keep it. What this scheme proved was that you can turn the most derelict area around, you can bring a community together and you can teach children, which has again been a big subject through the day. You can teach children that, indeed, spaghetti does not grow on trees, which one child said to me, or, as one noble Lord mentioned, that cheese is not a plant.
This was a cheap scheme. We spent very little money on it, it was very viable, and I hope that we can, as we run up to the climate talks in Glasgow, now postponed for a year, take this scheme countrywide. I am thrilled that the Minister for the Environment is interested and I hope, given that it is a very viable scheme and extremely cost-efficient, we can have it in every school. I have watched a school where there were 54 languages and the teacher was explaining mathematics to someone who had no English at all by holding out 12 beans and saying, “Plant these in three rows.” You can do magical things like that and I commend the scheme to the House. I am very pleased to be part of this debate and to support the various amendments, especially those around animal welfare.
Lord Rooker [V]
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to three of the amendments. Amendment 26, which I thoroughly support, reminds me of the situation when we went into government in 1997 and the department was MAFF; we are not talking about Defra. Jack, now my noble friend Lord Cunningham, who was the Minister, decided to split responsibility between me, on animal health in the middle of the BSE crisis, and Elliot Morley, on animal welfare. It was not creative tension, because we worked incredibly well together, but the fact is that these were two sides of the same coin—it is as simple as that. To separate them, it seemed self-evident to me, created a technical lacuna, and that should be corrected by accepting Amendment 26.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is on such fine form. I thank my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for bringing forward this excellent amendment. I will ask my noble friend the Minister one specific question, which follows on directly from what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, just said. I am conscious that many livestock producers, predominantly pig producers, have cut down heavily on the use of antibiotics, at some considerable expense. As I understand it, the alternatives are a great deal more expensive. Will the Minister confirm that Clause 1(1)(f) will enable alternatives to be covered by the provisions of financial assistance under that clause? I entirely endorse the thinking behind what my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury said. It is absolutely right to see animal health and welfare as interdependent.
The Duke of Wellington (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I had intended to withdraw to speed up proceedings, but now that I have been called I will simply say that I support the principle behind Amendment 44. It is in my opinion desirable, where the terrain and climate admit, to winter animals outside. It is good for their health. Therefore, I totally support what is behind that amendment. I need say no more.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. I live in the countryside, albeit I am not involved in farming, and I have always believed that there is interdependence and a symbiotic relationship between health and welfare when it comes to livestock: both go together. I want to probe the Minister to find out why it should be an either/or subject. The majority of noble Lords who have spoken this evening have said quite clearly that it should be conjunctive—health and welfare.
I take on board what the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said about animal welfare. Of course animal welfare is important because we must have good animal husbandry if we seek to have a sound, productive system that provides health and well-being. We therefore need health and welfare in terms of good livestock and that symbiotic relationship, but we also need to ensure there is good-quality food that people can access—food security, not food insecurity. I am happy to support Amendments 26, 125 and 136, as long as noble Lords recognise the importance of health and welfare together. I also welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who, I must say, is looking very well indeed. I wish him well.
Lord Inglewood [V]
My Lords, I am sure contributors are right to distinguish between animal health and animal welfare. The important thing is to combine the two: you can conceive of an animal being entirely healthy but having extremely unsatisfactory welfare conditions. Therefore, regardless of how you draft provisions, it is important that each is recognised as an independent concept. Support for livestock farming should be dependent on the satisfactory standards being reached in respect of each. I should declare that I am a livestock farmer and president of the Livestock Auctioneers’ Association.
The core issue we are discussing with these amendments was articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, earlier when she said that animals should have a good life and a good death. That must be the starting point.
Like many of your Lordships, I am also delighted to see the return of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who combines expertise and robust common sense about these things. Of course, he is right. I personally do not like factory farming, but one has to recognise that, to feed our population, various forms of intensive animal husbandry will take place. I hope we can improve the standards of welfare that the animals experience over time and there must be a level below which the standards should now not be allowed to fall.
Against this background, it seems entirely appropriate that welfare and health should be a component of any support that might be provided for animal farmers. First, it must be right that the conditions in which animals live have to be above a certain minimum. Secondly, it is worth remembering that you have to move animals about. The conditions in which they are moved must also be appropriate. Finally, of course, we must turn our attention to the food on the shelves of our supermarkets and shops. No doubt we shall go back to this at a later stage in the proceedings and the Bill, but I have serious problems with the standards experienced by animals that are dead on the shelves, which would in no way be permitted if they had been reared in this country. That was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, alluded to.
It is a difficult problem for the reason one of the noble Baronesses gave: we are not creating new criminal law here. Issues of animal welfare depend on the animal, not on the system of agriculture in which it is reared. While I do not believe that animals have rights, I do believe that we have obligations towards them, which we jolly well must honour.
Lord Trees (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to speak on this amendment. I very much welcome the inclusion in the Bill of the recognition that animal health and welfare is important and worthy of support. I want to speak particularly to Amendment 26. I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare.
I have huge sympathy for the amendment, but I have a reservation about the word change that I hope to be able to explain satisfactorily. There is of course no question that health and welfare are frequently interrelated. Disease and ill health almost always have a welfare consequence. However, there may be situations and indeed desirable welfare objectives where health is not immediately involved, and I think the current wording reflects that. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who spoke just before me, articulated that point pretty well.
I interpret the current wording not as an either/or situation but rather that the protection or improvement of both health and welfare are included as eligible for financial assistance. Another way of looking at this is to conceive of a Venn diagram, with health as one circle and welfare as another. While the two overlap hugely, there may be elements of welfare in particular that do not have an immediate health relevance. For example, enabling animals to be able to better express normal behaviour may not have an immediate health issue. Were “or” to be replaced by “and” in this paragraph, thinking of the Venn diagram, one might argue semantically that only where both health and welfare interact would support be given and, ironically, I think that would be more restrictive than as currently conceived and, indeed, than the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and his fellow movers would want.
I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that my interpretation of this paragraph is indeed what the Government intend, in which case I am content with the current wording—with apologies to the noble Earls, Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, who I know are extremely committed to animal welfare, as indeed am I.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to join the House for the discussions on Tuesday. There was an IT hitch and I was virtually silenced. Like so many of your Lordships, I do so hate virtual. However, it has been a pleasure to follow the debate and to listen to so many expert ideas and views. I was particularly struck by the debate that was just recently led by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, that my old hometown of Bridport is flourishing.
This is a terrifyingly long list of amendments to get through, so I shall try to be brief. I remind noble Lords that the devil lies in the details of many of these amendments, of course but also in their sheer weight. When the list of amendments is almost as long as the Bill itself, I fear there is a real danger of ending up with a piece of legislation so cumbersome that it simply gets bogged down in the mud.
In that spirit, I am happy to speak in favour of Amendment 26 in the name of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury and others. Replacing “or” with “and” seems such a small change—I am not sure I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trees, although we have to consider very carefully the points that he has just made—and I thought my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury spoke very clearly and eloquently.
The amendment helps emphasise that health and welfare, if not exactly the same, are certainly two sides of the same coin, which leads to better outcomes for not only livestock but consumers. Without repeating any Second Reading discussions, consumers are the key to so many of the issues raised by so many of the amendments. Consumers want better food and wider choice at affordable prices. They have no interest in a race to the bottom. That is why I suspect most of us would be delighted to see more livestock raised outdoors, as the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Dundee suggests. I appreciated the wise and learned comments of the noble—and newly restored—Lord, Lord Rooker.
However, I feel much less sanguine, I am afraid, about some of the other amendments, such as Amendment 68, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others. The experience of the cousin of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Australia notwithstanding, these amendments would add all sorts of unnecessary chains and handcuffs to the legislation and perhaps make it worse. Amendment 68 and other amendments like it—Amendment 77, for instance—would change the tone of the Bill and add to its complexity and would help make British farmers less competitive.
There has to be some consistency in all this. If we worry about imports of substandard chickens, for instance, it is counterproductive to make chicken less competitive, placing even more reliance on imported chicken by raising barriers for British chicken farmers. If all we are doing is to permit or enable imports of more chickens from the other side of the world, we are simply shifting the problem elsewhere. We must try to find a balance if we are to provide effective legislation.
So much in Amendments 77 and 125 is very worthy and I have no objection to the principles and values, but we have to concentrate on one prime objective, which is delivering a piece of legislation which is practicable and workable and enables British farming to flourish. In my view, the last three amendments I have mentioned are likely to undermine that objective of balance and practicability so, despite their fine objectives, I hope that they will not be pursued.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, to complete what she was unable to finish earlier.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger [V]
I hope that the technology is working better now. I am not sure how much your Lordships heard before, but I am speaking to Amendment 26 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Shrewsbury.
Many points have been put forward powerfully already and I do not wish to repeat them. However, I do think that health and welfare are intrinsically linked. Sometimes health needs to be protected because there are farming systems that are less welfare-friendly and may cause health issues and thus need more health interventions. I am thinking particularly of indoor intensively farmed poultry and pigs.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, had to say. I have enormous respect for him and I know that he has vastly more experience than I do. But bad welfare, although it does not always cause immediate health issues, causes animals stress. To be anthropomorphic, in people that would be called mental health issues. That can lead to health issues in the long term. I just make that point.
I hope that we can replace “or” with “and” to ensure the highest welfare for poultry and livestock.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, the first of these amendments is Amendment 26, to which the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Shrewsbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, have spoken. They have put their names forward and spoken very eloquently. It seems to me that protecting or improving the health and welfare of livestock should not be an optional extra; we should be protecting and improving both health and welfare. I hope I am not jumping the gun when I say that I expect the Minister to say that there are occasions when it is not possible to do both. I fear I will need an extremely good example to be persuaded. It seems nonsense that the two should not go hand in glove together; one surely cannot be mutually exclusive of the other. I have listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, but I remain unconvinced—though I am not an expert.
I fully endorse the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in his Amendment 44 and his wish to encourage livestock to be reared out of doors; it is undoubtedly more healthy. However, the weather in England can be very inclement in the winter, and I would not wish to see cattle standing knee-deep in liquid mud in a field which in summer months would be lush, green grass. I think there is a balance to be struck to accommodate winter storms. While I support this amendment, I wonder if there is an element of what we, as a population, would like to see. It is very pleasing and restful on the eye to see animals grazing in the open fields and not being reared in large barns. We need to be sure that this is truly about animal welfare and not just aesthetics.
Animal welfare has to be improved and the practices listed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, are not necessary and should be stopped. Like her, I believe that the way in which we rear and treat animals shows what kind of a nation we are. I support the list of restrictions under Amendments 68 and Amendments125 and 225.
While the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was interesting, it could fall into the category of too much information.
Lastly, I turn to Amendment 77, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Boycott; I support this amendment. There has been much written and said about the effect of greenhouse gas emissions by cattle, and the country’s reliance on beef as part of its staple diet. There is no doubt that if we all ate less meat and more fruit and vegetables, we would be healthier. It is not that eating red meat is unhealthy; it is more about the quantities we eat.
I support financial assistance being given to farmers who are attempting to transition from livestock to plant-based production, as there is obviously a rise in the number of people turning to vegetarianism or veganism. However, it would be extremely dishonest of me to say that I would follow this route. Like others, I try to follow a balanced diet and eat different proteins each day of the week, but I readily admit that, for me, there is nothing quite like the taste of a roast joint or grilled chops, and I am a great fan of shepherd’s pie. Though I do have a vegan cookbook, it seems to me that an awful lot of vegan ingredients are needed in order to replicate the taste of meat and cheese. I have the greatest respect for the work done by the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Bennett, both in and outside the House, and I wish them success with their amendment. But I fear that they will think I have let the side down by being a true supporter of British farm-reared meat.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this group, who have all in their different ways raised important questions about how we can enhance animal welfare standards in the UK. The UK has a good record of animal welfare policies, but there is always more that we can do to improve the policies still further. It is equally important that, when we leave the EU, our existing protections are not undermined or traded away.
It is vital that we do not allow our high standards to be undermined by the imports of products with lower environmental and animal welfare standards. This is an issue that I know a great many noble Lords care deeply about, and it is also a concern shared by the British public. This of course is why the Conservatives made a manifesto commitment not to compromise these standards, and why we have tabled Amendment 271, which would enshrine our high standards in law. I hope that when we reach that debate, at a later stage, noble Lords will support our position.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting and important debate on animal welfare. I shall say at the outset that I think we all want the same thing: we want the UK to be known for maintaining the highest possible standards in animal welfare. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for moving Amendment 26 and thus giving us the opportunity to have this debate.
The United Kingdom is already a world leader in animal welfare, and the Government are committed to retaining that status by maintaining and indeed strengthening our standards. My noble friend Lady Hodgson and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, were correct about the symbiotic relationship between animal health and welfare, a point also made by my noble friend Lord Dobbs. I assure my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury that the current wording in the Bill is inclusive and provides for funding measures that support both animal health and welfare. The clause allows us to give assistance to make improvements in animal health without there also having to be a welfare benefit, or to welfare without there being a health benefit. An example of animal health without welfare improvement is enrichment through the provision of mechanical brushes for cows, while another might be the proximity of smaller slaughterhouses to reduce the number of miles that cattle have to travel, even if that does not necessarily enhance their health. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, is correct to point out that we intend to provide financial assistance in both areas. His illustration of a Venn diagram of how, when health and welfare interact, they are a smaller part of the whole was quite powerful.
The Government’s animal health and welfare pathway recognises the interconnection between animal health and welfare. It is about working in partnership with farmers, vets and their representatives to develop pragmatic actions that improve the health of livestock. Given that freedom from disease is one of the five key animal welfare freedoms, I can reassure my noble friend that in practice we will support both animal health and animal welfare. My noble friend Lord Caithness was correct to mention the need to build up greater animal resilience to disease, and I underline the credentials of my noble friend the Minister in this area.
I turn to Amendment 44 tabled by my noble friend Lord Dundee and Amendment 68 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. All animals, whichever system they are kept in, are protected by comprehensive and robust animal health, welfare and environmental legislation. This is further supported by species-specific welfare codes. Stockmanship and the correct application of standards of husbandry, whatever the system of production, are key to ensuring the good welfare of all farmed animals. This reflects the advice of our expert advisory body, the Animal Welfare Committee.
In the Government’s Farming for the Future: Policy and Progress Update, which was published in February, a comprehensive set of measures is set out to further improve animal welfare in England. The Government’s approach is based on working on three interrelated areas. The first area ensures that the baseline regulatory requirements will maintain our current high standards and continue their rise in future. Improvements should be sustainable for the sector and should be informed by the latest science and best practice. The second area of work aims to improve transparency for consumers so that they can make informed purchasing decisions that reflect their animal welfare preferences. Finally, using the powers in Clause 1, the Government are developing publicly funded schemes to provide animal welfare enhancements beyond the regulatory baseline that are valued by the public but are not sufficiently supported by the market. We are working closely with the Animal Welfare Committee to ensure that any future scheme is based on the best scientific evidence available. Here I am mindful of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. While outdoor rearing might be best for animals, land really is a scarce resource.
I turn to Amendment 95 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. In other legislation such as the Agriculture Act 1947, “livestock” covers domesticated animals and birds that are raised to produce commodities such as meat, milk, eggs, leather, fur or wool. This Bill follows the existing definition of livestock, which is widely understood and relied on by those in and beyond farming.
Considering the case of farm dogs, it is difficult to draw the line between working dogs and dogs which are primarily companion animals. I reassure my noble friend that whatever the purpose of a dog’s presence on a farm, its health and welfare are still covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal and contains a duty of care to animals. That is part of the wider approach the Government have taken to the welfare of animals: for example, the ban on puppy farming, which was brought in through Lucy’s law. I do not have a line on maggot farming.
The Bill is the result of extensive consultation, including responses to the Health and Harmony Command Paper and discussions with the farming industry, vets and others. We have focused on farmed animals as the best way to drive up welfare standards, which is why the current definition is about production animals and does not include working animals such as farm dogs.
On Amendments 125 and 136 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the Farming for the Future policy update last February set out the Government’s work to develop financial assistance schemes to farmers to provide animal welfare enhancements. That work will inform the multiannual plan on these schemes, which are expected to come into operation during the seven years covered by the plan. The Government intend to set out further information on the early years of the transition in the autumn. The annual financial reports required to be published by the Secretary of State under Clause 5 will include the amount of financial assistance given through animal welfare schemes. Under Clause 6, the Government will publish reports that assess the benefits realised as a result of their animal welfare schemes.
On Amendment 225, again from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I understand her concerns, but domestic legislation already protects animal welfare and environmental standards. For example, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides offences and penalties for those failing to meet animal welfare standards as required by law. Section 4 provides for offences connected to causing unnecessary suffering of an animal, and Section 9 provides for offences if steps are not taken to provide for an animal’s needs. Likewise, the reduction and prevention of agricultural diffuse pollution regulations makes it an offence to fail to meet environmental standards in relation to water. Section 11 makes it an offence to fail to comply with the regulations, and provides that the offence is punishable by a fine. These current rules, which I use as examples, ensure that those responsible for causing the harm, whether that be animal welfare or environmental, are those punished, and we have banned many cruel practices, such as battery chicken farms. It was interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, speaking from his personal experience of looking round a broiler chicken factory farm, about how the farmer identifies his sick birds. I should also say that there has recently been a 53% fall in the use of antibiotics by farmers, which can only be welcomed.
On Amendment 77 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, animal welfare is hugely important to the British public and indeed to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. In addition to the points already raised, I draw her attention to the aspects of the Bill which allow the Government to support plant-based production. Clause 1(2) allows the Secretary of State to give financial assistance in England for the purposes of starting or improving the productivity of a horticultural activity or for certain ancillary activities such as selling, marketing and preparing products derived from horticultural activity.
I have answers to the two other questions that did not fit into my speaking notes. My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked whether there would be funding for alternatives to antibiotics. Having already mentioned the welcome 53% reduction in the use of antibiotics, I say that Clause 1(1)(f)—I think it is paragraph (f)— covers alternatives to antibiotics. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, mentioned the worthwhile initiative of city farms, and Clause 1(2) could include those initiatives for support.
I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance and that my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Shrewsbury [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who participated in this interesting discussion, especially my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lady Hodgson, who I am delighted felt it fit to support me. I am also most grateful to the Minister and her officials.
All the way through this discussion, which I found very interesting, I kept having déjà vu. Many years ago, when I was much lighter, braver and fitter, and did not have grey hair and a large stomach, I rode in a steeplechase in a wonderful place called Newton Bromswold. All the way around that three-mile course, I knew I was going to win, until I came to the winning post, and was beaten by a short head, having misjudged the thing. My noble friend Lord Denham was the Chief Whip in this House then and I had only just come here. He was in the crowd watching the race, and when I got off the horse, he said to me, “You just rode very well indeed, young Shrewsbury, but you really do need a new set of spectacles.” I will go away, consult, think about this again and read Hansard, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 29. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the Clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 29
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies what ‘soil’ includes.
Lord Lucas [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 29, I shall also speak to Amendment 217. Amendment 29 is relatively simple; I am looking for reassurance from the Minister that when we are setting out to enable ourselves to protect and improve the quality of the soil, we are including the animals, plants and fungi that live within it and, together, make it useful as a substrate for growing plants and as a foundation for the ecology of the land.
Soil is often considered to be just a collection of minerals. In school, you look at how much sand and mud there is in a sample. The things that live in it are generally too small to notice, except for the odd worm. I want to be clear that we are talking here about the health of the soil as an organism—a living thing, not just a collection of bits of rock.
Amendment 217 follows on from that in a much more substantial way and asks that we set up a national soil monitoring programme. It is agreed that our soil is not in as good health as we would like. Over recent decades, it has probably been deteriorating. If we are to change that, and look after it, and get ourselves back into the sort of situation we would like to be in, we need data and information. We need to know where we are now and watch, as the decades roll by, what progress we are making towards where we ought to be. To do that, you need a soil survey. It is not vastly difficult or expensive. You just lay out a grid of locations across the UK and take soil samples, measure them, preserve them and go back again a few years later. It is something that most developed countries do automatically; it is something that we used to do but gave up doing. But with all the ambitions in this Bill, and the fundamental importance of soil to most of those ambitions, it is something that we should do again. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. I will speak to Amendments 40, 42, 84 and 97. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for their support for all or some of these amendments.
The amendments are about agroecology and agroforestry, two areas of agriculture that have become more and more prominent in understanding and importance, and that in many ways reflect some of the best agricultural practices over many years. I welcome the Government mentioning agroecology in the Bill, at the top of page three, but recognise that it is done in a way that defines “understanding the environment” and is in the Bill in relation to access to and enjoyment of the countryside, rather than necessarily as a technique for farm management. However, it is becoming more and more mainstream, and it would be very useful if the Bill were to recognise it specifically as an area of support under the financial regime we are talking about here.
Agroecology is primarily about whole-farm management in an environmental sense, particularly the conserving of natural resources, and not least soil fertility, which is much more prominent in our discussions these days. I welcomed Michael Gove, when he was Secretary of State at Defra, ensuring that this was prominent in the 25-year environmental plan, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the importance of tracking the health of our soil. Agroecology is also about biodiversity. We have all sorts of challenges in biodiversity, not only worldwide but equally in this country, where it is very depleted. Crop diversity within agroecology is one way that we can boost biodiversity, particularly at a farm level.
Agroecology is also about balancing inputs and having lower inputs than we need at the moment. A low carbon footprint provides low pollution, thereby, we hope, helping human health. Low input does not necessarily mean low output; it means that we work in a much more intelligent way. I was very interested in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, about how we could improve our output without increasing input.
Agroforestry is equally important. It is about not only forestry but combining agriculture and trees. Obviously, agroforestry has big pluses in terms of climate change, providing shade for livestock and some other crops. We sometimes forget that trees provide crops—not only the apple orchards that I have here in Cornwall, but also other fruits and nuts. It is also about soil improvement and, not least, natural water management, which is a key part of our adaptation plan in the climate change actions that we hope to undertake as a country as we move towards net zero in 2050.
Agroecology and agroforestry resonate very strongly with the nature recovery networks that we will consider when the Environment Bill finally comes to this House. Agroecology and agroforestry are not about replacing every other system in terms of these amendments and this Bill. We are looking for recognition that this is an important part of improving the environment and our countryside’s biodiversity, while having a type of farming that remains commercial. The financial changes would be a very important way of farmers moving from one form of agriculture to a better and less input-led form. The ELMS and financial changes taking place as a result of this Bill can really help the countryside, help farming and help biodiversity.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, this group of amendments deals specifically with the management and custodianship of the environment. I have added my name to some of them.
I believe in the principle of public money for public goods to achieve good soil health and biodiversity. To get to that stage we need to employ nature-friendly farming methods, agroecology and agroforestry. In that respect, I support Amendments 39 and 96 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which clearly seek to put nature-friendly farming in the Bill and ensure that financial assistance is targeted at and supports nature-friendly farmers and land users who carry out nature-friendly farming practices on their land.
A considerable number of farmers throughout the UK now employ nature-friendly farming; there are many of that type in Northern Ireland. They have restored biodiversity and some of them use organic methods, but above all they have produced good, healthy food that contributes to our health and well-being. That is something we should support.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has just said, because there should be direct references in the Bill to “whole farm agroecological systems”. That is in Amendments 42 and 97. Amendments 40 and 84, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and Amendment 41 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, seek to add agroforestry to the Bill. This is an important practice for the diversification of farming, meeting our national tree-planting targets and bringing overall benefit to our natural environment.
These methods help address climate change and produce food, so I think we need to move to this type of farming, which complements livestock and other types of farming. The most important thing about nature-friendly farming, agroecology and agroforestry is that they are good not only for land and biodiversity but for landscape development and renewal of our soil. I was very much taken by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that there is probably a need to regenerate the soil because it has been leeched of various nutrients over many years due to intensive agricultural production methods.
I support Amendment 120, which
“allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to develop a target for the uptake of integrated pest management and to monitor progress towards this target.”
Those are the amendments I support. It is all about producing better environmental standards for our landscape and the local environment and thereby producing food that will lead to better food security, health and well-being for our nation.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, I do not think I signed any amendments in this group, so I will say simply that I support all my noble friend’s amendments, which are obviously superb.
The Duke of Wellington [V]
My Lords, I declare my agricultural interests as detailed in the register. Many amendments have been tabled to Clause 1 about the activities to which the Secretary of State can give financial assistance. I will speak to my Amendment 48, which seeks to increase certain payments that the Secretary of State is already, or will be, empowered to make. Farmers are currently paid for converting from traditional agriculture to an organic system. This is to compensate for the loss of production during the conversion period, which takes about three years. At the end of the conversion period, the farmer will then be certified and able to receive the premium price for the organic product.
However, the current level of conversion payments is clearly insufficient. According to the Government’s own figures, published on 28 May this year, the area of land in the United Kingdom farmed organically has fallen by 34% in the last 12 years. According to figures published recently by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, for the last 10 years the area of land farmed organically has increased by 200% in France, by 60% in Germany, by 76% in Italy and by 69% in Spain. In the UK in the same 10 years, it has fallen by 36%.
In this country, only 27% of land is farmed organically. This is in marked contrast to the average in the member states of the European Union of about 7%, and in Germany and Spain of over 9%. If one believes, as I do, that it is in the public interest for farmers to use fewer pesticides, fewer herbicides and fewer agrochemicals, it must surely be a public good to increase the area of land farmed organically.
The Minister may say that increased payments may be part of the new environmental land management schemes, but these do not begin until 2024. While the basic payments to farmers are being progressively reduced over the next few years, would it not be a public good to pay public money to farmers to convert to organic farming? Sales of organic food in the United Kingdom now represent only about 1.5% of all food sales. This compares with about 5% in France and Germany and just under 10% in Switzerland, so it may also be a public good to pay public money to encourage the increase of sales of organic food for the general health of the nation.
I therefore ask the Minister if he will accept this amendment to increase in the Bill from 2021 the conversion payments for organic farming, as I believe he already has the power to do. I wish the Government would commit themselves, among their other greening objectives, to vastly increasing the percentage of land farmed organically.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
My Lords, it is my great pleasure to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and to endorse entirely everything that he has just said. I was very pleased to sign his amendment. It very much complements one of the amendments in this group that I will come to later.
Across this group we have references to soil, agroecology and reductions in the use of pesticides and herbicides. We are talking about farming systems that work with nature— systems that do not use metaphorical coshes but instead see how we can use the existing systems, cultivate them and restore them. Of course, the foundation of that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, outlined in his introductory remarks, is very much the soil. I guess I have to focus on this as the Member of your Lordships’ House who first used the term “tardigrades” in Hansard.
In the soil we have a range of animals—mites, springtails, nematodes and, of course, the earthworms that Charles Darwin was aware were so important. It is crucial that the Bill explicitly recognises the need to focus on the organisms in the soil, as well as the billion bacteria that you find in every teaspoon of healthy soil, and the fungi, which I will talk about in discussing another group. I therefore commend Amendment 29 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
I have put my name to Amendment 224 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about publishing a soil health index report within 12 months. It is really important that we have timetables built into the Bill, and into all the Bills that come before your Lordships’ House. We are very aware of many delays, whether it is the food strategy or the peatland strategy. The state of our soils and the state of nature cannot wait. We need to ensure that there are timetables for the Government to act upon and meet.
I also commend Amendment 217, about the long-term monitoring of soil, which fits into that same kind of approach. Furthermore, in this agroecological, joined-up approach, I commend Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and Amendment 39 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on nature-friendly farming.
I was very pleased to put my name to Amendments 40 and 97 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. As the noble Lord said, we have heard many words on agroecology; I recall Michael Gove, I think three Oxford Real Farming Conferences ago, saying that the Government were absolutely committed to agroecology. However, we do not really see this in the Bill in a coherent, central manner. Words and statements of intention from Ministers are fine, but we really want to see agroecology front and centre of the Bill.
I was also pleased to put my name to Amendment 42 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on whole-farm agroecological systems, because this gets at the idea that we are not talking about a field or a single area and that we need to think about whole-farm systems. I think the Minister addressed this earlier: when he talked about education, he spoke about how woodland might well be part of a whole-farm approach or system. But this needs to be built into the actual farming elements of the Bill, to acknowledge that we need to see this agroecological approach taking in soil, water and all sorts of different plants, and to see arable, pasture and woodland as a complete system—what you might call an approach involving systems thinking or permaculture.
I turn now to a couple of amendments that appear in my own name, starting with Amendment 49, which very much builds on the earlier comments of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. This would put explicit aims in the Bill: reducing herbicide and pesticide use; ending the use of chemical fertilisers; and—moving to a concept that may not yet be familiar to many of your Lordships, but I am sure it soon will be—using the idea of nutrition per acre as a measure of the kind of farming that we want, and need, to see. We have seen already in the Bill an evolution towards an acknowledgement that farming is about food, which is a pretty obvious statement, but we need to produce good, healthy food as a public good and to contribute to public health. That is what this amendment addresses.
As the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said, the EU has set figures and aims for the improvement of organic farming. Our record is, sadly, a very slow one, and indeed a story of going backwards. The EU has said that it wants to see 25% of its farmland become organic by 2030. We often hear from the Government in many contexts that they want to be world-leading. If they want the Agriculture Bill to be world-leading, they need to set a target for organics on the face of the Bill higher than that which the EU has set.
That is also the case in terms of fertiliser use: the EU has set a target of at least a 20% reduction in artificial fertiliser use by 2030. World-leading has to be better than that. That, of course, is an issue that feeds into so many other aspects we have been discussing in the Bill. My noble friend has sought to introduce references to air pollution; we are also concerned about water pollution from the use of nitrogen fertilisers, in particular. On pesticides, the EU has set a target of a 50% reduction by 2030. I refer the Government again to the issue of being world-leading.
We are often told that this is a framework Bill and all the detail is going to come later in regulations, but if we look at the Climate Change Act, that set out a very clear direction of travel that has since been enhanced. Anyone who read the Bill knew what the Government were trying to achieve. Sadly, a framework Act that has powers but not duties fails in that fundamental principle.
Finally on this amendment, I want to particularly mention nutrition per acre. A lot of this work comes from the Sustainable Food Trust, which is involved in one of Defra’s ELM trials, and is also based on the work of the Indian campaigner and environmentalist Vandana Shiva, who points out that biodiverse agroecological systems have much better outputs of micronutrients and phytonutrients. If we come at this from the other side, the British Nutrition Foundation had a very interesting round table in May 2019, which particularly focused on the fact that, of course, we know that we have a problem with obesity, with an excessive intake of calories, yet, like most of the global north, about three-quarters of people in Britain do not actually get sufficient nutrition in terms of vitamins, minerals, essential amino acids and fatty acids. If we are going to see a reduction in calorie consumption, we really have to be boosting the level of nutrition—the health of food. This is a relatively new area, but we are seeing and understanding that a carrot is not just a carrot—there can be massive difference between the nutritional content of a carrot grown under an agroecological system and a carrot grown in a heavily chemically fertilised, very worn-out soil.
I am aware that I have been speaking for some time, but I will refer briefly to Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on agroforestry. As he was saying, this has to be central to models of the future. If noble Lords have not been to the wonderful Wakelyns, the organic agroforestry research and development site in Suffolk, I urge them to visit and see what can be achieved. It is an inspiring case study and helps demonstrate the principle that agroforestry, broadly speaking, is one-third more productive than simple arable production.
Finally, I come to the amendment in this group that appears in my name. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Randall of Uxbridge and Lord Greaves, for signing it. Amendment 117 refers to meadows and semi-natural grasslands. I pay tribute to the campaigning group Plantlife, which did most of the work on this amendment. Noble Lords might recollect that last Saturday was National Meadows Day, which gave us a chance to reflect on the fact that we have lost 97% of our meadows since the 1930s. These beautiful, hugely valuable, biodiverse environments actually produce very healthy food for animals. We have been talking about the value of diversity in human diets; the same applies to animals. They are also crucial, of course, to our pollinators, which are central to so much of our food production. Having lost 97% of them, this amendment puts into the Bill the principle that we simply cannot afford to lose any more. This, as with many of our upland landscapes, is a hugely valuable, internationally precious resource that we have to protect. I ask noble Lords to consider ensuring that we include it in the Bill.
Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 40, to which I have put my name. It talks about financial assistance for establishing and maintaining agroforestry systems. I also support Amendment 84, which lays out what agroforestry actually means. I feel slightly guilty about this, because having pointed out on our first day in Committee the problems of this being a Christmas tree Bill that everybody wanted to hang a bauble on, here I am with a cherished bauble, because agroforestry systems have major benefits.
I should declare an interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust. Combining trees and farming is a very long-established system. Trees are a crop in themselves, but in combination with agriculture they also help nature, combat climate change and protect water, as well as being good for soil protection and animal welfare. For example, sheep with access to shelter belts of trees produce bigger lambs and suffer less ewe and lamb mortality. I offer my support to this amendment to probe and explore with the Minister how the Government will ensure that agroforestry might receive public funds under the terms of the Bill, since it undoubtedly delivers public goods.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, to which I added my name—it is unfortunate that he is speaking after me. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has already said that trees offer a safe, nature-friendly and relatively cheap way to soak up the carbon that we urgently need to sequester if we are to meet our legal climate obligations. Trees have an extraordinary range of other benefits that he also set out. I certainly do not want to repeat what he had to say and what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, might also say. In view of the extraordinary qualities of trees and the range of their benefits, I hope Ministers will take this very seriously and accept the principle of what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and, somewhat differently, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, are putting forward.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
My Lords, I support and will first comment on Amendment 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and others. The new and welcome direction pointed by the Bill is furthering the joint aims of healthy food production and good environmental land management. Whole-farm agroecological systems are central to this. They should therefore be clearly described. That is what Amendment 97 would do.
Following this, and for the same reason of its central consistency with the Bill, I am in favour of Amendment 42, which would ensure that financial assistance is given for whole-farm agroecological systems. I also support Amendment 48, which would properly recompense farmers more than the Bill currently does for converting to organic and ecologically sustainable systems. I am in favour of Amendment 84, on encouraging agroforestry, and Amendment 96, which seeks better to reward nature-friendly farms. I agree with Amendment 120 about monitored targets for integrated pest management, and equally with Amendment 217, which advocates improved productivity programmes related to soil analysis.
Amendment 41 in my name relates directly to Amendment 40 on agroforestry, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. It encourages a connection between afforestation and agroforestry. Its purpose is for agroforestry development to contribute towards afforestation targets. Although most of the target of 30 million trees which the Government have committed to plant will apply to upland areas, through agroforestry an increasing proportion could be planted on lower ground, which is otherwise, and for good reason, often the sole preserve of agricultural production. Conversely, agroforestry itself, where deployed on low ground, can assist afforestation targets, since it maintains fields of agricultural crops, with trees planted at certain wide intervals between them.
Through agroforestry, as carried out on United Kingdom farmland, it is estimated that 920 million trees could be planted in fields, yet this would cause agricultural output to reduce by only 7%.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge [V]
My Lords, I shall not detain the Committee long. I have added my name to several of these amendments. I want to underline the importance of getting some of these things right—whether it is nature-friendly farming, the reduction of pesticides, the increase in organic or the agrochemicals reduction. I support particularly Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on meadows and grasslands. I am a member of Plantlife, as I am of Buglife.
These amendments are crucial. But the time is late. Very eloquent people are making their points and I think it is time for me to be quiet.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, today’s important debates have been greatly enhanced by the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
My Amendment 259 is in this important group. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Patel and Lord Wigley for their support. Chemical weapons were developed in the Second World War and then remanufactured as pesticides, now used in agriculture for around 75 years. In 2013 the Government accepted all recommendations from two important reports. The first was the Bystanders Risk Assessment Working Group of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. The second report was from the sub-group of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides: the Pesticides Adverse Health Effects Surveillance working group. Both were scathing about the use of pesticides and laid out the dangers. Yet, although accepted, their recommendations remain largely unimplemented.
It is a worrying indictment that 70% of our land is used for farming and almost all of it, except for the 3% for organic farming, is subjected to spraying that is not dose-controlled in any way. In 2014, 17.75 million kilograms of pesticide were sprayed on the land. Carried in the wind, harmful residues have been found several miles downwind. The dangers to health are now recognised. A 2017 report by the UN special rapporteur on the right to food found that chronic exposure to agricultural pesticides was associated with several diseases and conditions, including cancers, and that those living near crop fields were particularly vulnerable to exposure.
The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems report describes the unacceptable harm caused by the current chemical farming systems and the energy consumption in the manufacture of these chemicals. It exposes just some of the astronomical health costs externalised by the current system, and states an urgent and overwhelming case for action.
The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health report on global deaths and chronic diseases from outdoor air pollution, including from the use of pesticides, has the lead author saying that his biggest concern is the impact of the hundreds of industrial chemicals and pesticides already widely dispersed around the world.
I remind all involved in this Bill that the effects are cumulative, because these chemicals often sit in fat stores and are not cleared. The chemicals disrupt the internal hormonal environment; they are endocrine disruptors and make cells more susceptible to mutations, abnormalities and malignancy.
I turn briefly to one of these, glyphosate, used in the weed killer Roundup, which has a large number of tumour-promoting effects on biological systems, including direct damage to DNA in sensitive cells, disruption of metabolic processes and modification to more toxic molecules. Epidemiological evidence suggests correlations between glyphosate usage on crops and a multitude of cancers that are reaching epidemic proportions, including common cancers and lymphoma. In the US, many lawsuits have been brought against the producer Monsanto, which is now part of Bayer.
The effect on the developing nervous system and on the adult neurones is not clearly known, but we must take the precautionary principle. Rats exposed to high levels of glyphosate, their offspring and the offspring’s offspring—two generations on—developed malignancy, obesity and birth abnormalities. Neurotransmitter changes occur in rats and mice exposed to glyphosate, and mice display mood and movement changes. Increased understanding of epigenetics suggests that harm experienced by the adult may be handed on by epigenetic factors to offspring not even yet conceived.
I spoke in the previous debate on the theme of future generations and I return to that now. We cannot ignore the cumulative evidence. In my amendment, I suggest an annual report to Parliament on the safety of herbicides and pesticides, taking into account evidence from the analysis of foods that should be glyphosate-free but appear to be contaminated by windborne spray. Neurotoxic effects on pollinators and the damaging effects on human health of these chemicals cannot be ignored.
As we leave Europe, we are free to produce more of our own food for our own market and ensure that our food is safe and of high nutritional quality. We must make also sure that imported food meets our new high standards. Going forward, pesticides need to be designed out of farming systems, for the environment, for health and for the market-ready production of excellent food; hence my amendment.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I want to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Much of what I was going to cover she has covered in great detail, so I will try not to repeat too much.
Pesticides may be metabolised, excreted, stored or bioaccumulated in body fat. The numerous negative health effects that have been associated with chemical pesticides have been mentioned in great detail by the noble Baroness. In the majority of cases, the concentrations do not exceed legislatively determined safe levels. However, these safe limits may underestimate the real health risks, as in the case of simultaneous exposure with two or more chemical substances, which occurs in real-life conditions and may have synergistic effects. Pesticide residues have also been detected in human breast milk samples, and there are concerns about prenatal exposure and health effects in children.
The noble Baroness mentioned glyphosate-based herbicides and the DNA damage that it is known to cause, which may lead to cell deaths and other conditions in cellular metabolism causing disease. Furthermore, the real-life chronic exposure in mixtures of pesticides with possible additive or synergistic effects requires in-depth research. The underlying scientific uncertainty, exposure of vulnerable groups and the fact that there are numerous possible mixtures reveal the real, complex character of the problem. The combination of substances with probably carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting effects may produce unknown adverse health effects. Therefore, the determination of safe levels of exposure to single pesticides may underestimate the real health effects, ignoring also the chronic exposure to multiple chemical substances.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, during the last two, three or four months, like everyone else I have had quite a lot of spare time on my hands and have been able to get out into the countryside around where I live, which is on the edge of an urban area where you can walk straight into Pennine pastures, fields with gritstone walls and, beyond there, rising up to the moorland massif of Boulsworth Hill. Two valleys run down from the hills to where we live; they are really contrasted at the moment, as I will briefly explain.
Before I do so, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, is not in his place. He talked about going out of Sheffield on to the Peak District hills and delighting in what I think he called the song of the curlews, which are one of the evocative birds of the Pennine moorlands. The others are the skylarks and the lapwings, which locally are traditionally known as “tewits” after the sound they make.
During the past three or four months, I have been woken up every morning by the sound of curlews, which is wonderful, but when we first lived there 40 or 50 years ago, we were woken up by flocks of lapwings. I have not heard a lapwing from our house for a long time. Lapwings have declined most in that kind of area up on the moors, particularly in what the amendment refers to as “semi-natural grasslands”.
For us, the grasslands are pastures and fields; they have got tall, quite coarse, natural native grasses, and some better ones. We have some of what the amendment calls “dicotyledonous herbs”, although that really refers to lowland meadows rather than the sort of meadows we have, and lots of clumps of rushes, which are important for giving cover, along with the tall grasses, to ground-nesting birds such as curlews and lapwings—the tewits.
Over the years, the fields have been improved. Those nearest to us used to be buttercup meadows. They have long gone, and now a lot of the coarser semi-natural meadows have gone as well. The farmers scrape off all the vegetation which has been growing there and seed it with one or two species of much richer and, from their point of view, more productive grass, mainly for the sheep but also for mowing, haylage and so on.
The landscape has been transformed. The fields in spring, instead of being a greyish green—natural, as they were, or semi-natural—are now sparkling bright green, and no doubt some people find them attractive. The two valleys, however, are contrasted. One is the Wycoller valley, which largely belongs to Lancashire County Council—Wycoller Hall is thought to be Ferndean Manor from Jane Eyre—and the other is the Trawden valley, which has the old mill village of Trawden it and lots of farms around. The Trawden valley is bright green and the Wycoller valley is still very much as it was. How do you know where you are? If you close your eyes, in the Wycoller valley you can hear the tewits and in the Trawden valley there are none. It is as simple as that.
So it is not just lowland meadows that the amendment is talking about. I hope the new regime will stop farmers turning even more of the pastures into modern bright green pastures and driving away the tewits, which is still taking place at the margins and the moorland margins. The tier 1 or tier 2 deals that come about, whichever they are, encourage a reversion of at least some of the fields to what they used to be. If you have a farm of six or 10 fields, you do not need a lot of it to revert to the traditional pasture that it used to be to provide a flock of lapwings with a habitat; you might need one or two, and that is all. As you walk through that area, you can plot the flock of lapwings to the fields that are still traditional.
I hope that kind of thing will be part and parcel of the new regime, not to destroy farmers’ livelihoods in any way but to provide them with some finance to provide a natural, or semi-natural, environment that superb birds such as lapwings and tewits require.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, before I go on to talk to the amendments, I want to reiterate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made earlier today and make a plea to the Minister and the Whip to talk to the Chief Whip about the groupings. Can we please go back to the old way that used to happen in Committee, whereby the movers of amendments spoke first and then the other signatories spoke afterwards? All the signatories to my amendments have spoken before me, and on the next group of amendments I am a signatory to an amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but she, as the mover, is speaking after me. It really does not help proceedings unless we get back some sort of structure like we had in the old days.
I turn to the amendments. This is a hugely important group because I believe that the only way that farming will survive in this country is if we work with nature. All these amendments are designed to help farming to do just that. There is considerable overlap between them. I shall speak to Amendments 39 and 96 in my name, which relate to nature-friendly farming. Not everything that nature-friendly farmers do is covered in the Bill. For instance, what about the creation of new habitats, ponds and wetlands? That leads to another problem, because the creation of some ponds will require planning permission. Therefore, as I said, you need dedicated farmers who are very keen to help nature to carry out such work. A farmer taking these schemes solely to get money from the taxpayer is not someone who is going to apply for planning permission for a new pond. There is no mention in the Bill of field margins and hedgerows. These are hugely important as wildlife corridors, and nature-friendly farming is a great help in that respect.
It is tragic that we have seen the decline in 600 farmland species over the last 50 year. Of course, none of us now has the problem of having to wash our windscreens having driven through the countryside, particularly at night. That is long gone. When I first started driving, one had to wash one’s windscreen after every drive because of the number of insects that got stuck on it and impeded the view. It would be nice if we could go at least half way back to the situation that we were in.
I will just make a point on what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said about lapwings. I know a farm in Caithness where the farmer has farmed organically since he took over the farm—gosh—it must be 30 years ago now. He has farmed in a nature-friendly way, but the number of lapwings has decreased hugely. There used to be lovely big flocks, but now there are very few. The problem is, it is not the farming system—that is not totally responsible—but the fact that we do not control the predators of lapwings and lapwing eggs and nests, such as the hooded crow. When I was a boy, the hooded crow was a very scarce bird; it is now very common. When I last lived in Caithness, about four years ago, I remember seeing five hooded crows on the lawn outside my little cottage. They just would not have been there when I was a boy. Unless we get to a stage where we can control the number of corvids and the abuse by corvids of ground-nesting birds, there will be a continual decline, whatever system of farming one operates.
I have also put my name to the agroecology and agroforestry amendments, because these are hugely important too. They are slightly different ways of farming from nature-friendly farming, but they of course work on exactly the same principle of working with nature.
I pay tribute to the work of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, Nature Friendly Farming and Agricology, which have been working together for five years. The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, the Organic Research Centre and the Daylesford Foundation have together done a tremendous amount of work in this area and I can tell the Minister how grateful they are for the financial support that Defra has given them. It is exactly from institutions such as this and the demonstration farm at Allerton that other farmers can learn how to carry out these works and the benefit that they can contribute to their own farms. I hope that, when responding, my noble friend will say that this funding will continue.
I turn to Amendment 224, which is on soil. It requests that the soil metric index is instituted. This was of course in the 25-year environment plan, from which it is worth quoting:
“Farmers and land managers can struggle to monitor the quality of their soil, which in turn makes it difficult to improve. We will develop a soil health index (including indicators such as the level of humus and biological activity in the soil) that can be used on farms to check whether their actions are having the desired effect. At the moment, data on soil health is held piecemeal by different institutions and businesses. It is not easy to access or use. Defra will invest at least £200,000 to help create meaningful metrics that will allow us to assess soil improvements, and to develop cost-effective and innovative ways to monitor soil at farm and national level.”
Can the Minister say what is the result of that work? Is there any progress? What is the progress? Can she please update us on it?
It was encouraging to hear the Secretary of State respond to the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place recently, saying he was considering a combination of approaches to address soil problems, and a more sustainable approach to grade 1 and grade 2 agricultural land, focusing on soil health and crop rotations. What is this going to involve? Can the Minister shed some light on these very encouraging statements?
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I particularly enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who I have known for over 50 years, when he talked about his local bird life and the implications it has in this debate.
I support Amendment 42 to Clause 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and others, which relates to whole-farm agroecological systems and organic farming. The pandemic has been a tragic lesson in how broken our connection to our life support systems, by permission of nature, has become. In March, the UN’s environment chief, Inger Andersen, told us that
“Nature is sending us a message”
with the coronavirus and ongoing climate crisis.
In 2019, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services published the most comprehensive study into the health of the planet ever undertaken. It concluded that human society was in jeopardy from the accelerating decline of nature, on which the survival of the human race depends. This ongoing work is telling us that
“Rampant deforestation, uncontrolled expansion of agriculture, intensive farming … as well as the exploitation of wild species have created a perfect storm for the spillover of diseases.”
The scientists leading this work have warned that
“The health of people is intimately connected to the health of wildlife, the health of livestock and the health of the environment. It’s actually one health.”
Agroecological agriculture—of which organic is one system—supports small farms that are diverse, integrated and use low levels of chemical input to ensure the long-term balance between food production and the sustainability of natural resources. Although agroecology is recognised in the Bill, it is in a very minor way. In Clause 1(5), the Bill states that
“better understanding of the environment”
—one of the purposes for which the Secretary of State may give assistance—
“includes better understanding of agroecology”.
This appears to signify a basic misconception of what agroecology is and what a large-scale transformation to agroecological farming could deliver for farmers, wildlife, climate and public health. It should not be relegated to a legislative footnote; it should be a key part of this Bill and the Government’s broader agricultural policy, as others have said.
While I welcome this reference in the Bill, a more substantive reference, such as that proposed in Amendment 42, is also needed to create a specific commitment under Clause 1(1) for financial and wider support for existing agroecological farms—such as organic—and to ensure that all farmers can promote agroecological practices on the whole farm. This would then allow for support and incentives for farmers to facilitate the integration of food production with the delivery of environmental and social public purposes, in line with the avowed objectives of the Bill. It would ensure that farmers could transition to ecological farming models, producing food while restoring environments and nature.
These benefits are enhanced when they are part of the whole-farm system, rather than in reserved areas or only on the margins. Organic farms have been shown to support 50% more wildlife than is found on conventionally farmed land and healthier soils, with 44% higher capacity to store long-term soil carbon. Agroecological farms can also improve public access to nutritious, affordable fruit and vegetables, and to community projects, supporting improved public health outcomes for us all, as well as enterprise. I therefore hope that the Minister will indicate his acceptance of Amendment 42 in particular.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I sympathise with Amendment 29 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, although I wonder whether it is necessary. Is it not covered effectively by Clause 1(1)(j)?
On Amendment 38, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, I observe that the best and by far the cheapest way to implement integrated pest and weed management measures will follow from our freedom from EU regulation, which has unnecessarily banned some pesticides and fungicides which could be used to reduce pest and weed problems without any negative environmental consequences. Of course, many chemicals have rightly been banned, but some have been banned without definitive scientific evidence.
I am sure that all noble Lords would support nature-friendly farming, as advocated by my noble friend Lord Caithness in Amendments 39 and 96. However, I believe it is already clear that nature-friendly practices are wholly consistent with the purposes listed in Clause 1.
Amendments 40 and 84, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, seek to add agroforestry schemes to the list of approved purposes. I agree with the noble Lord but believe that they are unnecessary, because agroforestry is surely included within the scope of Clause 1(1)(I). Similarly, my noble friend Lord Dundee reminds us that the Government have committed to plant 30 million trees without taking any agricultural land out of production. Will the planting of these trees lose us 7% of agricultural land, as I thought he also said, and how many of these trees will be planted on brownfield sites? Was this policy adopted before or after it was recognised that ash dieback might decimate the country’s population of ash trees?
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in his Amendment 48 seeks to widen the purposes for which financial assistance may be paid to include conversion to organic and ecologically sustainable farming. I believe that the noble Duke is right: farmers who follow ecologically sustainable practices should be rewarded. I had believed that consumer demand meant that farmers were replacing less ecologically sound practices with organic practices and was surprised to hear how small the organic acreage is. Ultimately, organic produce should command significantly higher prices, which will increase the profitability of farmers who produce it. I support the noble Duke’s amendment.
We have already noted the introduction of a new concept: agroecology. Through Amendment 97, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, wishes to include whole-farm ecological systems as an additional and distinct model. I think that what it represents is already included in the Bill, and it would be better not to complicate the Bill unnecessarily.
I am not at all opposed to—indeed, I would support—increased monitoring of soil health, as proposed in Amendments 217 and 224, but I would not be able to support Amendment 259 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Growing crops such as oilseed rape in this country has become unsustainable because EU regulations, which rely too much on the precautionary principle, have placed unnecessary and costly burdens on farmers and unnecessarily exposed their crops to various diseases. One of the benefits of leaving the European Union is that we will be free to develop our own food standards. These must of course maintain the highest standards, but should no longer unnecessarily apply rules which are unsupported by scientific evidence and which artificially raise the prices of food, especially at a time when many consumers are badly affected by the serious economic damage inflicted by the coronavirus pandemic.
Agriculture Bill
Tuesday 14th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-IV(Rev) Revised fourth marshalled list for Committee - (14 Jul 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, a limited number of Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Other Members will participate remotely, but all Members will be treated equally wherever they are. For Members participating remotely, microphones will unmute shortly before they are to speak; please accept any on-screen prompt to unmute. Microphones will be muted after each speech. I ask noble Lords to be patient if there are any short delays as we switch between physical and remote participants. I remind the House that our normal courtesies in debate still very much apply in this new hybrid way of working.
A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published and is in my brief, which Members should have received. I also have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments or expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members’ microphones will be muted by the broadcasters except when I call a Member to speak. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard.
During the debate on each group, I will invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to de-group an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments.
When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group.
Clause 1: Secretary of State’s powers to give financial assistance
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, for all amendments on which I may speak today, I declare my interest as on the register.
When we concluded last Thursday, we had heard some excellent speeches on nature-friendly farming and agroecology, and I will comment on the amendments in this group that speak about those subjects. They are not the same thing, as I recall my noble friend Lord Caithness saying in his speech. As an aside, he also mentioned an anecdotal indicator that highlights the severe decline in our biodiversity. Like him, I cannot recall when I last saw bugs or moths squashed on my car windscreen—at least 20 years ago. Where there are no bugs and beasties, birds will be in decline also.
I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, kept referring to “nature-friendly farming” in her excellent speech. I have had the benefit of looking at examples of farms in the agroecology network and the Nature Friendly Farming Network and, while both do excellent work, it is important that we get it right if we build either of these terms into legislation.
I am grateful to my friend Professor Michael Winter of Exeter University, the UK-renowned expert on this subject, who is also on the board of Natural England. He has briefed me as follows: “There is a significant difference between the Nature Friendly Farming Network and Agro-Ecology. The Nature Friendly Farming Network is a broad grouping that includes organic and the Linking the Environment And Farming the LEAF/integrated approaches. Agro-ecology dates back to the 1980s and the term was coined by a Chilean scientist (now a professor at Berkeley) called Miguel A. Altieri. It is resolutely organic and anti-GM, and closely linked to the food sovereignty movement. In the UK, agroecology has been adopted by the Landworkers’ Alliance. There are many things to commend agro-ecology but it is not easily compatible with mainstream broadacre UK agriculture, and I am sceptical about the hegemony of organics and the wholesale opposition to mainstream food retailers.”
Professor Winter goes on to say: “I advocate three things in this space: 1) more policy attention and encouragement to agro-ecology as just one part of the tapestry of ensuring faming becomes more nature-friendly; 2) a pragmatic acceptance that most UK agriculture for the foreseeable future is not likely to radically divorce itself from the conventional food chain (as advocated by the Landworkers’ Alliance), and therefore that LEAF/integrated and nature-friendly approaches are needed within the mainstream food system; and 3) the need to encourage research that bridges the gap between the agro-ecology-based approach and the conventional Research Council/Sustainable Intensification approach.” In light of that, I am content that any amendments that mention nature-friendly farming are opposed to those that advocate agroecology, unless they are part of a nature-friendly farming system, which I passionately support.
Finally, I will comment on the speech on pesticides from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which has tempted me to say something. On Thursday, we heard the excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. He described how new robotic technology now makes it possible for machines to travel down a field and place a tiny drop of pesticide on a single weed leaf and kill it. No pesticide touches the food crop or soil. I do not want Roundup sprayed by aerosol over everything—weeds, food, trees, humans and animals—but we must look again at some of these banned pesticides, if they can be applied in the future in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. We must not demonise all pesticides and herbicides. If someone invented a herbicide that killed Japanese knotweed or the fungus that destroys ash trees, would we not grab it with open arms, provided it did not harm humans or wildlife? So let us keep an open mind on pesticides and be prepared to change our mind if the technology changes.
Lord Burnett (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I shall speak to Amendment 38, in the names of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall. This amendment adds implementation of comprehensive integrated pest and weed management measures, based on an agroecological approach, as an additional criterion for financial assistance.
Before I speak to Amendment 38, I shall say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to whom the previous speaker referred. She made a compelling and valuable contribution last Thursday evening in support of her Amendment 259. She was powerfully supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, a co-signatory to the amendment. I have considerable sympathy for the principle of a periodic review of the safety of herbicides and pesticides.
Reverting to Amendment 38, I start by declaring that of course I understand that competition is valuable when it is fair and based on common rules and standards. I think that all noble Lords will agree that British agriculture has high standards of animal welfare, and that farmers and growers strive to protect the environment and our landscape. They rightly strive to produce healthy and safe food, not only for human consumption but also for animal consumption. I remind noble Lords that much of the grain produced in the UK goes toward animal feed, and that some of those animals are slaughtered for human consumption.
The experiences of foot and mouth and, prior to that, BSE vividly illustrate the consequences for individuals and this country when standards are allowed to slip. Our growers produce much-needed high-quality vegetables and fruit for human consumption and, to grow the crops, there has to be a system of pest, weed and disease control. This process should be
“based on an agroecological approach”,
in the words of Amendment 38. Unfortunately, when the transition period ends on 31 December this year, many of our likely new trading partners will not be inhibited from using methods and chemicals that are toxic and potentially damaging to human physical and mental health. These products are also potentially damaging to animal health. Some of them have carcinogenic side-effects. Even exercising rights of way by walking or running near crops sprayed with toxic sprays would be a danger to health from inhalation.
There are reports that British consumers face being exposed to toxic chemicals linked to serious health problems if they buy food imported from, for example, America, under the terms of a new trade agreement being negotiated with the USA. Experts say that supermarkets and restaurants will be flooded with cheap produce that has been sprayed with toxic pesticides which are currently banned in Britain and the European Union. I have seen a list published in a respected national newspaper of 70 pesticides that are widely used in the USA but banned in Britain and the EU.
A Toxic Trade study also shows how US farmers use vast quantities of pesticides compared to producers in Britain. If we allow these products to be imported into this country, the price will include a significantly increased risk to human health, which will be borne by the British consumer. It is my hope that Members from all parts of your Lordships’ House will come together to enact legislation in the Bill to ensure that the British consumer is protected from this threat. With the financial assistance provided for in this amendment and with other statutory provisions, we should go some way to keep our standards high and our food safe.
Finally, the Government have manoeuvred us out of the European Union on terms yet to be agreed. This leaves all businesses scandalously and perilously short of time to plan and prepare. The Government themselves have rightly been manoeuvred away from a reliance on the People’s Republic of China. We are not in a strong bargaining position. It is up to Parliament to ensure that the Government comply with the commitments they have repeatedly made to farmers, growers and the public to keep our food safe.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am so pleased that the question of good soils found its way into this edition of the Bill. We have Rebecca Pow MP to thank for that improvement to the earlier editions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said last Thursday, in a mere teaspoonful of good soil there should be over 1 billion bacteria and probably, among those, over 1 million different species of bacteria, of which we can identify clearly only about 10%. Nevertheless, it is the bacteria that, with the help of water and sunshine, produce our crops and food. We ignore their health at our peril, so I support all the amendments on maintaining healthy soils and the continuous monitoring of the soils of our nation.
I support the principle of Amendment 117, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others, on the protection of meadows and other semi-natural grasslands. Meadows and semi-natural grasslands are very important habitats, first because of the amazing variety of flowers that exist there, especially rare orchids and other wildflowers, some of which have wonderful names—such as chalk milkwort, lady’s bedstraw, cuckoo flower, common toadflax, et cetera. These meadows and ancient grasslands also hold a wide diversity of fauna—rare moths, butterflies, beetles, crickets and grasshoppers—which in turn attract a large variety of birds trying to eat them. All this biodiversity specialness is not to underplay the important historical significance of these meadows and semi-natural grasslands.
I have already declared my interest as chair of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. Some noble Lords may have noticed, last week, that our satellite survey indicated that 8,000 square kilometres of meadows and other grasslands have been lost from Britain’s farms and public land over the last 25 years. That is about the size of Cornwall. When you consider that the previous statistic available was that we had lost over 90% of our ancient meadows and grasslands since World War II, it is really important to keep the ones we still have.
My only comment on the amendment is that, while I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, knows a semi-natural grassland when she sees one, I am not sure that all farmers and landowners necessarily do, particularly if they have just bought the land in question and it is midwinter, when it might not be so obvious what a jewel they have. It would be best if local councils and/or Natural England designated all such meadows and semi-natural grasslands where they have not already done so—a lot of them are, of course, already registered—to make it clear to all and sundry what incredibly valuable heirlooms these places really are.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, having had the opportunity to read last Thursday’s part debate, I cast my short remarks in general terms. When I read what was said on that occasion, I was reminded of what my father said to me many years ago: real farming—that is, responsible farming—is farming with the grain of nature, because farming, agriculture and forestry are about cropping, not quarrying. This is why soil fertility matters, whether impoverishing the soil or treating it in such a hard way that the topsoil might blow away, as I understand has happened in parts of the Fens.
It is not as though some help, of an appropriate sort, cannot be applied. After all, there is a difference between a sensible and responsible application of fertilisers and certain pesticides to unlock the soil’s potential and simply using the earth as a kind of binding agent—a chemical mixture from which crops are derived. The same general approach applies to animals. I have considerable sympathy with proponents of organic farming, but if you have animals there are occasions when you simply have to use antibiotics, as we do on my farm.
All this shows that there is an interconnectedness in good farming practice, which brings us to questions of agroecology and agroforestry. Again, it is all a matter of integrating land uses and techniques, which is why agroecology is so important. Different uses on the farm need to complement each other in an ecologically and economically sustainable balance. I cannot see that there is any alternative but to have a degree of bureaucracy, because every farm is different.
In particular, I will touch on the espousal of agroforestry by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is important that we are clear, in this wider context, about the difference between trees, woods and forests. In particular, trees, copses and belts are important parts of farms, while forestry and large woods are something slightly different. Of course, the noble Baroness is an enthusiast for wood pasture. That is a very tricky one, because once you introduce stock, unless it is at a very low density, the trees get destroyed. In the north of England, where I come from, wood pasture has been very badly damaged by the introduction of livestock. It will cost a considerable amount of money to reinstate it, which is not to say that that is not the right thing to do.
All this is about human intervention in the workings of nature. If we do not run with nature’s grain, we shall destroy our countryside and degrade its products, which, as a number of noble Lords have said, are what we eat. That is why we must treat these things with such care. I suspect that the golden rule is that we must not be greedy. Of course, that includes the state, which must recognise that all of a farm’s outputs, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, commented last week, are important in whatever form they come.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests in agricultural matters and my membership of the Farmers’ Union of Wales. I give enthusiastic support to Amendment 259 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to which I have added my name. I pay tribute to the excellent work that she has undertaken on these matters, as indeed has the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who spoke with similar professional authority earlier in this debate last week.
My support for the amendment arises for three reasons. The first relates to the very real dangers of disabilities being triggered by exposure to chemicals among children, including babies in the womb. As an MP, I served for 11 years as vice-chair of the All-Party Group for Disability, working closely with the redoubtable Jack Ashley on these issues, not least regarding thalidomide. That experience taught me that we must always be guided by the precautionary principle. If there is any doubt whatever about possible ill effects of herbicides and pesticides, they should be banned unless and until it is proven beyond doubt that they are safe, not only for human beings, but for animals.
In this context, I respectfully disagree fundamentally with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, the last speaker in this debate on Thursday evening. The break has allowed me to study his precise words. He said that leaving the European Union gives us the opportunity to develop our own food standards, avoiding the
“unnecessary and costly burdens on farmers”
because of EU regulations,
“which rely too much on the precautionary principle”.—[Official Report, 9/7/20; cols. 1324.]
I fundamentally disagree with this approach and invite the Minister to indicate whether the Government will distance themselves from the noble Viscount’s remarks.
My views are coloured not just by my involvement with disabled children. I have previously referred in the House to my late cousin, Owen Wigley, a Minnesota farmer who died from a condition that his family are convinced was triggered by exposure to the weedkiller Roundup, which is the subject of a raft of court cases in the United States. I have seen the devastating impact on the natural environment in my home area, where use of such chemicals in too strong a mix, which had not been adequately dose controlled, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned, had the effect of wiping out all plant life in a field for a whole season, leaving it unusable for agricultural purposes. My wife also had a relative, a farmer in Wales, whose close family was convinced that his health suffered enormously from the effect of such chemicals in sheep dips. When I was an MP, I had a constituent whose family were convinced was severely disabled from exposure to such sheep-dipping chemicals.
Thirdly, I add my voice in support of the need to safeguard the process of pollination. The vital contribution of bees and other pollinators to our wildlife is fundamental to the survival of our natural environment and, in turn, humanity itself. This amendment provides an opportunity to place a responsibility on all engaged in the production of food to have a proactive awareness of these dangers at the forefront of their minds, and for the living world to be protected from such dire consequences.
If we are, rightly, to place such responsibilities on our food producers in these islands, they must also, most assuredly, be criteria against which the standards of all imported food should be measured. Products that fail to meet the required standard should be denied access to UK markets. I was so glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, highlight this. I urge the Government to accept Amendment 259.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, a number of amendments before the Committee refer to nature-friendly farming in general. Others refer to specific activities within nature-friendly farming. While each of us may know what we mean by that, and the kind of schemes that we would favour, a comprehensive definition of what it means is more challenging. Amendment 96 certainly makes a good attempt to define “nature-friendly”; I support it, and the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. However, there are clearly different views, with some favouring low-input farming, some talking about agroecology and some about organic farming. Others favour conventional, or intensive, farming, sometimes combined with a precision approach and with generous field margins and set-aside schemes. These would create habitats for particular animal, bird or plant species and could, therefore, also qualify as nature friendly.
Like other noble Lords, I was struck by the figures quoted by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, showing that the UK seems to be moving away from organic farming, in the opposite direction to many of our European neighbours. What is the Government’s view of this trend? Do they want our organic sector to expand and, if so, by how much? Perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, soil quality is one of the key aspects to take into account in deciding what nature-friendly farming is. Do the Government agree that monitoring soil quality, then acting on those findings, needs to be done? Do the Government have their own definition of nature-friendly farming, or will they limit themselves to funding schemes judged to be nature friendly or, as has just been said, working with the grain of nature.
I turn, finally, to the main point on which I would like assurance. Will the Government commit to taking a regionally sensitive approach in England to supporting eligible projects and schemes under the Bill? The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke about the distinctiveness of the natural environment in his part of the north of England. He mentioned the curlew, a bird which is the symbol of Northumberland National Park. I declare a non-financial interest as president of the Northumberland National Park Foundation. I am glad to tell the noble Lord that, during lockdown, I have seen many curlews in the river estuary in my locality. I hope that the Government will agree that working with regional and local wildlife trusts and other environmental organisations, as well as with farmers in the different regions and localities, will be important in evaluating schemes and identifying which species of animal, bird and plant life are under threat in particular areas.
To conclude, I ask the Government to ensure that regional diversity is built in to their overall policy of ensuring that agricultural and environmental policies work hand in hand.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 29 and the other pro-nature, pro-ecology amendments in this group, in support of diversity and of some of our lost agricultural traditions. I will illustrate this with a story about cheese. On the Welbeck estate in north Nottinghamshire, Stilton is being made in the traditional way, with unpasteurised milk. It is a marvellous product and that is the only place in the country that does it. Yet Defra’s rules do not allow the traditional, real Stilton to be called “Stilton”. It has to be marketed under the name Stichelton. It is a wonderful cheese, and a high-quality product made using the traditional way of doing things, but it is not able to use a name because of our own rules. I hope that this example is not an illustration of where things might go, having left the European Union. The freedom to some of the pro-ecology, pro-nature traditions is one way we can have a diverse agriculture.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Committee is resuming last Thursday’s debate after a lapse of four days, so it is difficult to remember exactly what noble Lords said without referring to Hansard. We are still on Clause 1 of the Bill, but are debating the main and important theme of environmental sustainability. If we do not get this right, the country will be paying the price, in a variety of ways, for decades to come. There are amendments about agroecology, agroforestry systems, organic and ecologically sustainable systems, pesticides, fertilisers and nature-friendly farming. This is a wide range of topics, but they are ones which Peers in this virtual and physical Chamber quite rightly feel strongly about.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for adding their names to my Amendments 38 and 120. The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, have also put down amendments about pest control. The new approach of public money for public goods is a huge opportunity to support farmers who adopt and maintain non-chemical alternatives to pesticides. It is crucial that this approach is not undermined by a catch-all clause providing payments for productivity. Defra’s Secretary of State believes that the development and uptake of integrated pest management—IPM—is a crucial mechanism for ensuring that the objectives outlined in the Agriculture Bill and the 25-year environment plan are delivered.
Amendments 38, 120 and 259 ensure that farmers are rewarded for adopting proper IPM techniques, based on the agroecology approach to farming, coupled with a review of the national food strategy.
At Second Reading, I referred to the importance of properly regulated pesticides. Over the years, we have seen the removal from the market of various herbicides and pesticides because of their side-effects on humans. However, it often takes a very long campaign before action is taken. The banning of organophosphate sheep dips springs to mind. Many years ago, a colleague said to me that we should pay more attention to the effects of pesticides on humans than herbicides, as human physiology is much closer to that of insects than of plants. My noble friend Lord Burnett has spoken of the dangers of pesticides, and of using common rules and standards. Agroecology must be the standard. He also warned about the import from America of foods sprayed with pesticides.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, listed an enormous number of side-effects that exposure to pesticides can cause. It is safer for all if we approach pesticides with caution, rather than rushing headlong into their use in order to increase the productivity of a crop. I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I support the precautionary principle and acknowledge the impact of pesticides on disabilities.
Productivity is, of course, important. Farmers need to make a decent living from the land, but not at the expense of those who suffer health problems as a result of pesticide spraying. However, the might of the chemical producers often overrides the concerns of the ordinary man and woman displaying health problems. When will the Government produce a target for the uptake of the IPM, which is supported by the Secretary of State?
I fully support all the amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, have stressed the importance of agroecology. So often, the way the land is farmed leads to degeneration of the quality of the soil, and thus the quality of the crops grown. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke knowledgeably of the importance of the upkeep of grassland and the species that inhabit it, and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, also supported agroecology and running with nature’s grain. The noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Dundee, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others have pressed the case for the inclusion of afforestation and organic farming. The noble Duke gave stark statistics on how far behind the UK is lagging on its organic farming programme. I know the Minister, as a farmer, has a close interest in these matters and I look forward to hearing a positive response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest through my involvement with the Rothamsted agricultural research institute. We have covered a wide range of issues in this group and I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate last week and again today. The amendments explore in more detail what we will need to deliver environmentally sustainable agriculture. We have had reference to nature-friendly farming, to agroecological systems, to agroforestry, to organically and ecologically sustainable systems, to the improved nutrient content of crops, to integrated pest management and to the importance of soil health. I agree with all those concepts, but also with my noble friend Lady Quin that we need to be clear about the definitions of these phrases when we use them.
All these systems have detailed research behind them, which reinforces the evidence that harnessing nature can improve farm outcomes, as well as enhancing the environment. Many noble Lords will have seen at first hand the positive impact on farmland productivity that can occur when these techniques are embraced. At the same time, we know that nature-based measures to reduce emissions can make a substantial contribution to tackling climate change while preserving or restoring habitats. We agree that natural ecological processes and agroforestry techniques should lie at the heart of the Bill. When adopted on a whole-farm approach, they will reduce the use of agrochemicals, encourage biodiversity, improve soil health, recycle nutrients, energy and waste and generally create more diverse, resilient and productive agroecosystems.
Last year, the RSA Food, Farming and Countryside Commission report set out the case for bringing agroecology systems out of the shadows and into the mainstream of farming practice. It argued that farmers need to be helped to make that transition and recommended a 10-year programme to provide more research, training and capital grants to make this a reality. This would be an excellent use of the financial assistance in the Bill.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who talked about the need for a long-term programme of soil monitoring. We face a fundamental eradication of soil fertility that will be difficult to reverse. Our APPG on science in agriculture had an excellent evidence session last year on the numerous research projects taking place on this issue, but what we really need is to bring the evidence together in one place. While I am on the subject, will the Minister update us on the work of the Sustainable Soils Alliance, launched by Michael Gove, that was meant to do just that?
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, specifically mentioned the transition to organic farming. I agree that this also has an important role to play. Organic farms have 50% more wildlife than conventionally farmed land and healthier soils, with a 44% higher capacity to store long-term soil carbon. Clearly, if the soil is more fertile, it increases productivity, so organic farming can make a real difference to biodiversity while sustaining food production.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and others talked about agroforestry. We agree that this system of planting has huge benefits over traditional forestry techniques. We know that the pressure is on to plant more trees. The Committee on Climate Change has set a target of between 30,000 and 50,000 hectares of new planting a year, but so far the Government have fallen well short of that target. It is important that trees are planted in a way that is sympathetic to the countryside and to the environment, rather than the monoculture plantations we have seen in the past. Agroforestry supplies the answer to this. Mixed plantings of trees and shrubs grown around crops can reduce erosion, increase biodiversity and create complex habitats, so we very much hope that financial assistance will be available to help farmers to create this mixed planting economy.
Finally, the amendments in the name of noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Finlay, highlight the need to reduce the use of herbicides and pesticides. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in particular, highlighted the potentially damaging impacts of pesticides on health, and recommended looking at the evidence and producing an annual report. These views were echoed powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the very moving examples he gave. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also rightly raised the need to avoid contaminated products being imported into this country. We agree with these objectives and have our own amendments, Amendment 226 on pesticides and Amendment 173 calling for a national food plan that addresses the problem of pesticide residues. I hope that the debates on these amendments will enable us to set out our position in more detail.
This has been a good discussion and I hope the Minister has heard the collective call for a funding priority for nature-based ecological farming. I am sure we will start to narrow down our priorities in this regard as we continue to consider the Bill, but in the meantime I look forward to her response.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his Amendments 29 and 217, with which I will also discuss Amendment 224 in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness. Soil is indeed one of our greatest natural assets and the Government are committed to having sustainably managed soils by 2030, as set out in the 25-year environment plan. Providing financial incentives for protecting and improving the quality of soil will help to protect and improve all the properties that contribute to healthy soil. The 25-year environment plan sets out the Government’s ambition to have sustainably managed soils by 2030. A healthy soils indicator is being developed as part of a framework of indicators under the plan.
My noble friend Lord Caithness asked about spending commitments in the plan. This spend has been allocated to developing a robust and informative soil health indicator and monitoring scheme, and the Government are currently in the process of confirming actions for their work programme to protect and improve soil quality. The Government will develop a definition of soil health with stakeholders. To ensure that it captures the complete picture of soil health, this definition will be a balance of biological, chemical and physical characteristics, and could therefore include characteristics that help define the biodiverse nature of the soil, such as earthworms and fungi, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lucas.
To help achieve this target, the Government are considering the development of a soil monitoring scheme informed by natural capital approaches. As such, this scheme will recognise the relationships between soil properties and the ecosystem services that soil provides, such as clean water and carbon storage. A new soil monitoring scheme would provide a baseline national-scale picture of the state of our soils. This will enable the Government to quantify targets for improvements and then monitor progress towards these targets. These metrics could directly feed into ELM to incentivise better management approaches. Maintaining the metrics of measure across national and localised schemes will enable shared data collection, storage and analysis to further inform impacts of management actions.
There are a number of key vehicles through which the Government are working to address soil quality. These include: this Bill, which will provide financial assistance for the protection and improvement of soils; the Environment Bill, which will allow a future soils target to be set; the 25-year environment plan, through which a soil indicator is being developed; and the new ELM scheme, which could act as a lever for incentivising sustainable soil practices. Protecting and improving our soils will involve a wide variety of actions, reflecting the wide diversity in soil quality, soil types and land uses in England. This would include actions to protect our best grade 1 and 2 lands as well as actions to improve the poorer-quality grade land—in the words of the father of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, farming within the grain of nature, cropping not quarrying.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister very much for her positive reaction to agroecology and agroforestry. However, one of the main themes of both those practices is whole-farm management. I am concerned that, under tier 1 of ELMS, there is the possibility of a number of environmentally friendly actions taking place but that this not being reflected in a whole-farm environment. Will Defra and the Government, particularly when they award tier 1 ELM schemes, look for a whole-farm approach rather than a bits-and-pieces application of environmentally friendly measures? That is my key concern. Whole-farm management has been a major theme all around the House. Would the ELM scheme mean that it would be applied across all the measures taken?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I thank the noble Lord for his question about whole-farm management. The ELM schemes are very much in trial stage; nothing has been ruled out or in. That will become clearer over the coming months.
I shall also take this opportunity to give the definition of agroecology that I was looking for earlier and floundering. Agroecology means different things to different people, but in this Bill it is based on applying ecological concepts and principles to optimise interactions between plants, animals, humans and the environment, while taking into consideration the social aspects that need to be addressed for a sustainable and fair food system.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I now call the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who I understand also has a question.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for her answer, which was very encouraging. However, on my specific amendments, will she confirm so that it is clearly on the record that the Government consider soil, for the purposes of this Bill, to include all that lives within it? If not now, can my noble friend write to me to say how the soil survey is intended to be set up and funded?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I would be delighted to write to the noble Lord on the latter matter. On his former point, I believe that my speech actually gave the reassurance that it includes all matters within the soil.
Lord Lucas [V]
I am immensely grateful for the response given by my noble friends and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“( ) protecting or improving the food security of citizens and access to food that promotes good health and wellbeing.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 70. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for their support for Amendment 35. I also thank the two noble Baronesses, as well as my noble friend Lord Caithness, for their support of Amendment 70.
Amendment 35 seeks to add a further subsection to Clause 1(1) to ensure that
“protecting or improving the food security of citizens and access to food that promotes good health and wellbeing”
will qualify for financial assistance. The purpose of the amendment is to put public interest in food security front and centre in the Bill. While I accept that other parts of the Bill provide a requirement on the Government to report on food security and to have regard to food production in the use of their powers under Clause 1 on financial assistance, there is nothing in the Bill that specifically addresses the need to focus attention on matters relating to food security.
This is an issue of great importance to all citizens. At a time when we have seen our food system come under huge pressure as a result of the impact of Covid-19 and the government response to its spread, it is remarkable that the Government do not see the need for greater focus on this most important concern of the British public. It is not simply about driving self-sufficiency, which has fallen to about 60%; it is also about the fact that production of food from our own resources is an important part of food security. Indeed, the Government’s own food policy tsar, Henry Dimbleby, has highlighted the need for greater attention to be given to this important policy area. It is a matter of regret that we have not, and will not, have sight of his much-anticipated report at the time that the Bill is adopted in this place. With more than 1 million people having signed a petition seeking greater support for food standards, we in this place must be in step with the British people, ensuring that we share their concerns on what is given proper pre-eminence in the important legislation before the Committee today.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure finally to get to this group after so many hours of waiting. I commend the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Again, I say what a pleasure it is to follow her; her contributions are always extremely valuable. Having signed a lot of her amendments, I am afraid that I shall keep saying that. I also commend my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and her Amendment 47. In fact, I support too many of the amendments in this group to list them all. It is a fantastic group, which strikes at the heart of what the Government should be aiming for with their food policy: supporting high-quality, healthy, nutritious food, grown as close to the consumer as possible.
When I chaired London Food, an initiative of the then mayor Ken Livingstone, I put together a report on how to make food sustainable for a huge conglomeration of cities and large towns. The single most important factor was that food should be local. I love organic food, but local food is the way forward if you want to be truly sustainable, so that food does not move around too much and stays nutritious. We can eat it very quickly after cooking. These amendments recognise the fundamental link between the food we put into our bodies and our resulting health. Too much of our food system remains tied to the World War era mindset of processing as much high-calorie food as possible to meet the most basic nutritional needs of the population. The outcome has been obesity, diabetes and food-related ill health. Good food policy should have health and nutrition as its core principle.
Sadly, I have not signed Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, or Amendment 63, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I did not spot them in time, but they are wonderful amendments. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on what the Government plan to do to support urban and community food-growing, which the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has already mentioned in previous amendments.
Finally, I turn to my Amendment 46, which would tie public procurement into the Bill. The enormous buying power of the public sector is often overlooked, but it is essential for the transition to a sustainable and ecologically friendly world. Too much procurement goes to the lowest-cost bidder without consideration of social and environmental impacts. My amendment hopes to prompt the Minister to address public procurement and its role in supporting a better food system for the UK.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I thank the previous speaker for her support of my Amendment 53. I do not want to say much about it, but I wonder whether the Government can comment on the way in which new technologies are producing food, such as protein in laboratories and the concept of vertical gardens and vertical market gardens in urban areas. How do they fit into their general food strategy?
I want to support pretty much everything that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said in introducing this group. It is extremely important. I have one minor quibble: she said we need less reliance on food banks. I always have to pinch myself when I come across a food bank, and I come across them fairly frequently nowadays. Why do we have to have food banks? Food banks are an indication that there is something very sadly wrongly with the society and the economy in which we live. Although at one level they are an excellent example of community endeavour and of people coming together to meet a need, we ought not to be looking for less reliance on food banks; we ought to be looking to abolish them because nobody needs any longer to go and get free food because they and their families cannot afford to eat.
I added my name to Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about “urban and peri-urban areas”. I have mentioned urban areas; I had not really come across the phrase “peri-urban areas” before, until I realised that I probably live in a peri-urban area. There are urban buildings on the very edge of the fields. We are talking about the areas surrounding towns, cities and urban agglomerations—earlier in this Committee, I spoke briefly about this on Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
What I want to do briefly now is to mention the importance of the range of small-scale enterprises that go under the name of allotments. A lot of allotments are hobby allotments, but they are still very important as part of a food strategy because people are growing their own food which, by definition, is what they want and it is usually organic and nutritious. Some allotments are community enterprises and some are semi-commercial enterprises—small market gardens and that kind of thing. It seems to me that there is huge scope for the expansion and extension of this kind of thing in peri-urban areas, as the noble Earl describes them.
I should perhaps declare an interest as a councillor in the Waterside ward of Colne because I want to mention something that happened there. Much of Waterside ward is an areas of closely packed terraced streets which are nevertheless on the edge of the countryside. They are on the edge of the peri-urban area because we have old mill towns that never expanded —particularly between the wars because the towns were shrinking not expanding. In that area, we have several community-based allotments, including a community land trust, an allotment used by a group catering for people with special needs and one I am particularly proud of as, as a councillor, I was fairly responsible for the council acquiring land in the 2000s and laying them out for new allotments using money from what eventually became the ill-fated housing market renewal scheme, but which nevertheless provided us with very useful funding that we could use for that purpose.
We need a lot more. In most areas the provision of allotments is a responsibility of town and parish councils. The problem they have in expanding is getting the money to acquire land and lay out the infrastructure of an allotment, such as dividing it up, providing the fencing and perhaps a water supply and so on. By the structure of the way they work, parish and town councils do not get direct funding from the Government in a general sort of way. They do not get local council support grants. However, there is a huge need for an expansion of mini market garden community allotment and traditional allotment provision, particularly in the areas around towns where not only can they provide very useful growing facilities for people but they can solve some of the problems of what is quite often a tatty zone around some urban areas.
I do not think it is his department, but I ask the Minister to go back and see whether in what the Government are doing under their proposals to regenerate towns, in particular left-behind areas such as the old industrial areas, specific funding for allotments could be given a great deal more priority.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I was very pleased to hear about the success of the excellent allotment scheme mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I shall speak to Amendments 56, 60 and 69, which are tabled in my name. I was one of the 20 or so noble Lords who were excluded from Second Reading, and while my Whip courteously gave me an explanation of the causes—the combination of Covid-19 and technology factors—I had hoped for some sort of apology from someone on the Front Bench to the 20 or so of us, but as far as I am aware none has been made. Such exclusion from Second Reading is a not a good precedent.
I declare my interests as a landowner and arable farmer. These amendments support domestic agriculture to ensure that food security and the stability of food supply are included in the purposes to which financial assistance can be directed under Clause 1. It is an important requirement for any Government to serve the interests of their people by investing in domestic food production to ensure stability and security in the provision of a safe and affordable domestic supply of food, as the quantity and quality of imports cannot always be guaranteed. Today’s FT points out that the UK is only a little over 50% self-sufficient in food and that, of the balance, four-fifths comes from the EU. Should there be any disruption by way of port delays, it will be serious.
The coronavirus crisis has shown how important it is to have a domestic supply of food. The view of farmers as food producers has never resonated more with the public than at this time, with the need to keep our shelves stocked the highest of priorities. I welcome the fact that the Government recognised that food production role by granting farmers key worker status during the countrywide lockdown, although the future of domestic fruit and vegetable supply may not be guaranteed if there are not enough workers to pick them. Given the increased significance of food security in the UK, the first amendment in particular would enable the Government to give financial assistance for the explicit purpose of supporting the domestic production of food.
In developing new forms of financial assistance, the Bill obliges the Government to,
“have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and its production by them in an environmentally sustainable way.”
This is a welcome advance from the first Agriculture Bill, which, extraordinarily, did not mention food at all. While in the Bill “have regard to” provides a robust starting point and an ongoing reference point during the development of schemes such as the environmental land management scheme, the Government should be clearer about how exactly they see this provision influencing government policy in practice. It would be strengthened by an explicit requirement that any financial assistance scheme is designed to encourage the sustainable production of food by producers in England. I do not know whether the ELM scheme will do that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. I second his comments about the importance of food security and its absence from the Bill at present. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I commend Amendment 35 in her name for its focus on food security. One of the major roles of the Government must be to ensure that people can eat. I also commend Amendments 46 and 70, which are supported by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
I shall speak chiefly to Amendment 47, in my name, which my noble friend Lady Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, have kindly backed. I am also grateful that in our discussions last week, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, commenting on the linked Amendment 77, expressed support for the principle of this amendment and for the Bill to cover this explicitly.
To some degree, this amendment is a rebuttal of the statements made last week by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, suggesting that outdoor livestock production is not giving us enough food and, implicitly, that factory farming is essential. That suggests that production of meat is one of our problems, which is clearly not the case. In fact, we have meat production which is largely food waste. I am talking about factory farming, of course—feeding large quantities of perfectly edible grains, oils and proteins to produce far smaller quantities of meat. This is something we can no longer afford.
Land is a scarce resource, as the Government acknowledged last week. We cannot afford to waste it growing food that is immediately fed to animals, as we currently do with about 20% of farmland. There is an argument for small quantities of winter feed for predominately pastured animals, but that is very different from the vast chicken sheds, piggeries and factory dairies that we have seen expanding in the UK in recent years. The problem with them is not simply food waste, or the failure to produce healthy food. I often come under attack from people who wave a finger at me and say, “The Green Party wants people to eat less meat, isn’t that terrible?” Usually I point to those well-known radical environmentalists of the British Medical Association, which also says that we need far less meat in the British diet and meat of a far higher quality. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said last week, this is a very strong medical recommendation.
The noble Baroness also alluded to the crucial issue of antimicrobial resistance, something we hear concern about from all sides of politics, including the former Prime Minister David Cameron, who some years ago made it the subject of a major speech. In the past week, we have seen the chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline identify antimicrobial resistance as a predictable threat to global health on the same scale as Covid-19.
Sadly, Covid-19 has made all too clear the need to think about the welfare of workers, not only on factory farms but in the giant, fast-moving, mass-production abattoirs. There is also the health of our environment, including dead zones in our oceans and rivers from nitrogen pollution, and the air pollution problems on which my noble friend Lady Jones has tabled amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was right that we need protein. That is where the positive side of this amendment comes in, as it seeks to promote a shift to plant-based food production, particularly—one of the things that we have seen some progress on, but it must be much faster—the production of protein crops. It is interesting that this also means the potential for farmers to diversify into different crops, reducing risk. Of course, growing nitrogen-fixing crops often reduces or ends the need to rely on artificial fertilisers, with all the other benefits that have been rehearsed in this debate.
This amendment says, “We want to see the Agriculture Bill positively promote crops that are good for the environment, good for people’s health and good for farmers’ incomes and farm security.” I need to point to the possibilities of a pretty small-scale operation. A wonderful company called Hodmedod’s, which is very much focused on promoting different crops and restoring historical ones, recently grew lentils in the UK for the first time in quite some time. I also learned that it has been promoting carlin peas, which, as I learned in an internet discussion, are apparently a traditional cultural bar snack in Lancashire. Rather than peanuts, we could have local carlin, or parched, peas. This reminds us that we can have cultural restoration as well as the restoration of our health, well-being, soils and food. I commend Amendment 47 to the House.
I was also pleased to attach my name to Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. It would introduce a requirement to support healthy and nutritious food and, implicitly, avoid supporting unhealthy food. It is clear that our global food system, of which the UK is a closely enmeshed part, is entirely broken. Last year, before Covid, 690 million malnourished people were unable to get the basic calories they needed; a similar number are obese, unable to get the healthy food they need, and billions more are on that route. Yet we have just seen a truly tragic figure in the UK: the number of cases of children admitted to hospital suffering from malnutrition has doubled in the past six months to 2,500—and that was with only two-thirds of NHS trusts reporting. I hope that, in responding, the Government will say that it is their business to ensure that the UK meets the second sustainable development goal: zero hunger. Part of that is having a healthy diet, not simply an adequate number of calories. We not on track to meet that goal by 2030. In his response, I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government hope to achieve that goal if they are not intending to use the Agriculture Bill to do so.
Amendment 75—tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and backed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville—seeks to improve public health by increasing the availability, affordability, diversity, quality and marketing of fruit, vegetables and pulses. I want to focus on marketing in particular. The World Cancer Research Fund has said that countries, including the UK, are failing to protect children from the effects of “harmful” junk food marketing. Children are having unhealthy food promoted to them but are not seeing the promotion of healthy food; the World Cancer Research Fund says that this is a human rights issue.
Finally, Amendment 75 refers to reducing the use of antibiotics and related veterinary products. I have been contacted by members of the public and industry asking what “related veterinary product” refers to; I would point to anthelmintics, in particular their impact on dung fauna and on insects on land and in watercourses. I do not consider this amendment as covering vaccines. I also note the similarity between this amendment and my Amendment 49, which would put a similar provision in Clause 1. If the EU target is for a 50% reduction in pesticide use in a decade and if the UK is to be world-leading in that regard, how will we get to that standard if not through the Agriculture Bill?
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my own business interest in farming as already detailed in the register. In this group, I support Amendments 35, 36, 60, 69 and 71. All of them emphasise growing healthy and nutritious food. That also means growing and offering a rather better selection of food than we now do. Therefore, I am also in favour of Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which advocates a shift in direction to achieve improved diets—still containing, but much less dominated by, animal products. I also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which urges more food production in urban areas.
Amendment 63 in my name would encourage urban and peri-urban growing enterprises to provide fresh local produce close to the market where it is required. I hope that my noble friend the Minister agrees that the Secretary of State might provide incentives accordingly. During the coronavirus pandemic, we have witnessed the importance of food security and local supply chains delivering food to where it is needed. Farming endeavours within conurbations can have an immediate and beneficial impact on supply chains, responding accurately to local demands. This contrasts with large supermarket chains sourcing goods from overseas and adding to the carbon footprint of such produce through transport costs.
Small-scale intensive food production uses little space yet reveals a high yield per acre as well-evidenced in the Netherlands. Those examples are particularly suited to towns and cities where ground is in short supply. Green-belt areas could also be freed up for such endeavours. They would also offer quality outdoor employment for people in urban environments.
Some of these projects might fulfil a social purpose too: for instance, city farms to educate children about animals and agriculture; and allotments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has already referred, which can teach people about food production at the same time as allowing and encouraging them to grow their own food. Not least, they also enable more green areas in cities for the benefit of those living there.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I will endeavour to be brief: we have an awful lot to get through. I am grateful to see Clause 1(4) in the Bill. It was remarkable that, in its early iterations, a Bill about agriculture had no specific reference to the provision of food. My Amendment 71 would merely improve upon that provision of food by the specification that it should be both “healthy and nutritious”.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, on this amendment. I understand that all the amendments in this group are directed to a very similar goal. There is clearly strong support across the Committee for making sure that the food whose production we are encouraging is healthy and nutritious, and not the sort of food that causes ill-health, obesity and so many other issues that are being brought into full focus with the onslaught of coronavirus. At this time, of all times, it has become clear that the health and well-being of our nation are a result of the healthiness and nutrition of the food that we eat. This is therefore not just about agriculture; it goes to a much wider issue.
Some may say that the health and nutrition of the food could be secured by the fact that the clause provides that it must be environmentally sustainable. Of course, the two things are vastly different. It is perfectly possible to produce food in an environmentally sustainable way and it not be healthy and nutritious. There has been much talk over recent days of insect farming and novel agritech. You could certainly see insect farming as a very environmentally sustainable means of farming. It is the feeding of waste product, typically to insect larvae, which are then mashed up for their protein. That is the production of food in a very environmentally sustainable way, but I am not sure that it is either healthy or nutritious food, albeit it has an important role to play in the feeding of fish, for example, and other larger animals.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be in this debate and to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, Lady Meacher and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for supporting my amendment. I agree with pretty much all the amendments proposed, and agree entirely with the provision and principle of ELMS, but I want to make a few points.
Of course, we must support the environmental goods that our farming can do, but if we do that without including the need to grow healthy food, we have in a sense lost the primary reason why we farm and have given it back to the market. By that, I mean the overwhelming power of the big retail producers, which has meant that so much land has been given over to grow grains which feed animals, or grains which are highly refined and end up in un-nutritious products such as cheap white bread and that so little of our land ends up producing the nutritious fruit and vegetables that we need.
I shall give a few facts and figures. The volume of home production decreased by 1.8% in 2019 to the lowest level that we have had for 20 years, despite its value having gone up. Imports have increased as well. Home production of vegetables contributes only about 54% of the total UK food supply. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others have talked about our food security but it is bigger than that: it is about trying to support farmers to do the right thing to support our health. Some 31,000 premature deaths in the UK could be averted every year if we ate enough fruit and veg, yet according to the Food Foundation, of which I am a trustee, UK adults currently eat an average of just 2.5 portions of veg a day.
When the previous Agriculture Bill went through its Second Reading in the Commons, Michael Gove, then Secretary of State for Defra, said:
“Every measure in the Bill is designed to ensure that our farmers receive the support that they deserve to give us … healthy food.”
When challenged on why this was not in its Clause 1, he said that
“food production in this country is critical to the improvement of public health … we put the importance of improving public health at the heart of everything that we do”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/10/18; cols. 150-51.]
In answer to another question about whether that Bill would support the production of fruit and veg, he said that it was a critical issue. I therefore consider this Bill worryingly silent when it comes to healthy food production. It has to be a matter of strategic national interest and social justice that we ensure that our country is better able to feed itself with healthy, nutritious food and to protect itself from volatility.
Sustainable production must be central to this Bill—it cannot be seen as something to be left to the market—and that, I am afraid, takes money. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke about the need for allotments and more growing spaces. When I ran the London Food Board, we had a project called Capital Growth and created 2,500 new community projects. It is tremendously successful and we are trying to roll it out across the country. However, at the end of the day, it accounts for a tiny amount of vegetables. The point is that, if we are to grow more, farmers need money. At the moment, a very small amount of our land is devoted to this. We have to understand that financial help is needed, first, to make the transition and, secondly, to get this produce to the market. All the other things that I have talked about in our debates on amendments—local food networks, local abattoirs and so on—are part of the same thing.
We know that we have terrible problems with obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. These are the results of a food system which is not working for us and our citizens. We have had a policy based on food corporations. We now have a unique opportunity to take this system back into public ownership and public concern.
Healthy food is a public good just as much as our NHS, and if we had better diets we would save that amazing institution about £2 billion a year. If we ate more local and seasonal fruit and vegetables, and if we bought from local producers, we could also reduce our carbon footprint, at the same time as improving our health, our land, our mental health and the mental health of our communities, which, as every noble Lord will have seen in the last few weeks, is an issue of such importance to our country.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has indicated that he will not speak on this group, I call the next speaker on the list, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, first, I thank those responsible for the speakers’ lists for heeding my words and those of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The present speakers’ list is in a much better shape and leads to better debate than was the case previously.
I have put my name to Amendment 70. I think that the words “have regard to” in Clause 1(4) weaken the importance of producing good, healthy food. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that they should be deleted, and I congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh on sponsoring this amendment. I was happy to sign up to it.
All noble Lords have been speaking about food security. I hope that every single one of your Lordships participating in today’s debate has read the recently published report of the Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment Committee entitled Hungry for Change: Fixing the Failures in Food. The report goes into the subject in some depth, covering many of the points raised in this evening’s debate.
I would like to make one point about growing healthy food. It sounds as though our farmers do not grow healthy food at the moment. I think that, in the present circumstances of the CAP, our farmers grow very healthy food but it is the food industry that turns it into ultra-processed food, and that is the poison that contaminates our diets. Rather than just concentrating on farmers, the food industry has to be looked at as a whole.
We make a number of recommendations in our report Hungry for Change, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to them in due course. Food security covers a vast number of departments. We talked to three different ministries during our deliberations, which were somewhat hampered by the Covid pandemic, but it is clear that this is a whole-government rather than just a Defra problem.
Given what everybody else has said, I can now terminate my remarks, but I hope that my noble friend will agree to Amendment 70.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 35, which was so comprehensively moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I did so for one simple reason: it explicitly recognises that a key part of the output of farming must be its effect on human health. It is somewhat strange that Clause 1, which lists all the ways in which public money can be spent to support the output of farming—the improvement of land, water, woodlands, the environment, natural heritage, the countering of environmental threats, the welfare of livestock, the health of plants, plant and livestock conservation and so on—contains no mention of human beings.
The biggest impact of farming, both in its production methods and in what it produces, is on human beings. I was provoked, to some extent, to add my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, because I received advice on pesticides when I was tabling a different amendment that comes much later on in this Bill. Some of the issues relating to this have already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in the earlier debate today. However, I asked that this amendment be headed “human health”, and I was told that this was beyond the scope of the Bill. It must not be. I have amended that amendment to conform, obviously, but human health is central to this Bill.
It is not just the potentially negative effects of some farming processes; it is much more positively the effect of the produce of farming on the balance of our diets and nutrition, and the way it gets to the public. Like the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others, I was a member of the Select Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which produced its report very recently. That report spells out that farming has to be seen as part of the totality of the food chain, and one of its principal impacts is its being directly or indirectly responsible for the health and nutrition of our population.
As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has just said, much of the responsibility here lies with the big processors, the wholesalers and the retailers, which both specify and advertise food that is quite often not so healthy. However, the responsibility also lies on farmers and government policy towards farming. The Krebs report makes quite a wide range of recommendations that relate to this, and the Bill does not fully reflect that priority because the availability, quality, pricing, convenience and affordability of nutritious food is vital to turning around the declining quality of our diets, which is causing such things as our obesity being the worst in Europe and examples of malnutrition and so forth in our population—mostly, but by no means exclusively, among the least well-off families.
Good food is a public good. This Bill needs to reflect that. A more plant-based diet is a health benefit. More domestic production of fresh fruit and veg is a key part of any strategy for healthier food. Hence I—and I think the whole of the Krebs committee—would wish to see, in Clause 1, a reference to health and diet as a public good derived from the output and methods of farming, and therefore worthy of our support. Therefore, I support Amendment 35, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 36 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which refers explicitly to healthy food.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has withdrawn from the list, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to speak to the whole group of amendments as I find the interrelationship between the various amendments on this occasion particularly interesting. My noble friend Lord Whitty has been talking about food security. This group focuses on food security not only in the context in which he mentioned it—although that is vital—but in the context of the most unstable period in world affairs that we can remember. It is very important to think of food security in that context as well.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests, which I set out on day one of Committee last Tuesday. I refer back to the concerns of those supporting native ponies about the wording of Amendment 69. Naturally, none of them, nor I, have any objection to the support of food management, but the wording of Amendment 69 has the potential to confine financial support to food production and might therefore exclude native ponies from financial assistance.
Lord Inglewood [V]
My Lords, ever since the age of the hunter-gatherers, earth has been supplying humankind’s food needs. That is why I am pleased to support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the thrust of many of the other amendments which have been grouped with it.
Over the centuries, famine has been a regular feature of human history in different parts of the world. It is worth recalling that in western Europe, immediately post the Second World War, in the period that the Germans call Die Stunde Null—that is, within living memory of people alive today—people were starving to death. Of course, it was partly for this reason that the common agricultural policy was set up in the way in which it was. Given that, it is not perhaps as silly as it is sometimes thought to be by certain not very well-informed commentators in this country.
I think it is generally agreed that one of the duties of a state is to ensure with reasonable certainty that its citizens have enough to eat of an appropriate quality and at a reasonable price. It seems that if it is necessary and appropriate to do so, the state should spend money to ensure that this happens. Of course, medieval chroniclers tell us that, on occasion, people in besieged cities lived on cats, rats and dogs, but I do not imagine that many people would consider that a desirable state of affairs.
What is interesting about the first clause of the Bill is that climate change is mentioned, because it affects the earth we live on, and in turn the future of humanity. Equally, however, I believe that food security should be included in this section of the Bill because, in a completely different way, it just as much affects the future of humanity.
Some of your Lordships may remember that it was not all that long ago that there was a very poor wheat harvest, and suddenly the price of bread shot up in the supermarkets. If you were to believe the tabloid press, there was a huge crisis. Equally, there was an interesting article in the House magazine this week written by the managing director of Arla Foods—I declare a specific interest in that I sell my milk to Arla. He said that it is interesting that in this country we still import 35.5% of the yoghurt we consume, just under 40% of the butter and just under 68% of all cheese. Our security of supply is in a number of temperate foodstuffs—obviously, we cannot produce bananas and things like that here—very far from secure. It is rather like pandemics, is it not? “Oh no, it couldn’t happen here”—but then suddenly Covid-19 comes out of left field and we are all caught in a very exposed position.
The Minister may well argue that food security is by inference present around the Bill because it is part of general policy that the state should be guarantor of food security. However, if you look at the way in which the Bill is constructed, and you look at Clause 1, you see that those provisions are there to set out the ground rules for our future agricultural order and the financial support for it. I believe, for the reasons I have just explained, that food security should be included within it so that the ground rules are clear to everybody.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to followed the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and to support the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Jones of Whitchurch. This group of amendments is quite clearly about the need to fight and campaign for, but above all to establish and place in the Bill, food security. While food security might be implicit, it needs to be explicit.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, I was a member—albeit not for as long as they were—of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that published the report last week entitled, Hungry for Change: Fixing the Failures in Food. I agree with my colleagues that a holistic, systems approach has to be taken to food, from the moment it is produced and grown by the farmer, right through processing and retailers, through to the consumer and food waste. These things are all vital. I urge the Minister to read that report. In advance of the government response, I urge him to indicate in his response today whether he has read our Select Committee report and whether he has any initial thoughts. Will he ensure that these amendments dealing with food security—now heightened as a result of the Covid situation—are placed in the Bill?
We are also still awaiting the report from Henry Dimbleby, who coincidentally gave us evidence. It is important that the national food strategy comes forward as quickly as possible, because we want to encourage people to eat healthily.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I would like to see the day when people do not have to access food banks because of their inability to purchase food due to lack of resources. It is therefore important that we build a robust, resilient food supply. This is an issue for all of government, not solely Defra.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, talks about food sustainability and farming
“in an environmentally sustainable way”,
which is vital. It is also important that this Bill reflects food security directly related to health and well-being as important components in qualification for financial assistance.
A whole chapter of our report dealt with food security. One of our recommendations is
“built around the central aim of ensuring that everyone, regardless of income, has access to a healthy”,
affordable and sustainable diet. An onus should be placed on farmers to ensure food security as part of the food system.
Equally, like the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I say an onus has to be placed on the processors and retailers to ensure they are providing food of a healthy, nutritious quality, not subject to reformulation through the addition of fats and salts. We have to create a healthy nation of people who have good health and well-being. If that means more fruit and vegetables are eaten, that is all to the good.
I support this group of amendments, in particular Amendments 35 and 36. I also commend the report from our Select Committee and look forward to the Minister’s response to it, indicating support and that cross-departmental action will be taken across government to ensure that its recommendations are fully implemented.
Lord Blencathra [V]
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the wise words we heard last week and today from my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who always brings not only wisdom and farming experience to our debates, but sound common sense, which seems to be a government policy at the moment.
I am afraid that some of the amendments here are misguided in that they talk of farmers producing healthy food. I submit that all food that leaves UK farms is healthy, but it may not be so healthy when it is processed and on the supermarket shelves, exactly as my noble friend Lord Caithness so rightly said.
Many amendments mention the word “food”, but I can see only one with the word “diet” in it. In fact, I think the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was the only Peer to mention “diet” until the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, mentioned it a couple of minutes ago. There are no bad foods, just very bad diets, yet people keep demonising certain foods which are perfectly okay if eaten as part of a balanced diet or in moderation.
Many years ago, when I and others did winter warfare training in the Cairngorms, we would scoff an enormous fry-up for breakfast, two Mars bars on the top of some mountain and a very big dinner. We would come away half a stone lighter and a lot fitter at the end of a week. We are becoming a nation of inactive, obese blobs, and that is nothing to do with British farmers.
I am perfectly willing to be informed, but I cannot think of anything grown or produced on a UK farm that is intrinsically a bad food of itself. Since we have the tightest controls on pesticides and antibiotics of any country in the world, healthy food leaves the farm gate. Are we to tell farmers to stop growing potatoes because some people eat far too many chips? The chickens and lettuces leaving our farms are healthy, but by the time, say, Pret a Manger has slathered them in mayonnaise—making them taste delicious, I accept—in their giant sub sandwiches, then they are very heavy on the calories.
I do not see any benefit to the environment in trying to stop UK framers producing meat, then flying in avocados from Brazil and almond milk from California. We should concentrate on people’s overall diets and their lack of exercise, and not tell farmers to produce healthy foods, which they already do.
If we want farmers to grow different food, that means getting food manufacturers to create the demand based on what their customers demand. There is no point in farmers growing what noble Lords in this debate have called healthy food if there is no market for it. It is the role of the whole of government—not just Defra, but especially the Department of Health—to attempt to educate the public to change to healthier diets, and I stress “diets”.
Every amendment here concentrates on the production of, rather than the demand for, food. Like it or not, the demand has to come first. Farmers do not need to be encouraged to switch to grains and pulses production. If the supermarkets want more tofu, quinoa or lentils then British farmers will soon find a way to supply it, just as they rapidly moved into growing oilseed rape and linseed as soon as the EU started paying for it. British farmers will rapidly adjust what they produce if the demand is there. I agree with and passionately believe in the need for healthy diets, but that is not the job of British farmers.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner as set out in the register. I support Amendments 56, 60 and 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, as it is so important to encourage the production of food by our farmers in an environmentally sustainable way.
I also believe that farming with new technology will be possible and appropriate in the urban environment, so I very much support Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and Amendment 63, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. Industrial farming is moving to farm to fork, which looks more sustainable. Localism and resilience are the current watchwords, but some products, whether fruit or vegetables, can be grown only in hot climates. This is where technology comes in and where Amendment 63 is so important. Vertical, indoor farms are emerging, as fruit and vegetables can be grown in confined spaces, with light, heat and water controlled by technology. This can take place in cities, next to consumers, and, of course, uses less land. The Bill needs to provide for the next generation of farms, whether rural or urban. Look at Singapore, which imports 90% of its food and aims to produce 30% locally by 2030. Much of this is urban, using new technologies. I therefore support these amendments, which provide a setting for food security in the United Kingdom.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 35, 36 and 60 on food security and access to food that promotes good health and well-being: I would have signed them, but many other people wanted to do so first and I am very glad to support them.
Having represented an agricultural and food-producing constituency for 32 years, I have experienced the destructive effects of BSE, foot and mouth and, incidentally, the truck-drivers’ strike. BSE led to the laying off of 1,000 people in my constituency within a week, and although foot and mouth did not directly affect my constituency, the restrictions on movement had very serious impacts, so I am very aware of food security and how it can very quickly be disrupted.
We have seen an increase recently in food poverty, because although supply chains have adapted to deliver food alternatively, it has in many cases been at more expense, as when suppliers to the catering industry have offered to supply domestic suppliers—healthy, good fruit and vegetables, yes, but at a price that not everybody can afford. Of course, as a country we are heavily dependent on seasonal food imports; and not just seasonal food, but fresh fruit and vegetables from Spain and the Netherlands, in particular.
Our homegrown fruit and vegetable production has been disrupted recently by a shortage of labour: Covid-19 restrictions have perhaps given us a taste of what a post-Brexit labour shortage will do for our supply chain. I can certainly say that, in our area, some producers are struggling to harvest our berry crops, of which Scotland is a major grower—for the whole of the EU, incidentally, not just for the UK. Indications are that the UK could face shortages of fresh fruit and vegetables, either because of tariffs or the diversion of EU exports elsewhere, because of higher transport costs and delays and losses because of necessary border inspections. After all, £700 million is being laid out to create a lorry park in Kent, where, I suspect, it will be difficult to keep food as fresh as it would be with the just-in-time delivery we currently enjoy. Quite simply, I worry that EU suppliers, who are currently happy to send fruit and veg to the UK, might find it less profitable and choose to divert to alternative markets within the EU, where there is less bureaucracy, less cost and less risk of delay and disruption.
Do the Government recognise that we may, for both security and nutrition, need to provide additional support to homegrown production, which will not face this disruption? What plans are in place to do that? Are we prepared for a sudden drop in supply or a dramatic increase in prices from 1 January 2020? The Government had not planned very well for the unexpected pandemic; they cannot suggest that what happens on 1 January is not foreseeable. How well are they planning for it, and how sure are they that disruption will be avoided?
Those who campaigned for us to leave the EU constantly promised an abundant supply of cheap food. The questions in this debate have been whether that cheap food is also nutritious food, and whether it is as good as the food we currently get or could get from our own production and our own sources. How can the Government guarantee that there will be an adequate, affordable supply of nutritious, affordable food if there is a shortfall of supply from our current EU sources? I commend these amendments and I hope that the Government will take them seriously, because if they do not, there will be a price to pay, in cash, in quality and potentially in shortage of good-quality, nutritious food.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. He has asked some pertinent questions, which deserve clear answers.
What you never have, you never miss, but you soon miss what you have taken for granted. That has been underlined, time and again, during this very difficult Covid year. It is important that there is a smooth transition at the end of December. I personally greatly regret the fact that Ministers have been so obdurate about that date, but there it is. We have to face up to the fact that it is the prime duty of every Government to defend the realm. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made plain in his splendid speech, part of defending the realm is keeping people properly fed. As one who grew up through the war years, when our affairs were brilliantly managed in the face of often seemingly overwhelming odds, I know that and so do many of your Lordships.
I was glad that my noble friend Lady McIntosh began this debate with such a prudent and sensible speech. There have been many of those in this debate, and there are very few amendments to which I would not have been glad to put my name. However, when we talk, as my noble friend did at the beginning, of public payment for public good, what is a greater public good than ensuring a proper supply of healthy food to maintain the health of the nation? It could be argued that that is the greatest of all public goods. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that when he comes to reply. He is a very well-regarded Member of your Lordships’ House and he knows about farming and agriculture at first hand. He also knows that his is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am glad that “Food” features so prominently, as it did in the old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
It is essential that we have a quality supply of good food. We are dependent upon our farmers for that. Some colleagues have, quite justifiably, made disparaging comments about what those who process the food do to extract nutrition from it, but our farmers produce excellent food. They must be encouraged to do so in every possible way while having proper regard, as we debated last week, for the countryside and the environment in which they operate and for which they are responsible.
I refer again to the admirable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I very much hope that there is adequate planning to ensure a smooth transition at the end of the year. Above all else, the Government will be judged, not only by how they have handled the pandemic but by how they create a smooth transition, so our people can still take for granted a ready and steady supply of healthy food for the good of the nation and future generations.
Lord Trees (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to comment briefly on proposed new subsection (b) in Amendment 75, which refers to reducing the use of antibiotics in livestock and related veterinary products. I fully agree with the aim of reducing the use of antibiotics on livestock as far as possible while retaining their use to treat sick animals to ensure their good welfare. Indeed, in the UK, we have been incredibly successful in reducing the use of all antibiotics on all livestock by more than 50% since 2014. Currently, in fact, usage is well below the target set in the 2016 report from the commission headed by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill.
With regard to so-called critically important antibiotics for human use, there is absolutely minimal use on livestock today. This has been achieved by management improvements, husbandry improvements and, of course, the use of vaccines, which are a major tool in controlling and preventing infectious disease. They are thus terribly important in reducing drug use for therapeutic purposes, so it is important that their use is not discouraged.
I seek greater clarification on what is meant in this amendment by “related veterinary product use”. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, commented on this to some extent in her earlier speech; I think she said words to the effect that she did not envisage the inclusion of vaccines in this amendment. I hope that that is so; it would indeed be counterproductive.
She also commented on anthelmintic use and its effect on dung beetles. As a parasitologist, I want to comment briefly on that. I assure her that that is not an issue in the UK. Some years ago, this was looked at carefully; various anthelmintics, which of course are for worms and which also have powers of activity against insects, were introduced. Poor research students were sat out in the open having to observe the degradation of cowpats in fields, some of which were grazed by cattle with anthelmintics and some of which were grazed by cattle without them. I assure the noble Baroness that there was absolutely no difference as a result of the anthelmintic treatment.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I repeat the declaration of my interests that I made last Tuesday.
Amendments 35 and 36 seek to add to the list of purposes for which financial assistance may be given. Amendment 36 is already covered by existing purposes, as is Amendment 35, up to a point. This amendment, moved by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, also seeks to establish food security as a purpose. It is hard to see how these amendments would have much of an effect on the proportion of our food that we import—or, indeed, the proportion of our food produce that we export. British farm produce, including arable, dairy and livestock, is produced to very high international standards and, I believe, can hold its own in both domestic and overseas markets.
I cannot see that Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has any place in an Agriculture Bill that seeks to reduce farmers’ dependence on the state. It would threaten to increase the cost and reduce the choice of meals provided by public bodies by introducing distortions to the market, reflecting particular views on environmental or animal welfare standards that go further than required by law.
In the same way, I would resist Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because I do not believe that the Secretary of State should be involved in trying to persuade people to change their diet to a vegetarian one. I very much agree with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, with regard to her amendment. I have nothing against vegetarians—indeed, I have a daughter-in-law who does not eat meat—but it should be a matter of personal taste.
My noble friend Lord Northbrook, who is most knowledgeable in this area, has eloquently spoken in support of his Amendment 60, which seeks to ensure a sufficient level of food security. I do not think my noble friend is suggesting we need go back to a time when foreign food was virtually unknown to most people in this country. Of course we need to maximise our domestic food production, but it is also important that our new trading relationships continue to offer British consumers more choice at reasonable prices.
My noble friend also wishes to require the Secretary of State to support the production of food in England through his Amendment 69. On this, I prefer his drafting and the effect of the change he wishes to make. I also prefer his wording to that of my noble friend Lady McIntosh in Amendment 70, although her amendment is also an improvement on the current somewhat ambiguous wording.
I am afraid that I do not understand the purpose of Amendment 71, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, as I do not want the Secretary of State to become a sort of food policeman. I do not understand what the noble Earl means by suggesting that his amendment
“avoids the Secretary of State having regard to the production of unhealthy food.”
I am not sure that public health concerns, as mentioned in Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, should be in an agriculture Bill, however desirable the improvement of public health obviously is.
Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, defines “environmentally sustainable way”. I do not think that it needs to be specifically defined and I question whether avoiding the “depletion of natural resources”, desirable though that is, is clearly contained within the meaning of the phrase.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my long-standing and noble friend Lord Trenchard. I agree with the general thrust of his comments. After a long day on two important Bills, I will confine myself to two points.
First, the changing weather pattern, the risk of another pandemic and, more immediately, the possibility of an exit from the single market without an FTA all point to the need for a sensible, long-term focus on food security. I welcome my noble friend Lord Northbrook’s Amendment 60—an enabling amendment and not a requirement—and the part on food security in the lead amendment, Amendment 35, proposed by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. This plays to Clause 17 of the Bill and its proposal for a five-yearly report on food security, which I very much welcome.
Secondly, like the noble Lord, Lord Trees, I will talk about antibiotics. I support the provision on reducing farm antibiotics in Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. The impact of antibiotic resistance is one of the most serious issues facing the human race. It could make common operations extremely dangerous around the world, endangering people of all ages and in all countries—and with no prospect of a vaccine, so potentially worse than Covid-19.
At Red Tractor—I restate my interests here—we have worked hard with the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance to tackle this on farms through proper measurement and collection of data, assured standards and annual veterinary inspections. The former CMO, Dame Sally Davies, has commended us for the substantial decline in antibiotic use. For example, in the pig sector use of antibiotics has fallen by 60% over four years. However, there is more to do, and we are working with farmers, processors and retailers to do just that. The power proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, could help us to intensify the work, with some government support. This should be if and only if the need arises, and after proper costing and risk assessment—to hark back to my amendment to Clause 1.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he had been advised that the scope of the Bill did not cover health. I would like confirmation that the role of farmers in AMR is within its ambit when the Minister replies to this important group.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I support a number of amendments in this group, in particular those that touch on food security, such as Amendments 35 and 60. Food security is crucial, both for our protection and for the flourishing and survival of any nation. History teaches us that food shortages have always occurred. They are often caused by many different factors and occur at an alarming rate. One of the earliest historical examples of this is found in the Hebrew scriptures, in Genesis chapters 41 and 42, where we read of Jacob storing up grain in Egypt ready for the seven years of famine. Not only did his actions save the lives of many, but underlying this narrative is the message that food is also about political power:
“And all the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe everywhere.”
We are all aware that food security in the modern world is complex. The many advantages of an international market have meant that for most of the time food prices have been driven down and choice expanded. We know that many types of food would be both difficult and expensive to grow in this country due to our climate, so we will never be totally self-sufficient in food.
We have heard reference to publication of the report Hungry for Change from the Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Committee just eight days ago. I note in that report the evidence given by Defra. It states:
“The ELMS proposes to reward a number of environmental ‘public goods’ with public money. The Government will support and reward farmers for providing improved environmental outcomes such as improved soil health and carbon emissions. The Department told us that the scheme may lead some farmers to move away from ‘traditional agricultural activity’.”
But the basic fundamental point of agriculture is to grow food and it is deeply worrying to consider that in under 30 years it is estimated that the world will need 60% more food than today. It is concerning considering that, at this very moment, we have vast swarms of locusts devastating crops in east Africa, Asia and the Middle East—an event of which we had no foresight a few months ago but which is likely to lead to extensive famines in the coming months. So I am keen to support these amendments, which support food security both for our good and for that of the international community.
Amendments 53 and 63 refer to food produced locally, including urban areas. We are trying to improve the environment, reduce transport and provide locally grown food, so these amendments are worth exploring. Both are supported by Amendment 69, which strengthens the Bill by changing “must have regard to” to “must support”. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these ideas and how Her Majesty’s Government might include them in the Bill.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, here we are on day three and we are still on Clause 1. Just to encourage the Minister, I remind him that he must have been in the House of Commons when the Maastricht Bill was being debated. It had all of four clauses but it took 25 days, so he is doing extremely well at the moment. But in the interests of making progress I am restricting myself to one speech tonight. That concerns Amendment 36. To me that is the heart of the Bill and very much the heart of horticulture. What a privilege it is to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. He covers most of Bedfordshire, although unfortunately not the part that I live in, but much of the part of Bedfordshire that is keen on horticulture.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I regret that we have to deal with these proceedings virtually; we would not normally do so, but these are not normal circumstances. It is a hugely ambitious and vital piece of legislation that must, of course, be debated, but also allowed to breathe. I fear—forgive me if I sound impertinent—that far too many of the amendments that we are seeing today and on other days will not improve the Bill but instead tend to smother it.
As my noble friend Lord Naseby just mentioned, this is the third day in Committee and we are still on Clause 1, with another 53 clauses plus all the schedules to go. I hope noble Lords will agree that as a responsible House we have a duty to exercise a little caution and even a little self-restraint.
I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, will forgive me if I offer a few words about her Amendment 47 on
“transitioning from livestock to plant-based food production.”
Last week we were discussing getting livestock out of the sheds and into the fields. This week we are getting the same livestock, which have just been put into the fields, out of the fields again and replacing them with plants. Even the cows are confused, so I have no idea how my noble friend the Minister will deal with that.
I have an even more fundamental objection to this amendment. Transitioning from livestock to plants en masse may be a good thing; it may not. There are very opposed opinions on this. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made some good points about the importance of a balanced diet. Wrapped up in this amendment is a clear political agenda, and the noble Baroness as good as acknowledged that in her extensive remarks. I am not afraid of politics, but taxpayers and consumers should not be asked to pay for a political agenda through the back door, as this amendment does, unless they voted for it—which they have not. This is not the stuff of fundamental legislation but for the political hustings. If it is so good for farmers’ incomes and consumers’ health, as has been suggested, they will get the point without any instruction from us.
In these difficult circumstances we have a responsibility to be brief, so I will finish on Amendment 35 on
“access to food that promotes good health and wellbeing.”
But of course. How can I say this without causing offence? This amendment, in this Bill, is apple pie so sweet it will make your teeth rot. It is totally unnecessary; indeed, it is inappropriate. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has acknowledged, it is beyond the scope of the Bill.
Some want to turn the Bill into a vehicle for fundamental social change, but this is a Bill on agriculture, not the Sermon on the Mount. I hope the Committee will show a good deal of self-restraint in both debating and pursuing these amendments, no matter how worthy some of their objectives may be.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I first declare again the interests I declared last week, as in the register.
I am delighted with this set of amendments, because they put right a fundamental flaw in the Bill, which was to make a false distinction between food production, food and agriculture on the one hand and the environment. This is dangerous, because it plays into the hands of those who say that all that matters is the environment, which irritates the people who see their main job as producing food.
This debate has really brought back a unity and a recognition that food production is not simply a private good but very much a public good; I hope this is able to be incorporated in the Bill in some way on Report. We have seen two main reasons given, both very relevant: security and, of course, obesity. Security has come to the front recently because of Covid, and everybody who happily took the instant availability of anything they wanted from anywhere in the world got a rude awakening; we all did. I was taken back to my childhood days in the war. At home in Suffolk we managed to get a fortnightly delivery from Waitrose because we were locked up. My wife had ordered a bunch of bananas, and what actually arrived was two bananas—serves us right. The point is that food security means something: using what we have, not what we do not have.
The next important thing is obesity. It is the biggest epidemic we have, bigger and probably more important than Covid-19. This is absolutely a matter of better eating and eating more natural foods. I am not a vegetarian, but I believe that the simpler the food we eat is, the better. One of the great changes was when people stopped having porridge for breakfast. All sorts of sophisticated cereals were introduced—Corn Flakes, Grape-Nuts, Weetabix and so on—and very delicious they were. However, they soon became adulterated with far too much sugar and salt. Then we copied the Swiss and introduced muesli, which was originally simple grains, mixed, cold and raw, which you ate with your milk in the morning, but which has been adulterated and become a terrible product called Alpen, which is stuffed with sugar and fats and is quite revolting.
We must recognise that healthy eating is very important and the key to it is getting the consumer and the producer close together and making as many consumers as possible into producers. I very much support the remarks that have been made about horticulture. I will very quickly give one story of the first time I went to China, in December 1965, just before the chaos of the cultural revolution descended and swept away the Mao dynasty. I noticed when visiting a commune that the people who were happiest and who paid the most attention to life were those working their private plots in corners, which were very small and intensive, producing a great deal of food which obviously they ate themselves.
Small is beautiful, in farming as well as in modern technology, but we must spread the word of people getting involved in agriculture and getting consumers and producers together. Years ago, when I was on the Countryside Commission, the urban fringe was doing very badly. We had what we called Groundwork to clean it up. It was a great success. It got local people excited, and changed the nature of deprived and grotty, dirty, litter-filled areas, polluted ponds and so on. It is the same principle as the remarks that have been made about urban farming on this set of amendments. I am in favour of all that. The big lesson from this group of amendments is in exposing the false distinction between public and private good, in which food production is relegated to being a private good. Let us get together to improve our food, ensure the security of our food supply and, most of all, encourage the beating of obesity by the sensible eating of natural foods.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and very much go along with the sentiments that he expressed. This is an ambitious Bill, which I find exciting. It deals with agriculture for this moment in time and for the future.
Let me make it clear from the beginning that I am full of admiration for farmers, who work so hard, usually in inclement conditions, to put food on our plates, by which we all live. We should never forget that.
What has come through this series of debates—and it is perhaps the nature of the hybrid system that so much time has been spent on Clause 1—is that Clause 1 sets the tone of the Bill and its moment has come. Words and titles are important. When I became the principal Opposition spokesman on agriculture in 1987, one of the first things I did was to change the title of my job from the Shadow Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to the Shadow Minister for Food and Agriculture. It has always been important to mention food. Time has shown that that was right, and I am delighted that we now have a Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because it is very important.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support this set of amendments. Given the hour, I will speak in support of Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
I welcome the Bill’s commitment to public money for public goods. Failing to explicitly incorporate public health as a public good in the Bill would be a missed opportunity. A healthy diet—eating a variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts and pulses—is directly linked to lowering the risk of health problems, such as coronary heart disease, stroke and some types of cancer. As we know, the diets of many in this country are too low in fruits and vegetables, and too high in salt and sugar. Agricultural policy can and should help shape a country’s diet. Incentive for food producers to specialise in specific crops means the supply of greater than normal quantities, leading to lower prices and increased consumption.
According to data on agricultural land classification, 19% of total agricultural land in England is suitable to grow fruit and vegetables. However, only 1.4% is currently used for fruit and vegetable production. A study by the Royal Society for Public Health found that increasing land use for fruit and vegetable production would increase their consumption and in turn save lives. Financial support, therefore, for the increased production of fruit and vegetables, nuts and pulses would mean that those foods could be made cheaper, be of higher quality—as they would be part of a shorter supply chain—be more widely available and be better promoted. This amendment would ensure that our agricultural policy could be used as a lever for public health. It would help develop a truly sustainable agricultural system for the UK that benefited farmers and the public alike. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have nothing to declare but, I hope, a touch of practicality. It is worth recalling that the food industry, if we take it from one end to the other, is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector. It is also worth remembering that sectors such as horticulture and pigs never received any common agricultural policy subsidies; they were direct to the market.
I want to comment on two or three of the amendments, in particular Amendment 53, on urban production. We have to be careful when we talk about urban production. Allotments and growing food for your own house and family is one thing, but if it is urban production employed for the community at large, we have to be very careful. For example, there are fields around airports where you are not allowed to grow certain foods—I think that the reasons for that will be obvious. That would apply also to fields that were very close to industry where pollutants were present. The only way in which we could really make an effort in urban production, and I agree with it, is if it was under cover or under glass. It might be vertical production, for which I cannot really see why there should be public subsidies, or glass-like production using waste heat. The sugar plant at Downham Market has a glass-house next to it—the last time I was there, it was 25 acres, but I think it has gone to 40 acres—growing tomatoes. They are not allowed even to call them organic. No pesticides or herbicides are used on them, but they are not grown in the soil. That is because of the religious zealots in the organic certifiers, but they are perfectly okay, and we could be productive in tomatoes with the other glass-houses and would not need imports. I am all in favour of that. It is probably factory farming, but it is not animals. It has to be done under cover and be mechanised. That would be an effective use of urban facilities for growing more of our food.
The contrast between obesity and malnutrition is very disturbing—I shudder at that—but we should not blame farmers for obesity. I invite noble Lords to google a BBC2 documentary called “The Men Who Made Us Fat”. It was shown about five or six years ago. The sophistication in encouraging people to eat more, in bigger portions, is incredible and it is very profitable. It should not be, but farmers are not to blame on that point.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, spoke about livestock supply. People might want to move away from livestock, but what is the problem in exporting it on the hook? We have exported for years. Before the BSE crisis, we had an incredible export performance in beef to Italy. It was cut in a separate way—I shall not mention it because it fitted a particular supermarket’s way of doing it. There was a massive amount of exports. We had the land for doing it, because of the pastureland in the west of England. If we want to cut down in certain respects, that does not mean that we should take the industry out. We should use it for export markets; that is what Brexit is supposed to be all about: we can improve our export markets. I do not really see why we should be too concerned about this.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made the point that we are not really that secure. I am in favour of using our land to grow as much of our food as possible. In some ways, I resent seeing fields of renewable energy platforms when I nip up and down the motorway when they could be used to grow crops. I do not know what the proportion of it is at present, but it is not a good use of agricultural land.
I very much support the point that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, made. I said last week that there has been a massive reduction in antibiotic use in animals, which has been pushed by the supermarkets and the food retailers. However, I made the point that there is still more to do in the game industry.
In some ways, although this is a very seductive group of amendments and I could support many of them, I am more on the line of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, than that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who, as I think he promised, always has more than an ounce of common sense in what he has to say. I will talk a little about Amendment 75, which I am quite fascinated by. Although it has been rather dismissed already, if you analyse its possible consequences, they are both effectively public goods.
The amendment intends that financial support should go to farms that grow fruit and vegetables that are available, affordable and of good quality. That is certainly a public good, not least because it would contribute to food security. However, to follow the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the more fruit and vegetables we grow, the more likely they are to be consumed. That goes right to the point about better health outcomes. Obesity and diabetes have just been mentioned.
There is also no question that too many people live in poverty in this country. Poor people have poor diets, poor health, poor life expectancy and poorer resistance. If, as a consequence of supporting food security, we are in a position to have an influence on that problem, this can reasonably be described as two public goods.
I looked up a statistic just before the debate started. Some 26% of children in this country live in absolute poverty. The consequences for their diet are obvious. If we encourage farmers to produce more fruit, vegetables and pulses, as this amendment suggests, we have a chance to have a much greater influence on the lives of these children. At first blush, it looked as though financial support had been drawn in the amendment simply for better health outcomes, but it could have a very considerable impact on farming and food security.
Finally, I adopt without question the very powerful arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie. He asked a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be in a position to answer.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments and this is another excellent opportunity to thank our farmers and front-line food producers for everything they do every day, not least during the Covid crisis. We owe them an enduring debt of gratitude. Through the correct deployment of this Bill, we have the means to swiftly repay the debt for the service they have given their local communities and the nation.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and all other noble Lords who served on the Select Committee, which produced a report with the excellent title Hungry for Change. Has my noble friend the Minister had a chance to reflect on the report and digest some of the recommendations set out therein?
It is a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, back in the Chamber, I grew up just down the road from the constituency that he served for many years. I learned a lot and always enjoyed listening to him when he was regularly on “Midlands Today”. I take his point about the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. I gently guide him towards Amendment 235, which is in my name and due to be debated on Thursday —for that, read “probably Thursday week”. I would be delighted if he would see his way to supporting that amendment, as it very much speaks to what he covered.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, perhaps I may repeat the words of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond: technology produces excellence in food production.
I support Amendment 35 in particular in this group. I can think of no more important aim for food production than food security. The essential purpose of policy should be to maximise food production in the United Kingdom while at the same time reducing harmful emissions.
Ever since the Centre for Alternative Technology opened in in an old slate quarry near Machynlleth in 1973, Wales has led the way. As the centre pointed out last week, the panic buying and empty supermarket shelves that greeted the opening stages of the Covid-19 pandemic woke a lot of people up to the reality that our global food chains are increasingly vulnerable. In response to the crisis, the centre quickly set up a project called Planna Fwyd!, meaning Plant Food! It has an amazing variety of schemes to help the local area to feed itself in the coming years. For example, it brings together a land army of people who can help to work the land; it supports home-growers with the skills and knowledge that they might need; it provides family seed packs; and it distributes fresh produce and offers seed swaps. It is a great initiative.
I would like to draw attention to a scheme that is proposed on the outskirts of Wrexham by a Brighton-based organisation, Low Carbon Farming. The company has two pioneering projects taking shape at the moment, one in Bury St Edmunds and one elsewhere in East Anglia. Last week, I spoke of the paucity of Class 1 agricultural land in Wales. I told the House that 400 acres at Holt, close to my home in Gresford, comprises the whole of Class 1 land in the entire Principality. The new project near the Wrexham industrial estate is still at the planning stage. It is to construct two 7.6 hectare greenhouses and a packing facility on poor-quality land. On one side there is Berwyn prison, of which I have spoken many times, on another an abattoir, and on the third the Wrexham sewage works belonging to Dŵr Cymru. It answers the call made by my noble friend Lord Greaves in Amendment 53 to produce food in an urban area, and I hope it might even satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
The Wrexham plan would capture waste heat and carbon emissions from the Dŵr Cymru facility and use them to grow tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers at the site. Britain imports from other countries 80% of its tomatoes and 90% of its peppers. The promoters think that their current projects in East Anglia can meet 5% of the national consumption of tomatoes. It will use less water than traditional agriculture: treated water emerges from the sewage plant at 25 degrees centigrade and, at the moment, that heat is entirely wasted. The quality of the soil at the site is completely immaterial. The system could be hydroponic or it could use a suitable growing medium.
The Wrexham project proposes the creation of 150 new jobs. The Home Secretary should surely support it, since with 2,000 prisoners doing nothing very much next door there will be no need for the east European agricultural workers who she does not seem to like very much. There are shades of Norman Stanley Fletcher in “Porridge”. Access to such labour would also deal with the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, expressed at the beginning of this debate. The idea behind the project is that waste heat from the sewage works would be used to provide heat to the greenhouses through a heat exchanger; any carbon emissions would be directed into the greenhouses to be absorbed by the growing plants. Plants absorb carbon dioxide and give out oxygen. It is obviously win-win all the way round.
I am addressing your Lordships from a passive house which we built five years ago. It relies upon a heat exchanger air pump, which greatly reduces our heating costs and provides an even flow of warm air throughout the year. It was a novel idea in these parts at the time, but planning permission was granted after some scratching of heads. I hope that schemes similar to the Wrexham Five Fords project relying on heat pumps can be developed throughout the country. That may require some modern thinking in planning departments but they are surely one important way forward. Does the Minister not agree that projects of this nature should be explicitly added to the aims set out in Clause 1, as highlighted by the amendments in this group, and that to promote sustainable food security they deserve full government support and investment?
Lord Adonis (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my speech has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who made the critical point that the fundamental interest of the state is to be able to intervene to see that people have enough to eat at affordable prices. The issue of food security is, therefore, to the fore. My question to the Minister is the obvious one that comes from this debate: do the Government have the power they need to maintain food security if that is required?
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, proposes to add food security as an item in Clause 1(1). That is clearly sensible if the Government do not already have those powers. I look to the Minister to give the Committee chapter and verse on whether the state already has powers to intervene to maintain food security by providing subsidies as and when required. It can clearly secure those powers extremely quickly, probably within 24 hours, if needed in the event of a crisis. Before we go off on a long meander through amendments on Report, it would be helpful to know whether this power already exists and, if so, where. If not, why do the Government not think this an appropriate moment to take that power since, where food security is not being maintained, it is clearly a fundamental duty of the state?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 35 and 70, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Amendment 36, from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Amendment 71 from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and Amendment 75 from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, all of whom have spoken passionately. Health and sustainability are important to all families. Protecting food security so that citizens have access to good quality food will ensure healthier outcomes. The extremely large number of speakers on this group indicates the strength of feeling and concern about this subject. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, gave the statistic showing that children being admitted to hospital with malnutrition had risen by 25%. This statistic is scandalous in a country as rich as ours. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem referred to children living in poverty.
In recent weeks, there have been a number of Oral Questions about the quality of food eaten in our families and whether it is healthy. Most people want to eat a healthy diet but some do not completely understand what constitutes one. For many it is sufficient that it fills them up. We must move away from this and promote healthy eating at all levels. This is not just an issue for agriculture. As has been said, diabetes is on the increase. In the three years to 2018, 170 limb amputations took place each week on those suffering from the severer effects of diabetes. While we may all know these figures, and understand the horror caused by them, many of those eating unhealthy diets have no idea what may lie in store for them.
Exercise is of course key to remaining healthy but for those on low incomes, there are implications of healthy eating. It is estimated that eating more fruit and vegetables could cost some families as much as £15 extra per week. This is simply not affordable for them. Many families managed before the Covid epidemic but after its outbreak were forced to use food banks to survive. Food banks saw the number of people applying to them rise dramatically during the first stage of the crisis. It is vital that people are fed—but fed with nutritious food. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made a vital contribution on this issue.
Amendments 35 and 63, in the names of my noble friend Lord Greaves and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, respectively, promote the growth of food production in urban areas. I note the cautious comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on this. Growing food in urban areas has somewhat fallen out of fashion. As a child, I was brought up in Bristol when it was not uncommon for homes to have a pigsty in the garden, as well as a plentiful supply of home-grown vegetables. There was also a large section of allotments in the city. The keeping of pigs at home fell out of favour with the first outbreak of foot and mouth, but it is still possible for vegetables and fruit to be grown in and around urban areas. Councils should set aside more land for allotments, especially for those living in blocks of flats. My noble friend Lord Greaves spoke at length on the importance of allotments. The Happold Foundation says that:
“Cities the size of London will never be able to grow enough food to feed the population … However, it still seems desirable to get food production closer to the consumer to make it more sustainable, and to reduce the food miles of what we consume and we release less CO2 into the atmosphere.”
Perhaps the vertical indoor growing method, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will help with this.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not namecheck everyone who has spoken. I think that, with the exception of a few notable contributions, we were all in agreement that food production linked to human health should be at the centre of the Bill. I have previously cautioned against adding a whole lot of new features to Clause 1, but I make an exception for this issue. This is a fundamental lack in the Bill as it stands, and I will explain why in a moment.
We have tabled Amendments 36 and 92 in this group, and I thank noble Lords who have put their names to them and who have commented favourably on them. Amendment 36 adds an extra purpose to Clause 1. It would make it clear that producing healthy food, including through horticulture, in an environmentally sustainable way should be a key purpose for which financial assistance can be given. Amendment 92 goes on to give a clear definition of “environmentally sustainable way”, in particular emphasising the need to measure the long-term impact on natural resources.
We believe that this approach should be a fundamental objective of our future farming policy, so I want to talk about that overriding principle rather than the individual amendments. As I said, our amendments echo the theme of a number of other amendments this evening that highlight the production of healthy food as a necessity to tackle food insecurity, food poverty and poor nutrition. We believe that the farming community lies at the heart of that.
The Government’s White Paper, Health and Harmony: The Future for Food, Farming and the Environment in a Green Brexit, highlighted the key links between our farming and food supply systems. However, incentives to produce healthy food seem to be missing from this Bill. The Minister the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, made clear at Second Reading that financial assistance should not be given for producing food, as this was a commercial decision. He said:
“in our view food is a private good; it is bought and sold. This is the key distinction of the philosophy of the legislation, because its value is rewarded in the market. These new financial assistance powers are intended to reward farmers and land managers for those outcomes that the market does not currently recognise.”—[Official Report, 10/6/20; col. 1830.]
This is a profound philosophical distinction and we profoundly disagree. The danger with this philosophy is that maintaining UK food production is no longer a priority: we increasingly rely on imports and have to fight for enough quality food to feed our nation in the global markets. This is a seriously risky strategy, particularly as we leave the EU and no longer have the right of access to a large, stable food supply market. As we have discovered in the Covid-19 pandemic, these international food supply chains can be precarious, so we argue that feeding our nation is a public good.
However, we cannot simply rely on the food production systems of old. The public health consequences are too stark. As noble Lords pointed out, our nation’s dietary habits are fuelling obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and some cancers. It is characterised by a low intake of fibre, fruit and vegetables, while we overconsume energy, saturated fats and sugars.
Last year, the Social Market Foundation calculated that more than 1 million people in the UK live in food deserts. These are neighbourhoods where poverty, poor transport and the lack of shops seriously limit access to affordable fresh fruit and vegetables. On the one hand, therefore, we have growing obesity, and on the other hand we have growing food poverty. The recent pandemic illustrated all too shockingly that millions of people relied on food banks and food parcels. The school meal voucher chaos illustrated that tens of thousands of children who relied on schools to provide the one substantial meal of the day were left to skip meals when that provision was taken away.
These are huge public health issues for the Government, but they are also matters where a change in farming practice could fuel better eating habits and lead to a healthier nation. We will not achieve this by intensifying conventional farming methods, which would strip out the natural nutrients in the soil and weaken natural defences to pests and diseases, leading to more artificial crop protection interventions. This is why—and this has been a theme throughout our debate—a whole-farm ecological development has to go hand in hand with generating healthy food. We address the issues of food security and the need for a national food plan in later amendments. In the meantime, I commend these amendments to the House.
I say to the Minister, however, that of all the issues we have debated so far, this is the one where I think the Government have got it badly wrong. I hope that he will reflect on this and come back with a more positive response on report. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, this has been an absorbing debate once again. I thank my noble friend for her Amendment 35. I shall address Amendments 75, 56, 60, 69, 71, 36 and 92, all of which relate to food production. I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
This debate has thrown up quite a number of questions, and those that I am not in a position to answer—very often because they require some detail—I shall, of course, answer in writing in a letter that I am proposing to compose when we conclude Committee stage. Because a lot of things are coming up that are repeated quite often, it would be best if we try to co-ordinate with a sensible government response. I hope that is acceptable to your Lordships.
Growing healthy, nutritious food is, of course, the primary role of farmers. It is something that farmers in the United Kingdom do exceptionally well. Through the purposes in Clause 1, the Government want to support goods that benefit society but are not currently provided for by the market. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, is absolutely right: I said it at Second Reading and I say it again. The point about food, in contrast, is that it can be bought and traded: it is rewarded in the market and, indeed, those of us who farm receive income from our production. That is why, in the construction of the Bill, new Clause 1(4)—I say “new Clause”, because I think this is a very important addition and one I strongly support—places a duty on the Secretary of State, when framing any financial assistance scheme, to consider the importance of food production and its production in an environmentally sustainable way. This was a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friend Lord Northbrook.
I absolutely agree with the analysis of my noble friends Lord Inglewood and Lord Cormack of what this country and much of the world has gone through in previous times, and why food production is so important. It is important for this country, but also for giving us opportunities to help feed the world through our exports. That is essential too, and it is why I say to my noble friend Lord Marlesford that food production and environmental sustainability not only can but must —I underline “must”—go hand in hand. We should be champions of great British food and drink and I place on record that farmers have, all too often, been maligned. I am reminded of what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said on an earlier Committee day about all the things that farmers do on our behalf.
The duty requires the Secretary of State to have “regard to the need” to encourage sustainable production, rather than simply “to encourage” sustainable production, when designing financial assistance schemes. This is because all schemes must be looked at in the round; each scheme will have different aims and will operate in different ways. While the Government’s future farming schemes as a whole will be designed to encourage sustainable food production, it is not necessarily the case that every scheme is directly aiming to do so. I have one example—the tree health pilot which will start next year—but the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke of another aspect of a scheme which clearly does not directly relate to food production.
The duty, as drafted, gives Ministers the flexibility to design individual schemes in a way which best meets their objectives, while ensuring that there is a clear obligation to encourage sustainable food production overall. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, among many others, spoke of health and well-being. I was very struck by his words. Indeed, the important report that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans raised, Hungry for Change, is very important, because this will involve multiple departments. I am therefore very pleased to say that I will make sure that Defra will play a key part in that multi-departmental response.
The Government believe that the best place to encourage healthy eating is later on in the supply chain, a point that my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Blencathra were referring to: after all, fruit and vegetables can still be used in products that are unhealthy if not taken in moderation. I know that it may be unsatisfactory to noble Lords who see this as an opportunity to attach to the Bill something that we think is best placed in other work, but it is the intention that the national food strategy should address these major challenges, including food security and health. The strategy will build on the Bill to help ensure that our food system delivers healthy and affordable food for all, built on a resilient and sustainable agriculture sector.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I warmly congratulate the Minister and thank him for the sympathetic way in which he is dealing with this Bill. Like all of us, he will have clocked in at 4 pm for a delayed start at 4.40 pm and has sat through all these extensive debates. He deserves not just a medal but a whole chestful of medals for the way he is dealing with it, but he has not dealt with one intervention: the one from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs. He complained —I think he moaned a little—about the fact that on the third day we were still on Clause 1. He called for caution and self-restraint.
During his speech I was checking up. In fact, in this debate more than twice as many Tories as Labour Members—to take a random example—have contributed. We have enjoyed some of the speeches, including the wartime reminiscences. When we eventually get to the next group, we have 12 Tories and only two Labour Members. If the Minister agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs—I do not, by the way; I think we should scrutinise the Bill carefully both in Committee and on Report—I suggest to him that the person he needs to talk to is the Tory Chief Whip and no one else.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, it is very nice to hear the noble Lord; I enjoy having this dialogue. I am advised that your Lordships will have three times the amount of time, with the six days or more, to consider this Bill in Committee. We should use it wisely; we need to get through a lot of groups. The whole point calls for a bit of good old-fashioned common sense.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for his usual detailed responses, but I would like to probe him a little more on whether food security is a public good. He is quite correct in saying that there is a market for food. If that is the definition, clearly production of food is not a public good. However, many times in the past the market has not adequately rewarded me for the food I have produced as a farmer. If we want a nation fed on healthy, wholesome food and schoolchildren need healthy meals, one could argue that the need to intervene could occur at some stage in the future. We do not know what the market will be like when we leave the European Union.
The Minister is quite correct that we will discuss Clause 17. This is important and I very much welcome it, but it does not state what the Government will do if there is a food security crisis. I suggest to the Minister that it may be appropriate to reconsider whether food security should be included as a public good, should the Government need to intervene at some stage in future.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Obviously I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. The construction of the Bill, as I said, ensures that we are rewarding farmers for those matters that we have hitherto not rewarded them for. We will get to that in Chapter 2, which deals with
“Fair dealing obligations of business purchasers of agricultural products”.
We want to address that, which is why it is in the Bill. Clearly, the farmer has not always had a fair deal with agricultural producers and others in the supply chain—and of course in Chapter 3 we will look at producer organisations.
As I said, the construct of the Bill is designed to provide new financial assistance powers within the prism of productivity grants. As subsection (1) states:
“In framing any financial assistance schemes, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food”,
and this production must be undertaken
“in an environmentally sustainable way.”
We all want a healthy diet. We all want food security. That is why the Government have been working with industry and will continue to work with industry, as we always have. Industry is often the best at finding sources all around the world so that we have resilience in our food supply.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Like the noble Lord, Lord Curry, I wanted to probe very quickly on what basis the production of healthy food would ever be classified as a public good. The Minister has reiterated his view that it is a private good. But does he not accept that in some circumstances it would be a public good and therefore entitled to some of the funding that is set out in the Bill?
The problem with referring noble Lords to the later clauses that deal with food security and the national food strategy is that that area does not necessarily have any money attached to it, whereas the financial assistance and the public good element is the one that we are really interested in, so the onus is on that. Are there any circumstances in which the Minister would see it as a public good?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I apologise to the noble Baroness, but the only way that I can reply to that is to repeat that the whole construct of this is to ensure that farming with food production and enhancing the environment go hand in hand. There is obviously a limited sum of money. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords have said that we must be careful that we do not make this Bill a Christmas tree affair by adding everything on—so we need to be pragmatic.
The area where we have not hitherto rewarded farmers is in relation to the purposes set out in Clause 1(1)(a) to (j). They are considerable projects that will, in the end, help us to produce even better food. If one were to start rewarding food production, it would drive a coach and horses through the construct of the Bill, which is that produce is created by the farmer, for which they receive money. They do not often receive money for the projects in paragraphs (a) to (j). We think, looking at the British taxpayer, that this is the best way of reflecting that we need food production for which the farmer receives payment, and in Chapter 2 we recognise that we need to address fairer arrangements for the farmer. But this is better than, in effect, having a direct payment for the food you produce when you are already being paid whatever you sell your wheat or your milk for. We can have a discussion about that price, but in terms of the taxpayer rewarding and acknowledging farmers, we think that subsections (1)(a) to (j) and (2)(a) and (b) are the right way forward.
Lord Northbrook
I thank the Minister for his detailed response to the group. I think he has answered my question. Is what he has just said the reason why he does not approve of Amendment 60—because it does not directly support domestic production financially?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I will have to look again at Amendment 60. The construct is about where, following the Health and Harmony consultation we undertook, it was decided that we should recognise support for farmers in a post-CAP world. It was recognised that we needed to put food production and food security in the Bill, and we have put them in. This is the difficulty when you have improvements in iterations. They were valuable new iterations, but the point about rewarding food production is that, with better fair dealing, the farmer gets a reward from the market. They do not as yet for the purposes in Clause 1(1)(a) to (j), and we think that is where the reward should be.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have contributed to this group of amendments. There were almost 40 contributors, including the Minister and me. It has been a vigorous debate and almost all noble Lords were united.
I am grateful for the response from the Minister. My remaining concern, as has been reflected in the questions, including those following his speech and his response to them, is that food production should be considered a public good. I am not quite sure that we have established that yet. Also, I remain deeply concerned —as, I believe, do other noble Lords—about the future of food security. We have not had and will not have sight of the Dimbleby report on food strategy, in which a lot of this will be dealt with, according to my noble friend said. That is regrettable. But the hour is late. For the moment, I will withdraw this amendment, but I reserve the right to return to it later. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 35.
Lord Lucas
“( ) providing advice and support to those in receipt of, or potentially in receipt of, financial assistance under subsection (1)”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for an advice-based system of support, as opposed to a sanctions-based one.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 58. Anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk. I remind the House that anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group should make that clear in debate.
Lord Lucas [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 58 I shall speak also to my other amendments in this group. There are two basic ways of managing the flow of funding under the Bill: through penalties or through encouragement and advice. I hope that the Government’s intention is to focus on incentives—broad-brush, bottom-up, banded, with plenty of room for local initiatives and a clear understanding that initiatives will often fail—rather than opting for top-down micromanagement. I hope that the Government will institute a strong supply of advice and the funding for it, so that good practice and ideas find it easy to spread, rather than relying on audit and enforcement.
The management of chalk grasslands is a challenge local to me. These are a potentially immensely rich, if sometimes rather small, environment. They were created by a pattern of agriculture that has gone: cattle and sheep herded in large open areas, then folded in the lowlands at night, with a plentiful supply of shepherds and rabbits to keep the scrub from spreading. That has all gone, but we still want the chalklands ecosystem. It is the principal objective of the South Downs National Park.
We have to take the overloaded pastures that have resulted from wartime needs and subsequent agricultural policies, with lots of parasites and consequence high use of biocides, and end up with fields full of insects and wildlife, and a profit for the farmer. We have to find ways to allow the public to enjoy the results of the system that we create; to allow larks to nest undisturbed and people to listen to them; to have fields full of orchids that people can picnic in; and to combine dog walkers and sheep, and old ladies enjoying the outdoors and a herd of bouncy cattle.
Finding a way to do that will take lots of experimentation and there will be lots of failure. Farmers will participate in this over the whole of the chalklands. We do not need, “You can have money to do this, but if you don’t succeed, we’ll be after you”; we do need lots of advice, recording and sharing of data, experimentation and supported failure. That is expensive. The Government would have to fund a team of people over decades. To hazard an estimate, £10 million a year might be the basic level for 200 field staff. However, that £10 million would multiply the benefit of the hundreds of millions being spent elsewhere, because it would make that larger expenditure much better focused and better directed. It would also set the tone of the whole agricultural support system and make it a pleasure to interact with, since it would look for ways to make better things happen. That would make a huge difference to compliance and effectiveness in a fragmented industry.
Of my three amendments, Amendment 135 is key. That is the one I want the Government to get behind.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to support my noble friend Lord Lucas. I have put my name to Amendments 58 and 119. The Minister will recall that I majored on the whole question of advice in my Second Reading speech. I dedicated all my time to it because I think it is so important.
Farming has been partially insulated from market pressures by the support schemes of the CAP. In particular, the area payments developed by the CAP since 1992 and subsequent steps in 2003 and 2013 have acted to reward land occupation, not business activity. This has been associated with reduced flexibility in land occupation markets, and thus with the relative weakness in the United Kingdom’s agricultural productivity growth.
The progressive removal of area payments and the prospect of more open trading agreements seem likely to drive an accelerated process of change in who is farming what land and how, by both unwinding the protectionist effects of past area payments and responding to the coming changes. This might affect poorer businesses on more marginal land in particular, whether cropping or livestock. My concern is that this process of change should be managed to maximise its economic, environmental and social benefits, while minimising costs.
Farming’s adaptation to the new policy and business environment will not be a simple and swift transformation, but will take much time and effort. The scale of the challenges and the changes associated with them should not be underestimated. Success will require attention to skills and training, investment, approaches to sustained innovation in business policy, technology and marketing. It will be all the better if this is enabled by a new positive regulatory regime after Brexit, ensuring flexible and open markets in land occupation and use. All this must be supported by effective and practical advice and facilitation.
The outcome will be a much less standardised industry than the one we created since the war through policies before and under the CAP, which were largely dedicated to full-time commodity protection. Achieving this will be a major call on all those involved, not only Governments and farmers.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I put my name to these amendments on a very simple principle: if you are asking people to change how they go about their business or the way it happens, you will need some advice or guidance to get you through. If you have not done it before, you will need to be given some guidance, some advice or pathway, on how to get through so that you can do it correctly. Also, if you are giving assistance, you need to be told what you are expected to do for that.
This will be a very complicated mesh—two speeches have been made already and I cannot think of anything I disagree with. If you are trying to do this, you will have to give guidance through very different pathways which will change in every type of landscape you come across. The South Downs, the North Downs where I live, and the fields of East Anglia where I grew up will all need different structures. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, brilliantly said in introducing this, you must allow for, if not failure, then less successful schemes to be tried to see how long they take to develop.
We will need this to make sure that the Government’s actions work. It might well be that the Government will not smile on these amendments, but could the Minister embrace the principle here and tell us whether the Government expect to be a place where good information is brought together and passed on? Could he also say what is unacceptable—what will not be supported, financed and encouraged? That would also be beneficial.
The Government are changing stuff. They are basically creating a new rulebook. It would help if everybody could read it before we start.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
Lord Marlesford, you suggested that you were going to speak on only one group today. Do you want to speak now?
Lord Marlesford [V]
I have one thing to add. There is the inescapable fact that after 2021 farmers will not get money under the basic payment scheme in the same way as they have done. That money is on average around 70% of their taxable profit. Without it, many would not be able to continue. They therefore must be helped into what they will do instead and how they will diversify their farming operation to get themselves a living. That is why I back these amendments.
Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]
My Lords, on this group of amendments on training for farmers we have come to the nub, that pivotal point where this Bill will either succeed or fail in its ambitions. These amendments are the key to getting the whole new agricultural, environmental land management programme to work on the ground.
It is exciting that with this Bill we have a whole new approach to producing our food and managing the countryside while rewarding farmers. We do not know yet exactly where we are going—ELMs is still at the pilot stage—but one thing is certain. Farmers and land managers will need all the help and training they can get if we are to make it work on the ground.
There is very little time between the demise of the single farm payment and the putting in place of thousands of ELM contracts—good luck with that—so we must get a training scheme in place as soon as possible, training not only how best to judge what the farmer and his land can provide for the nation, but also how best to deliver. Proper training will make things better for farmers, better for our flora, fauna, meadows and woodlands, better for visitors and, above all, better for the taxpayers, who might then get the best return on their money.
By their very nature, farmers take a long-term view: live as if you will die tomorrow, but farm as if you will live for ever. That does not necessarily mean that they are slow to change, but they need help and assistance to change. Farming is one of the most isolated jobs in the world, so without some form of a proper training scheme it will be hard for farmers to engage properly with this brave new world that we are hoping to roll out—and without their engagement, frankly, the brave new world will not happen.
Lord Carrington [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 58 and 119, as tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I also agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, just said, and the words of other noble Lords.
The threat of sanctions put off many farmers from taking up opportunities under the current environmental schemes. These sanctions threaten not only the environmental scheme payments themselves, but also, through cross-compliance, the basic payments. Access to and the eligibility of financing advice is therefore supremely important if there is to be a wide take-up of ELM schemes. The wealthier farmers with larger farms often have good access to advice, but most of this is expensive and unattractive as an option. Farmers are not a homogenous group. All that a farmer with a small to medium-sized farm knows about is the traditional farming that he has done for ever through good and bad years. He knows the risks. That is his life and livelihood. A farmer may not have great expectations and he may not take foreign holidays, but he fears getting involved in a new venture outside of his comfort zone which could lead to direct or indirect sanctions and put him out of business.
A study by the School of Agriculture, Policy and Development at the University of Reading and the Institute for Sustainable Food at the University of Sheffield looked at the impact of the digital divide and sometimes limited access to broadband in rural areas, which, together with lack of time, the age of the farmer and social isolation, has made it difficult for farmers to contribute to or participate in the design of ELMs.
These factors will not have changed at the implementation stage, so access to and funding for farm advisers with good training and good communication skills is essential. The success or otherwise of the Bill will be judged partly by the take up and success of environmental land management schemes. The balance between crop production on marginal land and environmental schemes is the key. Too little profit from the environmental land management scheme will encourage continued production on marginal land, leading to possible losses and risks to the farmer’s business and livelihood. If there is too much profit in the scheme there will be a loss of farm production and, consequently, greater imports of food and less self-sufficiency. This demonstrates the importance of the provision of advice and, if necessary, financing it.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 122 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing forward his amendments. We are standing at a watershed for farming and land management. We cannot underestimate the scale of change that this Bill denotes. We need to fund an effective advisory process to support farmers and land managers through what could otherwise be cataclysmic changes. Over the past 30 years we have seen the erosion and virtual disappearance of what was, in early days, a systematic advisory support service, which had developed to support farming improvements in the post-war era. Most farming advice is now provided by commercial agronomists with products to sell or by fragmented single-focus organisations. Advice needs to cover not only technical and productivity improvements but ecological literacy. The scale and ambition of the changes the Bill proposes and the multiple functions we need land to deliver show that the time has come again for a comprehensive and joined-up approach to advisory services, and for the funding to deliver that. I hope the Minister can support this.
Lord Inglewood [V]
My Lords, being a farmer, over the past two or three years I have had to think very carefully about my activities in future. In my case, I have one specific and really quite complicated land use problem—or perhaps I should say challenge—to deal with. The way in which I have approached it is to take a certain amount of specialist advice. In simple terms, that advice has been paid for by the BPS payment I received. As all your Lordships know, the BPS payment is to be cut and the effect is that the money that otherwise would pay for advice may well not be there.
My example is not particular to me; a lot of farmers are thinking seriously about what they have to do next. They will have to take external advice, probably now—it is no good waiting until the changes come into effect before you decide what to do. What you have to do is think about the future, work on the basis of what we know about the general rules and regulations that will be in place and plan a course. In all sorts of ways, this is something which many farmers cannot do. Of course, if you are going to take advice, you have to pay for it. When the BPS is cut back, individual farms’ resources to do that will be curtailed. I suggest to the Committee, and through it to the Minister, something which I have mentioned to his private office. Instead of simply cutting pieces off the BPS payment until ELMS comes into being, it should be possible for that money to be drawn down from individual farms and hypothecated to get the advice necessary to prepare the farmers for the future world that will come. Otherwise I fear a lot of farms will not do enough homework, which will be to the detriment of not only British agriculture but Britain as a whole.
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, there appear to be two different types of amendment in this group: those that seek to promote and incentivise advice and guidance, and those that seek to impose requirements on the Secretary of State. Amendments 58 and 119 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lord Caithness seek to promote advice; they are entirely right in that and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, spoke most eloquently about it. I will be interested in the Minister’s response; I am sure he holds all these leads close his heart. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, spoke so movingly about the challenges of change.
I suggest that Amendment 122 goes too far in requiring, rather than facilitating, advice—and across a large number of areas. This will inevitably make any advisory system more bureaucratic and less flexible. The object of the exercise is to promote opportunities for farmers, not bureaucracy. It is so important that we move flexibly and quickly in this area, rather than trying to set up another version of the common agricultural policy.
Lord Northbrook
My Lords, I partially support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas. Assistance should be given to training but there should not be just blanket financial assistance in this area. Last week, I received a letter from Defra about the environmental land management summary document; before I move on to that, let me put on record my thanks to the Minister for his tremendous work in tightening up matters at the RPA and improving BPS payment times.
The letter said, “Environmental land management: we want to hear your views”, and explained that, going back to February, there was a 10-week national conversation, which has been delayed due to coronavirus —fair enough. It also said that Defra was launching webinars, which I will take part in over the next few weeks. Then there is a six-page document setting out, very helpfully, broad details of the various tiers. I will summarise the purposes of each. Tier 1’s purpose is to incentivise environmentally sustainable farming and forestry and help to deliver environmental benefits; that is perfectly clear. Tier 2’s purpose is to incentivise the management of land in a way that delivers locally targeted environmental outcomes; that is a little more difficult. Tier 3’s purpose is to deliver land use change projects of a landscape scale to deliver environmental outcomes; that is not clear at all, in my view.
Then there is a chart about how you decide whether to participate in these schemes. Two key boxes say, “I decide which environmental outcomes and associated actions I am best placed to provide on my land”, and, “I develop a plan and submit my application”. For larger farmers, with the aid of advice, that will be not such a difficult thing, but as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, for small and medium-sized farmers, it will be a very daunting task. Those farmers should get the financial assistance.
Lord De Mauley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I reiterate the declaration of my interests as a landowner and land manager.
In the context of my noble friend’s Amendments 58 and 119, I draw the attention of my noble friend the Minister to the agricultural associations and societies, which have been getting a bit of coverage on Radio 4’s excellent “Farming Today” programme this week. There are about 200 agricultural and show societies in the United Kingdom, many with histories stretching back to the agricultural revolution in the 18th century. Much in line with these amendments, they are there to support, represent and indeed connect providers of advice with those who make up the agricultural industry and to provide a showcase for anything that members of the public might want to know about food, farming and rural life.
My noble friend Lord Caithness referred to the county agricultural shows. I know that the Minister and other noble Lords will, like me, have visited many of the annual summer county agricultural shows in recent years—although, sadly, of course not this year.
All the agricultural societies are charities in their own right. Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland hold their own national shows, as well as many regional and county shows, as does England, which has 15 significant societies, each of whose visitors number more than 60,000 per show in a normal year. What I might call the top 18—the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh national societies and England’s top 15—welcome a total of 1.8 million visitors just at their annual shows. The likely combined economic value of these events is in the region of £450 million to £500 million. Taking in other year-round activities, this probably increases to about £800 million. The remaining very large number of agricultural society shows around the country could account for a similar economic impact.
Show grounds, a number of which are permanent, also act as venues for a wide range of year-round events and activities supporting business, leisure and tourism across the nations and regions. Each of the societies offers educational activities throughout the year, as well as providing a forum for conferences and events aligned to and supporting the agricultural sector. Formal links exist with local further and higher education institutions and research centres focused on promoting the skills and careers that the industry needs and offers.
Like many other businesses and organisations, the agricultural associations face uncertainty, especially regarding the next one to two years. Their major events, such as the annual county agricultural shows, take at least nine months to prepare for, and without any support after October, particularly from the current furlough scheme, they could find themselves facing a bleak future. Many of them are already running a slide rule over a “no show in 2021” scenario. As my noble friend Lord Caithness said, the agricultural societies are not asking for special pleading. What would really help them is: first, clearer guidance on mass-gathering indoor and outdoor events by no later than September this year; secondly, recognition of the impact of their unique sector as part of the fabric of agriculture in the UK; and, thirdly, financial assistance, perhaps under the replacement for Pillar 2 if it becomes clear that next year is in jeopardy, particularly, as I said, as the current furlough support will end in October.
Policymakers need to bear in mind that, although heritage and tradition are themselves important, the collective economic and jobs contribution from the agricultural societies is significant. Their collective reach is international and they contribute more broadly to UK plc—for example, through tourism. Therefore, I take this opportunity to ask the Minister to look into the plight of the agricultural societies and to see what he can do to help.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, the provision of advice to farmers at various stages of the Bill is essential. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, talk to Amendments 58 and 119. Agriculture is moving from one system to a completely different method of funding, and farmers will be uncertain about how this will operate and what is expected of them. I therefore completely agree that a system of advice-based support is needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lord Addington spoke in favour of an advice system. There will be a few farmers who are unwilling to make the necessary changes to ensure the protection of the environment and the restoration of land to encourage the return of bird, insect and plant species. For those, it might be necessary for a sanctions-based system to be coupled with advice to encourage them to conform. It will be at best unhelpful if there are one or two renegades who spoil the overall thrust of the Government’s measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke of the difficulties and the digital divide. Rural areas are very poorly served by wi-fi and broadband, which are essential for farming communities.
I fully support Amendment 122, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. The list of measures to be taken into account in proposed new subsection (2) are essential, especially the impact on the environment, alternative methods of pest control, and food safety. To have this list on the face of the Bill will help farmers to have a much better idea of what is expected as they move towards the new system and, I hope, will remove the need for any sanctions further down the line.
The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, have raised the plight of the county shows and all the good work they do. They are an essential part of the farming and rural communities, and I have visited many very many of them over the years. They need certainty for the future and funding.
I trust that we are not too far into the debate for the Minister to have become reluctant to accept the arguments made. Advice is absolutely essential.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as recorded in the register. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their amendments defining that advice and support should be given to those in receipt of financial assistance in a more positive manner rather than the response being one of making sanctions and deductions to an application that one has submitted—as is too often the case. The receipt of applications would therefore need to have some supervision or opportunity for corrections to be included in the submission process. How far there will be explanations at the beginning of the transition to be implemented and under the new ELM scheme is an interesting call for the Minister. I am sure that the initial expositions about the new ELM scheme will be vital to achieve a confidence-based response from potential applicants.
I shall speak to my Amendment 122, which places a duty on the Secretary of State to include the provision of advice, training and guidance to those receiving financial assistance. Clause 3 is to enable good administration of the new payment system. As part of that good administrative system, regulations must also include the provision of advice across a wide area of important matters—this is in my proposed new subsection (2)—to look at how the running of a land-based system can encompass all the features necessary for success. This covers: business management; the welfare of stock; farm safety—on which farming does not have a particularly good record—and the welfare of land-based workers; and good agricultural practice, which are all necessary to encourage a thriving countryside that is aware of its responsibilities and positive in its outcome.
Good administration is not merely a mechanical process characterised as sanction based and without acknowledgment of responsibilities towards the people who will be undertaking activities we wish to promote. As my noble friend Lady Young noted, this has previously often been delivered in the past through ADAS and other services, but it is no longer provided.
Amendment 135 seems to follow in this vein and provides for advice on three main strands: strategic direction; compliance with the responsibilities of participants; and such compliance provided through encouragement. I would also encourage regulations to include those personnel-type administrative functions.
I thank all noble Lords who recognise the extent of the adaptability required of farmers and who have spoken on these amendments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this has been very helpful debate. I am grateful to my noble friend for Amendments 58, 119 and 135, and to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for Amendment 122.
The Government agree that effective advice and guidance will play an essential role in ensuring that agreement conditions are met and that the outcomes we are looking to achieve through future agricultural policy are delivered. “In connection with” in Clause 1(1) includes advice and guidance given to recipients so that they can better understand how to deliver the purposes for which they are in receipt of assistance. The same is true of the two purposes in Clause 1(2).
My noble friend Lord Northbrook spoke of the environmental land management policy discussion document. My notes state that it is currently live, and my noble friend endorsed that by remarking about it. The Government make it clear that access to an adviser will be a crucial component of the success of ELM. I do not want to go into too many of the tiers at this stage, but tier 3 will be where we provide financial assistance on a much broader, landscape level. I can think of catchment areas and greater expanses of land where a number of land managers and farmers would be involved. Tier 1 would be for the farmer, but tiers 2 and 3 would most likely involve a wider number of farmers and land managers. Those policy documents set out a range of models for the provision of advice, including one-to-one advice, group training, telephone and online support, and facilitation of peer-to-peer learning.
I agree with what was said by my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The ELM tests and trials team has established an advice and guidance thematic working group—that sounds pretty awful, but I am sure that it is a very good working group. This will gather evidence on how different types of expert advice could help farmers and land managers plan, and record, the public goods they choose to deliver across their land. There are currently 34 tests and trials on advice and guidance. I not only take but endorse the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas on tone and what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said about the manner in which all these things are done.
In the policy and progress update published in February, the Government confirmed their intention to offer advice to applicants for productivity grants. This advice could help applicants decide how to target investments to achieve the greatest improvements in business performance. Advice and guidance are also an integral part of the Government’s future animal health schemes, with vets in particular having been identified as a key source of advice for farmers who wish to take pragmatic steps to improve animal health.
In the policy update, the Government also committed to a future system of agricultural regulation which, among other things, understands and implements better ways to provide advice and guidance to the sector. The Government will work closely with industry to consider the best way to deliver such advice. It is, however, imperative that that advice and guidance are delivered by the right people, in the right places, at the right time and—I emphasise—in the right way. A wealth of knowledge and expertise already exists across our farming and land management communities. However, it is also a priority for the Government to ensure that the farming industry is adequately supported by advice and guidance.
My noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord De Mauley spoke about agricultural shows. As a former president of the Bucks County Show and a current vice-president of the Buckinghamshire and Suffolk Agricultural Associations, and having made many visits to agricultural shows across the kingdom, I know that they are an extraordinary example of the great part of rural life and farming at its backbone. All of us obviously regret not having been able to go to our local county shows. The current advice on meeting people outside your household is available online and allows that events of more than 30 people can take place as long as they are planned by an organisation in compliance with the Covid-19-secure guidance, Working Safely During Coronavirus: the Visitor Economy. So I say to my noble friends and all noble Lords that planning for next year, which I know all of them are doing, will clearly depend on where we are in the containment of the virus. There is also industry-led guidance on keeping workers and audiences safe during Covid-19, which applies to those working in outdoor events.
I am well aware that many of these show societies are charities, and of the use of the furlough scheme. I will reflect on what noble Lords have said. Agricultural shows are an important part of the rural calendar and are a way for urban and rural schools to get involved and understand why agriculture and rural life are so important. They are a key part of showing the country what the countryside provides.
Lord Lucas [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comprehensive and optimistic reply. I urge on him again the importance of allowing failure; allowing people to get things wrong; to try things for the best reason and find the disaster and then have to put things right. We are going to find the right way to do some of these things only if we are adventurous and stick our necks out. That is the sort of support that I hope this Government will feel able to give. I am comforted by what my noble friend said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Agriculture Bill
Thursday 16th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (16 Jul 2020)
The Earl of Caithness
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that financial help can be given to help reduce climate change emissions.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 73 stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. This is a simple amendment. About 25% of greenhouse gases come from agriculture. That percentage will increase as more green energy production comes online. What we can grow, and what we will be able to eat, will be determined by climate change.
We are watching the rapidly changing climate in the Arctic with some horror. That is of huge importance to us, as four of the six main systems that determine this country’s weather are driven by conditions in the Arctic. One example, and a pretty sobering one, is that the “beast from the east” that we experienced in March 2018 cost the UK about half the annual budget paid to farmers.
The Paris Agreement states that countries should be
“holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C … and pursuing efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5°C”.
We are likely to break that threshold of 1.5 degrees before the next general election.
All of the pathways in the IPCC’s special report say that there has to be the use of negative emissions; that is, the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. This is not an alternative to reducing emissions but an essential extra if the planet as we know it today is to survive. Our land is not absorbing as much CO2 as it could, and the priority should therefore be to restore nature to allow it to sequester increased amounts of CO2. That is what my amendment seeks to do.
I commend the NFU on the progress that it has made on this and on its template aim of net zero by 2040. We must give every encouragement to farmers to help them meet the reductions that will be necessary, and I believe that the Bill could do more on that. I had thought that my amendment would sit well at the end of Clause 1(1)(j) relating to soil, but I prefer it where it is, so that any financial payment would be conditional on meeting the reduction in sequestration condition. That is no more than what the Climate Change Committee asked for in its 2019 report, when it recommended:
“Financial payments in the UK Agriculture Bill should be linked to actions to reduce and sequester emissions, to take effect from 2022.”
I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and an even greater pleasure to hear a Conservative Peer—a hereditary one at that—speaking so eloquently about climate change, because this is a problem that the UK is not facing up to in a coherent way, so the more that we can do with this Bill, the better. It is not really a surprise that the concept of zero carbon is not in the Bill, because most of it was written before we signed up to that. It was drafted three years ago, and I regret that more redrafting was not done before it came before your Lordships’ House. The Government have had over a year since they put a commitment to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 into law. I will be very forgiving with the Minister and suggest that they have just not got around to updating this legislation yet.
The amendments in the group, including my Amendment 274, seek to bring the Bill up to date with our net-zero carbon commitment and ensure that agriculture and land management play their proper role in achieving net zero. Agriculture plays a huge role in our carbon footprint and it will grow proportionally as other sources of emissions are reduced. It is therefore essential that the Government should set out a clear trajectory for agricultural emissions and a credible strategy to achieve that. Of course, we have to think about other parts of the economy as well. If we insist on carrying on flying as we did in the past pre coronavirus, other bits of the economy will have to do more to bring our emissions down to zero carbon—so there is that thought as well.
There are some differences between Amendments 272 and 274. Amendment 274 would require net-zero agriculture emissions by 2050, whereas Amendment 272 does not contain this net-zero requirement. Instead, it would require the Secretary of State to have “due regard” to Section 1 of the Climate Change Act. This would mean that agriculture would make some contribution towards the wider goal of net-zero emissions across the economy, but I believe that net zero is possible, and indeed achievable and desirable, for agriculture, and I urge noble Lords to aim to include the amendment in the Bill on Report.
I turn now to the Minister. I have a few things to which I hope that he or she—I cannot see who it is—can give a response. Does the Minister think that net-zero carbon emissions in agriculture is actually achievable by 2050, and what about the important role that setting this out in law will play at stimulating innovation and investment in the right things? Will the Minister undertake to work with noble Lords from across the House to update the Bill by Report stage to reflect the big change in net-zero legislation that occurred last year after the Bill was first drafted? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, we spent the first three days of this debate discussing the baubles that were to adorn the Christmas tree under Clause 1 on ELMS. We are now somewhat getting to the meat of the matter and considering, in my view, the Christmas tree itself. But I am concerned that if this Christmas tree Bill is allowed to pass into law in the manner in which it is currently drafted, it may well wither and die before any of those ELMS baubles can be appreciated. The reason for that—I raised this issue at Second Reading—is the transition gap, or perhaps more pertinently, the transition chasm across which many farms may not make it in the years between 2021 and 2028, when ELMS are due to come into effect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke about the “cataclysmic changes” that will occur to farming as a result of this legislation, and I do not think that she is overstating the position. As a result of this legislation, we will see over the coming years a dramatic decrease in the basic payments that farmers receive. At some point, those payments will be replaced by a series of payments under ELMS, but, as we are well aware after three days of interesting but very varied and somewhat random debate, the details of the scheme are years away from completion, and farmers simply do not know what will replace the essential income that they currently receive. My real concern is that this will have a dramatic effect on the environmental impact and environmental outcomes of farming. This is based on personal experience as well as discussions with the NFU and others, and it stems from a number of different angles.
For a number of farmers, the loss of the BPS will be fatal to their businesses, and those businesses will go out of business. The result will be that land will either fall fallow and therefore deteriorate—the environmental impact of that is considerably negative—or it will be sold to a more commercial neighbouring farmer who will be able to increase productivity and thus increase environmental degradation. Other considerations are that those farmers who are able to survive the transition chasm will do so only by tightening their belts. From a personal perspective, I have been advised not to invest heavily in capital projects at this time; why invest in something now for which you might well be paid by ELMS later? The conversations that I have had with agricultural and environmental advisers along the same lines conclude exactly the same thing: they are advising all their clients to hold off making any major productivity and environmental investments at this time because we simply do not know what is going to happen and we may be paid for these things at some point in the future. The net result of that will be a catastrophic drop-off in environmental gains.
My amendment is a very simple one that I recommend to noble Lords as a somewhat shorter amendment than Amendments 272 and 274, although I believe that it is targeted at the same thing. It asks that the Secretary of State should confirm that the implementation of this legislation will not negatively impact our progress towards net zero by 2050. The amendment is worded in that way for a specific reason. It is not that it will stop us achieving net zero by 2050; it is that, during the time between 2021 and 2028, our progress towards those goals will not be negatively impacted; that is, we will not go backwards.
The next five, six or seven years are absolutely crucial if we are to have any hope of reaching the monumental target of net zero, but introducing a system that simply forces us to take backward steps is not, I believe, appropriate. My amendment was inspired by the decision of R v Secretary of State for Transport with respect to the Heathrow runway. It seems that Parliament should not be passing legislation that is contrary to those net-zero targets and we should not be passing legislation until we have satisfied ourselves that this will not have a negative environmental impact.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 274, although I am thoroughly behind the other amendments in this group. I will not go down the line of Heathrow; it always gets me excited because I am firmly opposed to any expansion there.
There is really nothing further that I would say; the eloquent speech of my noble friend Lord Caithness really said it all. I also pay tribute to the NFU for its work on trying to reduce carbon emissions. I am very keen for us to get on with this discussion and debate, so the only thing that I will say is that one thing that is sometimes forgotten when we talk about sequestering carbon emissions is wetlands. That is something that we can look at very seriously in the Bill. If the noble Earl, Lord Devon, is correct and there will be problems, wetlands may be the answer. The Bill may supply the answer to how that is done.
We want to get on with the Bill, though, because while we have been congratulating and paying tribute to farmers and land managers all along, if we are not careful and do not get this legislation through, we will not be able to pay them.
Baroness Worthington (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is my pleasure to speak to Amendment 73 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and Amendment 274. I also strongly support the other amendments in this group.
Like many, I have been listening to the many varied and fascinating debates that have surrounded the Bill in Committee. I am holding myself back and contributing only to this group of amendments. This is partly because, while this is not my area of expertise, I look at this through the lens of the need for us to take a whole-economy approach to climate change. This is therefore the group on which I thought I had the most relevant comments to make. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I speak for a little longer than others have on this group, just to articulate why it is so fundamental to the Bill’s success that we address climate change front and centre in the Bill.
The Agriculture Bill is essentially a framework piece of legislation, but the collection of measures in it lack an overriding purpose and an overriding legislative goal for which we can hold the Government to account. The function of moving from the current system of the common agricultural policy to a new set of parameters and rules that the UK can set for itself is welcome. We all know that the current system of subsidies for agriculture has had many impacts, many of them environmental but many of them social, and this has affected how we interact with our land. We now have an opportunity to set a new path, and the Government should be commended for the policy statements they have made and the signals they have given about this new change in direction. That is very timely and will be very significant for generations to come.
With that, I ask the Minister if the Government could seriously consider adding a clause to the Bill that would make it perfectly clear that it is part of an endeavour to realign our agricultural and food sector with that goal of being climate-compatible and net zero by 2050. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has eloquently made the point that this sector, more than any other, will feel the impact of a disturbed climate—a climate that can no longer be predicted, where extreme weather events impact our ability to grow food and sustain our land in the way that we have been accustomed to. It is imperative that we take action in the long term to secure a stable climate.
The other interesting fact about agriculture and food is that both are a source of climate change emissions and greenhouse gases but also a significant sink—a way of absorbing more of the excess greenhouse gases back into our soils, our forestry and our land. So the sector is in a unique position, both to reduce its own impact and to increase its ability to be a central part of the solution for getting to net zero. For those reasons, it is imperative that we make that clear in the objectives of the Bill. Clause 1 says that future payments will be tied to environmental sustainability, but that is not precise or clear enough to give the Bill the direction of travel that it really needs or to give clarity about the purpose of the Bill and this change of direction.
At the moment, when we think about tackling climate change, one of the most politically difficult issues is that of who will pay for taking actions that at the moment may cost more but that we know will be beneficial for future generations. With agriculture, we are in a unique position in that we already see large sums of public money going into the sector. There is no need to discuss how we introduce a carbon price and no need to talk about taxation. We have a system that already sees a large amount of money from taxpayers flowing into the sector. It is fully understood that that can continue through a transition period, but we will be attaching a requirement that those payments deliver a public good. That public good, as defined through the lens of climate change, would see large amounts of money being given to farmers who found innovative ways and solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance our ability to store carbon in our land.
This is a huge and exciting opportunity for the Government. We have set out for this net-zero target, we have legislated for it and we have led the world in doing so, but now we really need to demonstrate that we understand what that means and we know what policies we will need to get us there. The more cost-effective those policies are, the more we can point to our success and see other countries follow that path. We have an opportunity with this redirection of public money to demonstrate that it is eminently possible and hugely exciting to achieve net zero in our agriculture, food and forestry sectors at an accelerated pace.
If the Government are able to craft their own version of this group of amendments, clearly setting out that it is a core aim and we will see net-zero provided through this sector, it will be a fantastic opportunity to provide clarity for the sector. As we approach the next conference of parties of the UNFCCC in Glasgow next year, which we are hosting, we will also be able to point to our own domestic legislation to show that when we talk about the need to drastically reduce emissions and stabilise the climate, we are not just talking about it but doing it. We are putting in place the sectoral policies and sectoral laws that will drive investment.
This will be an opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind that, as we transition from the current subsidy system to a new system, it will be greatly beneficial to have a carbon target for the sector because it will draw in investment from other parts of the economy. If we wish to reduce our taxpayers’ subsidy into the sector, what better way than to do so through private sector investment paying for the public good of carbon reduction, carbon removal and carbon abatement in this sector? It will relieve pressure on the public purse and enable money to flow into the sector from those sectors finding it harder to abate. That is a wonderful opportunity, and with a bit of thought we can make that explicit in the Bill.
To summarise, this group of amendments deserves careful attention from the Government. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply, and we hope to see the Government take this on and bring something forward. This is not just about climate change; it is an opportunity to create clarity and drive inward investment and private money into the sector. It is an opportunity for the UK to develop a set of framework legislation that we can be duly proud of and which we can announce and discuss in the global context in Glasgow next year.
I, too, pay tribute to the NFU and all the farmers who are potentially running ahead of many in government and many commentators in acknowledging that this can be done and that it is an exciting opportunity. They believe that we can get to net zero in this sector earlier than 2050. We should be giving them legislation that makes it completely clear that we as a society, as a whole, are backing them in that and want to create the right framework to enable them to do it.
I will not detain the House any longer, but I hope I have conveyed my enthusiasm for this group of amendments. It would be fantastic to see a version of any of the four of them in the Bill in its next stage. I very much look forward to the reply from the Front Bench.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is a very important amendment. It is a rather historic occasion, because I cannot recall any other occasion on which I have associated myself with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, politically, but I completely associate myself with him on this occasion. For me it is quite simple: if we will the ends, we have to will the means. It is clear that agriculture not only contributes to the problem but could be doing far more to help solve the problem. We all have to think, wherever we are in society, how we can change our ways in order to play a practical part in this urgent priority for the survival of the human race. I therefore commend the amendment and am very glad to see the other amendments in the group addressing ways in which agriculture can contribute towards the objective—not just how it can restrain itself, but how it can contribute. This is a practical priority, and I hope the Government take it very seriously.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, all Members have emphasised just how significant and timely this group of amendments is. I particularly support Amendments 272 and 274. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to last night’s shock report from the Met Office-led investigation into the effect of manmade carbon emissions in the Arctic and the effect, therefore, on UK weather. That should be a very loud alarm call. I think we are all very conscious of the problems that have arisen from the sequential scrutiny of this Bill and the forthcoming Environment Bill. Very clever co-ordination is obviously essential. In agricultural circles I think we would refer to it as cross-compliance.
I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues believe that the thrust of these two amendments is essential. Indeed, it is difficult at this stage to decide between them: we may want to find ways in which they could be brought together at Report, depending on the Minister’s response. We are very proud of the role that our colleague, Ed Davey, played as the Cabinet member who prepared the UK for the Paris climate change conference in 2015. For that reason, to some extent, I have a slight preference for Amendments 272, since it seems to be firmly rooted in the Paris agreement and the developments, policy and commitments in the process since then. The link to the Climate Change Act 2008 in both amendments is, of course, entirely right in UK legislative terms. However, we respect and wish to encourage recognition of the way in which British Ministers have taken a leading role in the EU, in a real partnership, to maintain momentum since Paris in 2015. That is specifically acknowledged in Amendment 272 at subsection (1)(b).
The detailed rules, procedures and guidelines adopted at the follow-up UN conference in December 2018 are critical in this context and, of course, they are binding on the UK, as any other treaty obligation. This country will be obliged to report on success in meeting emission reduction targets in agriculture in a transparent, complete, comparable and consistent format. Should that not be spelled out in the Bill? It would be very helpful to do that as we look forward to Glasgow next year.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests in Suffolk as in the register. I am rather doubtful of the wisdom of some of these amendments on climate change, especially Amendments 272 and 274. I believe they are too declaratory and unrealistically mandatory to be part of the Bill.
Of course, the great majority of us believe that we must do what we can to reduce carbon emissions and the consequences they can have on the climate, and much can be done. Farmers have to live and work within the constraints of climate. There is probably no group that keeps a closer eye on the weather: the climate is a practical reality for farmers. The weather can and does have a huge impact on farmers’ prosperity and, indeed, economic survival. For example, the drought in England this April and May will have a severe effect on the 2020 harvest. But the idea that the Government can:
“Within 12 months … publish a strategy outlining how Her Majesty’s Government plans to reduce the emissions resulting from agriculture”,
is so unrealistic as to be absurd.
I warn noble Lords that quite a lot of misinformation is used in this climate change argument. I shall give one example. A few years ago, I heard my noble friend Lord Deben, who is a great panjandrum on this issue, start a speech on climate change with the story that one of his constituents had had to abandon growing apples because of the great reduction in rainfall in recent years. I live and farm in my noble friend’s former constituency. Like many farmers, we keep daily rainfall records. From 1945, rainfall has been measured with the same gauge, located in the same part of Marlesford. Over those 75 years, the results are revealing. The average annual rainfall over the whole period has been 25.81 inches. This data is based on more than 27,000 measures of rainfall. The 2019 total was 28 inches, about 9% above the long-term average. The rainfall in 2018 was 22 inches, about 22% below the average. But the most recent 10 years, 2010 to 2019, at 26 inches, has been remarkably close to the 75-year average.
The 10-year period with the highest rainfall was 1999 to 2008, when there was nearly 29 inches—20% more than in the 10-year period with the lowest rainfall. The first 10 years after the war averaged 24.67 inches. The wettest year in the whole 75 years was 2012, with 34 inches, which is virtually double the rainfall in the two driest years—1953 and 1959—when there was 17 inches. The 10-year average has helped to iron out short-term weather-related fluctuations, but the question must be: how do we interpret a 5% increase in this part of Suffolk over the 75 years from 1945?
Climate change is a crucial issue and there will need to be regulations to encourage, and indeed require, farmers to reduce emissions, but let these come forward as and when they are ready, based on their own merits. There is quite enough in this important Bill without loading it with what are in effect political declarations.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 73 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and Amendments 272 and 274, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Protecting the environment is important to me. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I believe that over the last 10 years we have seen many severe weather events that have had a direct impact on our land, our nature and, above all, our soil texture and quality. The land has been leached of essential nutrients, thereby disabling agricultural production and the capacity to produce food. This debate is really all about food and the quality of food for consumption by all our citizens.
There is a value and a benefit to the environment in making financial provision, financial entitlement and financial qualification a means of encouraging a reduction in climate change emissions. It is worth remembering that our Select Committee report entitled Hungry for Change, which was published last week, stated that the features of a sustainable food system are that it should be environmentally sustainable, that land must be managed to ensure that it is used appropriately and is continuously viable for food production, and that the negative impacts of GHG emissions and water and air pollution on habitats and diversity must be substantially reduced, while carbon sequestration and flood management are enhanced. It is important that the forthcoming national food strategy considers those factors, as well as ensuring that our food supply is socially and economically viable.
Therefore, I have no problem in supporting these amendments, because I believe that we have to reduce our CO2 emissions. We have to make that contribution to net-zero emissions and there should be financial payments to our farming folk that recognise that. What better way to do that than to recognise it on the face of the Bill? I hope that in replying the Minister will indicate the Government’s response to these amendments and set out how they intend to contribute to net-zero emissions through farming and food production.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 272 and 274 in the names of the two noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Jones, respectively—you can never have too many Lady Joneses, in my view.
These amendments would put an urgency and a framework into the objective of substantially reducing the carbon impact of farming, and would include a series of targets and interim targets in line with successive carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said that the amendments were too declamatory and mandatory, and that is why I support them. We need a bit of backbone to make sure that this vital purpose is achieved.
Agriculture accounts for 11% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, and that percentage has not reduced very much over the last 10 years. Unless change can be incentivised financially, agriculture will account for a greater proportion of our UK emissions, as other sectors decarbonise quickly. On the other hand, land is an essential resource for tackling climate change through its ability to sequester and store carbon, and that needs to be taken into account at the same time.
I know that the Minister will say that the purposes in Clause 1 already enable support to be provided for measures to combat climate change. However, the amendments before us provide a much stronger framework to drive the urgent changes required in agricultural practice, and I urge him to consider the extra welly that they will provide for this vital purpose.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I very much associate myself with the thrust of these four amendments. They highlight something which is absolutely critical, and we can think of this as we go through Covid-19, because, although the pandemic is serious, it is not as serious as climate change.
Here, we have a set of amendments that sets modern agriculture in Britain within the context of our climate change challenge. It is a big challenge but one that we have to face and, in fact, win. I very much associate myself with the comments of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. In particular, I support Amendment 272 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, although I equally support the amendment in the name of the other noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
If we had to invent a machine to lead the campaign against carbon emissions, that would be quite difficult, but nature has provided us with just such a machine. It has provided us with trees. Trees absorb carbon as they grow and retain carbon as they mature: in their leaves, their trunk, their bark, their roots and their soil—it is all there. Although we do not have many woods and trees in this country, we all have ambitions to have more. To give one statistic, one young mixed wood captures 400 tonnes of carbon per hectare. It is a very efficient way of meeting our climate change target, and this Bill will help, because more trees will be planted.
I want to raise something with the Minister which I hope he or she will look at. We all talk about planting trees because they provide so many benefits—in this case, we are talking about climate change—but if you remove trees, you do exactly the opposite, with the saving grace that if you replant, you start the whole process again. There is a law in this country that says that before a tree of a certain size is felled, a licence must be obtained. However, I am afraid that that legislation is hardly ever applied. It is when it comes to large areas of trees, because, just as individuals might get grants to plant trees, they have to get permission to fell.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I venture to say that the amendments in this group can be summed up as: what purpose profit if there is no habitable planet to spend it on? What purpose fine produce if there is no habitable planet on which to enjoy it? Does the Minister agree that the potential to achieve net zero will completely depend on the combination of talent and technology? I thank the NFU for all the work it has done in this area; it is ahead of a number of curves in this respect. Does the Minister recognise the need for far greater consideration of and investment in all the elements of 4IR, not least distributed ledger technology and robotics? If we are to achieve the purposes set out in these amendments—or indeed the overall governmental purpose—we need to accept and be proud that nuclear will be part of that mix. Would the Minister care to say something on the investment potential, not just for small modular reactors to assist in this but in the race for nuclear fusion? This could enable such innovation, not just in agriculture but across the economy. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
For the benefit of Members tuning in remotely, it might be helpful to know that the Minister responding will be the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, that is indeed helpful. I am pleased to speak in support of all these amendments but particularly Amendment 272, tabled by my noble friends Lady Jones, Lord Grantchester and Lord Judd. I endorse everything said by my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere about trees. He speaks with authority as a former chair of the Forestry Commission. I hope the Minister will take account of every word he said.
Central to all these amendments is incorporating in the Bill the principle that our future farming framework has climate change and our net-zero emissions target at its very core, as was outlined so eloquently by my noble friend Lady Worthington. I am pleased to be a member of the organisation Peers for the Planet, which she and my noble friend Lady Hayman were instrumental in setting up. They have been doing an excellent job in driving forward discussion and debate on the key issues relating to this Bill. Like them, I want to see a more sustainable farming system which incorporates a good balance between food production, sustainable land use, biodiversity protection and emissions reduction. As we know—most of us, anyway, I hope—time is of the essence. We need a clear plan to put these goals into action and give ourselves a fighting chance of meeting our 2050 target. Important to this is providing the necessary tools, funding and infrastructure to support our food and farming industry in order to make this transition possible.
I support the specific requirement, outlined in Amendments 272 and 274, that the Government must publish a strategy within 12 months of the Bill becoming law. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, claimed that this was absurd but he did not give any reason why. It is not absurd; it is absolutely vital. This strategy must outline plans to reduce emissions from agriculture and its associated land use, and it must set out interim emissions targets for 2030 so that we can make substantial progress towards the 2050 target.
I turn to another aspect of Amendment 272. I am speaking as a Scottish Peer, along with many others today. Looking around, I see Peers from Caithness, Montrose, Old Scone, Glenscorrodale, whose contribution is to come; and there is me, from Cumnock. We represent almost every corner of our great country of Scotland. I am keen to highlight the need for strong co-operation among all the nations of the United Kingdom. Noble Lords may recall that I raised this issue in Committee last week. Amendment 272 would require the Government to publish a future farming strategy and oblige the Secretary of State to consult devolved Ministers. We have already had disputes between the UK Government and devolved nations, and these look increasingly likely after Brexit. It is therefore critical that any discussions and decisions about a future farming strategy place the devolved nations, as well as the industry and farmers themselves, in the starting line-up, rather than relegating them to the subs’ bench—if I can be excused a footballing metaphor.
As many in the farming industry and beyond continue to argue, we need a whole-system approach to support this transition—critically, one that instils collaboration across our four nations. I hope the Minister can assure that that will happen.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, as he bangs the drum for Scotland’s place in the union. I declare my interest as a lifetime livestock producer. I support my noble friend Lord Caithness in his Amendment 73, which flags up one of the great challenges facing agricultural production. Noble Lords will know that when the Kyoto Protocol was signed in December 1997, there was an awareness that, as well as the industrial emissions on which the subsequent climate action was largely focused, emissions from land use would need to be incorporated.
At that point, knowledge about emissions from agricultural production had not got much beyond rarefied academic studies. The difference now is that, since the Paris Agreement of 2015, Governments are required to pursue agricultural emissions as a major policy consideration. These amendments focus on that aspect. From a practical farmer’s point of view, I see immense scientific research around the world into both emissions levels and ways to reduce them. This indicates that we have not yet arrived at a full understanding of how these complex systems work and interact. I particularly think of the Oxford Martin School studies on the lack of persistent methane emissions in the atmosphere.
One of the quainter remedies I have come across to alleviate cattle emissions is mixing biochar—a form of charcoal—into the regular feed. As we strive to improve our current understanding of emission levels, I put it to my noble friend the Minister that the one thing we must not do is import agricultural produce—I think particularly of beef—which has a higher carbon footprint than that which we have achieved here, no matter how cheap it appears to be. It is important that our government policy and research have this element firmly in their sights. This amendment would ensure that it was on the face of the Bill.
I have much sympathy with Amendment 144A, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon; this is obviously dependent on what methods are found to reduce greenhouse gas production. On Amendment 272, we need more clarity regarding what is meant by
“agriculture and associated land use”.
A great deal of government policy on achieving net-zero emissions seems to be based on taking land out of agriculture. The idea that agriculture on its own could reduce emissions to 100% below 1990 levels appears a bit fanciful.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I support the general thrust of these amendments and I hope that the Government will listen carefully to this debate and perhaps come back with the best of each amendment in future stages. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made a very powerful contribution in support of his Amendment 73.
Obviously, there are some differences between Amendments 272 and 274, but I will address in particular the point that my noble friend Lord Foulkes made about the fact that Amendment 272 mentions specifically the need to work with the devolved Governments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. At each level of government in the United Kingdom, there is a responsibility to tackle climate change and each of these devolved Governments have specific legislative responsibilities for agriculture. If we are to make the case in this debate, and perhaps beyond, for a tighter connection in the Bill to the climate change targets, it makes sense that engaging with the devolved Governments would be a key component of that. There needs to be, in my view, far better co-ordination and agreement at all levels of government—local, national and UK—if we are to meet these targets by 2050.
The idea of including the climate change targets in this Agriculture Bill is inspired. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, made that case very powerfully when she talked about the leadership that the United Kingdom could show in what may end up being the largest Bill to come before your Lordships’ Chamber—and maybe our longest debates—this year. This Bill, taking back powers from the European Union and setting out a new strategy for British agriculture to be so closely aligned with the climate change targets, would be a very powerful signal not only inside but outwith the United Kingdom in the run-up to the summit in Glasgow, now in 2021. For reasons of the opportunities that the noble Baroness outlined and the leadership that we could show, I think these amendments are on the right lines.
If I may be allowed to digress slightly for a second, I tried to intervene last Thursday in Committee but had connection problems and was not able to make one very small specific point that in fact relates to this topic today. Amendment 12, which was debated last Thursday, used the phrase:
“the impact of climate change on agriculture”.
The amendment proposed this as one of the additional purposes to which the Government could provide finance. I felt at the time that this was the wrong way round and that it should have been about the impact of agriculture on climate change. That would be more in keeping with the amendments in front of us today, which are about the impact of agriculture on climate change. Perhaps those who were involved in moving Amendment 12 last week might think about that before we reach Report. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness the Minister has to say in response.
Lord Adonis (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I know that the Government are frustrated at the very slow progress of the Bill and, although we are very grateful for the extremely assiduous responses we have received from both Ministers—the noble Baroness and the noble Lord—I know there is concern at the slow progress.
In my experience of legislation passing through the House, a pattern establishes itself and, once you see the pattern, you understand the underlying issue of the approach that the House is taking to a Bill. It is very clear to me what the issue is in respect of this Bill. The Bill—which is of huge significance for the future of one of our major national industries as we leave the European Union—is, essentially, a framework Bill. It contains very little policy. It sets out a whole range of permissive provisions that enable the Government to do X, Y and Z but only one or two broad-brush policy statements, such as the noble Lord’s statement in our earlier debates that the Government will not subsidise food because that should be left to the market; in fact, is it clear to me that, even in our debates on that, when it comes to issues of shortage, scarcity and crisis, the Government not only have, but are proposing to take, significant new powers in that regard. Leaving aside very broad-brush statements of that kind, we do not know what the Government’s policy will be hereafter.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, this suite of amendment deals with the critical issue of climate change. Agriculture has an important part to play in helping the UK meet its emissions targets. I have spoken previously in support of the introduction of an interim emissions target for 2030; 2050 is a long way off and I certainly will not be here to see that day, but with luck I just might be here in 2030. I would like to think that I could contribute in some small way to reducing the emissions the country produces. Having an interim target at 2030 gives a much more realistic goal for everyone to aim for. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, it provides backbone.
Industry, agriculture, local authorities and individual households all have their part to play. For all these sectors, 2050 is just a date in the future and means little, but 2030 would be a much more meaningful goal—especially if agriculture has its own carbon target. Children born this year will be 10. Those now aged five will be 15 and very definitely waking up to the type of world they inhabit. We have a duty and responsibility to ensure that we have made strides towards reducing emissions and tackling climate change. I can hear their voices now, shouting as only enraged teenagers can, “What did you do about it, when you knew the disastrous impact of not tackling climate change?”. I wonder whether they will care about the Paris Agreement.
Zero carbon is really important and flying abroad for our holidays—as some of us may be considering at the moment—will not help achieve this. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, spoke knowledgably about realigning agriculture to reduce the impact on emissions and climate change. The system is already there to make payments for public goods, store carbon and reduce emissions.
My noble friend Lord Tyler raised the Met Office report on the impact of our activities on the Arctic, which is really shocking. This is not something to be left to some other piece of legislation. He also raised the inextricable links with the Environment Bill. It is not acceptable to leave this issue solely to the Environment Bill; there must be synergies between these two Bills. Beginning with a substantial commitment in the Agriculture Bill will be the start that everyone is looking for. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, tells us that 75% of greenhouse gases come from agriculture, and the NFU offers encouragement to farmers to reduce their emissions.
It is a pity that I am speaking before the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, so have not heard her arguments in favour of her Amendment 272. Having heard her speak on this subject before, I have no hesitation in supporting what she will say, especially on consulting and working with the devolved Administrations.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asks for clarification on policy as this is a framework Bill and gives no information. I agree with him completely that this is what has produced all these probing amendments. I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Caithness, and my noble friend Lord Tyler, who spoke about the effect of draining peat bogs and cutting down trees. I look forward to the Minister telling us when a future farming strategy will be produced, as promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I hope I will be able to agree with the Minister’s response when she makes it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords have commented, we have Amendment 272 in this group. It sets out a requirement to publish within 12 months a strategy setting out how agriculture and land use will play their part in delivering our 2050 net-zero obligations under the Climate Change Act, with regulations to set an interim emissions target by 2030. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, I hope to be around for at least that date, if not longer. Several noble Lords have welcomed that it also requires consultation with the devolved nations and other interested groups on how we will deliver those targets.
I believe that our amendment and Amendment 274 aim to do the same thing. I thank all noble Lords who have supported those amendments and Amendment 73. Forgive me if I do not name-check everybody who has spoken, but I think we have more or less reached a common cause.
We obviously welcome the reference in Clause 1(1)(d) that funding will be available to manage
“land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change”,
but here the details end. We believe that confronting the threat of climate change should be at the heart of the Bill. This is why we have tabled a new clause to help deliver a strategy for agriculture that would set us on our way to meet those targets.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that the Government are already a signatory to the Paris treaty. Indeed, the recent Heathrow judgment shows that they already have a legal obligation to have regard to that treaty, so we need a plan to deliver what is effectively a legal obligation, declaratory or not. That is why our Amendment 272 specifically links back around to the Paris treaty and our obligations under it.
Meanwhile, the Committee on Climate Change’s latest report, published last month, shows once again that we are nowhere near being on target to meet the Government’s net-zero target of 2050, and agriculture has a long way to go to deliver its share of the greenhouse gas reductions. Its report says that
“the current voluntary approach has failed to cut agricultural emissions, there has been no coherent policy to improve the resilience of the agriculture sector, and tree planting … has failed outside of Scotland … Progress remains significantly off track in adaptation to build climate resilience.”
In a separate letter from the committee to the Minister, Victoria Prentis, on the potential of the environmental land management schemes, it also raises a critical issue that has been a running theme in our recent debates: the lack of a joined-up government approach within Defra to the climate change crisis. Its letter says:
“Defra has yet to set out how ELM, the Environment Bill, the 25 Year Environment Plan and various policies … for trees, peatlands and nature will fit together. In turn it is unclear how the different strategies together will support the Government’s climate change mitigation and adaptation goals.”
This is extremely well said, and this has been our experience whenever climate change targets are raised. We are always told that this work is happening in another department or another policy brief within the department, but it is clearly not happening with any serious impact. As the recent Natural Capital Committee report commented, the 25-year environment plan, which should be monitoring progress, remains a long list of ambitions with “little evidence of improvements”.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for Amendment 73, with which I will take Amendment 144A from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, Amendment 272 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 274 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate.
From listening to many of the contributions, one would hardly think that, last June, the UK became the first major economy in the world to set a legally binding target to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from across the UK economy by 2050. The UK already has a very strong foundation of action and leadership to build from, having cut our emissions by 42% since 1990, while growing the economy by 72%.
Climate change is a global challenge, requiring action across the whole economy. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, I believe that urgency is felt across government. Defra has worked with the industry to reduce emissions through improved productivity. Since 1990, we are producing a litre of milk with 20% less greenhouse gas emissions, and a kilogram of pork with 37% less. Efficiency gains in dairy farming mean that we now produce 9% more milk than we did in 2000 with 23% fewer cows and 9% less greenhouse gas emissions.
Targets are set under the Climate Change Act, but we do not have sector-specific targets under that Act. Indeed, we are following the whole-economy approach advocated so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. This is to ensure that we meet our climate change commitments at the lowest possible net cost to UK taxpayers, consumers and businesses, while maximising the social and economic benefits to the UK of the transition. To take up the points made by the noble Baroness, we think that the whole purpose of Clause 1 is clear, as expressed in subsection (4). In framing financial assistance schemes, we will have regard to the need to encourage environmentally sustainable food production, which will align the agriculture and food sectors.
However, I note with interest that the Committee on Climate Change’s Net Zero report from 2019 says:
“It is difficult to reduce agriculture emissions to near-zero given the inherent biological processes and chemical reactions arising from crops, soils and livestock.”
Therefore, I cannot reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that net zero will be achieved by 2050, but we are doing everything we can to let it happen.
In its June 2020 report to Parliament on reducing emissions, the Committee on Climate Change provided recommendations for government departments, including Defra, on policy priorities to address net-zero climate mitigation and adaptation. We will consider this advice and provide a response before 15 October. I believe that the Bill addresses these targets in a very coherent way.
The Government recognise the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions made by the livestock and dairy sectors, while valuing the importance of our farmers in feeding the nation and managing our rural environment. Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions have reduced by 16% since 1990, as I said, with many farms using more efficient agricultural practices. Land use, land use change and forestry continue to provide benefits in carbon sequestration.
The Government recognise the importance of reducing emissions further in these sectors. The clean growth strategy and the 25-year environment plan should reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, since they set out a range of specific commitments further to reduce emissions from agriculture, including through environmental land management, by strengthening biosecurity and control of endemic diseases in livestock, and by encouraging the use of low-emission fertilisers. The Government welcome the National Farmers Union’s ambition on this—indeed, its target is to reduce emissions by 2040—and the fact that the industry is taking this strong lead. Climate change represents a significant challenge, but also opportunities. We work closely on this issue with the NFU and other leading stakeholders, including the greenhouse gas action plan partners.
Clause 1(1)(d) enables the Secretary of State to give financial assistance for the purpose of
“managing land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change”,
which provides coverage for the reduction and sequestration of carbon emissions. I believe that that statement is very clear. With particular reference to my noble friend Lord Caithness’s Amendment 73, I note that all agricultural or horticultural activities that contribute towards this purpose would already be in scope of funding support under Clause 1(1)(d). For example, financial assistance could be used to incentivise farmers to manage their livestock in a way that reduces their greenhouse gas emissions by adjusting animal feed practices, or to incentivise crop rotation. This provides a foundation for continued improvements, which the Government will drive forward through giving productivity grants alongside introducing the new environmental land management scheme. ELM will ensure that farmers and other land managers are rewarded for delivering environmental outcomes that benefit us all. This new scheme will aim to deliver a range of environmental benefits, including the mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change. Land management activities that could be funded under ELM to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester carbon include tree planting and peatland restoration.
At present, UK forests capture about 4% of our greenhouse gas emissions. We need those trees and forests to grow to capture more carbon. Defra is taking necessary steps to deliver a step change from current planting rates. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Having announced the Nature4Climate fund, the Government are now consulting on a new England tree strategy. We invite input to shape our proposals to plant more trees, protect those we have and support the economy. I will certainly take on board the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, endorsed, regarding licences for the destruction of trees.
On Amendment 144A from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, the sooner the Government introduce these new schemes, the better for the environment. Reducing direct payments from 2021, as planned, will allow us to do so. Direct payments are untargeted and poor value for money, and deliver little for the environment. All ELMS will come into effect in 2024. Reductions to direct payments will free up money so that the Government can introduce pilots of the ELMS. It can also work to increase the number of farmers who are in new countryside stewardship scheme agreements.
The noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord McConnell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, also mentioned financial assistance for the devolved authorities. While agriculture is, as they all know, a devolved matter, I would like to reassure them that we are working very closely with officials in all the devolved authorities to establish common frameworks on agriculture. With these explanations, I ask my noble friend Lord Caithness to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from four noble Lords: the noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner of Parkes, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Boycott, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I call first the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her speech. which covered most of the points I wished to make. However, I want to emphasise the importance of Amendment 75. The Minister drew attention to the improvements that have already been made. The detailed categories are set out in this amendment, but I believe they would benefit all. Public health outcomes must be borne in mind all the time. Our present virus situation has made us all much more aware of the need for this protection of the public. Allying that with improvements in the agricultural world is good. I do not wish to take up more time because this has been a very interesting and complete debate, but I support Amendment 75.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I note my noble friend’s comments. I think she probably meant to refer to Amendment 73, which is in this group. I thank her for her comments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, will speak after the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and to note that she is reflecting the support that is to be found on all sides of your Lordships’ House for the inclusion of the climate emergency in the Bill. I thank the Minister for her responses thus far. She brandished the “we have legally binding targets” stick that the Government very much like to bring out. I point out that we also have a Fixed-term Parliaments Act which supposedly sets the date of elections every five years—and we have had three elections in the past five years.
What we need is action. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, pointing to the report that has just come out from the independent Committee on Climate Change, we have not had, and do not have in mind, anything like the action that we need. The Minister quoted a 2019 report from the same committee pointing out the difficulties of making agriculture net-zero carbon. But the National Farmers’ Union, which is representative of many farmers in this country, particularly the larger ones, has set that target for itself. It is therefore surprising that the Government are lagging behind the farmers and are perhaps in conflict on yet another subject with what might traditionally have been seen as their natural constituency.
There are a number of amendments in this group, but it will not surprise your Lordships’ House to know that my favourite is Amendment 274, which was tabled by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and is backed by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. This amendment goes furthest and says that we must ensure that we meet our legally binding target under Paris and that we need real action in six months’ time. I also commend the elements in Amendment 272 about working with the devolved Administrations. That is a very strong element that I hope the Government will also take forward.
When we were last in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said that politics,
“is not the stuff of fundamental legislation but for the political hustings.”—[Official Report, 14/7/20; col. 1626.]
I am not sure whether the noble Lord would consider tackling the climate emergency—the existential threat that is facing us all—politics, but it is crucial to this Agriculture Bill and it has to be there.
I very much hope that we will hear in coming days and weeks a more conciliatory approach from the Government on this. They often talk about following the science; the science is that we need action. We have a special role as the chair of the—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
Can I ask the noble Baroness to wait a moment? I think it would be a courtesy to the Committee if the noble Baroness could keep remarks to a short intervention. She is speaking after the Minister and I think it would be polite if she were to ask the noble Baroness the Minister a question, rather than making a speech.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
I thank the noble Lord for his comment. I was coming to my last sentence, which is this: does the Minister acknowledge that there is support from all sides of your Lordships’ House for including a commitment to climate change action in the Bill? Will she and the Government at least go away and think again?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I acknowledge the support from all sides of the House for all that we can do to encourage climate change mitigation, but I believe that that intention is already fully provided in Bill.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I add my support for Amendment 272. I shall make a few points, while being mindful of what the Minister just said.
Healthy land is also healthy food. At the moment so much of our acreage is given over to growing grains that end up in very cheap, white, processed bread and the like. These fields are covered in chemicals. Any move that we can make in the right direction not only improves our biodiversity—agriculture is to blame for the 80% loss that has been suffered across the world—but is a win-win situation. I do not understand why the Government appear to be afraid of setting a target. We cannot make this target without agriculture being part of it; it is too big a part of our system.
Henry Dimbleby is producing a report for the Government, and I am very proud to say that I am an adviser on it. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that an interim report is coming soon. If the Agriculture Bill does not set up sufficient pillars and legislation to change the way we farm, which can then change the way we eat, Henry Dimbleby’s terrific report will not have the impact that it needs.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I agree with everything the noble Baroness has said about healthy land meaning healthy food. The Bill is designed to do all that we can to encourage farmers to produce healthy land. We do not have a sector-specific target for agriculture because the Committee on Climate Change advised that emissions reductions would be needed in all sectors. We know that to achieve net zero more is needed from this sector, and we are looking to reduce agricultural emissions controlled directly within the farm boundary with a broad range of cost-effective measures, primarily through improvements in on-farm efficiency and land use change.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I am sorry to return to this point—I am being forced to become something of an environmental campaigner. I have a simple question which has not yet been answered. Are the Government satisfied that the agricultural transition will not slow or reverse our progress towards net zero in 2050?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I can confirm that we are absolutely confident that we are doing everything in legislation and encouragement in order to achieve that end.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
After the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, I will call the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, who has requested to speak.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend on being the only person in this debate who has raised the question of whether the net-zero target for agriculture is feasible. Does she agree that probably the most realistic assessment of realistic steps to achieve net zero is the report Absolute Zero by the Universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Bath, Nottingham and Strathclyde, and Imperial College, which said that even a massive expansion of forestry will have only a small effect? It therefore concludes that to achieve zero emissions from agriculture would require,
“beef and lamb phased out by 2050 and replaced by greatly expanded demand for vegetarian food.”
I hope she will make it clear to the House that if we accept these amendments we are mandating the end of lamb and cattle farming in this country.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
We are not accepting these amendments. I take my noble friend’s point. We should always have absolute zero as our goal because it will enable us to move as far towards that goal as possible.
Baroness Worthington [V]
I am grateful to be able to speak a second time. I echo the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and ask the Minister how she can be confident that we will not see backsliding and an increase in emissions, given that we will lose cross-compliance and we have no sectoral targets for this very important sector. If they were set, it would drive investment into the sector, since it is the sector that can help to offset emissions in other parts of the economy. I simply ask the Minister to reconsider. This would be a beneficial addition to this framework legislation, to prevent backsliding and drive investment.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
As I have said already, from next year we will bring forward grants and new countryside stewardship and productivity schemes that will prevent the backsliding that we all want to prevent.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and for the very helpful comments that have been made all around the Chamber. It was interesting to hear my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s statistics. I would only say to him that the whole pattern of rainfall is changing. Last winter, the rainfall in Caithness was significantly below average, whereas in parts of Hampshire it was about 170% or more above average—so the year’s average might equate, but the time and quantity of rain and drought that one is now getting have changed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, was absolutely right to say that the amendments are of prime importance and something should be included in the Bill. Therefore, I was a little disappointed by what my noble friend said in her reply. I will read with care what she said, but I think that she missed two crucial points that I sought to make in justification of my amendment. Her examples were all of mitigation. I am not worried about mitigation: mitigation is to make less severe or alleviate, which is but one aspect of what we are talking about. Adaptation is to adjust or modify. That is another aspect. What the Bill does not cover satisfactorily, according to the legal advice that I have had, is the word “sequester”, which is a hugely important addition that needs to be made to the Bill at the next stage.
The other point that I sought to make in justification of my amendment was that it should be a condition of financial assistance that sequestration of climate change emissions is included in whatever ELM one is talking about. We desperately need to take more carbon out of the atmosphere, not just mitigate it. I hope that, between now and the next stage, the Minister will meet me to discuss this because, as the Bill stands, it does not meet the point that I have been trying to make. Meanwhile, I am reluctantly content to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Trees
Member’s explanatory statement
To enable assistance to be given in an appropriate case to a licensed abattoir which, for example, provides a private kill service or enables slaughtering facilities in an area otherwise without adequate provision.
Lord Trees (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak to this amendment in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register, and particularly my role as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare.
This is an enabling Bill, and I note that many amendments to date have been seeking more detail on how the Bill’s objectives will be realised. This amendment, adding one small word—slaughtering—puts some meat on the bones, if noble Lords will excuse a veterinary pun. It offers a means of helping to achieve two of the strategic objectives of the Bill: namely, to improve animal welfare and to enable the financial self-sustainability of farming and, in this case, of livestock farming.
First, with respect to welfare, there has been a huge reduction in the number of abattoirs in the UK in recent years. Since 2007, we have lost 40% of the abattoirs that existed at that time, as the industry has consolidated into bigger units. There is nothing wrong with bigger units, but bigger means fewer, and that means that animals in turn must travel longer distances in order to be slaughtered. It is a laudable commitment of this Government—and also a recommendation of a recent animal welfare committee report and a recent resolution from the British Veterinary Association—that animals should be killed as close to the point of production as possible. Fewer abattoirs runs counter to that admirable welfare goal.
On the financial self-sustainability of farming, one way that livestock farmers can achieve that is to add value to their product and retail directly. This is enabled by abattoirs that offer the so-called private kill option. These are, for the most part, the smaller abattoirs. Private kill returns the products of slaughter to the primary producer or their collaborators for processing. It enables local food production of good provenance and low food miles. It offers livestock farmers, especially those in upland areas, a viable business model. It offers them a much fairer and higher share of the price that the consumer pays. But it depends on the existence of suitable abattoirs.
Clause 1(5) currently lists “ancillary activities” for which the Secretary of State may give financial assistance, which are
“selling, marketing, preparing, packaging, processing or distributing products”
from agriculture. Spot the missing link in the farm-to-fork food chain. As a livestock farmer, how can one do any of those ancillary activities without slaughtering?
The amendment is not about subsidising abattoirs. It would merely allow as eligible for assistance certain abattoirs that recognise the higher regulatory standards rightly required for operations that are relatively low throughput and local. Conditions of support can be developed in statutory guidance or schedules and could for instance include capital grants for equipment needed to comply with new legislation, such as the recent introduction of CCTV or to achieve more sustainable and carbon-efficient waste disposal.
Given the key role that small abattoirs can play in improving animal welfare, enabling local food production and enabling the financial sustainability of livestock farming, while contributing to the wider rural economy and our national food security, I submit that there is a strong case for their eligibility for support, subject to conditions, under this Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my farming interests are set out in the register. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has just pointed out the word that is very obviously missing from the list in Clause 1(5). Livestock farming has to produce meat in the main and “slaughtering”, the most essential and first step in the process of all those set out in the list, is missing.
I do not think that this is an oversight. I am afraid that it might be deliberate, and there are two possible reasons. The Minister may consider that the word “preparing” includes slaughtering. If this is the case, could he or she please make it clear in plain terms for Hansard and then we can all go home happy? If the Minister will not do so, I am afraid that the omission is deliberate and has been made because so many small and medium-sized abattoirs have closed and the Government are frightened of making a commitment that they fear might require them to prop up a line of possibly failing businesses.
That is not my intention in putting my name to this amendment, nor do I believe that this very small amendment, if accepted, would result in public money being thrown away on a pointless, uneconomic enterprise. I hope that government money would not be spent under any of the other categories included in Clause 1(5) on other enterprises without a good reason and a good business case. This simple one-word amendment is important for livestock farmers, of which I am one, particularly farmers in the uplands, of which I am one. It is important for small producers, and vitally important for family farms, which the Government say they want to support.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I lend my support to Amendment 87. I declare my interest as an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association.
In the 1980s, we had an extensive network of small, family-run, easily accessible abattoirs, then along came an innocuous draft EU directive on slaughterhouses. As an MEP, I took soundings from many in rural communities. We worked very closely with what was then MAFF. Off his own bat, after years of waiting, and in a classic example of gold-plating, an official in MAFF took the opportunity to drive a coach and horses through the abattoir network and close many of the well-functioning, perfectly safe, smaller abattoirs serving the rural communities.
That brought devastating results in the early 1990s and again in the early 2000s, when we experienced BSE and foot and mouth disease. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said in moving this amendment, that led to longer journeys for livestock being taken to abattoirs, and potentially the spread of those diseases at that time. The noble Lord quite rightly identified this problem, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has just said, there are now parts of Scotland, particularly the islands, without abattoirs and completely dependent on mobile abattoirs. That raises costs to the producer, which goes to the heart of the viability of livestock production in the rural areas of the Highlands and Islands and, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, raises serious animal welfare concerns.
We must revert to a better and more extensive network, as we enjoyed before. This network of smaller, family-friendly, easily accessible slaughterhouses should be put in place and Amendment 87 provides the means to do so.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trees, on this amendment, so ably proposed by him and the two noble Baronesses who have just spoken.
I am no expert on agriculture, but I live in the Isles of Scilly, and I want to give a small example of the need for an abattoir there, which may be similar to the example of Scotland just given by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. There are five inhabited islands in the Isles of Scilly. They all have livestock—cows and often pigs—and they provide some good conservation grazing, overlooked by the Isles of Scilly Wildlife Trust. All the farmers are very much in favour of having an abattoir on the islands and would probably increase the number of cows they have if this were the case.
One problem at the moment is that they go from the off-islands in their trailers in a small freight ship to St Mary’s, and then on to another freight ship to Penzance, which takes about five hours on a good day—it does not travel on a bad day. They may then be trailed as far as Plymouth, which probably takes another five hours or so, and then, as we all know, the animals are rested before being slaughtered. Another problem is that there is an enormous cost to this. Some farmers say that the feedstuffs they have to buy cost three or four times as much as on the mainland.
There is an enormous interest in having a fixed abattoir on St Mary’s. The Duchy of Cornwall, which is the landlord here, has told me that it would be keen to see one built here now that the problems of remote veterinary oversight, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, have been overcome. All the farmers would use it but the problem, of course, is the capital cost. It is expensive and would not be used all the time but, once it was operational, it would wash its face because there is a big demand for local meat here, grown locally. Even when it goes to the mainland and comes back in butchered portions it is very popular—I think it is really good.
My only comment on the amendment itself is that for us in Scilly, “slaughtering” would need to include a cutting room and butchery. They may need to be part of it. Again, I am no expert on this; some other noble Lords who have spoken, or the Minister, may be able to put me right. But if we are going to slaughter the animals here on this island—or, I suggest, in other remote areas in the Scottish islands or parts of the mainland—we need to butcher and prepare them, and then be able to sell them locally. That would be really beneficial to the local economy at this time, when many hill farmers and remote farmers are very concerned about what will happen after Brexit.
When the Minister comes to wind up, I hope that he will either agree to this amendment or invite us to a meeting or two and come up with his own suggestions on this small but very serious problem. It could enable the hill farmers and island farmers—and probably remote farmers in Cornwall as well—to survive and prosper, using local and rare breeds on occasions, along with many other benefits of local delivery. I fully support the amendment.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as on the register. In addition, I chair The Prince’s Countryside Fund and this is an issue of deep concern to that fund, which has attempted to provide support to some of the threatened abattoirs, particularly on the Scottish islands referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I also declare that I speak as a former chair of the Meat and Livestock Commission, which I was when much of the EU legislation to which she also referred was introduced, leading to the closure of a lot of small abattoirs.
I very much support Amendment 87, sponsored by my noble friend Lord Trees. The geographical network of abattoirs across the United Kingdom is essential to ensure that local livestock producers have slaughtering facilities. These UK livestock producers are becoming increasingly worried about their future at present and feeling threatened on a number of fronts. There is high-profile media support for plant-based protein, for example, as referred to in debate on the Bill earlier this week, and that land should be converted from meat production to plant-based food. A vast proportion of the landscape of Britain is incapable of producing plant-based food for direct human consumption. It delivers a huge range of environmental benefits by grazing livestock, including biodiversity and carbon capture. This was referred to comprehensively by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in debate on the previous group of amendments.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, as has already been urged, there is a compelling case for paying attention to the plight of small abattoirs and for the Government to offer financial support to enable their survival. They are relied upon by farmers who market the meat from their own animals locally.
A small abattoir is one which slaughters fewer than 1,000 livestock units each year. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, in spite of strong and growing local demand, they are being driven out of business by a combination of factors beyond their control. For example, in the last 12 months a further seven have had to close. The Government seek to protect local farming communities and their ancillary services, and to increase rural employment. In the conditional and qualified way that the noble Lord has outlined, it is therefore all the more consistent with the Bill that they should now assist small abattoirs.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give us reassurance about this today. Meanwhile, in supporting this amendment, I pay tribute to the Food Standards Agency for doing as much as it can in difficult circumstances, as I do to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for the useful recent report he has written on small abattoirs, as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, in line with this amendment, I support the principle of slaughtering animals as close as possible to their place of growth and finishing. To me, there are three main reasons why this is a good idea, some of which have already been touched on.
First, it minimises the stress on the animals, which must be a golden rule or ambition underlying everything that our livestock industry stands for. I might add that this lack of stress has also been proven to improve the quality of the meat.
Secondly, local abattoirs allow specialist producers to generate premium prices from the sale of meat, based on branding due to genuine local provenance and high animal welfare. For some of our breeders, especially those in remote and special landscapes, this USP is crucial to the success of their enterprise.
Thirdly, local slaughter allows for the handling, cutting, processing and marketing of the meat to be done close to the point of production, thus enabling the economic and social benefits of the whole production process to be captured by the local rural economy.
All three of these reasons are important for remote rural communities, and particularly island-based communities, as mentioned by noble Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, the shenanigans and even cruelty involved in the process of getting animals bred on the Isles of Scilly to slaughter is a prime example of how to almost destroy a perfectly good-quality local organic food business. Clearly, small abattoirs result in an expensive system, but with the market emphasis focusing more and more on high-quality and specialist production, particularly local production, it is to be hoped that the Government will support such schemes wherever they can.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests as declared previously. I too will speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu, Lady Jones and Lady Bakewell. I had hoped to put my name down to it too, but was too late getting in.
Noble Lords have already eloquently laid out the case for this amendment and I do not propose to repeat all the arguments. However, I too emphasise the benefits that this amendment would bring. Clearly, reducing travel times has to be a priority. Slaughter should take place at the closest point possible to where animals are raised. Also, the more individual handling that takes place in a small abattoir is, I hope, less frightening than a big processing abattoir. Not only would that enable the provision of private kill, as described previously, thus helping farmers who wish to sell their meat themselves; farmers would also be able to ensure that animals are killed in the way they prefer and that they are pre-stunned.
Much as I respect the needs of our multicultural society in the UK—I emphasise that—I am also concerned about welfare standards. The RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming have highlighted that more animals are killed without stunning than are needed for UK halal and kosher consumption, and that they are more flexible for sale. A Food Standards Agency report last year highlighted that 90,000 of the 2.9 million non-stunned animals slaughtered for kosher-certified meat were rejected as unfit for religious consumption and went into the general market unlabelled. Enabling private kill for local small abattoirs will give farmers a choice if they do not wish their animals to be slaughtered in that way. I also ask the Minister for better labelling of all meat products regarding the method of slaughter, so that those who wish to eat meat that has been pre-stunned are able to do so.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the National Farmers Union. My interest in this amendment relates to private kill mainly in upland and less-favoured areas for specialist farm shops. I agree with everything that has been said. There have been many Second Reading speeches in Committee, which does nothing to speed up the passage of the Bill, so that we are able to pay farmers next year. Therefore, I see absolutely no need to prolong this process and to repeat the arguments that have been made so eloquently earlier this afternoon. I agree entirely with all that has been said and I support very strongly the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, for me, the impetus to take an interest in the Bill was going back to my constituency—an urban constituency in Northampton, although surrounded by some of the finest pasture in the United Kingdom and with a lot of sheep production. I was reminded by my farmer friends who took me round of the closure of our cattle market, which had been there for centuries, and of our abattoir, so that the animals had to be taken much further to be slaughtered. Having thought about it a bit further, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and I say thank you, sir, to him. His was a fine presentation, and I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is a leading legal person. They both put the case very strongly. As far as I can see, animal welfare today is ever more important, and it dictates that slaughtering should be as close to the means of production as possible. Secondly, I am in no doubt, having visited a couple of abattoirs, that the ease of handling in a small abattoir is much greater.
I am a little concerned about the high costs of the smaller abattoirs—maybe the Minister will shed some light on this. I do not know what the differential is, and I do not see any reason why a smaller abattoir should be excessively more expensive than a medium-sized or large one. I do not need to say any more on this amendment; it has my support and I wish it well.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 87. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, have made a compelling case for financial assistance for the slaughtering of animals closer to the farm, which also reduces food miles. On many occasions I have heard the Minister say that animal welfare is extremely important. Over the years, we have seen the closure of many small local and rural abattoirs, which has led to larger abattoirs further away from where stock is reared, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said.
The regulations on abattoirs are stricter than they used to be. The installation of CCTV ensures that animals are not distressed at the point of slaughter, vets are present, and paperwork is kept for future inspection. However, this does not assist with the passage of the animal from the farm to the abattoir. The shorter and less stressful this journey, the better for the animal—and for the quality of the meat, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, pointed out. I do not subscribe to the view that this does not matter as the animal is about to die, so why worry about its journey to the end? Animals deserve to be treated with compassion at all times. A network of smaller abattoirs serving local communities is essential for the farming community, especially small farming families. It will help them to process their animals on to the food industry or, in some cases, back to the farm for sale in the farm shop, thereby supporting the local economy.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made a powerful case for abattoirs on both the islands of Scotland and the Scilly Isles. There will be a cost involved in increasing the number of abattoirs, but they are essential to preventing distressing long journeys for animals. Consumers are keen to support locally grown and fed produce, and wish to buy the meat from a reputable source where they know the animals have been well cared for and fed. Slaughtering has to be included in the list for financial assistance. Concentrating all slaughter in larger, remote venues is not a satisfactory answer to the issues of animal welfare and convenience for the local farmer, whose time is limited. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the arguments raised in this debate.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to this amendment, and I will speak briefly in support of it.
Many local farmers have trusted and long-standing relationships with their local abattoir, and it is therefore very distressing when they have to close. As we have heard, it means longer and more stressful journeys for the animals concerned and clearly has a negative impact on their welfare. It also means that the Government are failing in their stated objective to reduce travel times for slaughter.
For farmers wanting to sell their meat as a specified farm product, through so-called private kill arrangements, it also means a more complicated process for retrieving the carcass and ensuring that it is properly labelled. Yet we are all in favour of local food production with specified provenance, which is really appreciated by consumers and can help to add value and boost the rural economy.
Of course, it is important that local abattoirs meet our high slaughterhouse standards and are properly supervised and certified, and this amendment would do nothing to undermine that important principle. I therefore hope that the Minister will feel able to support this small but significant amendment. It is not the total answer to the fate of our small abattoirs, but it would represent a small step forward.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his amendment, which highlights the many activities associated with the production of food along the supply chain. In doing so, I acknowledge the fine work of the APPG for Animal Welfare, which he chairs so ably. The Government are committed to addressing the issues raised by its recent report on small abattoirs.
Given his detailed work as chair of that group, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that the issues faced by small abattoirs are complex and unlikely to be resolved through intervention alone. I know at first hand the advantages of small local abattoirs from the days when I used to deliver my Black Welsh Mountain sheep to the Witney abattoir on the school run—actually, it was on the return from the school run, as I was a little squeamish for the children.
I am delighted to say that we have had it confirmed that the definition of ancillary activities in Clause 1(5) covers slaughtering under either “preparing” or “processing”.
Noble Lords asked a number of questions, which I would like to address. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked why micro-abattoirs are not listed as a public good. They are an important part of the agricultural supply chain, but they operate on a commercial basis and therefore do not directly meet the principles of public good. Public goods that may be derived from small abattoirs, such as improved animal welfare or environmental impact, are obviously already covered by Clause 1.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, ably asked many questions about religious slaughter. The Government encourage the highest standards of animal welfare. Although our policy is to prefer that animals are stunned prior to slaughter, we accept the rights of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat killed in accordance with their religious beliefs. No regulations require the labelling of halal or kosher meat, but where any information of this nature is provided voluntarily, it must be accurate and must not be misleading to the consumer. The Government expect the industry, whether food producer or outlet, to provide consumers with all the information they need to make informed choices. The Government have committed to a serious and rapid examination of the role of labelling in promoting high standards and high welfare across the UK market and will consult on this at the end of the transition period. I should also say that farm assurance schemes apply standards of production that include slaughter requirements; for example, Red Tractor and RSPCA-assured schemes require stunned slaughter.
I hope that I have given noble Lords sufficient assurance that this issue has already been dealt with. With that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Trees, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Trees [V]
I thank everybody who has spoken so eloquently in support of this amendment. I am very grateful. I thank the Minister for her response. She said something significant: that slaughtering is covered by “processing”. I would appreciate it if we could have that confirmed in writing or in a subsequent meeting; I am sure that the other noble Lords who put their names to this amendment would also appreciate that. We need to be assured that that is the case; otherwise, we would want to bring the amendment back on Report. Meanwhile, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We come to the group beginning with Amendment 90. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 90
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 90, I will also speak to Amendments 196 and 206 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which concern animal welfare and which I commend to the Committee, and Amendment 207, which concerns the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
I shall speak to Amendments 90, 184, 188, 189, 286, 287, 288, 292, 293 and 294; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her support on them. They are all about references to fungi. I have to credit the campaigning group Plantlife, which identified this issue for me and did all the fine-comb work to produce these amendments. I feel that I am contributing to successful answers to pub quizzes up and down the land in saying that there are three kingdoms in the living world—plants, animals and fungi—which together make up the eukaryotes: the organisms with complex cells with features such as mitochondria and nuclei. In fact, fungi are closer to animals than plants. They are not producers of energy but use external sources of it; indeed, the world would soon be covered in undigested waste if they did not.
On many occasions in your Lordships’ House, I say, tongue in cheek, “I am sure that the Government will agree with me,” but in this case I say it with absolute sincerity. I am sure that the Government want our legislation to be scientifically literate. As this legislation currently says, “‘plants’ includes fungi”, it is not. It is like saying, “For ‘apples’, read ‘pineapples’”. That is very easy to fix—and would, I believe, have the added virtue of legal clarity. I am sure that we all recall the arguments about the classification of Jaffa Cakes as cakes or biscuits with regard to VAT. We do not want to see similar arguments in relation to support under this Bill. This Committee must consider why we currently have such confusion. The importance of fungi is grossly understated and still little understood.
I outsourced this speech in part to social media, where mycologists leapt in to offer some suggestions. To start with the familiar, I point your Lordships to fly agaric, the red and white fairy tale favourite, but until mycologists started talking to me, I did not realise how crucial it is, to the growth of birch trees in particular. I also cannot resist noting Phallus impudicus—I leave noble Lords to look up its common name—which is thought to have a close ecological relationship with badger setts. Its scent attracts blow-flies that quickly clean up the bodies of badgers, which most typically die underground—unless there is a badger cull, of course. I note that up to a third of plants’ products of photosynthesis feed fungi and bacteria in the soil. For example, relationships between bacteria help mycorrhizal fungi to use their hyphae to seek out and scavenge particularly biologically valuable elements such as phosphorus from rocks or decaying organic matter.
These are immensely complex and little-understood natural systems. Other noble Lords have said that they imagine the countryside operating like a giant, human-directed machine, with robots buzzing around and everything controlled by chemical application and genetic modification. I would point to the complexities I just outlined to illustrate how faulty that vision is. We do not understand all that, but we do understand the basic biology and we can get it right in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 177, 179, 180, 182, 186, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194, which are in my name. We are moving away from fungi, but I say this to my noble friend the Minister: it is not helpful to group such a mass of contradictory and different issues together. My amendments deal with the supply chain and the collection and processing of data, which are rather different to what the noble Baroness was just talking about.
The Bill has incorporated some safeguards around the collection and processing of data to ensure that it is clear how information will be used and how it could be used in accordance with data protection legislation. However, I still have concerns that not all the purposes for which information can be processed relate directly to improving supply chain transparency or supporting the development of risk management tools to help farmers to manage volatility. I therefore want to see these purposes drafted in a more focused way to ensure that they achieve the legitimate aims of improving transparency and managing volatility.
The purpose for which information can be processed under this clause should be linked directly to the overarching objective of improving fairness and transparency in the supply chain. The requirements to provide information will inevitably lead to an increased administrative burden for businesses, and it is therefore important that any information collected is focused on helping those in the agri-food supply chain to make improvements—hence the need for Amendment 177.
Turning to Amendment 190, the Bill as currently drafted provides for information to be processed for wider environmental and waste purposes which do not link specifically to assisting those in the agri-food supply chain. This amendment would focus the processing of environmental and waste information and avoid it being used to pursue wider environmental objectives more appropriately pursued under other legislation such as the Environment Bill. It would enable the Government to collect the kind of information they have stated they are interested in, but would curtail the use of the provisions for purposes which go beyond specific issues in the agri-food supply chain in future.
The Minister will know that the data collection provisions are welcomed by farmers. They should be used in a focused and proportionate way to ensure that the additional administrative burden placed on businesses directly improves the fairness and transparency of the agri-food supply chain. Most of us will be able to remember the days when MAFF was notorious for gold-plating regulations. Therefore, it is very important that these regulations and this part of the Bill are sensibly drafted so as not to impinge too much on farmers.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in my name in this group.
Amendments 178 and 181 suggest an additional scope for the power to get information. We should look at activities which affect the UK and not just at those that take place in the UK. A lot of these food supply chains are international and many of their activities and decisions take place outside the UK—indeed, all that may happen in the UK is that some goods turn up and are dropped off at someone’s warehouse, with all the information about where they have come from, what they are and what the resilience of the food chain is being held outside the UK. So it seems to me that we should have the wording “activities affecting the UK” rather than “activities in the UK”.
These amendments also extend the power to get information to Clause 17, which is on food security. We say that we will do a lot of things with information there, but I cannot see that we have given ourselves the power to get the information we need, which again is likely to be held outside the UK in many cases.
Amendment 185 argues for a wider definition of persons “closely connected” with the food chain and lists a number of activities that are fundamental to a food chain but are not presently listed in the Bill.
Amendment 183 comes back to the plants and fungi of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. It is not clear to me that the present wording in Clause 22(2)(c),
“any creature or other thing taken from the wild”,
includes plants. Clearly there is a substantial trade in plants and fungi taken from the wild, which ought to be comprehended in this Bill. I entirely sympathise with the irritation of the noble Baroness at fungi being subsumed into “plants”—but in a House where male embraces the female, perhaps this is a fault that we are used to.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 195 in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I note that there are a variety of amendments to this amendment, including one from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, about which we will hear shortly.
The explanatory statement for this amendment says that it
“requires the Government to provide regulations for fair dealing obligations of business purchasers of agricultural products.”
I am sure that we would like to see a day when farmers were not reliant on subsidies to maintain a sustainable income, but, on the other side of the coin, it would not be possible to encourage a rise in food prices when so many people in this country are suffering from food poverty as it is.
The fundamental point I wish to make with this amendment is that the distribution of income within the sector, from the production of food to the retail sector, is not balanced. It is fundamentally unfair. For many years, it has been the case that profit margins within the processing and retailing sectors can be substantially more while the primary producer—the farmer—can barely make a profit on the produce at all.
As a Minister in Northern Ireland who dealt with the food processing sector for a number of years, I saw examples of producers driven down to maybe half a penny of margin on a product. In the days before the Groceries Code Adjudicator was appointed in 2013, there were examples where companies would just say to the producers and processors, “We’re going to extend our credit terms and we’ll not pay you now for 90 days instead of 30”, and apply continuous pressure to drive down the margins. Now business is business, but when you have to substantially subsidise the primary producer through the taxpayer, you need a proper structure to ensure that there is a fair balance at the end of the day.
The remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator is too narrow. It does not cover indirect suppliers to supermarkets, meaning that many farmers and small food businesses are not protected by the adjudicator or the code. We need an expansion of powers to cover the widest possible extent of the food supply chains that serve our supermarkets. This is not a new idea; in 2008 the Competition Commission looked at grocery supply chains and proposed the establishment of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to tackle unfair trading practices. This report also anticipated that the GCA’s remit may be insufficient, noting that that, if these practices continued, the Government
“should consider the introduction of appropriate measures, including the extension of … the role of the Ombudsman”—
namely, the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
During the past two decades, there has been significant consolidation within the retail and food processing sectors, adding to an imbalance in the market. Primary producers generally do not obtain fair prices and on many occasions do not cover the costs of production. This situation requires political intervention to protect what remains of our farming sector and to assist its rebuilding. We know about imports, weather and other factors, but the fact is that there is a persistent imbalance in the distribution of wealth within the sector from the primary producer to the retailer.
We are at a point of almost generational change with this Bill, and this is an opportunity to reset the clock on how we do this fairly and reasonably. We know that we want to see more food produced in the UK, and we want that food to be of an even higher quality than it is now. We want to see standards maintained. However, we also need investment by the primary producer, and a primary producer cannot invest properly in that business unless they are making money. Therefore, it is in all our long-term interests—not only for food security but for a whole lot of other reasons—to take this opportunity to take positive action to assist our farming community.
It is not simply to add costs to the sale of food in shops, it is to help with the equitable distribution of income and reflect a reasonable return on capital in the profits a farmer can make. That is nothing dramatic: all businesses need that, and I do not see why it should be any different with primary producers. I therefore support this amendment and others of a similar nature in this group.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
In speaking to this very extensive group of amendments, I will speak to Amendments 195A to 195F in my name, and to Amendments 197 to 200 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, with implications for Amendment 207 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
These amendments are primarily focused on Clause 27, which deals with the “fair dealing” of agricultural producers in the agri-food supply chain. They come from my experience—as shown by my interests declared on the register—representing mostly dairy producers and dairy processors, and my directorship of a farmers’ co-operative that processes members’ milk and markets produce in the supply chain, and, crucially, from my understanding and experience of the disruption of the food chain following the difficulties of the Covid-19 pandemic.
I very much welcome the “fair dealing obligations” introduced into the Bill in the provisions of Clause 27 and others. The relative imbalance in market power between primary producers at the foot of the supply chain and those at the top of the chain, selling the finished product or meal to the consumer, has long been understood. What happens in between can be a murky business of relationships, given the many channels to the market and the perishable, short-shelf-life product with its various, highly regulated processes.
This imbalance in bargaining power was recognised again as recently as February 2018, in the Government’s response to the call for evidence in the case of extending the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s remit in the groceries supply chain. The Government recognised examples of unfair terms and unclear contracts that led to a general lack of trust and transparency, discouraging good relationships across the supply chain. That the Government recognise that the problem is ongoing, and are now addressing it in the Bill, is to be welcomed.
Clause 27 gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations “in relation to contracts”. My first amendment, Amendment 195A, is an amendment to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Empey—I thank him for his opening remarks—and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, which seeks to replace “may” with “must” and to establish a timeframe of 12 months in which regulations must be introduced. Progress must be made swiftly; the problems are well known. The impacts of Covid-19 on the supply chain have also become well known and have been answered in the competitive legal structure in emergency regulations, but their effects have yet to be assimilated.
Amendments 195B, 195C, 195D and 195E are designed to be all-inclusive: first, across all business purchases; secondly, across all farming sectors listed in Schedule 1, and, thirdly, across all dealings between purchasers and sellers. Lastly, the Secretary of State must promote fair dealing outside of a contract, as well as within the terms of a contract.
A contract is often drawn up by the purchaser rather than the seller and may contain only necessary provisions around the supply and payment for an agricultural product. It is important that Clause 27 must not be interpreted only with regards to the dealings in a specific contract but encompass all dealings. It would be important for the regulations to address, as a baseline, good basic business practice of fair dealings, and then to address fair dealings in contracts. The regulations must go to the heart of the matter: an enforceable fair dealing code of practice.
Amendment 195 reflects on the disruption to supply relationships caused by the pandemic. The immediate closure of all food service sector outlets—canteens, restaurants, cafes, coffee shops and snack bars, which make up 50% of all food purchases made out of the home—cut off at a stroke all the supply lines. There was suddenly nowhere for food products in the food service sector to go. There was a relative rebalance to retailers and local outlets following this. The effect was for purchasers of primary products to push enterprise risk down to the producers and sellers of products—the farmer—citing force majeure as a reason to refuse contract fulfilment. I am pleased to say that retailers largely stood by their responsibilities to the supply chain.
This experience has severely affected the faith of sellers in fair dealings. Will provisions on fair dealings in Clause 27 be sufficient to deal with these experiences in the future? How will they deal with a similar possible disruption, whether in the extreme—as in the pandemic— or in many other examples which may be more localised and more specific to the food sector, as in Schedule 1, where purchasers may have difficulties making payments for produce? How will the balance of risk be assessed in these regulations? Will the provisions of the Bill cover the situation?
I think the Minister will agree that this is entirely different from circumstances covered under “Exceptional market conditions” in Clauses 18 to 20, in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Bill. These clauses give powers to the Secretary of State similar to those pertaining to the EU Commission: to step into the market to stabilise it where there are disruptions from extreme weather circumstances.
I turn now to Amendments 197 to 200, and my comments are also made in relation to Amendment 207, on the same issue, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. These amendments are made to probe the Minister on how these regulations will operate in the marketplace, how they will be governed and by what authority or office. Subsection 9 of Clause 27 states that powers under subsection 1(b), to make regulations for the enforcement of obligations imposed by fair dealings, can be conferred on “any person”
who will have
“discretion in dealing with any matter.”
I ask the Minister to explain who any such person may be, and how this discretion will be made effective. My noble friend Lady Jones and I have suggested the Groceries Code Adjudicator, to stimulate comment and debate.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, also suggests extension to the provisions of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013. I will not take up all the space on this subject, except merely to say that the exercise in the retail trade of fair dealing functions in relation to the 13 main retailers will be very different from what will be necessary across all sections and all sectors of the agri-food supply chain.
The remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator came out of two Competition Commission inquiries and considerable debate over the course of at least a decade. I pay great tribute to Christine Tacon, the adjudicator. She has operated with a very small office and has brought, over the seven years since enactment, a large understanding of responsible dealing in the retail supply chain, which, to some extent, has been embedded further down the supply chain by large retailers with exposure to the stock market and a recognition of reputational damage through strong audit and risk committees. It would be a very different experience across the whole agri-food supply chain, with thousands of sellers in business relationships with possibly up to 10,000 purchasers.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, this is quite a mixed bag of amendments, but I accept that if we separated them out, we might never see the end of the Bill before we all experience collapse. I of course support the amendments of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle on ensuring scientific accuracy in the drafting of the Bill. I stand—or sit—in awe of her erudition when explaining this subject.
I speak to my Amendments 196, 201 and 206 on animal welfare, and I support Amendment 207 on the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. My amendments would require improvements in animal welfare to be made via the mechanisms established in Clauses 27, 28 and 30. Amendment 196 requires contractual rules that raise standards above the statutory minimums. Amendment 201 requires trade groups relating to animal products to appoint a person responsible for monitoring and improving animal welfare. Amendment 206 requires the Secretary of State to consult representatives of the animal welfare sector.
These are all opportunities to improve animal welfare in our farming system, and to use the Bill as a force for good. I hope the Minister will commit to integrating more animal welfare measures into the Bill on Report. This is one of the issues very close to my heart; I am therefore more than happy to talk this through with the Minister to see if we can, perhaps, do it my way.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a farmer and landowner, as set out in the register. I shall speak to Amendments 202, 203, 204 and 205 in my name. The basic purpose of these amendments is to set the conditions in which future delegated legislation under the auspices of this Bill is fair, transparent, responsive, proportionate and equitable.
Amendment 202, on publishing information related to producer organisation grants, seeks to delete the requirement to publish grant application decisions online. Such a requirement is disproportionate, and the publication could contain commercially sensitive information that buyers could seek to use against the producer organisation.
Amendments 203, 204 and 205 relate to competition law. I fear there are no baubles here; we begin to get technical. The Competition Act 1998 contains the following exemption in relation to agricultural products:
“The Chapter I prohibition does not apply to an agreement to the extent to which it relates to production of or trade in an agricultural product and—
(a) forms an integral part of a national market organisation;
(b) is necessary for the attainment of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; or
(c) is an agreement of farmers or farmers’ associations (or associations of such associations) belonging to a single member State which concerns—
(i) the production or sale of agricultural products, or
(ii) the use of joint facilities for the storage, treatment or processing of agricultural products, and under which there is no obligation to charge identical prices.”
I did not write that.
As currently drafted, the Agriculture Bill removes this exemption and replaces it with exemptions relating specifically to producer organisations, associations of producer organisations and recognised interbranch organisations. In doing this, the current exemption for agreements, which is necessary for the attainment of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union—in other words, the common agricultural policy objectives—is removed. There does not appear to be any justification for the removal of this exemption, particularly during the period when the UK’s domestic agricultural policy is being developed. If an agreement between farmers is necessary to achieve the current CAP objectives, it should remain exempt from the prohibition of agreements contained in Chapter 1 of the Competition Act 1998. The removal of block exemptions from specific aspects of competition law, with no clear justification, is concerning. It is necessary to understand whether there is any objective and sensible justification for removing the existing agricultural exemption. I would be most grateful for the Minister’s comments.
Baroness Boycott [V]
My Lords, I would first like to add my voice to the praise of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for Christine Tacon while she was in the role of Groceries Code Adjudicator. It is a very important role, and I would like to hear whether the Minister plans to beef it up and give her more powers.
Following what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said about animal welfare and the need for someone to look over it, it occurs to me that someone in a similar position to the Groceries Code Adjudicator, overlooking the welfare of animals with the power to fine and bring people to book, might be worth looking at.
I am here to make a brief intervention to support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, because I am a bit obsessive about fungi and feel that they are overlooked. They were once classified as plants because they come out of the soil and have rigid cell walls, but are now placed independently in their own kingdom with equal rank to animals and plants. In fact, they are nearer animals than plants.
An astonishing though not well-known fact, which I thought your Lordships might like to know, is that the world’s largest living organism is thought to be a honey fungus measuring 3.4 miles. It is across the Blue Mountains of Oregon and estimated to be 8,650 years old. Obviously, what we know better are varieties such as mushrooms, which are important to our diet and packed with vitamins and minerals. But they are also incredibly important to research. Penicillin, the foundation of all our modern medicine, comes from the fungus Penicillium. The everyday product yeast is also a fungus. While some can make you ill, they are essential in chemicals and drug manufacture. I know, as I travel to South America quite a lot, that scientists know that there is much more to discover about this amazing microscopic world.
From the point of view of the Agriculture Bill, fungi have the most enormous environmental benefit. They feed on dead organic matter, including leaf litter, soil and, of course, dead animals. They recycle 85% of the carbon from dead organic matter and release locked-up nutrients to be used by other organisms. This makes fungi completely essential to the ongoing health of our ecosystems. Sustainable life would not have a prayer without this magical, often microscopic, and too often ignored living group. This speech was to bring this to the Committee’s attention, and to say that I hope it maintains a proper place somewhere in the Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 207 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and I thank them for their support.
Amendments 197 and 207 seek to achieve the same aim, which is to ensure proper scrutiny of the new supply chain measures being introduced under the Bill, which are to be greatly welcomed. I too congratulate and pay tribute to the Groceries Code Adjudicator, Christine Tacon, and her team for all that they have achieved under the code. The adjudicator has done a very good job in regulating the relationships between the major retailers and their direct suppliers.
However, I believe there has been a major regulatory gap in respect of relationships further upstream in the supply chain involving primary producers, the first purchasers and processors—what I refer to as the indirect supply chain. While it is good news that the Bill attempts to plug that gap, it is disappointing that seemingly little thought has been given to how the new arrangements contained in the Bill are to be governed. I understand that there have been discussions between officials and interested parties, and within those it has been suggested that for some reason the Rural Payments Agency could provide the oversight for these aspects of the Bill. I beg to differ. The RPA is not the appropriate body. It lacks the necessary skills, capacity and gravitas to be able to adequately deal with these aspects of the Bill, and is in any event sufficiently employed with its daily work.
Although the Bill is sponsored by Defra, it would be good to see a little joined-up thinking within the Government so that Defra and BEIS were on the same page in their approach to this. BEIS would like to expand the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to cover these new and important provisions, thus creating one single regulator from farm to fork. I hope that Defra will hold the upper hand and ensure that supply chains are functioning well for the long-term benefit of UK citizens, and the Groceries Code Adjudicator is the right body and team to do that.
These matters were considered in a recent review of the role and remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and it is disappointing that at that stage BEIS decided against an expansion of the adjudicator’s remit. However, now that Defra has identified the need in the Bill for further supply chain provisions, with which I wholeheartedly agree, it seems perfectly sensible to give responsibility for the oversight of those arrangements to a body that is tried and tested and already has skills and expertise in this area. Without an adequate regulator identified in the Bill, we run the risk that the provisions on supply chains will simply not be adequately administered or enforced. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, those who have co-signed Amendment 207 and I have identified, the Groceries Code Adjudicator is the right place for this work to be conducted.
With regard to the wider remit, there are many reasons to include the indirect supply chain. More often than not, they are small growers or producers. It is very difficult for them to bring a complaint. I would like to see an own-initiative investigation started by the Groceries Code Adjudicator because it is difficult to rely completely on complaints from small producers and growers, which can so easily be identified with those with whom they have the contract and so fear losing the contract. With those few words, I commend Amendment 207 and support Amendment 197.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 90, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which includes fungi as subject to conservation, and Amendment 183 from my noble friend Lucas, which also covers wild plants within an agri-food supply chain. Through Amendments 178 and 185 respectively, my noble friend Lord Lucas also points to the need for a proper analysis of agri-food supply chains, not least to that for relevant data collection in the first place.
With Amendments 187, 190 to 192 and 194, on how information itself should be best gathered through tactful and fair-minded approaches to people asked to give it, my noble friend Lord Caithness offers excellent guidance, as does my noble friend Lord Carrington with a number of proposals, including Amendment 203, which would retain the current common agricultural policy objectives exemption from competition law for relevant agreements.
Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister may agree that, taken together, and if incorporated within the Bill, all these proposed adjustments, mainly concerning information and analysis, would provide useful and necessary checks and balances, and equally that he might feel able to support Amendment 195, tabled by my noble friend Lord Empey and myself, which would ensure the provision of regulations for fair-dealing obligations of business purchasers of agricultural products.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 195 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee; Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch; and Amendment 207 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I and others are signatories.
Clause 27 is about fair dealing with agricultural producers and others in the supply chain. For a considerable time I have felt that there has been an imbalance in the supply chain that has been disproportionate and has had a diminishing impact on producers. If we believe in public money for public goods, we should be trying to cherish and protect our farm producers.
The Groceries Code Adjudicator is perhaps a very good place for the regulations specified in Clause 27 to be enforced. I would like the Minister to indicate how the regulations will be governed; in the absence of that, I can see a need for proper scrutiny and oversight of the supply chain. That is a missing area. Surely the oversight could be provided by the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
I pay tribute to Christine Tacon. I recall that when the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, was chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place, of which I was also a member, we took evidence from Ms Tacon and examined the relationships within the supply chain.
I also believe—and this is a singular view—that smaller retailers should be subject to scrutiny as well, because they have caused many major problems for producers in our supply chain.
We need greater joined-up working between Defra and BEIS, but to provide that oversight, we also need the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I see a direct link between Amendments 197 and 207. This would ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts was given to the Groceries Code Adjudicator. As well as telling us how the regulations will be governed, perhaps the Minister will advise us about ongoing discussions between Defra and BEIS about a possible role for the GCA in this respect. Or perhaps there would be another body. But surely the body that has been tried and tested, and has proved its worth, should be the one.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 197, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and to Amendment 207, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and others. I very much welcome Clause 27. The Government’s commitment to include fair dealing within supply chains in the Bill is important and much needed.
I speak as someone who established a reasonably successful agricultural co-operative to market livestock, finished beef cattle and lambs, during the 1990s, so I am only too well aware of pressures in food supply chains. I still have the scars. Clause 27 goes into a huge amount of detail on how fair dealing obligations will be applied. That is welcome. For far too long, insufficient information has been available on input costs and benchmarks on which to base sensible modern contractual arrangements.
As has already been said, when pressure is applied to supply chains, the primary producer is, ultimately, the fall guy and the weak link in the chain. The buck stops there. So, however welcome the provision is, I am concerned because, in this part of the Bill, the Government are particularly vague about the location of the administration of the function. Like others who have spoken, I think I understand why. I am aware that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is reluctant to expand the scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady McIntosh, have said, under the current chair, Christine Tacon, the office of the adjudicator has been established with huge credibility and influence. It is the logical home for this function, and I would encourage the Minister, in negotiations with his colleagues in BEIS, to persist in trying to achieve that outcome. There is no other logical place, even if we consider the RPA, with the experience for the function to be sited there. A new chair of the Groceries Code Adjudicator will be appointed later this year, when the current chair steps down, and that will present an opportunity to review and expand its remit. I support the amendments.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 197, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and I thank him for his detailed approach in introducing the amendments. This amendment to Clause 27 provides the opportunity to look again at the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and to examine whether it could be extended to include responsibility for overseeing fair dealing obligations in relation to farmers and producers. More importantly, perhaps, the amendment also provides an opportunity for the Government to explain and expound on their position.
Since the adjudicator’s role was established in 2013, there have been calls from farming unions in Wales and the rest of the UK to address fairness in this part of the supply chain by bringing the sector into her remit. Clause 27 allows the Secretary of State to impose new fair dealing regulations and to provide for enforcing those regulations, and allows
“complaints relating to … non-compliance to be referred to a specified person”—
in effect, creating a new body under a new leader.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place recommended that the adjudicator is
“a more logical entity to oversee fair dealing obligations”,
and it could
“see no reason why fairness in the food supply chain should be governed by two separate processes and enforcement bodies.”
In Wales, the Senedd’s Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee agreed with the sentiments of the Farmers Union of Wales and the Tenant Farmers Association Cymru, which expressed concern that the Government were not seeking to achieve the desired outcomes of Clause 27 by expanding the role of the adjudicator.
In their response to the EFRA Committee’s report, the Government said that
“no final decisions have been taken about the body that would oversee and enforce the new codes of practice”,
although their positive comments about the potential role of the Rural Payments Agency seemed to point in its direction. The Government do, however, rule out a role for the adjudicator, referring to the call for evidence in 2016-17, when they concluded that they would not extend the adjudicator’s remit to indirect suppliers, because
“there was insufficient evidence of a market failure across the supply chain to justify a major government intervention”.
It appears, however, that circumstances have changed somewhat in the intervening three or four years, and the Government themselves have now recognised that there is now a need for further regulations—hence Clause 27. It seems illogical that the new regulations should lead to the creation of a new body when a person and a body that operate in that field, and have the necessary expertise, already exist.
If, as they say, the Government have not made a final decision, my hope is that in the promised industry consultation they will be open-minded, and that the option of the new role being incorporated into the functions of the adjudicator will be included in that consultation. In the meantime, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity about the Government’s thinking and tell us, in particular, whether they consider a completely new body to be desirable, and how they view the relative merits of the Rural Payments Agency and the Groceries Code Adjudicator in relation to the new regulations. I support the amendment, and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I also wish to support Amendments 197, 198, 199 and 207. The Minister will now be aware that there is strong support right across the Chamber for the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to be sustained and strengthened. Indeed, the evidence has shown how effective the adjudicator has been since it was established.
I make no apology for recording the fact that that Act was passed by the coalition Government and was very strongly championed by the Liberal Democrats Colin Breed, Andrew George, Ed Davey and Norman Lamb. They have been vindicated in the effectiveness that the adjudicator has demonstrated. Her latest annual report shows a refreshing drop in the proportion of suppliers who have issues with retailers, from 79% in 2014 to 41% in 2019, and 36% so far in 2020—although that suggests that there may have been an upturn, given that it is a part year, and I predict that that will intensify with Brexit and the consequences of Covid-19. It is still high, and I suspect that there is still a need for indirect representation as well.
All of us want to thank the outgoing Groceries Code Adjudicator, Christine Tacon, for what she has achieved and her vindication of the role. We appreciate that she has stayed on in the current crisis, and trust that her successor will be given the opportunity to continue and develop the good work. I suggest that, at this time, the office may be needed more than ever. The disruption we are currently facing, which will be compounded by Brexit, will put pressure on the margins of suppliers and retailers—inevitably.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is very keen that we should allow fungi to be recognised as a separate group within the kingdom of living things on earth. We have obviously moved on from “animal, vegetable or mineral?”, a game which I think many noble Lords will have played as children on long car journeys. I am not sure that we cannot still include fungi within a definition of plants, because it would keep the drafting simpler, and I am not sure that there is any clause of the Bill where fungi will need separate and different references from plants.
My noble friend Lord Caithness is right in his Amendments 177, 179, 180 and 182, which would restrict the powers with regard to data collection to the purposes contained in Clause 23. I also sympathise with his Amendments 186 and 187, which would restrict the definition of “a closely connected person” and the extent of the data which may be collected, and I ask the Minister to give a clear response on these points.
My noble friend Lord Lucas, in Amendments 178 and 181, seeks to provide that the data collection’s purposes should be widened to include the duty to report to Parliament under Clause 17. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he thinks there could be confidentiality issues here to protect members of supply chains, which are important. Amendment 183 seeks to include “plants”, but surely they are included in
“or other thing taken from the wild.”
I support Amendment 191 from my noble friend Lord Caithness, which seeks to release participants in supply chains both from the provision of unduly burdensome information and from a perceived requirement to disclose confidential information, which is very necessary. Amendment 192 seeks to include intellectual property rights, but surely they are already included.
I am not sure how many of the amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, are necessary. With regard to Amendment 195D, I thought there was always an implied contract if there is a deal, but I would appreciate my noble friend the Minister’s confirmation of that. If I am right, the word “contractual” is otiose in Clause 27(2), which would make Amendment 195E unnecessary.
I cannot support Amendments 196 and 201 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because product quality is not necessarily affected by animal welfare standards. Also, producer organisations are of course required to observe the high animal welfare standards that the law rightly requires.
I am interested in the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in Amendments 197 to 200, which seek to widen the responsibilities of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to ensure fair dealing. My noble friend Lady McIntosh makes the same suggestion in her Amendment 207. I would have thought that the skills required are comparable and that it should not be too difficult to recruit some agricultural specialists to the adjudicator’s office. Indeed, would that not be better than setting up yet another quango to deal with this matter?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, this group of 44 amendments covers a wide range of topics. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has said that it is a mixed bag. Amendments 90, 188 and 189 and others deal with adding “fungi” to the financial assistance list. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Boycott, have spoken to these amendments and given us a list of the benefits of fungi.
Amendments 177 to 187 relate to data sharing. Amendment 190 would increase the purposes for which information may be processed to include to assist transparency and to prevent waste in the agri supply chain. Amendments 191 to 194 seek to reduce the burden on those who have to provide the information, and set out intellectual property rights and require that penalties should be proportionate. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has Amendments 195A to 195F, which would add safeguards for all sectors to be consulted. Fair contractual dealing is specified and liability for unforeseen events would be limited.
Amendments 197 to 200 would make provision for the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office to regulate contracts, and Amendment 207, to which I have added my name, seeks to make provision for the Groceries Code Adjudicator to be responsible for compliance with Part 3. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, spoke eloquently about the importance of fairness and transparency for those at the bottom of the food supply chain. The Bill includes provisions for fair dealing to be implemented. However, it is vague about where that is to be monitored. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and all those who have spoken in their attempt to provide fair dealing across buyers and sellers in contracts and to provide clarity about how that will be achieved.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, spoke passionately about the importance of the Groceries Code Adjudicator in advising and enforcing the provisions of the Bill. The adjudicator has the expertise, knowledge and experience to bring reassurance to small producers. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, gave examples of how the adjudicator can provide the best possible role in monitoring parts of the Bill. That view is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. My noble friend Lady Humphreys asked that the Groceries Code Adjudicator be expanded to include farmers and growers and for clarity on whether a new body is needed. My noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie also supported the involvement of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and gave statistics on how effective it has been in the supply chain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, spoke to Amendments 201 to 206 on animal welfare, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke to Amendments 202 to 205 relating to retaining EU competition law.
The Minister is always very assiduous in his responses to our debates, and even given a list of 44 amendments I am sure he will give us something to think about. I look forward to hearing his answers to the many points raised.
Lord Grantchester
I thank all noble Lords who have come forward with amendments and support; this is a daunting group of 44 amendments covering Part 3 of the Bill, Chapters 1 to 3, plus parts of Schedules 2, 5 and 6. It covers provisions on aspects of the agri-food supply chain; that is, the requirement to provide data and purposes for which data is provided, as well as enforcement of data requirements in Chapter 1. I have mentioned facets of fair dealing in Chapter 2, and Chapter 3 covers producer organisations and competition provisions.
Many amendments appear quite technical in effect; I applaud the assiduousness with which noble Lords have scrutinised these clauses. I welcome the provisions to make producer organisations more effective in legislation under the fair dealing provisions following their recognition under Clause 28. Regarding “competition exemptions” in Clause 29, can the Minister tell us whether the experiences of the Covid-19 pandemic caused any rethinking of the clause in the application of the Competition Act 1998? Given the opportunity to bring forward regulations in due course, with the consultations normally undertaken in that process, he may be able to confirm that the flexibilities around the framework are sufficient.
The importance of information and the collection of data in the supply chain has long been recognised. I thank the noble Lords who have pursued this in relation to how it is used with recognition of data protection legislation, to improve supply chain transparency and manage volatility. They have asked the Minister to clarify that the drafting of these powers will achieve this. I shall listen carefully to all the Minister’s responses to these amendments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate taking us through a range of issues. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling amendments relating to fungi. I listened to what the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Boycott, said on the matter. I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
Clause 1(5)(b) already includes the conservation of fungi as conserving can relate to the restoring or enhancement of a habitat. In instances where it may be desirable to conserve wild fungi, or a rare species of fungi, this is possible through the power to conserve the habitat in which they exist. In Clause 22(6) and under Schedules 5 and 6, the definition of “agriculture” already includes fungi. In relation to Amendment 183, I assure my noble friend Lord Lucas that the current drafting includes wild plants, as well as wider aspects of farm-to-fork activity to be collected.
I turn to Amendments 177, 179, 180, 187, 191 and 192 on data collection. Some of the issues have been quite technical in this part of the Bill. I will endeavour to answer as many questions as possible but some might, perhaps, involve a more detailed response; I shall reply in writing on any outstanding points. The Government have taken deliberate steps to ensure that only information which fulfils a clear purpose can be collected. I agree with my noble friend Lord Caithness that this needs to be focused and proportionate—a point also made by my noble friend Lord Trenchard.
An exhaustive list of purposes is contained under Clause 23; the requirements for information must fulfil one of those defined purposes. Clause 24 sets out that, before an information requirement can be issued, the Secretary of State must publish a draft requirement and invite views over a four-week period from anybody who will be affected by it. Any views, including those about difficulties in meeting the requirements, will be considered by the Government before final publication. Clause 25(9) already ensures that, in circumstances where a proposal is made to disclose information in an anonymised form, consideration must be taken of how such a disclosure would affect commercial interests, including intellectual property rights. As regards information provided under a duty of confidence, a blanket provision would be inappropriate given that a duty of confidence could easily be established via a discretionary agreement between any two parties simply for the purpose of avoiding information requirements.
At Clause 21(5), the Bill includes safeguards to protect information subject to legal privilege. Clause 46(2) sets out that these powers cannot be used in ways that would contravene existing data protection legislation. The Government therefore believe that these safeguards are sufficient.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, in 2016, I chaired an EU sub-committee inquiry into building a more resilient agricultural sector. We took evidence on the financial impact on farmers of a number of supermarket contractual practices. One was overzealous specification, which could result in the destruction of up to 20% of some crops. The other was that because of such swingeing penalties for under-provision, farmers had to grow far more than they needed. Noble Lords may come on to this issue when we debate food waste in later groups of amendments, but I wanted to raise it this evening with regard to the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, because no one else has. I hope the Minister will consider it in the list of items relating to fair dealing, to which I know he will be giving a lot of thought.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. We are bringing forward these provisions in the Bill because we recognise that the current situation is far from satisfactory. We need to consult the sector on fair dealing provisions. We started with the dairy sector, but that is the beginning; we need to consult each and every sector so that we get the right response and find out how they are most directly affected by what I would call unfair arrangements. When we have reached a view with them, we can rectify any problems and find a way of enforcing the provisions. Regarding the consultation, it is a question of making this work for the farmer. Like everything else in this Bill, if this does not command the consent and support of the farmer, we will not have done a good job.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I want to take the Minister back to Amendment 90 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the important issue of fungi and the meaning of the word “plants”. I absolutely understand the noble Baroness’s wish for scientific accuracy, and I understand the points forcefully made in support of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. But I wonder if the Minister agrees that, at the end of the day, it comes down to the ordinary meaning of words, as indeed it did in the case of Amendment 87 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, on the question of whether the word “processing” included slaughtering. The Minister said that it did, and I agree.
Perhaps the Minister will take comfort from the meaning of “fungus” in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. As a lawyer, when it comes to the ordinary meaning of words, I tend to look in the dictionary. It defines “fungus” as a
“mushroom, toadstool or allied plant, including moulds.”
It goes on to give a botanical definition: a
“cryptogamous plant without chlorophyll feeding on organic matter.”
So far as the dictionary is concerned, plants include fungi. With the benefit of that definition, I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to say that wherever the word “plants” is used in the Bill, it includes fungi.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I wish that the noble and learned Lord had given me those definitions before I replied, because it would have helped the noble Baroness even further.
On our definition, I specifically mentioned Clause 22(6) and the schedules that contain “fungi”. As I said, I can confirm that in Clause 1, which is about wild fungi and habitat, “fungi” covers plants and fungi, as it does throughout the Bill. My lawyers’ interpretation is that fungi are included.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
I thank the Minister for his usual comprehensive and precise response to what is, as noble Lords have reflected, a hugely diverse range of amendments.
I do not intend to attempt to sum them all up, but I want to respond specifically to the noble and learned Lord who just intervened. My academic background is as a scientist. If the law can be scientifically accurate, reflecting modern understanding, many people might think that that is a good thing. I hope that the Minister will go away and talk to his officials and perhaps reflect on how many scientists there are in the Bill drafting team.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said in his interesting intervention, this is an issue of accurate language. As a feminist, I might come back to the other issues he raised with regard to the House another time, but not today.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for their support. Reflecting briefly on the animal welfare provisions, some of which were supported by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, came up with an interesting proposal in suggesting that there could be an animal welfare oversight body—something like the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Perhaps we can take that away and look at it in future.
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to close consultation with groups concerned with animal welfare in the regulations. I am sure that we look forward to seeing that, but most of the amendments in this group relate in some way or another to fair dealing and the problem of our current distribution system. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was hugely powerful when he talked about how the supermarkets making massive profits from the current tragic situation bore down on smaller suppliers and producers. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, stressed how we need joined-up thinking in ensuring fair dealing. I welcome what the Minister said about consulting the farming and growing sector in this area.
That sums up where we are. We have all done a great deal of work. Perhaps we will come back to some of this but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 105. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or any other, amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 105
Lord Grantchester
“Minimum level of financial assistance
Before exercising the powers under section 1 for the first time, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement confirming—(a) the total amount of financial assistance available in the first year in which the Secretary of State intends to exercise the power under section 1,(b) that this is no less than the total amount provided in the preceding financial year, adjusted for inflation,(c) provisional total amounts for the subsequent three financial years, and(d) the reasons for the amounts specified under paragraph (c).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the transition to a new funding system does not result in a reduction in the overall financial assistance provided for agriculture and associated purposes.
Lord Grantchester
Amendment 105 is in my name and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for adding his name to it. I will also speak to Amendments 107, 112 and 123 in my name, as well as Amendment 129 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Amendment 139 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to which my noble friend Lady Jones has added her name.
Amendment 105 is very important as it lays out the “Minimum level of financial assistance” that must be provided by the Bill to the new system of support. Under this proposed new clause, the level of support must be maintained from year to year at the level made available in the first year, adjusted for inflation, at least for the subsequent financial years. There has always been anxiety that the Conservative Government, in keeping with their austere inclinations, would not maintain support systems at the level of payments previously made under the CAP as a member state. Under the May Administration, the Government stated that they would maintain the level of support in any future scheme for one Parliament—at that time, at least until 2024. This suggested that reductions would be made thereafter.
This new Administration, resulting from the December election, have not made emphatic statements beyond the provision of the direct payments to farmers Act 2020, which operates for one year only as an interim continuity provision while the Bill, when it becomes the Agriculture Act, is implemented. Indeed, it has been decided to make cutbacks in financial support as soon as the next year—that is, in this first transition phase—even before any new measures could be set up, as trials, to make up that shortfall. The first experience that farmers and land managers will have under this new scheme will be a cut to funding—hardly a measure to build confidence and trust.
This proposed new clause gives the Minister the opportunity to be clear and put the Government’s intention forward, giving a measure of certainty to all agricultural businesses regarding the funding levels envisaged not only for the next three years but into the future, when the ELM schemes and their benefits can be brought forward. As was said at Second Reading, this is a framework Bill where many of the mechanisms and provisions are not transparent, or even finalised, from the discussions published to date by the department. If the Government want ELMS to be a success, as we all do, the maintenance of at least total farm support transposed into ELMS must be looked at to provide rewards well beyond those at present experienced under stewardship schemes.
I will quickly speak to my other amendments in this group. Under Amendment 112, I propose that any funding not taken up in one year is
“carried over to a future year”.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for adding her name to this amendment. It is important in the early years that farmers and land managers, as they assess and make plans for their businesses, have time to come forward with applications. It would be unfortunate if any delay in applications resulted in the budget being cut in a future year in response by this Government.
Under Amendments 107 and 123, I propose that the Government are mindful of the purposes of the Bill and that the costs of administration and advice do not become seen as overly bureaucratic and consume an expanding proportion of the overall budget. They would also ensure that the important advice to the industry from consultants, which we would also wish to see taken up, does not consume a large slice of any application, especially in relation to the larger catchment area schemes that will come forward under the higher proposed tiers 2 and 3. We would want to see farmers and land managers given the tools to perform their activities, putting a scheme’s cash for projects on to the ground.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing so clearly his amendment and for speaking to other amendments in the group. The issues raised in my amendments refer back to Clause 1. I feel rather mean about doing that, having seen the fairly rapturous smiles on the faces of those on the Government Front Bench when it was agreed that the clause should stand part of the Bill, but I am afraid that that is where the radical stuff is; it is that simple. Clause 1 is where we have the statement that there will be quite a fundamental change to the way that some aspects of the countryside and agriculture are financed. The two amendments in my name refer to Clauses 4 and 5, covering planning and monitoring.
Let us talk about access again because that is what I have talking about, although the environment and agriculture are equally important—for others they are probably more so. If we are to have a plan that seeks to improve access, we need to monitor that and go back to review it. If the Minister can tell us how that is to be done, we will know about it and it will become more real—firmer, if you like. Is a new footpath to be just another line drawn somewhere, with money claimed for doing that, but then it is ploughed up and cannot be used for six months of the year? If a hard surface to stop people trampling over the rest of the field and ensuring a higher level of disabled accessibility is the plan, how will that be reported on?
Amendment 138 may be the more important of the two amendments because it covers reporting back on how things are working. We are going into new territory here. It is almost inevitable that some of the schemes will not work and that some will not be as successful as others. How do we find out how the plans are supposed to be implemented and how do we report back on them? That is very important.
It may be that the Minister has a wonderful answer waiting for me that will mean that I and people outside can totally relax about this, but we should be able to hear about it. With these schemes, with their cultural heritage and so on, you have to know that when you pump money in you will get something back for it— public money for public goods—and in order to know that, we need a better guide through this reporting process.
The farmer—the person who has to change their practices—needs to know as well. They are the implementation system, unless there is going to be a new clause containing a new agency to do it for us. Pigs flying would happen more frequently than that in the current environment, so it is the farmer who is going to have to do the work, or at least the vast majority of it. Knowing how this will be implemented is what we are trying to get at here, or at least what I am trying to get at. Other colleagues have their names to these amendments and they may well have their own takes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
After the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, I will be calling the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who were omitted from the original speakers’ list.
Lord Northbrook (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 126 in this group. I declare my interest as a landowner and arable farmer. Echoing what would be achieved by my Amendments 56, 60 and 69, this amendment would ensure that the requirement for the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England, and its production in an environmentally sustainable way, when framing any financial assistance schemes was explicitly taken into account in the development of the multiannual financial assistance plans required under Clause 4.
In earlier remarks on domestic food production support, the Minister said, if I understood correctly, that food production did not need financial support because this came to the farmer, who had a profit from the sale of his produce. However, in my view, this argument does not cover the situation where, for instance, dairy farmers sell their milk at a loss, or where farmers would like financial support to invest in new buildings, machinery, processes, new crops or different species of livestock, particularly when these take some years to develop. I believe that the scope of multiannual assistance plans set out in Clause 4 should be expanded to include the above. I ask the Minister for her views on this.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 124 and 138, which I have signed. While my thinking is very much informed by questions of public access in the way that my noble friend Lord Addington’s is, there is a wider point here about the operation of this new system that is echoed in one way or another by a number of amendments in this group. While I recognise that it is positive that multiannual assistance plans will provide a level of certainty both for farmers and for the public, who are interested in these things, this ought to be strengthened by a greater understanding of how the objectives align with the public goods in Clause 1.
As drafted, the Bill refers to the Government’s strategic priorities, but it is not really very clear how one would determine what those priorities are. I shall give the Committee an example: there is a national policy on flooding, for example, and we know that there are policies around climate change and the environment. That is probably clear. However, there are no strategic priorities established for the question of public access. It is quite difficult to see how assistance under the Bill will link to a government strategic priority that does not actually exist. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a word or two about this because it would really aid clarity about what the funding is to deliver and ensure that there is a coherence in approach and predictability.
That then feeds into Amendment 138 regarding clarity in the financial assistance scheme, which I think most of us would agree is an essential part of transparency. We want to see not just what is being given to whom but how these strategic priorities—these public goods—are reflected in the spending once it has happened.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 127, 134 and 137, relating to Clause 4, which deals with multiannual financial assistance plans.
Amendment 127, which I am delighted is co-signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, seeks to enhance the usefulness of the Government’s multiannual financial plans. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to produce these plans, as they will provide a degree of assurance to farmers and other land managers regarding the Government’s commitment to schemes and programmes. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to come forward early in the policy transition period with their first such multiannual plan.
However, I fear that the current provisions of the Bill lack any requirements on the Government to specify levels of expected expenditure and how those levels relate to the achievement of each of the strategic priorities set out in the Bill. Without seeking to bind the Government too tightly, it is sensible to have a framework that requires the Government to be clear about what it is planning to spend, and on what. Circumstances can and do change over time, but we must see a clear direction of travel from the Government now, so that we and farmers can judge how well the Government are doing in achieving their objectives and in the targeting of public resources.
Farmers and land managers too will need assurance about the certainty of funding if they are going to enter long-term relationships to deliver outcomes for the public benefit and for the improvement of productivity. Identifying specific levels of budgetary expenditure will also enhance the ability of Parliament to scrutinise government plans and policies, both in advance of them being implemented and by way of evaluating performance afterwards; both are important parts of good governance.
Turning to Amendment 134—which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for co-signing—in framing the financial assistance scheme, it is absolutely right that the department and the Government should have regard to advice from time to time on the funding required to achieve the strategic priorities of financial assistance for the duration of the plan, whether that advice is from the Office for Environmental Protection, or any other public body with a national remit and responsibilities for the natural or historic heritage. In Amendment 137—which I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for supporting—I go on to say that we need to know that, under the Bill, any advice received from the Office for Environmental Protection and any other public body with this national remit is sufficient to prove that the financial assistance provided is sufficient to meet the strategic priorities of the financial assistance.
It is very difficult for us to take a view on what the role of the OEP and its relationship with these other advisory bodies should be when we have not had sight of the Environment Bill in its current form, or the chance to adopt it. I make a plea to the Minister and her department that the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Bill are mirror images of each other, and their provisions reflect and fully complement each other.
Baroness Rock (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 128 in my name, and declare my interests as set out in the register.
Time is running out to have all necessary legislation and implementation decisions and processes in place in the timescale set. There are still many aspects of transition and the success of future farming support policy that remain unclear, and the concern is that there will be a gap between alternative and effective schemes being in place and the start of the phasing out.
Amendment 128 allows the Government to return unspent funds to farmers as direct payments if they are not being used for other purposes. This enables Ministers to carry over any money left unspent at the end of a particular budget year for spending in subsequent years. Given the extremely welcome commitment of the Conservative Government to maintain current levels of funding, we must ensure that the precious resource of public money is used for its intended purpose of supporting agricultural businesses.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. I will speak to Amendments 131 and 133 in my name. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on Amendment 131.
This turns again to the transition period—or transition chasm, as I described it earlier. Farmers are used to dealing with bad weather, but the thick fog that lies over the chasm is very foreboding. As I suggested earlier, the uncertainty is a major drag on investment and productivity in farming. Certainty and clarity are needed. My amendments seek merely to improve the clarity and certainty under the very welcome multiannual financial assistance plans.
Amendment 131 seeks more certainty by requiring plans to last seven years instead of five, permitting a greater length of commitment and avoiding the unfortunate coincidence with the election cycle. Agriculture and politics do not mix. To use a term popular in this Bill, we need to de-link them. I also note that seven years seems to be okay for the first multiannual financial assistance plan. Can the Minister state why it is not okay for the rest?
Amendment 133 merely seeks some clarity. At present a multiannual financial assistance plan is due to be laid before Parliament by 31 December of this year and will come into force the following day. That makes no sense—I do not wish to spend New Year’s Eve poring over a multiannual financial assistance plan. Parliament should have at least two months in which to review it. I suspect that farmers may want a bit more advance notice as well.
Lord Lucas [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 132 in my name. These plans are the fundamental basis for planning farming in this country. It is really not acceptable that the Government should be allowed to let a plan almost expire and then introduce a new one. How does that allow farmers to plan properly? I know that they will not get it under these circumstances, in the first iteration, but thereafter they deserve two years’ notice of changes that will be made between one plan and the next.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
My Lords, I associate the Green group with the very useful amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about transparency and accountability, and Amendments 131 and 133 from the noble Earl, Lord Devon. He displayed a touching faith in the regularity of the electoral cycle in his comments, but none the less a seven-year timeframe is much more realistic.
I will speak primarily to Amendment 112 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, to which I was pleased to add my name. This is a simple and practical amendment which says that financial assistance should be rolled over if it is not spent in one year. The noble Lord referred to the risk of funding going down if it is not spent. There is the other risk—as I am sure Members of your Lordships’ House will know, having spent much time over their lives on committees—of the rush that often happens at the end of the year to spend money before it runs out or disappears. That is something we do not want to see happening and do not want to encourage. Thinking particularly about farming and growing, dependence on the weather will mean that sometimes things simply cannot be done in a particular year.
I was also pleased to add my name to Amendment 227, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. She has not yet had an opportunity to speak to that amendment, which is also backed by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I briefly reflect that this calls for a land use strategy for England and focuses on the two key issues of carbon storage and biodiversity. I am sure that most Members of your Lordships’ House would agree, for example, with the phrase “the right tree in the right place”. To get towards that goal we need a strategy to head in that direction.
I also suggest to your Lordships that any land use strategy would have to consider whether there are some existing land uses in England that cannot be allowed to continue because of the environmental damage they are doing all round. I refer particularly to driven grouse shooting, which has real issues as regards carbon storage and flooding, and which is spatially very closely associated with illegal persecution of raptors, which we saw this morning with the police releasing horrific information about the killing of a goshawk.
I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 228, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. This refers to supporting landowners to make land available particularly to new growers, new farmers—new entrants into the industry. We are seeing some exciting developments. I know that in Suffolk there is discussion of the concept of jigsaw farming, whereby a farmer or landowner might be able to welcome on to their land a large number of different growers occupying small parcels and developing their businesses. We have seen how organisations such as the Biodynamic Land Trust and the Kindling Trust have had to work very hard to find land to make it available to people who want to enter the industry, and we have had reference to county farms.
Of course, we have a huge problem in England with the massive concentration of land ownership. Your Lordships have heard me refer before, and will again, to land reform. We need to come back to that, but for landowners who wish to make their land available to others, it is important that the Bill includes provision to make sure that that happens, and financial assistance where that would be useful.
Briefly, I support Amendments 127 and 134, which are backed by my noble friend. Again, they look at strategic priorities and multiannual plans, creating certainty for farmers.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 124 and 138, which have my name attached, and which have already been ably covered by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market.
I have a couple of points to raise on Amendment 124. A strategic approach to financial assistance is required and should be necessary. Such an approach would specifically align the contents of the multiannual financial assistance plans with each of the purposes listed in Clause 1. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was absolutely right when she talked about the need to have a coherent long-term national plan for each of the public goods to be delivered through financial assistance to farmers.
Amendment 138 was tabled because it would allow for greater clarity on the different public goods delivered through the financial assistance scheme, including public access to the countryside, farmland, water—which I would like to see greater clarity on—and, of course, woodland. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendments 105 and 112, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and Amendment 127, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I am a co-signatory. On the funding issue, it is important that there is rollover of funding, as Amendment 112 indicates, because that provides that level of certainty to the farming community.
It is also important to seek assurances from the Minister that there will be no diminution of funding for farming, agricultural and connected purposes in the new dispensation. For many communities, irrespective of farm type, whether in the lowlands or uplands, farming is the base of their economic activity. I would like the Minister to give us assurances on this matter, and an indication of whether resources or funding for the ongoing issues have been discussed at official and perhaps at ministerial level with the devolved regions.
On the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I agree that a framework for expenditure and a clear direction of travel have to be written into the Bill, and the budgeted annual expenditure available to achieve each of the strategic priorities, which underpin food production, farming and the principle of public money for public goods, has to be set out. I say to the Minister that if we are to provide security to the farming community and prove that the Bill works, it has to benefit farmers and those directly involved in food production in the supply chain.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, whenever I talk to farmers, read the farming press or otherwise see them in the media, they are worried that they do not know how this will work, and that it will simply result in a cut in their income and will be a danger to the future of their business. I have listened to what has so far been an extraordinary seminar on all this business—it will go on rather longer; I did warn people about that —but we still do not get answers from the Government. Those of us who will again be asked by farmers, “What will happen?”, will have to say that we do not know, but we can tell them what might. It is not satisfactory.
The CAP changed several times. Fifteen years ago, it changed very substantially. It was decoupled—that is always the word used on these occasions—from a production-based subsidy system to the area-based schemes: the single farm payment with cross-compliance, which morphed into the basic payment plus greening, which was a bit different but not a lot. It was a major change that inevitably had a seven-year transition period in this country, which resulted in complete chaos with the payments.
I remember that when I was responsible for Defra issues for our party I asked questions time and again in this Chamber about the fact that the Rural Payments Agency was not able to perform its functions properly. People were not being paid on time and some were not being paid at all. The Government will say that it has settled down substantially now. That is true, but that is because the transition has finished, the changes have taken place and people now know what they are doing.
What will happen now? The answer is that everyone will be plunged into a new transition period and another fundamental change where, the Government say, direct subsidies to farms and farmers will be abolished and people will be paid under the new environmental land management scheme. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, said that it will definitely start in 2024. Without wanting to be too cynical, my answer to that is, “Pull the other one.” It might start, but it will not be completed at all. I wonder whether it will even start then.
Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 131 because of the worry that political short-termism could interfere with what is a very long-term and often unstable industry. In farming, when you buy a bull, you are not likely to sell the progeny of that animal for at least three years. If you buy a dairy calf, it is two years before it produces its first litre of milk. If you invest in projects such as a new grain building or new milking equipment, you are likely to be taking out a 15-year mortgage, so that enterprise has to last for 15 years before you start to get any real return.
All this means that it would be incredibly helpful if you had a long-term perspective from whatever Government are in power or will be in power; you need a degree of certainty that the rug will not be pulled from under your feet after only five years. Of course, no business expects to operate in a world of total certainty, but farmers have enough uncertainty as it is without Governments removing key building blocks at short notice. Not only do we farmers get floods, droughts, pests and diseases, but our farm product prices sometimes literally halve overnight, dropping some 20% to 30% below the cost of production. It is difficult to make a decent living from a small farm.
All I am saying is that I think we owe it to our farmers to take government backing for agriculture, in whatever form that currently happens to be, out of the five-year political cycle and allow farmers the comfort of a seven-year, multi-annual financial plan. I realise that no Parliament or Government can bind their successor, but it would be politically much more difficult for them to change the rules if a seven-year term for a financial plan were in this Bill.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when he spoke a moment ago about the dangers of short-termism. That issue is vital when we are talking about long- term investment. I draw attention to my registered interests.
I have put my name to Amendment 134, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. It requires financial provisions to be linked to strategic priorities, addressing the same issue as that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. The central message of this and other amendments in this group is to ensure that the good purposes in the Bill and as committed to by Ministers at the Dispatch Box are tied to the financial mechanisms—that one links to the other, and there is certainty.
The lead amendment in this group, Amendment 105, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, focuses on the need to ensure adequate finance—specifically, no less than has been provided in the recent past. Given our present economic plight, it is clear that assurances along these lines are very much needed.
Amendment 112 deals with carry-over, as does Amendment 128, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. This question is one that we really need to give some attention to. We had difficulties in the National Assembly, as it then was, in Cardiff a few years ago when the Welsh Government very sensibly arranged not to spend money at year-end for the sake of it, but to carry it over into a consolidated fund for strategic purposes. That money was immediately taken back by the Treasury. If ever there was an example of short-term thinking and punishing people for sensible approaches to financial planning, that was it.
Maintaining the level of cash support for agriculture is clearly regarded by the farming fraternity as a key issue. A plethora of general commitments may well have been given to assuage their fears, but we need a specific commitment in the Bill, if possible. That is why I believe these amendments are important for the House.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. He feels passionately about these issues and I enjoyed his speech very much.
I agree with others who have said that this Bill is an enabling Bill. In essence, it gives the Government a lot of power and trusts them to go off and implement what we have decided without many checks and balances. I cannot imagine that there are that many people left in the UK who actually trust the Government any more, so why should members of your Lordships’ House trust them?
The collective theme of the many great amendments in this group is that they would, in one way or another, force the Government to show their working and allow Parliament to mark their homework. I think this is something that we need to take very seriously.
Turning to the amendments to which I have attached my name, Amendments 127, 134 and 137 are important because they will tie the Bill to the Environment Bill and ensure that funding is sufficiently allocated to achieve the environmental aims. There is little written into either the Environment Bill or the Agriculture Bill —two enormous Bills—to create a cohesive framework; both seem rather to create their own stand-alone systems. It is as if two teams drafted them and they were not allowed to speak to one another but just got on and produced their own Bill. Both Bills are setting up very long-term systems that will spread their tendrils throughout huge parts of our economy, and it makes sense to bring these together now, or we will be back here in a few years’ time, trying to close the gaps.
Lord Judd [V]
My Lords, I am very glad to support this amendment. It seems to me absolutely crucial that at this juncture, of all times, we should be committing ourselves to making sure that proper funding is available for agriculture. It is one of these difficult situations: for quite a long time in Parliament I have been concerned about it. We have a Minister in our midst who takes these issues very seriously, but he will not necessarily be there for ever—alas—and that means that we do not know what lies ahead; nor do we know how far the Treasury and other key members of the Government share the commitment and aspirations that we know he has.
It seems to me, therefore, very wise of my noble friend to table this amendment, because it is saying that we must not allow circumstances, inadvertently or deliberately, to create situations in which the amount of funding available for agriculture decreases. This is the very time that this should not happen, and I believe that this amendment relates to other amendments, not least those by my noble friend Lord Whitty which are coming up in a moment—or at least this evening, we hope—in which he talks about smallholdings and the rest. The point here is that I think we are entering an economic phase in which land and the opportunities it offers for productive, constructive and creative activity will become necessarily more available and more important than ever. I am very glad that my noble friend has wisely tabled this amendment.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I have heard it said many times by Ministers that the total amount of agricultural subsidy to be paid in 2021 will be no lower than the amount to be paid in the current year. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s confirmation of this. However, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is quite right in his drafting of Amendment 105, because “the total amount provided” under Section 1 in 2020 is obviously zero. I think that what the noble Lord wanted to say was that the amount to be paid is no less than the total amount, including amounts provided under the direct payment scheme and other existing schemes.
I am not sure that it is fair to limit the proportion of financial support spent on administration or consultancy. A farmer might spend a high proportion on consultancy in one year and then nothing for several years. Different farmers categorise spending on administration in different ways, and if a farmer spends all his financial support on unnecessary administration, it follows that he will not be achieving the approved purposes and will not therefore qualify to continue to receive support. I am therefore unable to support Amendments 107 and 123, but I would support Amendment 112, permitting carry- over of unspent funds—but probably only to the next year, which I think is reasonable. Amendment 128, proposed by my noble friend Lady Rock, achieves the same purpose, although, again, I suggest limiting the right to carry over to the following year only.
Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 129 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It would require the Secretary of State to take into account the current environmental improvement plan in agreeing priorities for incentives. It is about a big concern of mine at the moment, which is that we start to join up some of these silos that are growing—environment, forestry, other land management purposes and agriculture. There are myriad schemes that are going to be coming towards farmers that will affect land, agriculture, forestry and the environment. There is the ELM scheme itself, as enshrined in this Bill, the 25-year environment plan, the provisions of the Environment Bill, the climate guarantee scheme, the Nature4Climate fund, the biodiversity net gain provisions and nature recovery networks. It feels more overheated than I have experienced for a long time in this area, which is great, because it means that everyone is putting effort, energy and funding into those sorts of issues—but it would be quite nice if we could join them up a bit.
Way back, I had a pious hope that we could have one Bill—a joint agriculture and environment Bill. I thought it would be a good idea. But in view of the pace at which this Bill is going through the House—and despite the aspirations of previous speakers that the Minister stay in his post for ever—I think that if we had had a joint agriculture and environment Bill, the Minister would probably have done a runner at that stage.
We need to find a way to bring all these initiatives together. Amendment 129 would at least be a modest start in joining up the environmental and agricultural agenda, as it should be.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness of Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has withdrawn. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. She is right about pace. I am sorry that we have lost the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; I think he sacrificed himself to help this important Bill make progress. I congratulate him on the earlier debate on Amendment 73 and his closing emphasis on the importance of sequestration in meeting any climate change targets.
I agree with the spirit of the lead amendment in this group, Amendment 105, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I agree with him that the transition to a new funding system should not result in a reduction in the overall financial assistance provided for agriculture and associated purposes. However, this may go a bit far, given the disastrous impact of Covid-19; everyone, including the agriculture community, may have to make a contribution to recovery.
However, farmers will need continued support from next year, as we leave the CAP on 31 December, albeit for different functions. Farms are mainly small businesses. I understand the issues well, as my father was a farmer who went bust in the 1960s when his credit with the bank ran out—that was before the CAP changed everything. Farmers’ work is vital to the rural community, our landscape and our food webs, and a free market is not an option, particularly given the level of support for agriculture almost everywhere else in the world.
I refer also to Amendment 112 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and to the similar amendment, Amendment 128, in the name of my noble friend Lady Rock. These would allow unspent funds allocated in one year to be carried over into future years. The Treasury, where I had the honour to be a Minister, will rightly never allow this. The wider ramifications for control of public expenditure are unacceptable and it could be a recipe for wasteful spending.
My main interest—perhaps “concern” would be a better word—in this group is Amendment 135 in the names of the noble Lords, Lords Lucas and Lord Addington. This seeks financial assistance for the provision of advice, with less emphasis than proposed on regulatory enforcement and penalties. Others assisting with the scrutiny of this Bill have talked about a revival of something like ADAS for this purpose. I do not support either proposal. What we need—I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree—is a professional implementation plan for all the new schemes, especially ELMS, with proper training and lead times, as you would find in a commercial context. It needs to be very clear and consulted on, with a view to successful, easy compliance and not just to satisfy interest groups. As much effort needs to be put into implementation as to policy formation. Much of that is, unfortunately, still to do, as the Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed out earlier.
We can learn from the initial failures in the health and safety context when the EU six-pack was introduced; that included things like manual handling, risk assessment and, indeed, PPE. It was burdensome and chaotic, providing opportunities for consultants, who flourished on the complications. There was uproar, especially in small businesses, but under a very able official, Jenny Bacon, the system was radically simplified with good guidance written by the HSE. The political heat went out of the issue despite the inevitable burden of these EU laws. The use of digital for documents and seminars for farmers and land managers makes all of this easier today.
I would be very happy to offer the Minister and his officials thoughts from my long experience at Tesco—I register an interest, as I am still a shareholder. Simplicity, clarity and training were essential to successful projects, whatever the scale. We do not want or need to set up a costly new advisory service, or to reimburse the cost of advice.
Finally, I do not agree with Amendment 232 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Of course data should and will be collected, but this should be done as part of Defra’s normal research programme and in the context of a five-yearly review of food security .
Lord Naseby [V]
My Lords, those are some wise words from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, which I hope the Minister will reflect upon. There is no doubt that her previous experience, both as a Tesco director and as a Minister, is enormously helpful in planning something as difficult and challenging as this transition—and that is what we are talking about.
I can comment only on those farmers in Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire, where all are worried—of course they are; I would be if I was any sort of farmer, but I am not. I think that Amendment 105 has the kernel of an answer; it may not be the ideal answer, but it is up to the Government to have a look at it.
The amendment covers the
“financial assistance available in the first year in which the Secretary of State intends to exercise the power under section 1”.
Secondly, it addresses the fact that the total amount provided in the preceding financial year should be adjusted for inflation. In other words, year 1 is whatever figure it is, and then there is inflation on top of that. The amendment proposes that in the third, fourth and fifth financial years there should be some forecast.
That seems to me a basis on which a farmer could work. The farmers I know in my part of the world, particularly those on the larger farms, are sophisticated businessmen. Although my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe says that Covid-19 may influence these figures, my view is that because this is such a big transition, from Europe to the UK, the farming community should not be asked to do that in this instance.
I note just a couple of other points en route. The noble Lord who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench said that the Bill implied a reduction after one Parliament. I have been in the House long enough to know that no one Government can be committed to something by their predecessors, so I just do not see that as being the case at all. I am not sure where his evidence comes from.
Amendment 128 sounds good, but it is pretty unusual in any organisation for underspending to be automatically spent somewhere else. It is perfectly normal, if there is a budget and something has not come up to scratch, to spend it on an existing project, but not on another one.
I think that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, is absolutely right in Amendment 133. You need to have a minimum of two months to discuss any forthcoming budget. As for the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I remember starting life politically in a part of London where compulsory purchase orders were the methodology whereby you could dictate to landowners what should happen. They failed miserably, and I suspect her project on land use will fail equally.
I finish by saying that, in my judgment, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is full of detail but also full of despair. I would rather have the words of my noble friend Lord Trenchard—who is sitting there still, as I look across: there were a lot of wise words in his contribution.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am afraid that I could not hear much of my noble friend Lord Naseby’s speech, but I gather that he gave his support to Amendment 105, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I was certainly glad to ask for my name to be added to it because it seems a prudent, sensible and balanced approach. I will not weary your Lordships by going through a whole list of amendments.
It is important that our farmers have a degree of clarity and the opportunity to plan. They are going through a very difficult time. I live in Lincolnshire, a great farming county. I talked to a farmer whose family has farmed here for generations, going back a couple of centuries or more. He was a very worried man. He said, “We had those desperate floods in the latter part of last year and the beginning of this one. We then had the driest spring that we can remember. We have all the uncertainties created by Covid-19. Dairy farmers were pouring hundreds of thousands of gallons of milk away because there was no custom from the catering trade. This is creating a real deterrent to young people because we have all the uncertainty created by our leaving the European Union and we do not know precisely what is planned for us.” I hope that, this evening, my noble friend the Minister can give some real guidance, clarity and certainty.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, with his enormous knowledge of farming, spoke about this, but of course there are so many small farmers. We do not want to see the creation of a farming community that consists of, relatively speaking, a handful of major industrial concerns. The farmers who live on the land, who love the land, who have created the land and who, quite rightly, will be rewarded for maintaining it also have the duty of producing food for our people. We talked about this on Tuesday evening—that is, the security of the food supply being essential to the very defence and existence of the nation. They deserve some clarity and stability. I hope that, in responding to the debate, my noble friend the Minister will be able to give that.
Without our farmers, this country would be in a parlous state. We have a national duty to give them clarity and the opportunity for stability, and to encourage our younger generation to go into farming. It is one of the noblest callings; indeed, it is a vocation, with the hours that farmers work and the uncertainties of the weather that they face. We must not let down our farming community.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
My Lords, as has been intimated, many of us are particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for tabling Amendment 139. If adopted, it would greatly increase efficiency since the type of monitoring here envisaged is a comprehensive one that would apply to regulation, productivity improvements, ancillary activities and market interventions. However, to maintain consistent and improved clarity, competent monitoring must be allied with timely parliamentary scrutiny, as advocated in Amendments 133 and 232, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, respectively.
Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept both these qualifications and my noble friend Lord Northbrook’s Amendment 126, which, in calling for financial assistance to protect the production of food in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way, precisely reflects the central new joint purposes of the Bill.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 105. As we all made clear at Second Reading, British agriculture is now in a period of enormous uncertainty. This has run as a theme through the Committee stage of the Bill. As the NFU notes, British agriculture does not know what will happen in relation to its main market, the EU, or access to labour from the EU, let alone arrangements for other markets around the world.
Farming is an especially long-term enterprise—as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, rightly emphasised—and is risky and uncertain, especially for small farmers and tenant farmers, who farm a third of the UK’s agricultural land. It is therefore vital that when the Government talk about the transition period from the CAP for agriculture, they sustain the level of financial assistance to this sector despite the many demands that will be in competition.
Amendment 105 aims to ensure that there is not a reduction in the level of that financial assistance. It has been striking how short a period the Government have attached to their funding commitments, and already there are cuts. It is all very well the Government saying they “may” take certain action, as the Bill has it, but that does not mean they must or will deliver it, as my noble friend Lord Greaves said. Like him, I recall the chaos of the Rural Payments Agency.
If we bear in mind the many changes planned for the United Kingdom from next January—right across the economy, including in agriculture, and as we may or may not be coming out of the pandemic—it is understandable that farmers are deeply worried. I therefore welcome Amendment 105.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I also will speak in support of Amendment 105 as well as Amendment 112, both in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester. Indeed, I associate myself with the remarks he made on those amendments. They are designed to give farmers some degree of certainty during a challenging time of adapting to new circumstances.
So many recent speakers in the debate have stressed the importance of a smooth transition, and we certainly need to ensure there is no gap between the new system of ELMs and the present system. Such a hiatus in payment at a time of such uncertainty would be completely unacceptable. I certainly know of farmers in my own part of the country who in the past have suffered both mental stress and financial hardship as a result of schemes not being fully operational or involving late payments. We need to ensure as far as we possibly can that those problems do not recur. I am not trying to make a party-political point here. I am well aware that administrative problems and problems of implementing schemes are not unique to Governments of particular political complexions.
I also support the principle of limiting expenditure on administration and consultancy as a proportion of overall expenditure. One or two of the amendments mention that, but this point has not been raised so far in the debate. I am not sure whether the 5% limit mentioned in one amendment is the best limit, but I am interested to know whether the Government have a view on that.
Finally, I very much support the point made in the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that Parliament should be given time to consider the plans. Obviously, we are concerned here about how much time your Lordships’ House has to consider these proposals, but it will also be crucial that the other place, the House of Commons, has ample time. As Members of Parliament have constituencies, they will want time to evaluate what the effects will be on the areas they represent. They will also want to discuss these proposals with farmers, environmental organisations and others in their constituency before coming to a verdict on them.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is an honour to have participated in the debates today. They have been informed by the wisdom and farming experience of noble Lords who collectively have farmed this country and made our land what it is with over 1,000 years of experience between them. I refer to two Dukes, four Earls, a Viscount—and of course we Barons, who are 10 a penny. As a Scot, I might be right in saying that the nobility of Dundee and Montrose have about 1,000 years of experience of farming in Scotland between them.
However, tonight, I want to commend in particular a Baroness, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and her words of wisdom. We do not need a new ADAS; the best advisory service on nature-friendly farming, the environment, wildlife and ELMS is Natural England, and I declare my interest, as per the register, as a member of its board.
I did not seek to speak after the Minister, my noble friend Lord Gardiner, at the conclusion of his last wind-up but, wearing my hat as chair of the Delegated Powers Committee, I stress that the codes of practice that he referred to should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny simply via the negative procedure. Far too much government guidance and far too many codes that avoid parliamentary scrutiny are coming out, imposing possibly quite severe consequences for business and subjects. Parliament should have a chance to look at those codes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and I often agree on things—to our joint consternation—but on this amendment I disagree with her. I trust and have trusted the Government, the Secretary of State and his predecessor before him when they have said that the Government will spend the same amount on supporting British agriculture, although by different means, as has been spent under the EU regime. I passionately support maintaining the same level of funding.
I am afraid that it is a bit naive of us, and it is also fairly meaningless, to try to put that commitment on the face of the Bill, since it guarantees nothing. If a Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to reduce the amount in the future, a simple amendment in the Finance Bill would negate such a provision and remove this clause. If it were possible to tie the Treasury’s hands to a future level of funding when passing a Bill, the statute book would be awash with such Acts of Parliament. I am confident that the Government will honour the promises they have made and that there is no need for this amendment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, this group also deals with funding and the snappily titled “multi-annual financial assistance plans”. We have heard much about the level of funding that the Government are guaranteeing for the farming community. This is set at £2.8 billion. It sounds sufficient, but exactly what it is proposed to cover is unclear. Many of the amendments that we debated on the first day in Committee sought to ensure that certain aspects of our agriculture were included in that funding.
Many noble Lords have spoken in favour of Amendment 105. Payments to farmers should definitely arrive on time. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is seeking to ensure that the overall financial assistance is not reduced and that no more than 5% of this assistance is spent on administration and consultancy. I am sure that we have all had experience of the costs of consultancy spiralling out of control. My noble friend Lord Greaves referred to this. The Government will have difficulty in reining consultancy back once it has begun. Similarly, it is important that any funds unspent in one year are carried forward to the next and future years, rather than being returned to the Treasury, when they will likely be lost to agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, drew attention to that. Can the Minister give us some reassurance that this will happen?
The question of public access to farmland, water and woodland, and how it will be funded and monitored, was raised by my noble friends Lady Scott of Needham Market, Lord Addington and Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. This is also extremely important for the health, well-being and enjoyment of the public in general. It is necessary to understand how the plan will work to deliver public good in this area.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for tabling Amendment 105, with which I will also address Amendments 107 and 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 127, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. The Government’s 2019 manifesto guarantees the current annual budget in every year of the new Parliament, which gives significant certainty on funding for the coming years. We demonstrated our commitment to this further when, in December 2019, the Chancellor announced £2.852 billion of funding for direct payments in the UK for 2020.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned the cut in financial support. The maximum reduction of £150 million will immediately be ploughed back into the new countryside stewardship scheme and the productivity grant, which will be brought in next year. I hope that this also reassures the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Northover.
The Government have reflected carefully on the scrutiny by the other place during the passage of the previous Agriculture Bill, and we introduced Clause 4 to address the concerns raised about funding. The clause requires the Government to publish a multi-annual financial assistance plan before the start of the agricultural transition. This will set out the strategic priorities for the transition and describe the financial assistance schemes expected to be in operation during the transition. As part of our commitment under Clause 4, and to ensure that we keep stakeholders aware of the latest developments, I can confirm that the Government intend to set out our plans for financial assistance during the first years of the transition in the early autumn.
Clause 4(2)(b) already places a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the strategic priorities established when making any decisions regarding what financial assistance schemes are to be supported under Clause 1. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about the Government’s requirements to report. This is covered in detail in Clause 6. In addition, Clause 5 commits the Government to publish annual reports on the total amount spent on financial assistance, as well as the total spent on each financial assistance scheme. Clause 6 requires periodic reports on the impact and effectiveness of spending on financial assistance schemes.
There are existing processes for determining funding arrangements. These will apply to domestic spending when we leave the EU. Parliament has the opportunity to vote on Defra’s budget each year through the estimates process, and of course the EFRA Committee takes a close interest in scrutinising Defra’s accounts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also asked about the link between public access and the Government’s strategic priorities. I believe that Clause 1(1)(b) embodies this link. Clause 1(1) also covers access. The multiannual financial assistance plan will require the Government to publish information about their strategic priorities and how the financial assistance powers in Clause 1 will be used in future years. The Government make decisions through a structured and comprehensive process, which allows us to assess spending in the round.
On Amendment 123, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the running costs for Defra and the Defra group are considered separately from the payments being made to beneficiaries. As the Government continue to develop their future schemes, they may find that they need to include some administration costs for third parties, such as those potentially incurred to run farm clusters or other groups that bring multiple farmers and land managers together to work in partnership. There may be very valid reasons why administration or consultancy costs may be higher than 5%. For example, investing in the early years of a scheme, when development and testing are critical, could lead to greater efficiencies and refinements later.
On Amendment 112, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and Amendment 128, in the name of my noble friend Lady Rock, the Government are determined that farming in the UK should not see a reduction in government support at this very important time. That is why they have pledged to guarantee the current annual budget in every year of the new Parliament. The Government recognise that even with the best financial planning, underspends can happen. The concept the amendments raise would, in principle, be beneficial. However, legislation is not the best route to pursue this. Instead, it is more appropriate that the Government first discuss such an arrangement as part of the spending review process, when they will look at spending priorities across government. We should not legislate now for such flexibility without going through the proper process to ensure that spending can be considered in the round.
I will address Amendments 131 and 133, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, alongside Amendment 132, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. Clause 4 replicates existing multiyear funding cycles, but provides for some flexibility as necessary around the length of individual plans. As the clause stands, it states that future plans must be for at least five years. The Secretary of State has discretion to design a longer plan, which I hope will reassure the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Wigley. The first plan was designed to cover the whole seven-year transition, to provide certainty to farmers while they adapt to the significant changes that the transition will bring. Although plans must run for at least five years, the Secretary of State has discretion to design a longer plan. The first plan will span the length of the agricultural transition and run for the seven years. This is an example of the Government’s commitment to designing plans appropriately with regard to farmers’ needs.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, why we could not confirm the budget for the length of the agricultural transition. Future funding allocations will be determined through future fiscal events, as is right and proper, to ensure that government spending is considered in the round. The regular cycle of spending reviews, single departmental plans and supply estimates at departmental level is well established. Parliament can vote on Defra’s budget each year through the estimates process.
The clause also states that the first plan period will run for the seven years. It will expire at the end of 2027 and the next plan must be in place by 1 January 2028. Therefore, it is likely that the renewal of plans will happen at a different time from elections, although of course that cannot be guaranteed. I assure noble Lords that there will always be a multiannual financial assistance plan in place, with no gaps.
The agriculture transition will be a key time for the development of government policy. Schemes will be tested and piloted, and the findings from those experiences will inform the development of future schemes and strategic objectives. Accelerating the production of future plans during the agriculture transition period would be counterproductive to our aim of assessing schemes and taking a considered view of what works and what does not.
Clause 4 requires that a multiannual plan be updated and put before Parliament as soon as it is practicable to do so. This requirement will ensure that the plan is a live document that can respond to any necessary changes to financial assistance schemes or strategic objectives.
On Amendment 126, tabled by my noble friend Lord Northbrook, Clause 4 already places a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider in as much detail as considered appropriate each financial assistance scheme that is in or will be in operation during the plan period. If deemed appropriate, this could include how the scheme is to give regard to the production of food in an environmentally sustainable way.
Amendment 138 concerns reports on financial assistance and is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Clause 5 as drafted already commits to providing an appropriate level of detail and clarity on the delivery of public goods through each scheme. Furthermore, it is important to note that many of the schemes that the Government are developing, and the individual actions within those schemes, cover multiple purposes. For instance, under ELM we might pay for hedge planting to protect or improve the environment while also restoring cultural or natural heritage and at the same time protecting from or reducing environmental hazards. It would not always be possible to unpick these relationships.
I turn now to Amendment 139 on monitoring the impacts of financial assistance in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. Clause 6 already requires the Secretary of State to monitor the impact of each financial assistance scheme and make one or more reports on the impact and effectiveness of the scheme, having had regard to the monitoring effects that have taken place.
On Amendment 129 in the name of my noble friend Lady Rock and Amendments 134 and 137 tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the Government are committed to achieving their aim of leaving the environment in a better state than they found it. That is why they seek to legislate for environment improvement plans in the Environment Bill. Environment improvement plans will have the objective of delivering significant improvement to the natural environment. Plans must set out the specific steps that the Government intend to take to improve the natural environment.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also asked about the Office for Environmental Protection. Under the Environment Bill, the OEP is required to monitor progress on improving the natural environment. It must produce an annual report on its findings and could, for example, recommend that additional funding be provided to deliver the purposes set out in Clause 1 of this Bill. Where issues are identified, the OEP may engage in constructive dialogue with the Government and advise on necessary remedial measures. The OEP can also investigate alleged serious breaches of environmental law by public authorities and take legal action where necessary. The reports of the OEP must be published and laid before Parliament and the Government are specifically required to address any recommendations made. Therefore, when the Secretary of State determines the funding for the strategic priorities set out in the Government’s multiannual financial assistance plans, they will be able to consider any advice provided by the OEP under its duties as set out in the Environment Bill. The Secretary of State will also have had to respond to any advice. Both the OEP’s reports and the Secretary of State’s responses will be published and laid before Parliament.
The Government are actively engaging with many public bodies about the proposed future financial assistance schemes, for example, 17 environmental land management schemes and tests and trials projects are working with public bodies including national park authorities, Historic England, Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission and the National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty to provide expert insight and input into the development of policy.
I turn now to Amendment 232 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The Government already produce reports that cover a number of these points. For example, Defra publishes a set of England biodiversity indicators to assist in the evaluation of progress on the outcomes and commitments of Biodiversity 2020, our strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystems. In addition, the Government produce the Agriculture in the UK report annually, which contains a range of data including farm incomes, land use, livestock numbers, prices, the production of key commodities, overseas trade, organic farming and the environment. A new requirement to report on the state of agricultural land would replicate what is already available.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked a number of rather gloomy questions, which I will endeavour to address. There are a lot of different schemes, and a lot of advice will be provided. The environmental land management scheme is running live tests and trials to test how elements of the scheme will work ahead of the national pilot. Advice and guidance is one of the priority areas, and 34 tests and trials are feeding into that theme. Evidence shows that for advice to be effective, it must be trusted, consistent, credible and cost effective. The Government are considering how these principles can be embedded into advice for all schemes and are working with farmers and other land managers to do so.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I remind noble Lords that these should be brief interventions.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I am sorry for keeping us late. I note that I can hear the combine rolling outside my window—today is the first day of combining. The farmers are still working late, so I am sure that noble Lords will not mind working a little late too. I thank the Minister for confirming that the multiannual financial assistance plan will be published in early autumn this year. Does that mean that the Government agree to Amendment 133?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Earl that assurance at this juncture.
Lord Lucas [V]
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister if I did not hear her answer correctly, but I did not detect an answer to my Amendment 132. Surely it is not acceptable for the Government to publish a new five-year plan on the last day of the old one. That would cause enormous disruption to agriculture. People would be unable to plan until the new plan was there and then it would then take them a year or so to put their new plans into place. We would get a year when nothing was happening. Surely there must be a decent overlap.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
As I think I said in my speech, we have built flexibility in to the planning stage, although it does not need to be five years, and in all cases there will be no gap between one plan and another.
Lord Grantchester
I thank all contributors to this debate for speaking to the various amendments. Even the negative comments were interesting.
If the Government commit to having multiannual plans, as stated in the Bill, it would seem conceivable that they would honour a package that financed the plan ahead in its entirety from the start through to the finish. The amendments scrutinise the Government’s plans around financial assistance in delivering outcomes that are sufficiently robust in their application—with the necessary oversight, as stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
I thank especially the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for her amendment in sympathy with mine and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her emphasis on a robust implementation plan being adopted by Defra. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for adding his support.
As with so much in every group of amendments, the Minister has been exhaustive and considerate in responding to the many points raised. Along with other noble Lords, I will consider her reply carefully, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Agriculture Bill
Tuesday 21st July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-VI(Rev) Revised sixth marshalled list for Committee - (21 Jul 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, a limited number of Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Other Members will participate remotely, but all Members will be treated equally wherever they are. For Members participating remotely, microphones will unmute shortly before they are to speak. Please accept any on-screen prompt to unmute. Microphones will be muted after each speech. I ask noble Lords to be patient if there are any short delays as we switch between physical and remote participants. I should remind the House that our normal courtesies in debate still very much apply in this new hybrid way of working.
A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published and is in my brief, which Members should have received. I also have lists of Members who have put their names to amendments in, or expressed an interest in speaking on, each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members’ microphones will be muted by the broadcasters except when I call a Member to speak. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted and uncalled speakers will not be heard.
During the debate on each group I will invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group.
I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 4: Multi-annual financial assistance plans
Amendment 130
Lord Teverson
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. I shall speak also to Amendment 142. Both these amendments relate to reducing the transition period for the introduction of ELMS from seven years to five years. I suspect that Members are probably not that keen on the idea at the moment, so for the next couple of minutes I intend to try to persuade them otherwise, because it is important that we reduce the transition period.
Members and indeed the country as a whole are aware of COP 26 this year which was supposed to take place in Glasgow concerning the climate change agreement and getting the Paris agreement carried forward in a positive way to meet our planetary carbon emissions targets, but many people are not so aware of a second major conference, COP 15, about the diversity convention. It was supposed to take place this year in Kunming, China but it has also been postponed until next year.
Biodiversity is a global crisis equal to climate change. Biodiversity is not just a problem of equatorial rainforests; it is a problem in Europe and here in the United Kingdom as well. The 2019 State of Nature report states that
“15% of species in the UK are now threatened by extinction,”
41% are in decline and a third remain effectively static, with only a small proportion gaining in number. Biodiversity is not just about bird spotters or twitchers and a comfortable feeling about nature, important though it is for our mental health and the energy of our countryside. It is also about supporting natural systems and allowing them to operate—ecosystem services such as pollination, soil formation, clean water, atmospheric oxygen, disease control and many more. All these are essential not only to the natural world around us but to our economic performance and indeed to our continued existence on this planet.
One of the great things that I have always praised in the Agriculture Bill is the idea not just of public money for public goods but that it should be concentrated on building up and improving biodiversity and nature in our countryside. That is important because about 70% of the land in England and across the UK is used in agriculture. However, I regret to say that it is because of agricultural management that biodiversity in this country has declined so significantly. I do not blame the farming industry and individual farmers for that, but I do blame the financial incentive system within which they have had to operate.
Why am I asking for the transition period to be reduced from seven to five years? It is because the biodiversity issue is a global crisis as well as one here in the United Kingdom. If we take no action and carry on with business as usual, economic systems will fail. At the end of seven years, we will be almost half way through the period of the 25-year environment plan, which I also welcome, although it must be properly financed and delivered.
It may sound trite, but I remind noble Lords that the Second World War lasted for a mere six years and we managed to overcome all the problems and challenges that affected us globally within that time. At the moment we are in a transition period, moving from being a member of the EU to our global position in just 11 months, with all the challenges that that poses, so surely we can manage to implement ELMS over five years rather than seven. I also remind noble Lords that, on nature depletion, the United Kingdom is not in a good position. We ranked 29th from the bottom out of 218 countries. That is why this issue is so important. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who is the illustrious chairman of our EU sub-committee. For the record, however, I would like the transition period to remain as it is.
I want to speak to Amendment 143, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for lending their support. It is a simple amendment, which would delay the start of the seven-year transition period away from direct payments coming into effect from 2021 to 2022. I should like to pause here to explain why this is necessary.
In seeking to delay the start of the transition period to the new policy framework to 2022, I accept that there is wide support across the House for the government objectives in the Bill to move towards a new framework of support for agriculture that focuses on public payments for public goods and increasing productivity. Much of the detail will be set out in supporting regulations and in the Environment Bill, of which we in this House have not yet had sight. However, the changes being envisaged will be the biggest in a generation and look set to be in place for many years to come.
I accept that we are leaving the European Union but note with regret that, in the four years since the vote in June 2016 signalled the beginning of a process of change, particularly in leaving the CAP, we have made very little progress in developing the necessary mechanisms, policies and schemes that would be worthy of the major changes that we are expecting in this Bill. I accept that much of this is down to the political impasse leading up to the last general election and, more recently, to the pressing issues around controlling Covid-19, which I am sure have affected Defra as they have many other departments.
It is essential that we take the time to introduce new schemes and measures that will stand the test of time, rather than simply bringing them in quickly for the sake of it. I fear that there is an overarching desire through the Bill to show that things have changed as a result of our departure from the European Union, rather than to ensure that we put in place good, made-for-purpose, fit-for-purpose, resilient schemes. Let us face it: our track record in delivering new schemes and new IT to support them is not that great.
Following the environmental land management scheme tests and trials, which themselves have been impacted by the issues surrounding Covid-19 and are ultimately delayed, the Government intend to conduct a pilot in England of a new ELM scheme in 2021, with a view to it being fully operational by 2024. However, if it is true that the Rural Payments Agency will be in charge of running these pilots—I hope that my noble friend can put my mind at rest on that—we have to question its capacity to run such a pilot when it is already struggling to deliver business as usual. Once again this year, the RPA has had to ask the Treasury for funding to bridge payments to environmental stewardship and countryside stewardship applicants before being penalised for failing to meet the required payment targets by 30 June this year. What reassurance can the Government provide that there is adequate capacity within the RPA to deliver the pilot, or does my noble friend think that another body would be more appropriate?
I also place a question mark on the extent to which the Government would be able to spend any money saved through the reductions in direct payments starting in 2021. I understand that Defra has identified this as a potential problem and is therefore looking to make an announcement in September about enhanced options for countryside stewardship and productivity schemes. However, we have none of the detail available to us today. In my view, the sensible thing is to delay the start of the transition period until 2022. That is not kicking the can down the road but giving the Government and Defra the time and space to deliver the good schemes that we know they are capable of, rather than producing half-baked schemes.
The reasons for this delay are these: we are being asked to take a lot on trust; we have not had sight of the Dimbleby food strategy, which I understand will not reach us before Report; we have not had the results of the trials of the ELM schemes; the OEP has yet to be set up; and we do not know what its relationship to the Environment Agency, Natural England and the RPA will be. We owe it to Defra to give it time, because of the Covid pandemic, to reach a proper conclusion to these schemes. I therefore ask the House to commit to supporting Amendment 143.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, whose analysis I almost completely agree with, although my conclusion is a little different. I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner, as set out in the register, and that I have been a recipient of the basic payment over several years.
I tabled Amendment 144, to which my noble friend Lord Curry of Kirkharle has kindly attached his name, and Amendment 145 in order to address the problem of the likely gap that will affect farmers as direct payments are reduced in 2021, while the revenue from the joining of any new environmental land management schemes will not arrive until 2024—although this will be mitigated for some farmers who have existing countryside stewardship schemes. This is no small issue. As we have heard in the debates on the Bill, the BPS accounts for some 58% of farm business income, varying from sector to sector, and around 25% of farms are unprofitable without it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, there are two strands of amendments in this group: those that probe the Government on the agricultural transition period, such as Amendment 143 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh; and others, such as my Amendments 147, 148 and 154, that would prevent secondary legislation that would undermine animal welfare.
As other noble Lords have said, the agricultural transition period needs probing to understand what the Government’s current position is. The Bill has been floating around for a long time, but there is still no real detail in it, which is very frustrating for us who have to comment on it. On the one hand, I am very swayed by the argument from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The transition period should probably be as short as possible, simply because we can then move rapidly to a new system of public money for public good. I also do not particularly want to give the Government a lot of time to delay the big, tough decisions they will have to make, but they of course have to give farmers and land managers the time to adapt and improve. Overall, we need the certainty that comes from the Government setting out their plans very clearly. I hope the Minister can set out a timetable for that happening.
The second strand of this group is my amendments which, like so many of my amendments, seek to protect animal welfare. Clauses 9 and 14 grant very broad power to the Secretary of State in what might be termed cost cutting and corner cutting. The clauses should be scrutinised on their own and the Government should make it clear what they plan to use them for to justify their existence. My amendments would prevent the Government cutting these corners for animal welfare so that the Secretary of State cannot simply say, “That’s rather expensive for animals. Let’s see if we can improve on that and cut the cost.” There are probably a dozen other issues that should be added to the list of things that these clauses should not be allowed to tamper with, but for me, animal welfare stands out as a priority.
I hope other noble Lords will join me in their concern about Clauses 9 and 14. We might work together in bringing amendments on Report to curtail these cost-cutting and corner-cutting powers.
The Duke of Wellington (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as before, I declare my agricultural interests as detailed in the register. During the many days of this Committee a considerable number of thoughtful and constructive amendments have been tabled, but in most cases the Government have suggested that they are unnecessary since the matter is already covered in Clause 1 or can be provided for in the new environmental land management scheme. However, the ELMS will not begin until 2024. During the years between now and then, many farms that are currently barely profitable will suffer or disappear.
I will speak to my Amendment 149. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for signing it as well. As I said at Second Reading, my real concern is for the very survival of smaller hill farms during the intervening years from now until the new ELM payments begin in 2024. The Government announced in February that farmers in the lowest band of basic direct payments—up to £30,000 per annum—would have their payment cut by 5% in 2021, with further cuts in the following years. However, the Government’s own figures for 2018-19—the latest available—show that the average cattle and sheep farmer in a less-favoured area received a direct basic payment of £24,000 and still made a profit of only £15,500. Figures for 2019-20, when available, will probably show a slightly better position. Nevertheless, these smaller hill farms are only marginally profitable even with the basic payment and would be commercially totally unviable without taxpayer support.
We all accept that we are moving away from the basic payment system to the new environmental land management scheme payments. The purpose of my amendment is to ask the Government to think again about whether it is sensible or fair to reduce those in the lowest band even by 5% before ELMS payments kick in in 2024.
On Tuesday two weeks ago we debated Amendment 78 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Greaves. Their amendment urged the Government to maintain support for hill farms and other marginal land. I support this general principle. My amendment is more specific and asks the Government simply to protect just the lowest band of recipients from the cuts until the new payment systems come into play.
Last Thursday, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, stated that since small abattoirs operate on a commercial basis they would not fit into the principle of the public good. My contention is that, unfortunately, small hill farms are not in any way commercial on their own, so I believe the public will consider it more than just for taxpayers’ money to be given for the public good of maintaining our small hill farms, which play such an important part in so many rural communities in this country. When the Minister responds to this group of amendments, I hope he will give the Committee an assurance that the Government will look again at the timing and percentage of the reductions in the basic payments for small farmers in the uplands.
Baroness Rock (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of a tenant farming enterprise as set out in the register. I shall speak to my Amendments 150 to 153. Although there is an understandable desire to demonstrate that we are moving away from the old regime of the CAP, we must do so in a way that is effective rather than just quick. The delay in our exit from the EU and the implications of Covid-19 point to a possible delay in the implementation of this new policy framework. These amendments would allow greater flexibility in pausing or even reversing the phasing out of direct payments should, and only should, circumstances require it. This would be particularly important in a scenario where payments to farmers had been reduced but where the funds freed up had not been spent on alternative programmes and remained unused.
Amendment 150 would allow Ministers to reverse reductions in direct payments if they were found to be having a detrimental impact on the nation’s ability to produce food. The Covid-19 crisis will have long-term implications for our country, so this amendment would allow for welcome flexibility. UK consumers, who have valued the domestic supply of food over recent times like never before, will not welcome any dip in that supply. In the event of a pause or a reversal for these reasons, the Government should be allowed to maintain independent financing for the development of alternative schemes, such as ELMS, so that they are not delayed or interrupted.
My Amendment 152 would enable those who have opted to take delinked payments to return to receiving direct payments if the direct payment scheme is extended. If a delinked payment is introduced, the powers to extend the transition period in accordance with Section 8(3) will be used. The status of the farmer would be uncertain. He may be locked out of the system for longer than envisaged. The status of such a person in this situation should be defined in the regulations to provide legal certainty. Given the current uncertainty about what future schemes will look like, this amendment would provide a safeguard against unintended consequences for farmers if the agricultural transition period is extended.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Committee has already heard some powerful speeches. The more the Bill is discussed, the more respect I have for farmers who, in a time of uncertainty, have a future that is even more uncertain than the present. We do not know where ELMS is going; we have not discussed the Environment Bill. We are threatened with ELMS being run by the RPA, whose record we cannot respect hugely. Farmers are, therefore, in a difficult position. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said last week, the advice he has received is to stop all investment. That is a terrible situation to be in at this time. Our farmers should be investing but, in the uncertain world we are faced with, the right thing for them to do is sit on their hands. That is going to cause huge problems. I agree with noble Lords who have said that small farmers, particularly hill farmers, face the most problems and are most likely to fall by the wayside as the current situation continues.
I have put my name to Amendment 143, which would delay the process of implementing ELMS for another year. Given what has been said, there is nothing for me to add, except that I support the principle of all the amendments that have been spoken to. I hope that the Government will show some flexibility on these, because the current situation is untenable for quite a number of farmers.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 143, to which I have put my name. I too have very real concerns that Defra will simply not be ready for the transition period to begin in 2021 and that farming will suffer as a result. To provide the Government and farmers with sufficient time to prepare for transition, we should start it in 2022, rather than 2021. This way, we can ameliorate the transition chasm that I have discussed before. The House has spent four long days in Committee, debating many variations of ELMS, and has made its way through Clauses 1 and 2 of the 54-clause Bill. We hope to rush through the bulk of this legislation in another two days, under huge time pressure. Scrutiny cannot be sufficient in these circumstances and major aspects of this crucial legislation will be barely considered.
The Government have suggested that time is of the essence and that this Bill simply has to be passed so that the transition period can begin on 1 January 2021. They say that farmers will not be able to be paid if it does not. This is simply not true. It was easy for Parliament to extend direct payments to farmers for 2020; we can simply repeat that process. Given that the Government have confirmed that they will maintain the level of agricultural funding until the end of this Parliament, this will have no negative impact on the Treasury or on budgets. What it will do is permit Defra to prepare for ELMS in an orderly manner.
Despite the best efforts of its overstretched and underfunded staff, Defra is transparently far behind where it needs to be. The EFRA Committee took evidence on 16 June 2020 from Defra’s two leads: Tamara Finkelstein, its Permanent Secretary, and David Kennedy, the director-general of food, farming and biosecurity. I recommend the transcript of their evidence to all noble Lords, as it provides a valuable insight into its much-delayed progress. They admit to considerable delays in the tests and trials programme caused first by Brexit, which took many staff for emergency no-deal planning, and then by coronavirus, which meant that many key tests and trial programmes have not begun.
Defra is triaging. For example, it has confirmed that it has abandoned plans to build a new computer system to administer ELMS. Instead, it will be delivered using the current SITI Agri system, which is used by the RPA to administer BPS. Reading between the lines, it appears that tier 1 of ELMS is effectively going to be little more than BPS plus greening obligations by a new name, administered by the same team, using the exact same technology. I would appreciate the Minister’s confirmation of this.
On Thursday, the Minister helpfully confirmed that Defra would publish a multiannual financial assistance plan this autumn. Given the incredible delays disclosed by Defra, what details is it really able to provide? Will the Minister confirm whether, but for Brexit meaning Brexit, Defra would prefer to agree to this amendment and give itself longer to prepare for the transition?
I warmly support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which also relate to the transition chasm. However, I cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. ELMS is optional—the quicker the transition, the less uptake there will be and the worse the outcome for our environment.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as recorded in the register. I fully support Amendment 144, in the name of my noble friend Lord Carrington, to which I was happy to attach my name. I am very concerned about the gap in support as the current basic payment scheme is unwound and access to the new ELM scheme becomes available, as planned, in 2024. As I said at Second Reading, this is fraught with risk. The delays caused by indecision on Brexit and then the impact of coronavirus mean that the ELMS pilots are just under way. Meaningful conclusions will take a couple of years or more to interpret. The design of the schemes, and the value of public goods that we hope will be delivered by this brave new model for supporting the management of the countryside, must be promoted to farmers and land managers with confidence. We need the evidence from the pilots and there is no slack in the timetable to experiment or for systems to fail and be rerun, which is why many of us are deeply concerned about the Government’s reluctance to change the current seven-year transition plan. At Second Reading, I suggested that the Government should be willing to extend the period to eight years.
Under the current plans, there will only be three years by the time the Bill becomes law to draw conclusions from the pilots and then launch the ELM scheme to the entire farming sector. Tens of thousands of family farmers are not prepared for the scale of the change that the Bill will introduce. It is the most fundamental change in support, and the greatest cultural change, that any farmer in Britain today has ever faced. At present, there is no way farmers can prepare for this change because, for obvious reasons, there is no information available on the basis of which they can begin to consider their future plans and make decisions.
This change in policy is a unique opportunity to facilitate restructuring of the sector, but this cannot be rushed. Every farmer needs to consider the impact of the change on their individual business. As a result of the scale of this challenge, it is inevitable that there will be a capacity problem. The quantum of qualified consultants who are trusted and able to provide 30,000 or 40,000 farmers with informed advice in good time to make considered decisions will be an enormous challenge. To ensure that the potential benefits which the ELM scheme can deliver, and which will hopefully be realised, will require careful consideration by each farmer and land manager.
If ELMS is launched in 2024 as planned, there will be a deluge of applications and the capacity of the RPA and Natural England to cope with the volume will be stretched to the limit. The possibility of every farmer who wishes to participate in the ELM scheme being able to do so in 2024 is unrealistic. For all these reasons, the Government need to think very carefully about the timetable. This amendment is designed to help smooth the impact. Limiting the dismantling of support from the BPS to a total reduction of 25% until the ELM scheme is available is a sensible approach.
I restate what I said at Second Reading: I reassure the Minister that I am enthusiastic about this bold change in policy and genuinely believe that we can lead the world in delivering a wide range of crucial outcomes from the management of the countryside, provided that the policy is well designed and land managers are appropriately incentivised. It would be a disaster if such an important change in policy was rushed through and we failed to engage appropriately. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the department will adopt the timetable proposed in this amendment. It would be very much appreciated by farmers and land managers and would ensure a greater chance of achieving the desired outcomes.
Very briefly, I have considerable sympathy with the purpose of Amendment 149 tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Smaller livestock family farms, both in LFAs and in the lowlands, are the most vulnerable to these changes. They manage some of the most precious landscapes in Britain and are a crucial part of rural communities. The choice of taking a hard-nosed commercial approach, resulting in many being forced out of business, or a more sympathetic view that would require some special care and support to help those farming businesses adjust to change is a no-brainer, otherwise the impact could be disastrous. The Minister is aware that I chair the Prince’s Countryside Fund. We have supported over 1,000 such farmers through the Prince’s Farm Resilience Programme, with considerable success. It is essential that these crucial farming families are given appropriate support to ensure that they can adapt their businesses, not just to survive but to prosper in this brave new world.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will not detain you long. I have every sympathy with the impatience of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to get on with improving our biodiversity. However, I do not think it is feasible to bring this forward from seven to five years, so I am afraid that I cannot support that, however much I am keen for the things that we all hope for to take place.
I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Caithness. The more I have listened to our proceedings, the more respect I have for farmers—I had a great deal of respect for them before—and I can imagine what it is like facing these changes with all the uncertainty that we have just been talking about. Having been not in farming but in retail for most of my working life, I can imagine the concerns about the future. I would also say, however, that we always work to deadlines. If we extended things, we would be in a similar position, so I cannot support any extension as discussed—very eloquently—by many noble Lords.
I have put my name to Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, principally to emphasise my concerns over any reduction in animal welfare. I have no doubt at all that British farming has the highest standards of animal welfare in the world and I do not think for one minute that that will be negated by anything in the Bill, but I wanted to underline my concerns on that.
Again, I give my support in as far as upland farms, and to some extent some livestock in the lowlands, are some of our most precious guardians of the countryside and are really threatened by some of these measures. I urge the Government to look at this; I am sure that they will.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, the last time that I can remember being called to speak by the noble Baroness the Deputy Speaker is when she was chairman of Lancashire County Council and I was a somewhat dissident member on the back benches. The reception and politeness that I have found in your Lordships’ House since I came here a long time ago is of an altogether greater level than the shouting and ranting I got in Lancashire County Council from time to time. Noble Lords can decide whether they ought to be a bit more robust when I speak—I do not know.
I spoke in the debate last Thursday afternoon about what I might have said today on this amendment, so I will not repeat it. I was accused of being gloomy by the Minister and one or two other people; I thought I had perhaps gone a bit over the top—in a Lancashire County Council sort of way—until I read Hansard. Having read Hansard, I thought that what I said was rather good, but Hansard sometimes has that effect on what noble Lords say in this Chamber.
I very much support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said this afternoon. I understand the point that my noble friend Lord Teverson and others are making about the need to get on with transforming agriculture and the countryside in this country for ecological reasons and climate change and so on. Nevertheless, the thought that this new, extremely complex, top-down system of working out what people are paid for, with individual assessments of every farm and three tiers that have to be linked together, will be carried out by the Rural Payments Agency fills me with dread. I say to the Government—in a friendly way, because I do want this to succeed—that, in modern parlance, it is a huge car crash rushing over the horizon. We will see. It requires huge resource, effort and ability to introduce large, complex computer-based schemes, which British Governments—not just this Government—are not terribly good at doing. I say no more about it.
I was very pleased indeed to put my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Again, the particularly small hill farms are the main concern here. As I said on another amendment, which now seems a long time ago in this Committee, unless these farmers get a considerable amount of subsidy, which not only allows them to do things that are desirable environmentally and for the landscape but to carry out their basic job of hill farming and make at least some profit from it, they will simply go out of business. I do not believe that the Minister and the Government have, so far, explained how such farmers will survive under the new system and continue to do their farming. We all know how the sheep farming system in particular works in this country: the people who rear sheep in the lowlands require the sheep to come down from the hills; it is all pretty integrated. If the hill farms close down and stop keeping their sheep, it will have an effect right across the industry and the country. The most important thing is that the hill farmers themselves get the support they need for their own benefit and the benefit of their communities and landscapes.
Can the Minister explain how the new system will do this, when it is supposed to provide only for what are known as public goods and is not meant to be a production subsidy? I do not see how hill farms can continue unless a significant part of the money they get from public funds is, in effect, a production subsidy, whether or not the Government disguise it as something else.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as on the register. It is a pleasure to the follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and in relation to his comments on Hansard, I tell him, and indeed the whole Committee, that I once asked the late Lord Armstrong, who I rate as one of our greatest ever Cabinet Secretaries, “Robert, when you wrote up the Cabinet minutes, did you write what the Minister said or what he thought he had said?” He told me, “Oh, no, David. I wrote what the Minister would have said if he had thought of saying it.” I sometimes wish Hansard would do the same with my speeches.
I oppose the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in that the seven-year period should not be reduced to five. However, he is right to draw attention to the importance of CBD15 next year. It is every bit as important as COP26. Indeed, in a sensible world, there would not be two conventions but one, since they are inextricably linked. Habitat loss leads to more carbon and more zoonotic diseases as animals are forced closer to humans. However, that is not for this Bill. I think Defra has got the seven-year period right, and so has my noble friend Lord Randall; moving the deadline does not necessarily buy us more time.
This is the greatest and most exciting change in British agriculture since 1970. I am old enough to remember those UK White Papers produced by the ministry of ag, fish and food—MAFF, an excellent department, if I may say so—such as Food from Our Own Resources, which exhorted us to “produce, produce, produce”. One of the many excellent things about leaving the EU is that we will once again be able to design plans to produce food from our own resources and protect the environment at the same time. But let us not pretend it will be a simple change. Studies on ELMS are being undertaken, and the three tiers are being designed, but it will be a mega change for UK agriculture.
The EU system of giving every farm money based on acreage is simple, but utterly wrong, yet giving farmers payments for undertaking environmental land management schemes is infinitely more complicated; farmers need time to adjust, and Defra needs time to tweak the schemes. Of course, we want rid of the perverse EU payments system as soon as possible, but I prefer to take seven years and get it right than five years and get it wrong.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggests in Amendment 130 that the period of the first plan should be five years rather than seven years. In Amendment 142, he seeks to reduce the seven-year transition period, during which the direct payments scheme will be phased out, to five years. Farmers are already anxious about how their business models will have to change, and would not welcome the shortening of the transition period. Particularly because they do not have enough information on the new scheme, the noble Lord’s amendment is unwarranted and would be damaging.
However, there is considerable merit in Amendment 143 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in that the seven-year transition period should start 18 months from now, rather than six, which would give more time for the Government to work out the details of the scheme, and would be neutral in terms of costs to the Exchequer.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in Amendment 144, is right to seek to ensure that payments under the new schemes compensate for the reduction in and ultimate removal of payments under the direct payments scheme. But I think his intention to limit the reduction in total support to 25% is rather modest. I believe direct payments for larger farms are set to be reduced by 25% in 2021, and the noble Lord’s amendment would still permit this to happen, even if such a farm receives zero under the countryside stewardship scheme and other current schemes. As I said previously, the larger farming businesses employ the majority of agricultural workers.
I would not support Amendment 146 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, except in so far as it equates to Amendment 143 to delay the changes by one year. The seven-year transition period is not too long, given the extent of the changes farmers will need to carry out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to use this Bill to advance her concerns regarding animal welfare, but I cannot agree with her Amendment 147, which assumes that animal welfare standards are higher or lower, whereas different standards may produce different outcomes, and it is a fine balance. I regret that I do not see the justification for supporting her Amendments 147, 148 or 154.
My noble friend Lady Rock has eloquently explained the reasons behind her Amendments 150 and 151. I can see that where moneys are unspent, the amount provided in a subsequent year might increase if the Government accept carryover procedures. As for her Amendments 152 and 153 on delinked payments, they seem to provide an improvement to the Bill.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have christened this group of amendments, “Mind the gap”. We need some sort of rethink from the Government on a safer way forward.
I support Amendment 143. When I first read the Bill in its earliest form, nearly two years ago now, I thought, “That’s good—the seven-year transition from one system to the next. All will be well; farmers can plan ahead with no problems, and while the single farm payment goes down, they can enter into ELM schemes, with profits, under the new regime.” Defra had three years to get ELM schemes in place, then several years to roll them out to farmers on the ground, which, as others have said, is going to be an almost impossible task. I thought, back then, that it could happen at a manageable place, and all would be well. Farmers would be involved in tremendous changes, but they could survive the transition because the way forward would be clear to them.
But now, two years on, the way forward is still as clear as mud. ELMS have only just entered the pilot stage, farmers have no framework by which to plan and they are saying, “What will ELMS look like for me in my area? I have no idea. What training do I need? I have no idea. Do I need to plan for new equipment or facilities? I have no idea.” No one in the farming community has any clear idea of the future. The details of ELMS will not really emerge from the mist until nearly 2025.
In spite of the delays, we still seem to be stuck with a 2021 start to the transition period. This cannot be right. With the rug of the old world being slowly pulled out from under them, and the new rug unlikely to arrive for some time, I worry farmers will fall down the gap. As others have said, the delay is not really Defra’s fault; we had all the shenanigans around Brexit, and so with this Agriculture Bill doing the hokey-cokey—in, out, in, out—then Covid-19 causing genuine paralysis this year, it is not surprising the timetable has slipped. So, the Government have every reason to take this back and think again before we get to Report. I do not care how they do it, but we need something to close the horrible gap that is looming.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an arable farmer and landowner in receipt of BPS. Before I come to the amendments, I want to defend the RPA after the swipe at it by my noble friend Lord Caithness. What he said might have been true some years ago, but I pay tribute to the Minister for its much improved status over recent years, although it will clearly have its work cut out with the new regime.
The Bill establishes a framework for phasing out direct payments over seven years. It is highly likely that payments under the ELM schemes will result in significant reductions in net income, especially for cattle and sheep farmers, whether in less favoured or lowland areas, and delays in its introduction until 2024 will have a serious effect. Hence, I support Amendment 149, in the names of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but would extend it to certain smaller lowland cattle and sheep farmers. I also strongly support Amendment 144, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, believing that interim financial assistance measures need to be given to these sectors of farming in particular.
I do not support Amendment 130, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, as he did not really mention the effect it would have on farmers, which could be serious—in fact, I do not think he mentioned farmers at all—but I do support Amendment 143, which proposes a delay in the start of the transition period, and appreciate my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s support, even though he is on the Brexiteer side. I also support the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the lack of detail on the progress of the BPS reduction after year one. I also ask, like my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, whether a new set of countryside stewardship schemes will be forthcoming in the autumn.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as detailed in the register. Along with others, I agree with Amendment 143 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh: the transition period should begin in 2022 rather than 2021. Equally, the case for being more realistic about timescales, although in a different context, is addressed by my noble friend Lady Rock’s Amendments 151, 152 and 150 respectively. The first would ensure that those entitled to payments receive them within guaranteed periods to achieve certainty of cash flow. The second would, through regulations, offer legal certainty to farmers, otherwise possibly disadvantaged where delinked payments, if introduced, might lead to extended transition periods. The third, Amendment 150, would enable the Secretary of State to increase payments during the transition period, after phasing out had started, to use up any unspent money and, when necessary, to protect the industry from harm.
Corresponding to the pragmatism of the latter proposal is my noble friend Lord Carrington’s useful Amendment 144, ensuring that any cuts in direct payments do not undermine businesses before the new public goods programmes begin. Then, reflecting the purposes and principles of the Bill themselves, there is Amendment 148 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This emphasises the preservation of animal welfare standards, irrespective of financial consequences, while my noble friend the Duke of Wellington’s Amendment 149 would ensure direct payments to smaller livestock farmers in less favoured areas. Since all these contributions would much improve the Bill, I hope the Minister will accept them.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been a particularly thoughtful debate, as it should be, because underlying the whole series of amendments being advanced is the recognition that this is, first, a major change in how we approach support for our land and our farming. Coupled with that is concern about how we bring about the change, and concern that the period allowed to bring it about is not flexible enough and may not be of the right length. Various proposals have been argued very eloquently that perhaps it should be a bit shorter—five years instead of seven. I favour a seven-year period, because the challenge is so great that we will not be able to tackle it. There are so many changes, not only in our approach—public money for public goods, instead of just production costs—but against a changing background as it is. I do not think many of us fully appreciate the changes taking place in agriculture at the moment.
I have a particular interest in the uplands and hill farming, but one cannot look at hill farming without looking at the low-level farming that depends on, feeds on and feeds from the upland areas. One has only to drive in the national park, for example, and once one gets on to the low-level farming, there are no longer any cattle, mixed farming or dairy farming: all the sheep are down on the low level 12 months a year, and that is causing problems in itself. So there is the unstable nature of farming to start with, and we then wrestle with the problem of how we make sure that the various aspects of the new legislation are tied together. Is Defra capable of handling such a major change when it is also dealing with Brexit and will face the challenge of pressure from the Treasury, in spite of what the Government may say? Then, from my experience of running the Cabinet Office, I am concerned about the ability of the Government, or any public body, to run major computer programmes. We are not always able to employ the best people, we do not have the experience, yet we take so much for granted when we look at these proposals.
I must admit that when I look at the ideas, I think Amendment 146, in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, has some suggestions of a way forward. It suggests a slightly later start date—2022—coupled with some flexibility if we find that even that is too early. It even goes so far as to say that if we find that the seven-year period is not correct, it can be changed by affirmative resolution. I am not sure that I entirely agree with that, but I could be persuaded in an emergency that it is the way forward.
We are right to spend so much time debating this. Unless we get it right, the whole thing will be a disaster and there will be tears of woe, not only from the farming community but from foresters, environmentalists and a whole range of people who love our countryside.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this has been a very interesting, thoughtful debate and I associate myself with many of the comments, not least those of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. In normal circumstances, I would agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend, Lord Blencathra, about not extending a deadline, because projects will simply extend to fill the space provided, but we are in extraordinary times, not just because of Covid but because, for the last four years, Defra and much of Whitehall have been able to focus only on one piece of wildlife, that being Yellowhammer.
Yesterday was Report on the Business and Planning Bill. In our deliberations, it became clear that emergency legislation needs to be passed in various situations and circumstances which will run to September 2021. In light of that, it seems logical and coherent across government policy that a move regarding the start of the transition period, from 2021 to 2022, would dovetail very much with that same legislative logic. Does my noble friend the Minister agree?
I also very much support the amendment in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Wellington. If legislation means anything, it must mean that it touches on those in the greatest need. I believe that my noble friend’s amendment very much goes to the point of covering those who fundamentally understand and deliver on stewardship, guardianship, public good and, indeed, equity. Does my noble friend the Minister agree?
Finally, will my noble friend the Minister comment on the current situation with the IT system within Defra? What is proposed for the new scheme, and is this set in stone or are discussions still afoot as to exactly how to structure the scheme from an IT perspective?
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, in particular because I too support Amendment 149. In these proceedings we are encouraged and even exhorted to be brief, and I hope I can meet that expectation, first by adopting all the observations made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and my noble friend Lord Greaves.
Some of your Lordships may remember that at an earlier stage in these proceedings I sought to make a case for the recognition of support for small farms in less favoured areas. I do so again today unequivocally because in my judgment, such support is not only desirable but necessary. It is necessary to ensure the survival of viable businesses, it helps avoid the risk of land abandonment, and it ensures that land continues to be put to good agricultural use, in addition to which it combats depopulation. I would describe all these as public goods. However, they are public goods which have benevolent consequences, because support of that kind and the continuation of agricultural activity in such areas helps preserve communities and support social infrastructure, such as schools, post offices and medical services. I hope therefore that when the Minister comes to address us he will provide an explanation as to why these desirable objectives and outcomes do not find favour with the Government.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 130. In my years in business I have run a few businesses in the rural area: principally some forestry in Herefordshire, a little horticulture—down to a very small amount now—a small amount of viticulture, and just 40 acres of woodland registered with the Forestry Commission. I have led a number of large businesses, in India, Sri Lanka and the UK. One of the key determinants of a successful business is not to have a review too long after you start out on a big project such as this one. In my judgment, seven years is far too long when there are quite so many variables.
We have only to listen to noble Lords as we debate the Bill. We hear of variables that were anticipated and of those that nobody ever expected to happen. In addition, there are new problems due to the fact that we will be an independent nation. There are variables caused by climate change—how many of those have we had in the last seven years? There are variables due to Brexit, and due to the Environment Bill, which we have yet to debate. There are variables that will come from the penetration of 5G across the rural parts of the United Kingdom. Broadband is absolutely vital to rural communities.
Finally, one of the key problems at the moment is that a significant number of the staff who serve us as civil servants, and do it so well, are still working from home—is it 90% of them? Can my noble friend tell me how many or what percentage of Defra staff are currently back in the office?
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I will say a few words about the transition period and, in particular, in support of Amendments 150 to 154 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, which have the support of the National Farmers Union and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, among others.
These amendments focus on funding during the transition period and touch on the vital importance of maintaining food security during the period when we are moving over to the new payment scheme. Cash flow is a major problem for many organisations, and in some cases it has been a factor in businesses, and indeed farms, going bankrupt. It has become a huge problem during the Covid-19 lockdown, and it threatens many people’s livelihoods. It has also been an ongoing problem for farmers, who have sometimes had to wait long periods before receiving payments. We know that any new systems need time to bed in, so these amendments make allowance for any problems in the implementation of the new scheme, and I support them.
I am also supportive of Amendment 149 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, as are number of your Lordships. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the need to take special care of small farmers and less favoured areas where farming is extremely vulnerable, which need our support during this time.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. I will speak briefly to Amendment 146 but will refer in passing to quite a number of other amendments.
Before the CAP was even a glimmer in the eye of the founder of the European Union, the agricultural sector was operating in a regulated marketplace, which makes it quite different from almost all other kinds of business and commerce. In such a marketplace there is a need for all those involved to have a degree of certainty, which is as important from the Government’s perspective as it is from the agricultural sector’s. The parties need to know what the lie of the land might be, if I may put it thus. That is why Clause 4 is so important, because it sets the framework of the way the land lies for the transitional period and points to the world beyond it.
It seems that the problem surrounding Clause 4 is essentially twofold. First, the process of Brexit has been so drawn out that the length of time to effect a seamless move to the new era is too curtailed for it to be achieved as originally envisaged. Secondly, the coming into being of the ELMS—the environmental land management scheme—which was intended to replace the basic payment scheme, has been so delayed, as a number of noble Lords have said, that it is no longer available for farmers and land managers to transition into it and into the new economic and agricultural environment, which is the heart of the new era. As well is it seeming inherently unjust, it is not part of the basic political and policy proposition that was put to the British people as to how we left the CAP.
Moreover, there is a real risk that it may end up causing a muddle in terms of public policy outputs. If you oversimplify it, under the basic payments scheme, the public goods which the state paid for were farming, and everything else was a kind of bolt-on extra. We are now moving into a brave new world where everything else is public goods and food production is a bolt-on extra. That is quite a turnaround.
Against that background, there is, as several noble Lords have said, a chasm—or what might be described as the valley of the shadow of death—that lies between the two eras and into which a significant amount of both farm businesses and land may fall. This will get in the way of implementing the policies we are discussing; indeed, it may put certain parts of them into reverse.
Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said on a previous occasion when discussing the Bill, we must not be frightened of failure, surely the underlying intended purpose is to effect a successful transition from the old to the new. That is why the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Curry, is important, as is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, because they recognise, as was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, that things may not actually turn out as planned and intended. You need to build into your system a way of modifying your arrangements, and an escape route.
It is clear from our discussion of this clause that the present transitional process is flawed, and those flaws need ironing out, because if we are to make a successful journey from the old world to the new, we have to get to the destination in one piece and not have a car crash.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Teverson has tabled Amendments 130 and 142, which would reduce the transition period between farmers receiving direct payments under the CAP and moving on to the ELM scheme. He is concerned about the length of time that will elapse before the farming community has become fully environmentally aware and responds to the Bill’s ethos of public money for public goods. Both COPs 26 and 15 have been postponed. The number of species facing extinction is growing, and biodiversity, which includes pollination and soil quality, is very important. The current financial systems work against biodiversity. This is not satisfactory.
Most Peers are concerned that the period before ELMS becomes fully operational should be further away, giving farmers more time to adjust to the change. The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Caithness, support this view. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke about the gap between phasing out direct payments and introducing ELMS, and said that no farmer should have more than a 25% cut in their direct payments until ELMS is introduced.
The funding of less favoured areas has again been raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and I fully support him in in his concerns. I ask the Minister to give a categoric undertaking that the so-called less favoured areas will receive funding. Unless he does, noble Lords on all sides of the House will continue to raise this important subject.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rock, has tabled a number of important amendments related to timescales, cash flows and delinked payments—all extremely important in reassuring the farming community of just how and when they will receive financial assistance—which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has supported. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, again raises the issue of animal welfare, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. We have debated animal welfare on previous amendments, and it is essential that that theme be a thread that runs through the Bill and thus be included in a number of clauses.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, believes that Defra will not be ready in 2021 to move to ELMS, and so wishes to put this off until 2022, and he is supported by other Peers. I share his concern about Defra’s preparedness. However, giving it more time is unlikely to assist. Moving deadlines does not always produce results, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, lets Defra off the hook for not having met the deadlines; I am afraid I am not quite so generous.
Finally, farmers are left in the dark on what is approaching, despite its being trailed well in advance. I fully support the move to ELMS, but I am very concerned that insufficient information is available to give your Lordships and farmers confidence that their future will be secured. The Minister needs to provide reassurance that Defra and the RPA can cope, because from what I have heard this afternoon, I do not believe they can.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
This is an interesting group of amendments, the various areas of focus being multiannual plans and the transition period. As is customary, I declare my agricultural interests as recorded on the register.
The first cluster of amendments concerns the start date and duration of the multiannual plans. Amendment 130 and, consequentially, Amendment 142, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would reduce the initial multiannual plan to five years starting from 2021. Moving from a previous group to this group, Amendment 131, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, would extend the subsequent multiannual plans to seven years, in the opposite direction, but leave the start date at 2021. Amendment 143, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and others, delays the start of the transition phase of seven years until 2022, but technically, this seems to leave hanging the oddity under Clause 4(3) that the first planned period of seven years—the transition phase—starts in 2021 and will give rise to two competing seven-year periods.
Amendment 146, in my name, appears to involve a similar anomaly to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, regarding Clause 4(3), by delaying the start of the transition phase to 2022. However, under proposed new subsection (4) in our Amendment 146, flexibility is provided to shorten the transition phase if this becomes necessary. The whole amendment, drafted to replace Clause 8, is designed to provide flexibility. Proposed new subsection (2) would provide that flexibility by accommodating the disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic this year through a one-year delay. It would also accommodate the possibility of a subsequent further disruption should a second spike strike, as further misfortune, it has recently been argued, may well be a possibility or even a likelihood.
Is there Minister confident about the readiness to implement the first planned period as soon as 2021? Last year, the National Audit Office was concerned that the Treasury and Defra had not built in enough time to implement the new funding system. Certainly, there are doubts that farmers and land managers would be able to accommodate the change to the support system in order to start next year. However, it could be argued that it may not be necessary to require a further full seven-year period for the first planned period, having had a delay to the start. The planned period could be shortened by the flexibility provided by proposed new subsection (4).
I merely comment to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that the first planned period being longer than subsequent planned periods would appear to make sense in order to allow the trials, pilots and designs of the new ELM scheme to be properly understood, responded to and taken up, in time for any reassessments to be thought through for subsequent planned periods.
I do not know whether we really need to be concerned about election cycles, debated last week, should the plans to change the five-year Parliament Act be taken up. Clause 4(4) of the Bill merely stipulates that subsequent planned periods must not be less than five years.
The Minister will be aware from the UK’s membership of the EU that one multiannual plan is often barely in operation before plans come forward to improve it to ignite responses in the member states.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It is always challenging when one noble Lord decides on one timeframe and another noble Lord chooses another. Sometimes the Government must make decisions on their position. Our position has been undertaken through a lot of consideration. I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his Amendment 130, which seeks to reduce the length of the first multiannual financial assistance plan.
We are all agreed that the nature of farming is a long-term affair. For that reason, we felt that having clarity of funding across multiple years was of paramount importance. As drafted, Clause 4 requires that the first planned period will run for seven years. This is designed to match the length of the agricultural transition period, which is a key time for the development of government policy. Schemes will be tested and piloted. As my noble friend Lord Inglewood said—I was not in a position to reply to my noble friend Lord Lucas—the purpose of tests, pilots and trials is to iron out what has not worked particularly well and find those schemes that come forward as the most dynamic and the best value for money for the taxpayer. The findings from these experiences will inform the development of future schemes and strategic objectives. We believe that shortening the period covered by the first plan would hinder our ability to assess schemes and take a considered view of what works and what does not.
The majority of the amendments in this group address the length of the agricultural transition period. I will address Amendments 142 to 146, on the subject of direct payment reductions. The planned agricultural transition period allows a gradual transition from the existing area-based payments to the future system, where public money will be paid for public goods. We deliberately made this time to avoid a cliff edge for farm businesses. Following an extensive consultation, we believe that seven years strikes the right balance between signalling the end of area-based payments and giving farmers time to adjust. Shortening the transition period would mean steeper rates of payment reductions, which we believe would put undue pressure on farmers who are currently reliant on direct payments at a time when they are adapting to a future without them.
I think that most of us agree that direct payments offer poor value for money. Appropriate reductions to these payments will free up funds that can be used to fund new countryside stewardship agreements, introduce the Environmental Land Management national pilot in 2021 and introduce schemes to boost industry productivity, through which grants will be available so that farmers can invest in equipment, technology and infrastructure. The reductions for 2021 will be modest. As I was reminded, there are within the margin of what would often be currency rate changes in previous regimes. They will be no more than 5% for around 80% of farmers, based on the 2018 scheme data. I will look at Hansard because I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke about a minimum; my understanding is that it will be no more than 5% but I would like to clarify that point.
A seven-year transition period gives enough time to ensure that ELM is fully up and running before direct payments end. The Government are undertaking a large stakeholder-led programme of tests and trials for certain elements of the scheme design. We plan to pilot our approach in 2021 ahead of the rollout of ELM in 2024. In their election manifesto, the Government guaranteed the current annual budget in every year of this Parliament. We have also published the maximum reductions that we intend to apply in the first year of transition. These were first announced in September 2018 to give farmers sufficient notice. The Government will set out further information on funding for the early years of the agricultural transition period, including direct payments, in the autumn.
Having declared my interests, I should say that I well understand that many of my neighbouring farmers—indeed, all the farmers I know—are very keen to know more on this. I appreciate that. I assure noble Lords that the point is hoisted and that I know why it is important. I look forward to that information coming forward in the autumn.
While direct payments currently form an important contribution to income on many farms in England, we believe that they can hamper productivity growth in the agricultural sector. That is why, within the sum that will be released, that money will be diverted into countryside stewardship and productivity grants so that farmers can start, through their business interests, to take advantage of the money that will move from direct payments into these other areas of support.
While I have been at the Dispatch Box, there have been varying years relating to the RPA. It is interesting, and I think my noble friend Lord Northbrook is correct. The payment profile of the RPA has very much improved since my first exercises on this in 2015. We have seen considerable advance in rates of payment; indeed, this has been a very strong priority of the ministerial team.
Defra’s ELM programme will lead and be accountable for the delivery of the national pilot, working with our delivery partners: the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission, Natural England, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Rural Payments Agency. We are working with the RPA to ensure that it has capacity to deliver the pilot, and we are confident that it will be able to do so. This is on the relationship in this first stage of the pilot.
Another concern which the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond raised was computer programmes. Again, we have all been scarred by computer programme issues. Defra digital, data and technology specialists are currently working to ensure that the IT needs of the national pilot and ELM will be in place on time, and they are focusing on the ability to make accurate payments on time, on which I place enormous importance. We are confident in our ability to deliver these IT schemes.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, tabled Amendment 149 relating to upland farmers, and I am struck by what my noble friend Lord Randall said about lowland farmers as well. The Government recognise that upland farmers play a vital role in looking after the countryside. We believe that they already provide many environmental benefits, and so will be very well placed to deliver environmental outcomes—and incomes—which will be rewarded under the ELMS.
Therefore, I say in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that we are fully seized of the importance of small upland and lowland farmers who have contributed so much, not only to communities but to the landscape more widely. It is really important that they are part of the ELMS, and I believe that what they will provide for the nation will be very considerable. The Government will apply reductions to the payments in a fair way, and smaller farmers will initially experience lower reductions than larger farmers.
Turning to Amendments 150 to 152, we recognise in Part 2 of the Bill that in exceptional market conditions it is right for the Government to be able to intervene. Clause 8 allows for the extension of the agricultural transition period, should it be necessary. The Government believe that seven years is enough time for an agricultural transition, however we may need to act swiftly and robustly in unforeseen circumstances that warrant an extension.
I say particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, but also to my noble friend Lady Rock, that, regarding how delinked payments will work, the Government have made clear that they intend to delink direct payments during the transition period. When that happens, the recipient of delinked payments would not need to remain a farmer to receive them. When delinked payments are introduced, they will replace the current basic payment scheme entirely and for all farmers. The basic payment scheme and delinked payments cannot and will not coexist.
Eligibility for delinked payments will be based on a reference period. For example, it may be necessary to have claimed, or been eligible, under the direct payment scheme in a particular year or years. This is also important: we will consult with farmers before setting this reference period in regulations, and it will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure. I say particularly to my noble friend Lady Rock that timescales for basic payment scheme payments are already set out within the retained EU regulations.
With regard to Amendment 153, when we introduce delinked payments, we may wish to move away from the current approach of making a single payment per year and issue payments more frequently instead; Clause 12 gives this flexibility. We believe that more frequent payments would help farmers’ cash flow, and this has been mentioned by your Lordships.
Lord Adonis (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in that full reply from the Minister I heard him justify the seven-year period and explain Clause 8 giving the Government power to extend the transition if necessary. However, I did not hear his response to Amendment 143 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on why the transition is to start next year and not in 2022.
Some of us, going back to the last Labour Government, have a lot of experience with the problems of the RPA and getting new systems up and running. The Minister spoke with great confidence about these systems being viable and how the IT was going to work. All I can say to him is: good luck with that. I hope he is correct.
In the event that the RPA runs into problems, under the Bill as currently drafted—irrespective of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh —do the Government have the power to delay the start of the transition and the pilots? Despite the noble Lord’s confidence that everything will be okay, many of us will feel much more assured if we know that the legal powers are there and will prevent a headlong rush in the event of teething and administrative problems.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
There are a number of points there. I think I said that under Clause 8 the Government allow for an extension of the agricultural transition period, should that be necessary, so there is an important safeguard there; we can extend the agricultural transition period.
I think I did reply to my noble friend; it may not be satisfactory to the noble Lord or my noble friend. We believe that direct payments offer poor value for money, and that is why we want to start in 2021 with, as I say, a modest reduction. I have deliberately said that this will be no more than 5% for around 80% of farmers, so that we can redirect that money into an ELM national pilot, Countryside Stewardship agreements and productivity grants.
Yes, we are all scarred by computer systems. I am the first to say that I am not a computer expert; that is why we have people who are. I repeat that everyone working on these matters is experienced in them, because clearly—as I have said—we want payments on time and a successful outcome for farmers. We also want to make sure that the ELM and all we do hereon in is value for money for the taxpayer. In the end, it is the taxpayer who will reward the farmer for doing the things that we as a society know the farmer can do very well.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his response. I have two questions. He said the RPA would do the trial next year, then he came to a full stop. Does that mean his mind is open and that another body could be responsible for implementing the ELMS in future? Secondly, he referred to the autumn announcement. Can he be more specific on the timing of the autumn announcement and whether we will get that before Report?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I cannot give my noble friend the precise date. I know noble Lords would like that announcement to be as soon as possible—I will take that away—but I am afraid I cannot give your Lordships a precise date. In fact, I do not know the precise date, but it will be in autumn. I am fully seized of the importance of that.
As to whether the delivery body is the RPA in the long term, I believe it is well placed. I cannot give a direct answer as to whether the RPA will in fact do all the ELM. I suspect it may, but that is obviously a matter we will consider.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, beat me to it. I was going to ask for the date of the Autumn Statement and request that it occur before Report. I reiterate that there really is no point in us coming back to all these issues if the Government are about to issue a Statement that will add considerable clarity and amount to a multiannual financial assistance plan. Anything the Minister can do to get that Statement before Report would be appreciated.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I can say to the noble Earl and other noble Lords that I have the matter strongly in my mind.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I was not going to pursue this, but my noble friend’s answer has perplexed me. He said the Government wish to phase out direct payments as they provide poor value for money. The whole thrust of the debate on Amendment 143 this afternoon is that if whatever will replace direct payments is not in position, is it wise to start phasing out direct payments at that time? Can my noble friend not permit himself a degree of flexibility in this regard?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the Government have sought that flexibility in how we reduce the payments, as I say. Although we will make announcements on funding for the early years of agricultural transition, we have also provided that flexibility for unforeseen circumstances in which, for instance, we would need to extend the agricultural transition period.
We want to start in 2021 because this is a journey—to pick up some of the points at the beginning—about how we work with health and harmony. How do we ensure, working with farmers, that we produce very good food and enhance the environment? Of course, I take the point that we must get the system working well, but the prize in all this—public money going to support farmers in enhancing the environment—is a very desirable thing.
Lord Teverson [V]
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for his support. We are not often on the same side of things and I very much appreciate his remarks and the considered remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and even the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who understand the biodiversity dimensions of this, even if they do not—[Inaudible.]
There is a real issue here. Funnily enough, I do not disagree with the view of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about pushing back the start one year, just to make sure we get this incredibly important issue for the nation right before we start. But I cannot believe it can take seven years for a nation such as ours to implement a new system; five years is far more acceptable for what we have to do. In fact, it seems the seven years that many advocate is going back to the mentality of the common agricultural policy and the European Union—that slo-mo mindset that we are trying to escape with this new scheme. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 140. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or the other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 140
Lord Greaves
“Financial assistance to be provided on the basis of public funds for public goods
(1) Financial assistance under this Chapter may only be provided if it is in accordance with the rule “public funds for public goods”.(2) The rule referred to in subsection (1) is to be provided for in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require that the meaning of public goods for the purpose of this legislation is set out and agreed by Parliament and provides a clear basis for the provision of financial assistance.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, in moving Amendment 140 I will also speak to Amendment 141, which is grouped with it although it is a different issue. I will speak to Amendment 141 first.
Earlier on in this Committee, a long time ago, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said—I am almost quoting him—that the Government never use compulsion and would never instruct farmers what they should do. That is a fine sentiment. The purpose of this slightly convoluted amendment is very simple: to ask how the Government intend to proceed on large tier 3 schemes in circumstances in which one or more landowners is being obstructive and refusing to take part.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in the sentiments behind these two amendments. To consider Amendment 140 first, we are in the dark a little. My understanding—and I hope my noble friend the Minister will explain this in winding up—is that public good and natural capital will be explained further in the Environment Bill, which we have not yet had sight of here. I share the noble Lord’s concern as to what we understand by “public good”.
I was heartened yesterday by an Answer from my noble friend Lord Goldsmith that nature lies at the heart of the Government’s biodiversity strategy. I argue that looking after nature, which farmers do so well, is a form of public good. I am wedded to the idea of natural flood defences as well. I like to think that active farming underlies this. Will my noble friend confirm that we will have a better understanding of what public funds for public goods are—this is the whole difficulty with the Bill—because it is set out in the Environment Bill, which is not before us now? That would be very helpful.
I also support the idea of providing the means to resolve a dispute in the cases set out in Amendment 141. I took a great interest in one of the vexed schemes, because there were 16 to 20 graziers in a project, who had the right in perpetuity to graze on common land that had a different landowner from where they were tenants. It was a very complex situation. I hope that my noble friend and Defra come up with a scheme where the natural capital or public good is provided by the landowner and a tenant benefits from the scheme. I would like to know what the Government have in mind to resolve disputes such as this. There are similar instances that I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will discuss as part of his Amendment 159A, but he has raised issues that are worthy of debate today.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, we are all anxious to make progress, so I shall be brief.
These two amendments from my noble friend Lord Greaves, which I strongly support, are deceptively modest but very significant in the context of this Bill. As has been said, the concept of public goods has been a persistent and welcome thread through the early sections of the Bill. Some Members may think that it should have been more rigorously defined on the face of the Bill. I do not accept the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that we can wait for the Environment Bill. Frankly, by the time we get there, too much of the present Bill will have been decided.
With Amendment 140, my noble friend rightly seeks to achieve a full parliamentary examination of this essential element of the post-CAP package. I lost count of the number of Members in the previous debate who were referring to public goods, and of course Ministers have, throughout all stages of this Bill in both Houses, referred to public goods. Therefore, I hope that the affirmative resolution procedure, which would ensure that we have a proper parliamentary discussion of this important definition, can happen. My previous service on the DPRRC persuades me that this is the proper procedure here.
Turning to Amendment 141, which deals with large-scale tier-3 schemes, my experience of Dartmoor, where I used to chair meetings of the national park committee, and my experience of Bodmin Moor, which adjoined my home in my then constituency, made me especially aware of the sensitivity of moorland restoration schemes. These can have a challenging effect on all those who are interested in them, and on farms in LFAs, which have also been a common theme this afternoon.
Whatever their respective merits, nobody can deny that they inevitably impact on several landowners and land managers, and a variety of other users. Since the UK has responsibility for the stewardship of no less than three quarters of the world’s heather moorlands, this should be very high in our awareness of potentially clashing interests. I was interested in what the noble Baroness said. Like me, she will be well aware of how difficult decisions can be in deciding between different interests in that context.
It may well be true of other projects with overall beneficial environmental objectives, but the likely economic or other impacts on individuals or groups in those circumstances can be very important. I have had experience of uncomfortable impacts—admittedly relatively short-term ones—from major schemes such as coastal marsh creation schemes. My noble friend suggests that we should have the affirmative procedure to look at the details when then Minister comes forward with these. I hope he accepts that this too offers a practical solution.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend’s two amendments are very interesting. Starting with Amendment 140, I thought that I knew what the public good was, having produced amendments which I thought were centred around it, such as public access and how you support that access and make it more readily available to those with disabilities and so on. However, when I read this amendment, I thought, “Ah, someone else put that at a priority level; that makes it a public good.” It is in the Bill, but is it as high a public good as something else? What happens if it starts to compete, which it will, with other activities? For instance, if you want to encourage a certain animal or plant somewhere and a path goes through it, which changes? On that fundamental level, getting some idea about how the assessments are made is important.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I well understand why Members who are in the Government are anxious to move this Bill forward as quickly as possible, but if anything ever illustrated the value of this House and the limitations of another place, it is this Bill. The other place barely considered this Bill, and certainly not in any detail. Your Lordships’ House has sought to scrutinise, which without filibustering has still taken a long time, but it is a crucial Bill which will affect the lives of all of us, directly or indirectly, in the coming years.
There is no more important industry in our country than farming, and certainly no industry more productive or upon which we all depend so much, yet it faces a period of unparalleled uncertainty. I pay tribute to the Minister for listening so carefully and replying so sympathetically, but it is crucial that the Government display sensitivity and flexibility. This was illustrated very well indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who did himself a disservice by talking about “convoluted amendments”. Frankly, we must address this central issue of public goods and public money. I would prefer “public” to have a capital “P”, and to have “good” and “benefit” in the singular, because although the phrase may come trippingly off the tongue, the public good is very different in the farmlands of Lincolnshire from the farming of the Scottish borders. Of course, the farming duty goes with farming, the responsibility for wildlife, the countryside and the overall appearance of the environment, but the fundamental public good is the quality of what is produced, and this is where I cross swords with the Minister.
We touched on this in our debates last week. There is no greater public good and certainly no greater public responsibility than producing food to sustain the nation. Last week we also touched on the fact that the defence of the nation itself depends on the amount and quality of food that our farmers are able to produce. I hope that between now and Report the Minister—I address this to him personally and specifically—will seek to produce in the Bill a schedule or clause that defines “public good”, setting out precisely what it means and precisely what it is.
I will not go on at greater length. I am limiting my contributions to the debates on the Bill because I understand the Minister’s wish to move forward as quickly as possible. However, it must not be speed at the expense of scrutiny and, when we come to Report, ultimately the Government must help to put the Bill into better shape than it is in at the moment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves has set out his case for the inclusion of Amendments 140 and 141, supported by my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Addington, both of whom pressed the case for an assessment of what constitutes “public goods”.
Amendment 140 would require financial assistance to be provided on the basis of public money for public goods, and it requires the regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution. More examination is needed of exactly what the Government mean by “public goods” and how that will be defined. It could mean myriad things.
Amendment 141 would give clear instructions to the Secretary of State to order owners and managers of land to take part in a project—that is, a coastal marsh creation or a large-scale moorland restoration—in which they do not wish to participate.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, supports both amendments. She is aware that there are often disputes between tenants and landlords that need to be sorted out. My noble friend Lord Addington said that even small landowners and not just large ones are very wary of change and will often object to taking part in projects. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, raised the importance of scrutinising the Bill and of taking time to do it. I do not think that we can be accused of not doing so. As he said, farming is extremely important.
It is important that such vital projects for land improvement are not thwarted by individual landowners, but I am less clear that the degree of compulsion is in the spirit of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this issue.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. We have had a varied debate but I wish to raise some further points and questions.
The Government’s communications on the Bill have focused on the principle of public money for public goods—a principle of almost total consensus. However, our current understanding of what constitutes “public goods” is fairly limited and, although widely used in this debate and the previous one, it is not a term used in the Bill. Although Chapter 1 outlines the purposes for which money can be given, our understanding of “public goods” probably differs according to our political emphasis. For example, my party would have a greater focus on food as a public good. It is a long time since I studied A-level economics, but I am sure that I remember a discussion centring around the fact that public goods are particularly apposite to sustaining a well-ordered society. They contribute to social inclusion and strengthen a shared sense of citizenship. In fact, it was debates such as those that fired my interest in politics and led to a lifetime spent working in public service. Therefore, will the Minister seek to define the phrase for the purposes of this legislation?
Amendment 141 proposes introducing an ability for the Secretary of State to order a landowner to participate in a large-scale tier 3 scheme. The Bill already represents a huge shift in how farmers are funded and this process will be much easier if it has the consent of landowners. Can the Minister therefore outline what powers are already available in the event of an owner or land manager refusing to participate in a scheme, even when there is a clear public interest in that scheme going ahead?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his Amendment 140. Our new “public money for public goods” policy aims to reward farmers and land managers for goods and services that benefit society but are not currently traded on the market. The financial assistance powers in Clause 1(1) provide the Secretary of State with the power to spend money for furthering certain purposes, which in turn can help to deliver these public goods. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to define the “public funds for public goods” rule. This Bill does not include a definition of “public goods” because it provides powers to the Secretary of State to pay financial assistance for a number of purposes that will enable Defra to introduce its future policies, including productivity grants, as set out in Clause 1(2).
Perhaps I may go further. In terms of this Bill, public goods are goods and services that are valued by society but not provided by the market, including things such as clean water and air, thriving plants and wildlife, a reduction in and protection from environmental hazards, adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, the beauty and heritage of the environment and engagement with it.
The noble Lord asked whether productivity was a public good. The more productive the method of farming, often the more environmentally sound that farming method is. Our priority is a productive farming sector—one that will support farmers to provide more home-grown healthy produce made to high environmental and animal welfare standards. More efficient production has the benefits of lower costs and higher yields and, in many cases, a reduced impact on the environment.
The Government believe that by moving to a new system based on public money for public goods, and by supporting farming through productivity schemes and grants, we will put English farmers in the best position possible to boost sustainable food production. Defining “public good” in the Bill and requiring every pound spent under Clause 1 to meet this rule would unnecessarily restrict the Government’s ability to deliver their goal of a more sustainable, productive sector. Perhaps I may reiterate what Clause 1(4) says:
“In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and its production by them in an environmentally sustainable way.”
Amendment 141 seeks to provide powers for the Secretary of State to require landowners or managers to participate in landscape-scale land-use change projects. The Government recognise that the ELM scheme will be most successful if it has very high levels of participation. This could be particularly important when considering locally targeted or landscape-scale projects under tiers 2 and 3 of ELMS, especially where any such projects require collaboration. The Government are therefore working closely with stakeholders, including landowners, to ensure that the scheme is attractive and offers appropriate and sufficient incentives to secure the necessary voluntary participation in projects. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, was correct in saying that the use of coercion in these larger projects is very much against the spirit of the entire Bill.
With that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
I thank the Minister but I have to say that those are the two most disappointing responses I have heard from Ministers during the entire Committee. I have spent a lifetime trying to get practical public projects of all sorts going—some big, some small—and, if I am an expert in anything, it is knowing about obstruction and delays, and overcoming those.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 155. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or any other, amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 16: Support for rural development
Amendment 155
The Earl of Devon
“( ) making provision for future contributions to existing rural socio-economic schemes;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would safeguard the availability of financial provisions to continue the socio-economic programmes under Rural Development Programmes in the event of delays in the introduction of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Committee—we have made a lot of progress in the last few minutes. It is good to see that we are now up to Clause 16, focusing on support for rural development.
It is an honour to move Amendment 155. This is a simple amendment, supported by the CLA, which seeks to ensure that there is no gap in the support for rural socioeconomic schemes such as the Growth Programme and LEADER scheme, which are currently administered by the RDPE. They do so much to support the development of rural business through grants, training and the provision of advice. I have already noted my farming interests but, specific to this amendment, I should note that our rural heritage tourism business has applied for, and been granted, an RDPE grant—although, as far as I am aware, it will not be impacted by this amendment.
The work of the RDPE in assisting and administering rural development using European funds is key to maintaining the productivity and employment currently enjoyed by many otherwise struggling rural businesses. These are the businesses that, by current estimates, will suffer most from the economic catastrophe that is Covid-19 and the subsequent brutality of Brexit.
The role of the RDPE is due to be taken over by the UK shared prosperity fund, but we currently have no idea when that will take place. This amendment seeks simply to ensure that there is no gap between the winding up of the RDPE and access to the European funds and the establishment of the UK shared prosperity fund.
In a series of questions in this House on 21 May 2020, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, on behalf of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, made it clear that, while the Government could give assurances about the UK shared prosperity fund, they could give no assurances whatever as to its timing—and so, we remain in the dark. Perhaps the Minister can shed some more light on when the UK shared prosperity fund will take effect.
Without this amendment, these key socioeconomic schemes may find themselves falling into that transition chasm, lost in the valley of the shadow of death. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]
My Lords, I want to speak to my Amendment 156. It tries to ensure that as many as possible farming families, who, to me, are the backbone of rural England, will be able to survive on their land through the various agricultural crises that will inevitably come their way over future decades. The first crisis is the dramatic changes introduced by this Bill.
Anyone who talks to farmers, tenants or owner-occupiers who are farming land that could probably not be described as prime agricultural land will know that, without the single farm payment, they currently have little chance of survival. They cannot survive solely on their agricultural production to produce the family income. All too often, the single farm payment provides more than 100% of their agricultural returns. As we all know, this will soon not be there anymore. Some farmers and their families branch out into other enterprises on their farm, involving tourism, leisure or local services such as contracting or some form of engineering. But mostly, these farming families—wives, sons, daughters and often even the farmer himself—depend on cash wages from local businesses, which allow the farming household to survive on the land. The whole survival of the farm and the family, or families, on it depends on the vitality of the wider rural economy around them.
It is important to remember that, throughout England as a whole, agriculture represents less than 5% of the rural economy. This dependency on outside jobs is particularly obvious on those farms, both lowland and upland, involved in livestock—mostly up and down the western side of England and, of course, in Wales and Northern Ireland. The further you get from urban centres, the more this applies.
What I am saying should not surprise anyone as this feature of rural living was one of the founding principles of the CAP with its two pillars: Pillar 1 supporting agriculture per se and Pillar 2 supporting rural development. The EU decision-makers knew that, to keep farmers on the land and prevent them leaving to join the urban unemployed, a variety of rural jobs would need to be available to both men and women near their farms. Returning to this country, and going back even further in history, it should be noted that, when Lloyd George started the Rural Development Commission before the First World War, he had exactly the same targets in mind. The RDC eventually became the Countryside Agency until it all got swept into Defra and then, of course, disappeared.
I am trying to give back to Defra a very small arrow in its quiver to continue the good work started so many years ago. It is not a new game but a tried-and-tested tool to help farming families stay on their land. I am also trying to give Defra a small reason to justify keeping “rural affairs” in its title.
I know that the Government will say that all this is going to be taken care of by the shared prosperity fund —as my noble friend Lord Devon has just said—but how and when will we know? Rural proofing is a concept that has lost its way recently, so what makes us think that the shared prosperity fund is going to break that mould? Can the Minister guarantee today that there will be a well-financed ring-fenced rural fund that will be an essential part of the shared prosperity fund?
If he can, that is all well and good but, even so, would it not be a good idea for Defra to have this rural development arrow in its quiver? Would it not be a good idea to hold on to the tried and tested way of helping farmers stay on the land, particularly as Defra already knows that a good percentage of farmers are going to struggle to survive under the new regime this Bill is putting in place?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I oppose Clause 16 standing part of the Bill. This follows on neatly from the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, with whom I have the pleasure to serve on the EU Environment Sub-Committee.
The original purposes of the rural development fund have made a great change to the countryside, improving the quality of life and economic well-being especially of those living in rural areas that are particularly isolated and sparsely populated, such as where I grew up—Teesdale in County Durham—and also the areas that I had the pleasure and privilege to represent in the other place: deeply rural parts of North Yorkshire.
The policy statement that was published in February this year says of the Rural Development Programme for England for 2014 to 2020:
“This £3.5 billion programme will continue to include support for rural businesses to expand and create new jobs and for farmers and growers to buy innovative new equipment.”
This is under the “Preserving our rural resilience” heading, and it goes to the heart of what is perhaps another gap.
I ask my noble friend the Minister, in summing up, to show that this gap will be closed in the current aims of the Rural Development Programme—which have so well served rural communities—and to show how this voyage into the unknown of the UK shared prosperity fund will actually work in the interests of rural areas. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: how will Clause 16 build on this and how will necessarily limited funds continue to be used for these socioeconomic purposes that have served rural communities so well?
Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I also support a number—in fact, the majority —of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Amendment 157 is in my name and I thank noble Lords who have offered their support for it, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who has also put his name to it.
The farmers—those in our rural communities bringing in the crops and so on—have been on the front line throughout the Covid crisis and they deserve our thanks and an enduring debt of gratitude. In the Agriculture Bill in front of us, we have the opportunity to repay some of that debt, and part of this is what Amendment 157 is all about. Inputting high-speed, reliable and capacity-led broadband and the digital skills with which to competently and comfortably operate online seems to be essential to farmers and all those in our rural communities, to enable them to have optimal business, professional and personal lives.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support of Amendment 157, of which I am a signatory and which was so well proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. As we all agreed during the passage of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill, the Covid-19 lockdown has shown how dependent we all are on good, fast and resilient broadband—nowadays, few more so than those in our agricultural sector. Indeed, it is clear from the difficulty many Peers have had in contributing virtually to our proceedings how woeful broadband is in some areas, especially rural ones.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, illustrated the lack of rural connectivity through the NFU surveys and this is backed up by the Ofcom reports. The average broadband speed in rural hamlets and isolated dwellings in a sparse setting was half that in major conurbations in 2018. During the passage of the Bill, I said that the status of the Government’s intentions regarding the timing of the delivery of a 1 gigabit-capable service or ultrafast broadband was unclear. It is especially unclear as regards rural areas and specifically 5G.
With regard to 5G, we have the Shared Rural Network, which is a collaboration between the four networks that started as a 4G project to cover the notspots. Then, we have the seven trials that have been selected in the Rural Connected Communities competition for funding from what is called the 5G Testbeds and Trials Programme. It now seems that projects have been selected in West Mercia, Orkney, Dorset, Monmouthshire, Wiltshire and Yorkshire.
How do all these fit in with the several existing funding programmes for full fibre, launched under the May Government, including two voucher schemes to subsidise full-fibre connections to rural premises and small and medium-sized businesses? How are the Government avoiding unnecessary duplication in the rollout of full fibre to the home? What about Ofcom’s determination that there will be market competition in some areas—prospective competition and others—and non-competition in yet others? Is that really the most effective way of delivering the Government’s strategy, particularly in rural areas?
In another development, the Secretary of State did not mince his words last Tuesday on the consequences of the Government’s decision on Huawei, from which it is clear that the operators charged with delivering 5G will now, without compensation, have £2 billion less to spend on rolling it out while bearing, as they will have to, the cost of ripping out high-risk vendor 5G equipment by 2027. Many of his Conservative colleagues thought that he was offering too extended a timescale. This is a huge proportion of the investment which was to be committed by the operators towards 5G rollout. Are there really no plans to compensate operators, and will the full costs actually fall on consumers?
In his announcement, the Secretary of State admitted that this will delay rollout by two to three years. Given that 100% coverage at one gigabit will take much longer to achieve, will the Government now prioritise 5G rollout for rural areas, where full-fibre broadband is least likely to be installed on a market basis in the short and medium term?
I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for bringing forward this amendment, intended to deliver specific priority for rural broadband provision and rural digital literacy. It seems extraordinary in retrospect that broadband connectivity was not included in Annex IV of the rural development regulation as a thematic sub-programme for the purposes of article 7, given that it dates only from 2013. In current circumstances, this is highly relevant—in fact, essential—to the future success of our agricultural sector. It must be part of achieving what are now the UK’s priorities for agriculture.
As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, argued, there should be a full review of the levels of rural broadband provision and digital literacy, especially before there is any obligation on farmers et al to comply with any regulations by digital means. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions about the rollout of rural broadband, but also that he will accept the crucial amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.
Lord Addington
My Lords, this is one of those occasions when you know that somebody in front of you has said it a little better than you. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has done most of the heavy lifting on the basic thrust of this group: are we going to make sure that the rural economy is generally supported, along with agriculture? That is how I take it. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, talked about broadband. As the last few months have established, I am afraid that it is nigh-on impossible to function in the modern world without broadband at the moment, unless you are going to live in a very tight circle. I hope that we will get answers in the affirmative.
Amendment 155, which I have my name to, asks a technical point: are we going to ensure there is continuity of supply if the UK shared prosperity fund takes a bit of time to get up and going? I hope that we will get the answer to that, and I express my total agreement with the sentiments of those who have already spoken.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to support the amendments in this group and will refer particularly to Amendment 156, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. For me, as somebody from Northern Ireland, this amendment resonates with our whole rural development approach. Through the rural development programme within the European Union, many rural communities benefited from the LEADER programme. It allowed farmers—and farming families—to supplement their income through like-minded industries such as crafts and other types of revenue-making businesses. It also helped the rural community to survive and ensured that those people were retained there, thus creating vibrant farm enterprises. It was a particularly good model. I would like to hear the Minister say how it is to be translated and transposed, through the Bill, into the local economy of England and Wales. What discussions have been held in the ministerial and officials’ group with the devolved regions about how it is to be translated on the ground, so to speak?
It is very important that productivity and employment in rural areas are underpinned so that farming families survive on the land. It is also important that we provide for sustainable farming enterprises, while recognising the difficulties that such households can face during unplanned-for crises, such as the pandemic at the moment or floods. We have witnessed many horrendous floods, which the science would suggest are a consequence of climate change. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, recognises the function of farming households in the countryside. It recognises that they are the pivot in the farming enterprise and of the rural economy.
Lord Cormack [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to support all three of these amendments. I am probably the least qualified of all in your Lordships’ House to talk about broadband. Even during the previous debate, I lost the picture on my screen and without the Digital Support service would not have been able to regain it. But I accept all that the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Clement-Jones, have said; they made persuasive speeches and clearly have my support. I hope they will have the support of the Government.
I want to address my brief remarks to the amendments spoken to so eloquently by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. As someone who represented a rural constituency for 40 years in the other place, what they said rang true in every possible way. We must have not only a properly sustained agricultural industry in this country; we also need the rural support industries, of which they both spoke so eloquently and persuasively. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister comes to reply, he will accept the absolute necessity of what they called a ring-fenced rural fund because without it, there will be a bleak future.
We have all seen the devastation already wrought by Covid-19. It will take many in the rural communities much longer to recover than many of those in the urban communities. Businesses will have gone for ever; we need to keep all the businesses we can and add new ones. Most of all, we need young people who feel that there is a future in the rural economy. I give my total support to all three amendments and await with expectation the Minister’s response.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I had the very pleasant experience on Sunday morning of paying a visit back to Glenscorrodale, the farm-steading where I grew up. Walking around what is no longer a farm, I was reminded of a number of factors relevant to this debate. From a very young age, I was absolutely convinced that it was not the life for me, but I have never failed to admire my brother and cousins, who stayed in the farming life however hard it was for young people to continue in farming as the decades progressed. These three amendments are really important for that reason. I am struck by just how much has changed in farm life over the decades since I was first able to wander around Glenscorrodale, and how much of farm life now is computerised or driven by technology for productivity reasons.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Devon on Amendment 155, and of my noble friend Lord Cameron on Amendment 156.
As I said in an earlier debate, the changes in policy embraced by this Bill are a huge opportunity but a massive challenge. One challenge is the lack of clarity on rural development. I am concerned that the Government’s response to the Rural Economy Committee’s report—I was a member of the committee—rejected a recommendation that there should be a dedicated element of the shared prosperity fund for the rural economy. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Cameron, has said, there is confusion about where support will come from for farming families, whose survival will depend on diversified activity. It is very unclear where the boundaries are within the potential sources of funding. The scope of the ELM scheme is unclear; the future of the RDPE is unclear; and the long-awaited terms of the shared prosperity fund are unclear. All this is on top of the fact that we await the details of the Environment Bill.
The level of uncertainty is unparalleled; there are so many overlapping unresolved issues. Twice this afternoon Psalm 23 has been quoted, likening the potential risk that we face to
“the valley of the shadow of death”.
The psalm continues with the phrase
“I will fear no evil”,
so I am sure that the Minister will provide clarity on this important issue.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
My Lords, Amendment 156, from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, provides flexibility as not yet sufficiently available for Defra to help farming households carry out the purposes of the Bill. In the names of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, Amendment 155 is equally pertinent in anticipating delays following the introduction of the United Kingdom shared prosperity fund—hence its safeguards, financial provisions and continued socio-economic interventions under rural development programmes.
With regard to food supply chains, does the Minister consider that local, regional and domestic supply chains ought to be strongly encouraged, while backing for our producers is essential if we are to set them against cheap imports from America and subsidised food from Europe, and that rural development funding should therefore be provided for this purpose? Does he agree that government incentives for food supply chain infrastructure are not the same as subsidising food directly, and do not therefore conflict with the market, but instead—to the advantage of so many communities —would assist production viability, reduce food miles, improve animal welfare and create jobs?
The range of examples to be encouraged comprises outdoor markets; local food delivery hubs; enterprises that collect from farmers to sell to supermarkets, school canteens and hospitals; local farmers’ processing co-operatives; small factories making cheese, bacon, vegetable burgers, apple juice and other products processed from local farms; and, not least, small abattoirs, including mobile ones, in certain farming areas.
Does my noble friend also agree that local food supply chains already work very well with supermarkets, where the majority of United Kingdom consumers shop? This is evident in several countryside areas, such as Yeo Valley in Somerset. A processing co-operative there makes yoghurt, crème fraiche and butter, selling to large retailers, including Tesco. These are organic farmers using agro-ecological systems, yet they can sell their yoghurt at a very reasonable and affordable supermarket price. It is also now well illustrated in a number of other countries, including Germany, the Netherlands and Norway, how local food hubs and farmers’ processing co-operatives can easily supply supermarkets, school canteens and hospitals.
Currently, and through this Bill, we have to review the best ways of replacing and restructuring previous schemes for rural development. Can the Minister reassure the House that, within the new arrangements, proper government incentives will be given to local food supply chains?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, Clause 16 allows the Secretary of State, by a negative resolution, to modify existing rural development schemes agreed under the common agricultural policy as to both time and content, and to devise new schemes entirely outside the present parameters. I fail to see any requirement for consultation. Is there any and, if not, why not? Who will represent rural interests in Whitehall and inform funding decisions? The whole point of devolution in Wales and Scotland was democratically to bring the interests of all sectors closer to policymakers—and it has been highly successful.
England has very disparate rural and regional interests that have to look to Whitehall for compromises and single solutions. Perhaps a devolved Yorkshire assembly could occupy the hub that the Government propose to create in York, once the Westminster politicians have been there, done that and departed with the T-shirt. Clause 16, however, creates very significant powers, and their exercise should be open to full parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Government commit to amending the Bill on Report, to require the affirmative procedure? No consultation, and the negative procedure proposed in this Bill, make a very strong case, both in principle and practice, for the stand part opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She described it as a voyage into the unknown—and that is exactly what it is.
Funding for rural development has, over the period of our membership of the European Union, come from the rural development basic act and the common provisions basic act, and has accordingly been ring-fenced against the austerity cuts that have affected such areas as education and social services throughout this country. That ring-fencing of rural interests is about to be dismantled. I note the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the absence of ring-fencing.
I have always feared, and have said so in this House on a number of occasions, that in the post-Brexit world, there will be overwhelming political pressure on the Government to switch money from rural communities to urban areas. Demands on public services, particularly health and social care, must be answered—there are votes at stake. This issue is even more acute since the last election, when the Government derived significant support from the crumbling “red wall” urban areas, whose interests they now have to consider. The further centralising of services and jobs in large conurbations may drive further depopulation from the countryside. It may even destroy the Conservative Party’s traditional rural base of support. Will the Government make a commitment now, in the post-pandemic world of massive government expenditure, that rural communities will receive the same level of support for rural development as they do at present under the CAP regime? This issue is addressed in Amendment 155.
We await the details of the shared prosperity fund, and I am particularly concerned as to Wales’s involvement in that. I share the doubts expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and Lord Curry, who pointed out how unclear it all is. It is important to build an infrastructure to support work in the rural communities—the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred to some agricultural-based industries. Part of that is addressed in Amendment 157, through the extension of broadband and mobile networks. All of us are learning the advantages of working from home and I have no doubt that, with proper investment, fresh employment opportunities in rural areas will arise from that, enabling people in rural areas to lead optimal lives with digital literacy, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, put it.
I have pleasure in supporting all the amendments in this group.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, rural development programmes are extremely important and any delay in their implementation would be a very retrograde step. I support the arguments put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friend Lord Addington on the shared prosperity fund and look forward to the Minister’s response. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, also supports proper rural development and businesses to encourage young people and others to share in rural prosperity.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has, as usual, made a very powerful case for assisting farmers and the rural communities to deliver agricultural, food and environmental services. Living as I do in a rural area, but within easy reach of two market towns, I am painfully aware of the issues around the rural economy. With no single farm payment, some farmers on poor land will not survive. They depend on the wider rural economy. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the many questions from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, objects to Clause 16 being included in the Bill. I have listened to her arguments and can understand where she is coming from. Support for rural development is important; the Agriculture Bill may not be the perfect place to include this, but we have an opportunity to enshrine the rural economy and development in this Bill and ensure that those of us living in rural areas are considered in a more holistic way.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, pressed the case for locally produced goods and food, both through farmers’ markets and supermarkets. I fully support this, as it is extremely important to bring locally produced quality food to a much wider audience.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, have an amendment to add broadband connectivity and digital literacy to the list of support for rural communities. Farmers and their families need access to decent broadband to fill in the various forms and licences required to carry out their activities, and their children need access to complete homework and, currently, to take part in lessons. Going to McDonald’s to gain access to broadband is completely unacceptable. We have no access to 5G in my rural area. As someone who struggles with the strength of the broadband signal—or lack of it—and my own level of expertise, I can confirm that assistance with digital literacy is a vital element in improving connectivity. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this subject. Can I personally hold out any hope of better broadband connectivity in the near future?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments today and to all those who have stressed the need to maintain the equivalent of the social economic schemes under the rural development fund. I agree with the many other noble Lords who said that both the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, made very compelling cases that underpin those arguments.
It is clear that, to have a thriving agricultural sector, we need a strong rural economy and infrastructure. We need to address the many social problems that are holding those developments back. We know that rural areas are characterised by higher levels of poverty, poorer health and social isolation. Young people in rural areas struggle to find good-quality training opportunities and are held back by poor public transport and the lack of affordable housing. Local businesses find it difficult to access finance and, as the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Clement-Jones, rightly pointed out, have huge difficulties with broadband connectivity. I agree very much with them that digital literacy can go a long way to tackling the digital divide. The opportunities to make rural areas great places to live and work are being squandered.
I was also interested in the question from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about whether local food activities such as outdoor markets could be eligible for rural funds. That gets around some of the arguments we have been having about whether production of food is a public good.
Much of the problem lies with the Government’s failure to adopt a joined-up approach to rural development, bringing together all the departments and agencies with responsibilities in this area. Although rural proofing partly addresses the problem, it is still not providing the funding and policy priority that rural communities deserve. Rural development funding remains just one aspect of the solution. Nevertheless, that funding has provided a vital lifeline for many local communities.
The current Clause 16, on support for rural development, is welcome in as far as it goes, but it leaves a great deal of the detail unspecified as so much is delegated to regulation. It therefore leaves a lot to trust—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I share the concern that funding could be lost without an equivalent funding regime in place. I also share noble Lords’ concern that we must have much greater assurance about access to the shared prosperity fund when the details become clearer.
I welcome the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, which provides an opportunity for new socioeconomic programmes to help farming families. He has a great deal of expertise in that area and has made the case extremely well, so I do not intend to repeat it. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the Government do not intend to focus solely on agriculture in this Bill, without a plan to maintain a thriving social and economic infrastructure around it. A thriving rural community with a strong infrastructure and new economic opportunities is the bedrock of an agricultural system, but it will need appropriate funding.
I have not lined up a biblical reference, which seems to be the order of the day today, but I do pray that the Minister can spell out in detail the access to the different rural development funds that will be available as we leave the EU, and the timescales applicable to each of those funds. I look forward to his response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which goes to the heart of the rural economy and how rural communities play their essential part in it. I turn to Amendments 155, 156 and 157. Clause 16 provides for the continued payment of long-lasting Rural Development Programme for England agreements where they will extend well beyond the end of the current programme in 2020. This is needed because agri-environment and forestry agreements can last for many years. Some will still be active in the 2030s. The Bill does not deal with socioeconomic schemes, because these are short agreements and all payments will have been made by the time the EU rural development funding has been exhausted. Under the withdrawal agreement, Defra will continue to deliver the RDPE under the terms of the EU regulations. It therefore remains the case that all projects agreed under the RDPE will be fully funded for their lifetime. For multiyear agri-environment and forestry agreements, domestic funding will be used to honour commitments once EU funding ceases after programme closure.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and all noble Lords. The Government absolutely recognise the invaluable contribution that rural areas make to our national life, economically, socially and culturally, and are committed to supporting rural communities through post-EU exit funding and wider government initiatives. It is essential that future generations see a future in the countryside, in agriculture or in a wide range of other elements and components of the rural economy. I am minded of what the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale said. I have experienced my first Zoom meetings with an agronomist and an arable contractor and so forth. Things that I never thought would happen are happening regularly, so I understand all these things.
A lot of the matters raised in this debate are dealt with separately from the Bill, and I will expand on that. As set out in our manifesto, the Government intend to introduce the UK shared prosperity fund to replace EU structural funds. As the Rural Affairs Minister, I do not identify with the commentary on rural-proofing from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who was helpful to us in revising the rural-proofing guidance. We have officials working to ensure that rural-proofing is entrenched in every department. We have been working extremely closely with the MHCLG, which leads on the development of the UK shared prosperity fund, to ensure that its design takes account of the dynamics of rural economies and the particular challenges faced by rural communities. Both departments have been engaging with rural stakeholders to support development of the evidence base around what rural communities and businesses need for the fund. Final decisions about the quantum and design of the fund will take place following the spending review.
My noble friend Lord Dundee spoke about relationships with supermarkets. Some noble Lords are keen on berating the supermarkets. When I spend time going around them, I look at the British produce and the relationship there often is with local farms. That important development of relationships with local produce is strong, whether in large retail outlets or small ones. Clause 1(2) could support productivity measures which could, for example, aid local food chains. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on the consultation requirement, this clause will only amend existing schemes, not create new ones. We have already consulted on the changes to existing schemes, as part of the Health and Harmony consultation.
Beyond the scope of the Bill, the Government are already taking steps to ensure that our rural communities can prosper. In response to my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, through the outside-in approach, as part of the future telecoms infrastructure review, we are supporting the deployment of gigabit-capable broadband to the least commercially viable UK premises. We are already connecting some of the hardest-to-reach places in the country, including through the superfast broadband programme and the £20 million rural gigabit connectivity programme. We have announced £5 billion of public funding to close the digital divide and ensure that rural areas are not left behind. The Government are also working with mobile network operators to deliver mobile connectivity improvements through a shared rural network. I also highlight the Digital Skills Partnership, launched by DCMS in 2017, to bring together organisations from across the public, private and charity sectors to work together to close the digital skills gap at local level.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about 5G rollout in rural areas. The 5G Rural Connected Communities programme is looking at potential 5G test cases in rural areas. Through the Rural Connected Communities competition, the Government are funding up to 10 5G research and development projects to run over two years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about discussions between devolved Administrations and rural development. As all noble Lords know, rural development is devolved, but Defra officials meet counterparts in devolved Administrations to discuss rural policy and share experience.
Returning to digital, although the current rural development programme allows for support for broadband and digital skills, wider government initiatives are the main funding mechanisms for broadband connectivity and digital skills. These are delivered through DCMS, rather than Defra. The role played by me, as Minister for Rural Affairs, and the rural team at Defra, is to work closely with DCMS and, at ministerial level, make sure that there is a complete understanding of the fact that rural communities need to play their part in a modern economy, and of the need to improve that.
Clause 16 gives the power to continue making payments where agri-environment and forestry agreements have already been signed, using Exchequer funds once the EU rural development funding contribution has been exhausted. Without subsections (1), (2) and (5) of this clause, the Secretary of State will not have the powers required to continue making annual payments specified in existing agri-environment and forestry agreements, and farmers and land managers will not be compensated for the valuable benefits that they are delivering. Furthermore, without this clause it would be more difficult for agreement holders to move from a CAP scheme to new domestic schemes under the Bill. For example, subsection (3)(a) will allow agreement holders to terminate their agreements early if they successfully secure a place in an ELM scheme. The Government want to ensure that the environmental benefits delivered through these agreements are retained and built on as we move from the CAP to a new system of ELM, designed with farmers and land managers in mind.
The powers in subsection (3) of this clause facilitate the transfer of existing agri-environment and forestry agreement holders into new schemes operating under Clause 1, such as ELM or the simplified Countryside Stewardship scheme. For example, subsection (3)(c) could allow an existing environmental stewardship agreement holder who is managing a priority habitat to convert their agreement into a new domestic Countryside Stewardship agreement. Without subsections (1), (2) and (5) of Clause 16, we will be unable to pay farmers and land managers for the work they are undertaking, and we risk complicating the transition to ELM for land managers who are already participating in agri-environment schemes. We intend to offer domestic countryside stewardship agreements until 2024, at which point we want to ensure a smooth transition from both domestic Countryside Stewardship and EU agri-environment schemes into ELM.
I do understand and take on board all the points that have been made and our mutual desire to work to ensure that the UK shared prosperity fund is up and running and successful. From a rural-proofing point of view it is imperative that the needs of rural interests, communities and business are taken into account. However, I do hope that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I offer the Green group’s support for Amendments 155 to 157 and thank the noble Lords who tabled them and supported them. This debate and the questions have brought out the political impact of the relatively low number of votes in the countryside. We have seen just this morning, with the report on the distribution of the Government’s regeneration fund before the last election, how, since we do not have a rules-based system such as the EU’s whereby funds are distributed to the areas that are most disadvantaged and most in need, it very much depends on the Government’s view of where such money should go.
This debate has focused a lot on keeping what we have in the countryside: alternative businesses, non-farm businesses and alternative sources of revenue for farmers. But what is the Government’s vision for the countryside —where do they see money going, say, from the UK shared prosperity fund? Do the Government see the countryside as a place where there can be large numbers of new, growing, farming, food-producing businesses, and large numbers of good jobs—not simply pickers who are casual workers coming in for a couple of months and then going away again having lived in caravans, but people who can make their lives in the countryside? Is that the kind of vision of a horticulture-rich, healthy food-growing countryside—tying together many of our debates from last year—that the Government have?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the vision is for a prosperous rural economy, which obviously includes food production and agriculture. However, a whole range of communities form the rural economy. We want to ensure that all rural dwellers have the same opportunities. I have to say that very few industries have been promised that they will retain the same annual contribution from the taxpayer for the whole of this Parliament; sometimes noble Lords forget that in some of their commentary. That is most exceptional, and it shows that the Government support farmers and rural communities. That is of course why there is a very significant investment in the broadband structure. Therefore, there is a considerable vision for a prosperous, skilled and innovative agricultural sector within a broader rural economy.
Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his extensive response to this debate. When will he be able to tell us whether there will be a well-financed, ring-fenced rural fund as part of the shared prosperity fund? When will we know about that?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am afraid that I cannot give a precise date other than what I said in my remarks, that the quantum and design of the fund will take place following the spending review; I cannot give any further detail. However, I can say that the efforts and the work of Defra with MHCLG are to ensure that there is a very strong rural component so that rural businesses are an intrinsic part of this fund.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I have received one further request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond.
Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response to my Amendment 157. He referred to the £5 billion which was set in principle as a response from the Government to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report. Can he tell the House what the pathway is for that in-principle commitment to be rolled out and an on-the-ground practical reality?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
As I say, the purpose of trying to start with an outside-in approach is precisely to ensure that rural areas and farms are connected—very often the village is connected but the outlying farms are not. That is where we want to ensure, in working with this £5 billion and the £200 million rural gigabit connectivity programme, that these are absolutely geared to ensure that rural areas are not left behind. I am most grateful to my noble friend for raising the matter.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his, as ever, courteous concluding remarks, and in particular his extensive comments on rural connectivity, which were enlightening. I am disappointed that we still lack detail on the UK shared prosperity fund and the Minister was unable to provide any enlightenment greater than what was given back in May. It has been a helpful debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contribution on this key issue of rural development. I particularly acknowledge the tireless work of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on the subject of rural prosperity and the survival of farming households.
All noble Lords are well aware of the tremendous fragility of our rural economy and the many small rural businesses that are key local employers in areas of often desperate poverty and huge social deprivation. The noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Clement-Jones, have done well to highlight the issues of rural connectivity as key issues that have been so graphically shown during the lockdown. Might the Government consider following the lead of Northern Ireland, which I understand has sought to implement rural connectivity by connecting the furthest and hardest-to-reach properties first and not last? I hope that we can revisit these issues on Report but until then, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 158. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 158
Lord Whitty
“Smallholdings estates
(1) Every smallholdings authority which, before the commencement of Part 1 of this Act, holds any land for the purposes of smallholdings must—(a) review its smallholdings estate, and(b) before the period of 18 months beginning with the day Part 1 of this Act comes into force, submit to the Secretary of State proposals with respect to the future management of its land for the purposes of providing—(i) opportunities for persons to be farmers on their own account;(ii) education or experience in environmental land management practices for farmers, potential farmers and farm workers;(iii) opportunities for increasing public access to the natural environment and understanding of sustainable farming; and (iv) opportunities for innovation in sustainable land management practices.(2) No land held by a smallholdings authority immediately before the commencement of Part 1 of this Act is to be conveyed, transferred, leased or otherwise disposed of other than—(a) in connection with the purposes listed in subsection (1), or(b) in accordance with the proposals submitted under subsection (1). (3) For the purposes of this section “smallholdings authority” has the same meaning as in section 38 of the Agriculture Act 1970.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would limit the disposal of "county farms" by local authorities and would require local authorities to review their holdings and submit proposals for future management to provide opportunities to extend farming to new farmers, provide agricultural education and stimulate innovation.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, apropos of the discussion on the previous group of amendments, this is the first time I have contacted your Lordships from rural Dorset. The bandwidth and the stability of the internet connection appear to be somewhat suspect, so if I get cut off, your Lordships will understand.
This amendment is about introducing a new generation of farmers to our agricultural system. Much of the debate on the Bill has been about the outputs of farming: food, and the impact on the environment and the countryside. The key inputs into farming are of course the skill and enterprise of those who work the land, but we have heard very little about that in the debate. A subsequent amendment from my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch deals with the general improvement of the supply, quality and skill of labour in agriculture, which I will strongly support. However, this amendment is about getting people in who will run their own farms and who need to be given that opportunity.
I well remember when I was first made an Agriculture Minister—over 20 years ago now—and I was told that the average age of English farmers was about 59; I was slightly younger at that point, but not a lot. I was slightly shocked at that, but then I was told that this was always the case, because you either inherited your land from your father or your uncle or you had to save up enough money to buy the land. Another way in was provided from the beginning of the last century by many rural counties, which established tenancies directly for young farmers who could not afford to enter in the normal way through inheritance or purchase. It was a successful scheme, and it continued and was reinforced after the Second World War. However, from the 1980s, there was a drastic fall in the number of tenancies and the acreage covered by such tenancies almost halved. We sped it up a bit around 2000 but in the last 10 years, as a recent report by the CPRE shows, there has been a further 10% decline in the areas covered by county tenancies.
This is a crucial way in, yet some of our proud rural counties have drastically reduced the acreage covered by county tenancies. These include counties such as Herefordshire, Somerset, North Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and some counties, such as Northumberland, Northamptonshire and Lancashire, appear from the figures not to have any county tenancies nowadays. Even my own adopted county of Dorset—whose internet connection is not great—has also capped its tenancy by 10% over the last 10 years. This is pretty disastrous in terms of getting new blood into managing farms and running their own farms.
My amendment is quite modest, but it would require those counties with such smallholdings to review the situation and not to dispose of any such holdings except for the purposes similar to the objectives of the county farm tenancies. That would require each county to work out a new strategy, discuss it with Defra, continue to provide support for those tenancies that existed and, hopefully, resume providing further tenancies.
I was heartened at the end of the previous day of the Committee stage when the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, indicated that there will be some support for county farms as a result of the new agricultural system. I have yet to see any details of that, but it would be important to improve availability for rural young farmers, or indeed urban people who wish to get into farming, if the county scheme could be revived or, at the very least, stopped from declining further. An objective assessment by the counties and Defra would reinstate tenancies and start increasing the amounts of such tenancies that are available, which should help to herald a new future in farming for those who desperately want to run their own farm and improve the environment at the same time. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
My Lords, within this grouping I support Amendment 158, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and others, which sets out to enable new entrants to county farms, to provide education in farming these holdings and to stimulate innovation within them.
I am also in favour of Amendment 246, in the names of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and others, which suggests that landlords should contract longer farm business tenancies.
I also support my noble friend’s Amendment 237, which would enable tenants to object to a landlord’s possible refusal of consent to enter financial assistance schemes.
I come to Amendment 159 in my name. This proposed new clause would encourage agricultural smallholdings in areas close to towns and cities. In terms of the Bill, there are a number of advantages.
The first is consistency with the Government’s commitment to building houses where people want to live. Many would like to live in the countryside; however, very often this is not possible due to planning constraints and the high costs to applicants of gaining permission. The proposed new clause would allow for the development of affordable green homes arising from government incentives to local authorities for that purpose. Local authorities might then incentivise the private sector to invest in this type of endeavour. Along with other locations, green-belt sites could be used. Since we are considering agricultural smallholdings, these would not be subject to current urban restrictions applying to green belts.
Secondly, the developments would be combined smallholding, home and work spaces. Residents would have two occupations: farming some land; and working from home. An example might have 30 houses and 180 acres of farmland, thus 6 acres per unit. A typical occupant might farm vegetables in polytunnels while also working part-time as an IT consultant via high-speed internet. Post coronavirus, two interconnected trends have emerged: a greater demand for property in the countryside and a growing potential of being able to work from home. The proposals outlined thus fit in with those new demands in facilities.
Thirdly, the projects, as envisaged, would provide fresh, high-quality produce to local urban markets, thus strengthening the United Kingdom’s food security, while assisting government aims for the countryside by increasing opportunities for rural employment.
Fourthly, in connection with this Bill, the farming methods adopted by these smallholdings would qualify to benefit from this financial assistance for the purposes detailed in Clause 1. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can support this proposal.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I am generally supportive of the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and their desire to get younger farmers on to the land. This is crucial to improving diversity and productivity and is generally crucial to the health of the farming industry.
However, I oppose Clause 34 and the entirety of Schedule 3 standing part of the Bill. This is not because I think that agricultural tenancy reform is not much needed; rather, it is far too important an issue to be addressed in a simple schedule to this complex Bill. It must not be treated as an afterthought. In these constipated proceedings, we simply do not have time to do justice to agricultural tenancy reform. I have barely had the capacity to consider the provisions in Schedule 3; perhaps this proposal is aimed at sparing me and your Lordships the time of doing so.
I was horrified to learn that the average length of modern agricultural tenancy is just three years. This is the worst possible thing for the environment. For all our days of effort to define and incorporate a variety of public goods and worthy causes under Clause 1, probably the best thing we can do for the environment is simply adjust the term of agricultural tenancies from three years upwards towards 10. There is simply no way a farmer can commit the resources to maintain his or her natural capital, such as soils, hedges and trees, when he or she has only a three-year term and the bank that is financing the business needs to see a commercial return within that short timeframe.
I also keep in mind the excellent work of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group—TRIG—whose final report to Defra made wide-ranging and sweeping recommendations for agricultural tenancy reform. Schedule 3 is a wholly inadequate response to that. Many will say that we should take what we can by way of primary legislation in this area, as the chance does not come along too often. However, I would resist that and reiterate that this far too important an issue to be resolved by Schedule 3 alone.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 222 in my name; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for putting his name to it.
The community infrastructure levy, known as the CIL, was introduced in 2010—[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The noble Baroness’s connection is very bad. If she does not mind, we will leave her for a moment to try to get the connection back up and I will call her later. I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I have some sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, but I have tried to use my best judgment to amend the Bill as it stands. Amendment 223 builds on the work, as the noble Earl pointed out, of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, just to ensure that the amendments put forward by TRIG can be implemented in a timely manner.
I turn to other amendments in my name and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Bakewell of Hartington Mandeville and Lady Northover, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and my noble friend Lady Rock for lending their support to these. Amendment 237 also has a complementary one for Wales. It makes a straightforward change to require the Government to bring forward necessary regulations to allow an agricultural tenant to refer to arbitration any unreasonable refusal from the landlord following a request by the tenant to join a scheme developed under the financial assistance provisions. Let me say at the outset that there are plenty of examples of good relations between landlords and tenants; the amendment deals only with circumstances where they are perhaps less good. I think it fair to say that tenant farmers are rightly concerned about their ability to access new public payments for public goods in light of their tenancy agreements and some of the restrictive clauses they contain. I hope the Government will give an assurance in that regard.
Amendment 238 closes a potential loophole in the Bill regarding the consent of the landlord, which the tenant is required to obtain before entering a financial assistance scheme. As drafted, the Bill contains a relatively narrow set of criteria which has to be in place, but envisages providing the tenant with the option to object only where the tenancy agreement or legislation governing the tenancy relationship between the landlord and the tenant restricts the tenant’s ability to participate without the landlord’s consent. Currently, the situation would not be covered by the provisions in this part of the Bill. This amendment seeks to address that by ensuring that all refusals by a landlord are referable by the tenant to arbitration on the grounds of reasonableness. I hope my noble friend will see that that is very modest ask.
Amendment 239 again concerns the landlord’s consent. This and Amendment 238 would together address issues around unreasonable restrictions within tenancy agreements that prevent farm tenants investing in their holdings to carry out activities or improvements which assist with the productivity or sustainability of the holding. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said, three years being the standard tenancy is simply not conducive to the investment that I personally would like to see. I hope my noble friend will look favourably on this amendment. Again, it is a suggestion put forward by TRIG and I hope my noble friend will make sure that tenancy agreements contain reasonable clauses that would make an appeal against an unreasonable refusal from landlords easier.
Amendment 240 addresses the definition of “diversification activity” and would extend it to activities that, although by nature not deemed to be agricultural, horticultural or arboricultural, enhance and complement the use of the holding for those purposes. Again, the intention is not to create a complete free-for-all but simply to give the tenant certainty of provision. I would hope that it is reasonable to allow farm tenants to have access to the means to carry out reasonable farm diversification activities without the landlord’s unreasonable refusal disallowing them from doing so.
Amendment 244 also has a similar one for Wales and, taken together, they seek to enhance the franchise of individuals who are able to apply for succession of a tenancy for the limited number of tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 that continue to have rights of succession. This is simply looking to extend the current franchise that includes husbands, wives, civil partners, sons, daughters, individuals brought up in farm families and treated as children of the marriage or civil partnership, and brothers and sisters of the deceased or retiring tenant. Crucially, the list of potential successors does not include the grandchild, nephew or niece of the deceased or retiring tenant; nor does it include children from a cohabiting partner of the deceased or retiring tenant. This amendment seeks to plug that gap. Again, this was considered by TRIG, so I hope my noble friend will look favourably upon it.
Amendment 245 looks to ensure that tenant farmers in England are not locked out of new government public payments for public goods schemes, or schemes that provide support for productivity. The Bill already recognises the difficulty tenant farmers occupying under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 might have in gaining consent from their landlords, due to the nature of their tenancy agreements, but leaves tenants occupying under farm business tenancies regulated by the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 fully exposed to the whims of their landlords, without a legislative backstop. I hope that my noble friend will look favourably on this amendment. Tenant farmers want to play their full part in these schemes, which enhance the environment, landscapes and animal welfare, and I am sure that, through the good offices of my noble friend, that can be achieved. It is important to say that when this was considered in Committee in another place, it was voted down on the basis that farm business tenancies are shorter term; however, this misunderstands the nature of the marketplace for letting land and I am sure my noble friend will take a much more considerate view.
Finally, I come to Amendment 246. As with the amendment to the franchise for tenancy succession, this amendment was also considered by the Defra-sponsored Tenancy Reform Industry Group. It is part of the Government’s policy to encourage longer-term farm business tenancies. It is important to note that the average length of a farm business tenancy in England and Wales is less than four years, and 90% of all agricultural tenancies are let for a period of only five years or less. Such short-term agreements are inadequate to allow farm tenants to invest in and profit from these holdings and to have the freedom to take part in agri-environment schemes. This amendment would make the changes necessary in this regard.
I hope my noble friend will consider these amendments vital, putting all tenants on an equal footing and enabling them to benefit in the same way that landlords would hope to benefit from these schemes.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to attach my name to Amendment 158, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. The tenant farming sector is hugely important in the United Kingdom. Some 30% of all agricultural land is tenanted. I have long been concerned about the future of the county farms estate. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, many have been disposed of, including in my own county of Northumberland. Indeed, in conjunction with the Tenant Farmers Association, I wrote a report in, I think, 2007 on this topic.
Many of the farms that remain under the ownership of local authorities are no longer smallholdings. Of course, it is important that farms of different sizes are available to let to tenants. I speak as someone who started farming in 1971 as a tenant on a relatively small mixed farm in Northumberland. We had then what we called a farming ladder: it was possible to start small and, through hard work and sound business skills, gradually move on to larger farms. The model worked really well and provided an entry into farming for those from outside established farming businesses. New blood is crucial for any industry sector, and certainly for farming. Many of today’s successful farming families started small and have built impressive rural businesses as a consequence.
County farms are clearly owned by local authorities, but, as I said in the aforementioned report, they are a national asset and should be retained. Too often, local authorities have taken short-term decisions to dispose of their landholdings to plug an annual funding gap without, in my view, considering seriously the strategic importance of these assets. There are innovative ways in which these estates, in partnership and in conjunction with their tenants, could provide a wide range of key services such as local food markets, educational access and other public services—including, potentially, energy generation—to try to ensure they are financially viable, as indicated in this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I was about to call the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but do we have the noble Baroness, Lady Young, back with us?
Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]
We do indeed. I shall speak to Amendment 222 in my name. I feel, at this precise moment, like having a rant about the inadequacies of rural broadband, but I shall restrain myself. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for supporting Amendment 222.
The community infrastructure levy was introduced in 2010. Some local planning authorities apply it to new agricultural buildings, but some do not. Agricultural buildings are often required for things such as housing livestock or storing grain, and new buildings are often driven by changes in regulations on animal welfare or food safety standards; or, they may enable business growth or productivity. These things will be important in the new agricultural world we are envisaging in the Bill. New agricultural buildings, however, are not like commercial buildings or housing developments, which are built by investors for immediate profit by selling or letting. Farmers have to stump up for the CIL payment, which can be tens of thousands of pounds, for loans they have taken out to construct a building, and they add to the servicing costs of loans—a direct cost on the farm business.
We are, in the Bill, seeing an environment where farming businesses will need to invest in an innovative way to improve their competitiveness and productivity. The CIL charge for new farm buildings risks inhibiting such investment. It is even more complicated in the current position, because some planning authorities, as I said, choose to levy the CIL on new farm buildings, and some do not, so there is an uneven playing field across the country, for a farming industry that supplies national and global firms. I can imagine the conversations with the supermarkets if you tried to tell them about your CIL charge when they are pressing down on costs across industry as a whole.
We need to bear in mind what the CIL was intended to do; it was a charge to fund local facilities, infrastructure and services to meet increased pressures that new developments often cause. Agricultural buildings are often large in size, so they attract a higher CIL, but low in impact on community infrastructure and services. Cows do not really need social services or want enhanced transport routes. Agricultural buildings are clearly defined in planning laws, so there is no danger of this becoming a creeping extension to any exemption, and there is clear evidence that imposing the CIL discourages investment in these farm businesses. So, this amendment would enable the Government to help farm businesses when they are facing what will, by all accounts, be very uncertain times as a result of the major changes in the agricultural support system. I hope the Minister might see his way to supporting this amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support what the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said about less than five years being far too short for average farm tenancies if we are to succeed with a comprehensive agri-environment scheme. I also agree with him that accepting half a loaf now may not lead to the other half appearing; I think we all ought to understand, in this House, how that works. I am very grateful for Tony Blair’s willingness to accept half a loaf all those years ago.
My interest in this group is in Amendment 242. I am not an agricultural tenancy specialist; I come at this from an education point of view. Subsection 11(3) is an odd bit of legislation. It abolishes a large chunk of Part 1 of Schedule 6 to the Agricultural Holdings Act, which is full of definitions—I cannot, for the life of me, understand how we can do without them, but presumably it all fits in with the rest of the Bill. The bit that we are left with is a restatement, effectively, of one bit of Part 1 of Schedule 6, which governs the interface between the successor to a tenancy and that successor going off and learning their trade at an agricultural college. But it says that you are allowed only three years, and a lot of modern level 6 courses in agricultural colleges now last four years, because they—quite rightly—incorporate a year’s experience.
Today, I listened to the Universities Minister, Michelle Donelan, urging universities to be much more flexible and offer structures that are part-time, modular and akin to continuous professional development over many years. Looking to the future, therefore, the answer is not my amendment, but to remove the time restriction from this clause entirely. A successor to a tenancy ought to be allowed to have been studying their craft, and it ought not to matter where and in what pattern they have been doing that, particularly when we are currently urging such institutes of education to offer a much wider variety of ways in which agricultural education can be obtained. We ought not to be stuck in the past in this clause.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge [V]
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about connectivity. The problem is not just in rural areas; it is here too, in suburban Middlesex. However, I am even more relieved that the noble Baroness spoke to Amendment 222 before I did, because she is much more eloquent than I am, and it is something I support.
With regard to the community infrastructure levy, it is of interest that, since 2009, only one local authority has carried out a viability assessment on whether agricultural buildings can afford to pay the CIL. This assessment concluded that the local authority should pay the farmer to build a new farm building.
At a time when the Government are looking at all sorts of innovative ways to cut out red tape and so forth in the planning area—I may have concerns about them if they impinge on environmental interests—we should make sure that we give those in the agricultural industry a fair deal on these properties. After all, they will not be used for profit in the same way that an extension would be, or in any other ways. I support what the noble Baroness said, and I hope the Minister will take note.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have great joy in very warmly supporting this amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Whitty. The future economic prospects for Britain and the great changes to our way of living and our society that may become necessary only emphasise the urgency of what he is talking about.
I live in rural Cumberland, right up in a valley, where an unwelcome social development is becoming very obvious. Farming, and hill farming in this instance, is increasingly done by elderly people who find it more and more difficult to cope. Consequently, the land gets bought up and concentrated in the ownership of a few people, very often living far away.
Therefore, my noble friend’s amendment has wider implications and challenges beyond what he is specifically talking about. I think it would be nothing but good for British society if more young people who wanted to become involved in farming had that opportunity. Too often, you hear of people who would like to be in farming but cannot afford to get into the system as it has emerged, and who are looking for small, manageable farms.
It is also true that, as we are taking a balanced diet and all the rest so seriously, we may need to concentrate far more on a variety of farming which lends itself to producing varied diets and to the self-sustaining approach to agriculture. For these reasons, I am very glad to support my noble friend.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, this is a near-perfect group of amendments, and the Government would do well to pick all of them up. It is certainly good luck that your Lordships’ House has so many very talented people who can help the Government to improve the Bill.
Reforming agricultural tenancies and giving greater protection for tenants and their families would help give the security needed to take a long-term view as a guardian of the land, make beneficial investments and work the land to its fullest potential. The county farm amendments are also brilliant and should be encouraged in order to bring more enthusiastic entrants into the agricultural sector. I echo the dismay of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that county farms are being sold off; I am sure he knows that his adopted county of Dorset has recently sold six county farms.
Alongside smallholdings, I ask the Minister how he sees the provision of allotments in improving our food security, resilience and health. There is a huge underprovision of allotments in this country, with multi-year waiting lists. I confess that I am a very keen allotment holder—I do not think my nails will ever be the same again after this lockdown—so I know how wonderful they are and encourage the Minister to include allotments in Government plans for our food systems. A housing estate should not be built these days without some sort of allotment close by so that people can get out, grow food and get their hands dirty.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, last week the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was pleased to support what I said about the sequestration of greenhouse gases. This week, I am very pleased to support him on what he said about upland farmers and the concern that a number of them are going bankrupt and their land is becoming part of larger holdings, which is altering the nature of the countryside. It is not just the small upland farms that are under pressure. Small lowland and small family farms are under pressure throughout the UK, and there is now an inevitable drift towards bigger farms, more contracting and fewer tenancies—that is a sad thing.
Amendment 159 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dundee is an interesting proposal. It would be a very good way to start development on green-belt land adjacent to towns, but what happens when the idealistic thoughts of smallholdings do not become viable or the owners cannot cope, and the whole area turns into “horsey culture”? This is not good for biodiversity or the land. One sees an enormous amount of potentially good land being ruined by horses because the land is not properly maintained. It takes a great amount of extra work to keep land where horses are kept, on a small acreage, in good health.
I have put my name to Amendments 237, 238 and 246. I support Amendment 246 because I would like to see longer farm tenancies. This an important part of the structure of farming in the United Kingdom, and in England in particular. That is what the Bill is about, and I would like to see this amendment in the Bill.
I support Amendment 238 because it has the interesting additional wording of “full and efficient farming”. This comes back to our discussions on Clause 1, because there is a push from the Government to turn much of our agricultural land into recreational theme parks, whereas this amendment is geared to making certain that the land is farmed in a proper and efficient manner.
I have spoken before of my concern that tenants sometimes do not get a fair deal: because of their tenancy agreement, woodland, streams and things like that are often excluded, particularly from old Agricultural Holding Act tenancies. This hampers the ability of the tenant to carry out full farm biodiversity and restricts the amount that a tenant can diversify.
Looking to the future, what will happen under ELMS tiers 2 and 3? What happens if a tenant is attracted by a scheme under tier 2, or perhaps is included in the ambit of a tier 3 scheme, which involves inappropriate public access? What is the situation for the landlord in these circumstances? The land might be the landlord’s asset, and he might in due course wish to take that land in hand when the tenancy agreement comes to an end. If the tenant takes part in an ELM scheme which includes public access that depreciates the value of that land in the longer term—undoubtedly the public access will become a common established right over time, if not immediately—is the landlord consulted in a tier 3 scheme? Does the landlord have a right of refusal under the proposals that the Minister has in mind that we do not know about?
There are a lot of questions here that need digging into and explaining. I supported these amendments because the tenant should be not only encouraged but treated fairly when they have a holding.
Baroness Rock [V]
My Lords, again I declare my interests as a director of a tenant farming enterprise. I support Amendment 237 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was pleased to add my name to Amendments 238 and 243 to 246. I welcome the clear intention to ensure that tenants are not excluded from financial assistance schemes.
Amendment 238 seeks only to ensure that all potential circumstances that could arise for a tenant to need their landlord’s consent are covered. Some schemes, by their nature, require tenants to seek the consent of their landlords, regardless of legislation or their contracts of tenancy. Those individuals would not be able to use the provisions of this legislation to object to a landlord’s refusal, in those circumstances. This amendment merely extends the opportunity for reasonable objection to apply to any and all situations where the landlord’s consent is required. The amendment is not seeking to expand the remit of the legislation beyond what the Government intend, just to ensure that no one is left out of being able to use this provision.
I welcome the provisions of Schedule 3, in particular those allowing tenants to object to a landlord’s refusal to grant consent to enter a financial assistance scheme, but the exclusion of farm business tenants is a mistake. By their short-term nature, restrictive terms and high levels of rent, FBTs deserve the protection of this legislation. Over time, FBTs will become the major way in which non-landowners become farmers, and it is important that the legislative basis for their occupation is secure. As the Government rightly move towards a new mechanism to support farm productivity gains and public goods, it would be tragic if FBTs had no recourse against unreasonable landlords who refuse consent for them to be part of that new direction of travel.
I recognise that there is a balance between ensuring that we do not disincentivise landlords and ensuring that tenants have sufficient opportunities to take part in new schemes. However, given the restrictive terms of many FBTs and the lack of impetus to improve them in the marketplace, the balance should rightly ensure fair scheme access for all tenants.
While it is government policy to ensure long-term FBTs, it is disappointing that the Bill does not contain the provisions to assist with this that were proposed by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group—TRIG— which formed part of the Government’s consultation. Amendment 246 rectifies this. The marketplace does not currently deliver a sufficient number of long-term FBTs and the Government could do more to promote their use. These provisions should provide comfort to landlords who have to deal with tenants who breach the terms of the agreements or when land is required back for non-agricultural use, planning consent for change of use having been obtained. While these new provisions will have direct benefit for landlords, who are prepared to let for longer periods, they will provide indirect benefit to the tenanted sector as a whole, by providing scope for a greater degree of longer-term tenancies.
Finally, on Amendments 243 and 244, many successful businesses are family enterprises, no more so than in agriculture. Tenancy succession provisions ensure the longevity of farming businesses, and it is right that there should be eligibility criteria for who can succeed to a tenancy. Other bits of the Bill speak to that issue. One area that is limiting for many farm businesses with succession rights is the close relative test. Often it is nephews, nieces and grandchildren who are involved in the farm, rather than the children of the retiring or deceased tenant. It is important to recognise that these wider members of a family farm may be the most appropriate individuals to succeed. This issue was considered by TRIG and formed part of the Government’s consultation on agricultural tenancies.
The tenanted sector is responsible for farming at least one-third of the agricultural area of England and Wales. We must ensure that tenant farmers are able to participate fully in schemes to contribute to the future of farming.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, and to echo many of the sentiments she expressed on Amendment 246, to which my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has attached her name. I will speak briefly to Amendments 158 and 159. Amendment 158 is on county farms, which is something that we have heard discussed broadly, its importance stressed by many sides, so I will not detain the Committee on that.
I want particularly to address Amendment 159, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. This in many ways addresses the question I put to the Minister after the previous group of amendments. Do we perceive our countryside as a place where we can see a growth of a different kind of business and economy—strong local economies, rich communities of small independent businesses producing food and providing services for those businesses? The vision set out by the noble Earl in this amendment reflects some very exciting work that is being done in Wales. We are seeing exciting experiments and developments in the devolved Administrations that could be transferred to England. That is the idea of One Planet Living: that it is possible to create developments that meet our environmental, social and economic goals and are different from what has gone before, which may not increase the concentration of land ownership, but may create opportunities for small independent landowners, businesses, tenants and people to operate different kinds of businesses, in different ways.
I do not need to tell your Lordships that land ownership in England is incredibly concentrated. We have a situation in which half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population. If we were to share the land of England around the whole population, everyone would get half an acre each. In the light of Covid-19, we may see that people wish to explore different ways of living, different kinds of businesses, different ways to work and support themselves, and different ways to work in communities. This amendment is an exciting possibility and way of doing that. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw the attention of the Committee to my farming interests in Suffolk, as in the register. I will speak to Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I support what she has said, but will take it wider. The community infrastructure levy was originally introduced in around 2010, when, as she explained, it was intended to be a reasonably small contribution towards any infrastructure implications, primarily of developing housing.
Unfortunately, the levy has recently been seen—inevitably perhaps—as a means for strapped local authorities to raise funds directly. There seems to be little control or constraint on what local authorities can do with CILs. I think the Government should look at this closely, because recently, and certainly in the part of Suffolk I am from, they have increased them as much as 10 times. At the same time, the big housing developers often bargain their way out of making any contribution at all.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I have not spoken since a week last Thursday, perhaps I should my declare interest as a member of a family farming business in which I worked for over 45 years before coming to the House. The business celebrated its centenary last year but perhaps noble Lords do not know that my interest in this group of amendments stems from the fact that the business was founded by my grandfather, a Londoner returning from World War I, on a Crown colony—a 10-acre smallholding in Holbeach Marsh. We now own and farm 200 times this acreage and, I hope, provide evidence of the important steps on the ladder and the key provision of smallholdings.
This Bill does not pretend to be a wholesale review of the law relating to land ownership and tenancy but, as my noble friend the Minister has said, it makes some pragmatic and uncontroversial changes with which I believe the House will agree. In the meantime, the principle purpose of the Bill and the reason why we need it in good time, is the payment of financial assistance following Brexit through the environmental land management scheme. The thrust of the Bill is the building of a progressive and productive agriculture and horticulture system fit for the post-Covid 19 age. It also seeks to provide the nation with a countryside that is naturally and environmentally sensitive—objectives that are not incompatible or contradictory.
However, there will be changes, and we need to encourage the occupation of land by farmers and growers who can implement them. Making a success of ELM depends very much on the details of the scheme and the uptake by the industry—making sure that the scheme’s incentives work is wrapped up in the ownership and occupation of the land. Can my noble friend say what discussions there have been with interested parties on this matter and what the timetable is for any conclusion?
Perhaps I can be forgiven for also asking about cropping licences, which are very important in areas such as mine. Crop specialisation is part of a local scene and provides much of the impulse of industry locally. Not only do the licences make sense, they provide steps on the ladder for the farmers of tomorrow and enable established companies to work with neighbours for effective rotation. It is not a tenancy but a short-term licence. At the moment, by agreement, the financial assistance is paid to the long-term occupier of the land. This is as it should be. Can my noble friend assure me that the intention under the Bill is that this will continue?
Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]
My Lords, when I first saw the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I was very supportive of the concept of providing a bottom rung for aspiring farmers. After all, who would not want to help young men and women into one of the most noble of professions? Then, I started thinking about it and gradually became more sceptical about its premise and, worried about my scepticism—which is not a normal frame of mind for me—I spoke to various members of the farming community from around the country, including the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I am afraid to say that even after these conversations—or mostly because of them—and in spite of the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, my scepticism was not entirely removed.
In my experience, and that of others, the smallholder estates have lost their way from their original successful purposes. Their heyday, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, just mentioned, was after the First World War when they grew enormously and provided rural sanctuary and livelihoods for soldiers returning from the front. In Somerset, where I used to live, a whole estate near us was given to the nation for this purpose. Since then the farms have continued to provide sanctuary and livelihoods for many aspiring farmers.
More recently, over the past 30 years or so, I have been conscious that the occupants of these farms have been getting older and older. They can almost be described as being trapped on their smallholdings. The old form of tenancy that lasts for ever has resulted in these once-young families turning into grandparents on holdings that are now too small to provide a decent living. Some have survived because the children have been enterprising and converted buildings into workshops, farm shops and even playschools; but most survive by family members going out and getting wages in the wider rural economy, so that the family and the old man who is the tenant can survive on the land. Rarely these days is the tenant a young, aspiring farmer on the first rung of the farming ladder. One of the problems, as other noble Lords have mentioned, is that the next rung on the ladder is almost impossible to find or afford, so the old tenants have simply remained on that bottom rung.
You have to ask yourself, if you were a county council with farming assets of some £40 million, £50 million or more, would you use them just to keep 20 or 30 farmers on the land, often for the rest of their lives, or would you sell that land and invest the money to help a far greater number of your wider constituents? That would be a very unimaginative approach.
I turn to Amendment 159, from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. Why not use these estates as a model example of what can be done with land and landed assets to make them really work for the people of your county? As his amendment hints, why not create small businesses on them? Create affordable housing or sheltered accommodation. Create allotments. Create environmental havens and biodiversity in a way that the locals can see and appreciate. Create innovative products using food, timber or textiles. Hold competitions for suggestions for new ways to use the land. Yes, also have some farm tenancies—strictly time-limited to, say, 10 to 12 years—that provide that essential bottom rung of the farming ladder for young families.
Having, as noble Lords will see, overcome my scepticism—thank goodness—I am now certain that these county council estates should be kept and survive, but they need a new purpose in life, new blood and new ideas, with more imagination as to how they can truly serve their electorate. I am very supportive of Amendment 159 in the name of the noble Earl.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I take great pleasure in following the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and his words of wisdom. I apologise for the discourtesy of pulling out of the last group because of a meeting of the EU Committee, but I agree with my noble friend the Minister about the invaluable contribution of rural communities and the vital importance of the various strands of work to accelerate digital connectivity on farms and in rural areas.
I wish briefly to express my concern with Amendments 223 and 237 to 246 on landlord-tenant issues. Some are more worrying than others. We need to be clear about how the landlords’ and tenants’ interests will be handled under ELMS and other schemes, but we need to be very careful. Those of us old enough to remember the introduction of hereditary tenancies by the Labour Government in the 1970s—without consultation, I may add—remember the devastating effect on the supply of tenanted land. The apparent attempt in Amendments 243 and 244 to widen this principle to less-close relatives is misguided. It is like trying to keep rents low by fixing them, then being surprised when the supply of housing dries up. I find it amazing that these amendments try to extend the hereditary principle in new areas. I thought the trend was to reduce it in modern Britain. In any case, the associated interference in the laws of property would be unjustified.
Moreover, I am highly dubious about trying to cover the detail in this already gargantuan Bill. Tenancy reform beyond the proposals already in the Bill should be the subject of separate legislation and preferably of parliamentary scrutiny in draft.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am listening in to a fascinating discussion and points in relation to tenant farms and smallholdings. I certainly found the arguments and proposals by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, very convincing.
Amendment 222 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, falls exactly within the scope of the intent and purpose of this legislation. It fits in with government changes in relation to the planning regime that attempt to kick-start building and the economy across the country.
Ever since the unwise proposals and legislation of the community infrastructure levy pushed through by George Osborne, it has been bedevilled conceptually by being flawed in its very attempts to put money into local authority infrastructure and has repeatedly led to people withdrawing from potential small-scale developments. In essence, the CIL has shifted the market even more towards the large housebuilder and the large developer. It has had a particularly devastating effect on small businesses and the householder who wishes to do something with either a small business or a small piece of land.
When it comes to agriculture, I echo concerns previously raised that conversion of farm buildings is absurdly hit by CIL money-raking by local authorities. When I first exposed it, in challenging George Osborne in the House of Commons—I got some changes over a period of two years—we had local authorities seeking extraordinary amounts from single properties. The maximum I could evidence was £178,000 in taxation to be paid in advance for a single property development. Even with that lowered to more manageable amounts and a requirement for an affordability test, the CIL prevents the microentrepreneur—the person who wishes to move with small amounts of finance—progressing. The demands by local authorities for the CIL to be paid up front is particularly pernicious. The level of the CIL is particularly anti-entrepreneurial.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
Lord Carrington
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner as set out in the register. I support the proposal in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, to remove Clause 34 and Schedule 3 covering agricultural tenancy provisions. I agree wholeheartedly with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
As drafted, the clause is neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring, in that—despite the important work of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group—the prospective legislative reform is not balanced and reflective of both parties’ interests, and runs the risk of damaging relationships and increasing anxiety and uncertainty. Although I welcome some of the proposals of Schedule 3—such as the removal of the minimum retirement age of 65 from AHA tenants, the widening of the pool of arbitrators and the paragraph to protect both tenant and landlord in new investment—others are more contentious.
In particular, I welcome the introduction of a strengthened condition of suitability for those succeeding to a tenancy, but the detail has not been agreed by the industry and should not be left unclear. Until the regulations are drafted, landowners cannot be certain whether the “improvement” suggested will diminish the effect of the loss of the commercial unit test. Neither is it clear how landowners’ interests are protected in the assessment of reasonableness.
The NFU has welcomed the reforms but also urges that other reforms under discussion at TRIG, such as landlords’ consent on variation of terms under the tenancy Act, are taken forward. Please could the Minister consider separate legislation on tenancy reform, rather than rushing it through as part of the Agriculture Bill? The issues are different, and it is clear from this Bill that what is proposed is only a first step and lacks detail. TRIG has been united on supporting landlord-tenant relationships, and this should be built on.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, this large group of amendments—and, indeed, large group of speakers—concentrates on new entrants into farming. I have added my name to Amendments 237 and 245. My noble friend Lady Northover has added her name to Amendments 241 and 244 but, due to unforeseen circumstances, is not able to be present this evening.
At Second Reading, many of your Lordships spoke in favour of ensuring that the passage of new entrants is facilitated. The move from direct payments under the CAP to ELMS is likely to see some of our more seasoned farmers deciding to leave the land to retire or to move on to other, less strenuous occupations. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and others have spoken against the community infrastructure levy being applied to new farm buildings, and I support her amendment.
It will be vital to encourage younger, more energetic men and women to enter the profession. Some will be the sons and daughters of existing farmers and able to take on the family farms. Others will be graduates from agricultural colleges who have always had an interest in the land and farming. All will need help, support and encouragement. The supply of those not inheriting farms will be an essential element of success. Without land, you cannot farm.
Given the very short timeframes of the average farm tenancy, as relayed to us by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, do the Government see larger landowners making some of their land available for new entrants?
Many county councils have been forced to sell some of their farms to raise money for other capital projects, and local authority funding is, as ever, problematic. I know from my own county experience that these farms come in a variety of sizes, from very small starter farms to large move-on holdings, but they are rarely very large holdings. For some, the starter units give a flavour of what is involved, but they are not always large enough for them to make a living. The role of the county farm estate is to give a helping hand to those starting out. Some tenants will stay until they need to retire; others will wish to move on to larger farms in other areas. Whatever their wish, the Bill needs to facilitate this.
On Thursday, we heard of the valuable contribution that prosperous landowners with huge holdings are making to the debates in this House. However, I believe that it is the smaller farmers—especially those on the edge, such as hill farmers and those on less productive soil—who need our special consideration. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that a three-year tenancy is completely inadequate. Farming is a long-term business, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, made a powerful case for tenancies to be set at 10 years to allow a continuity of supply of starter farms.
Tenant farmers are potentially at the mercy of landlords. It is therefore important for them to be able to access funds and not to be dependent on what the landlord says. For example, there are cases where a landlord hopes to get planning permission and does not want the commitment of a grant attached to the land, especially if it lasts for a particular length of time. Sadly, on some occasions, although not all, they would rather their tenant went under than have a constraint preventing them obtaining planning permission. I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on this amendment. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, believes that the conversion of redundant farm buildings to homes is good, but we must be sure that the buildings are indeed redundant and that the farmer is not looking to make more money by converting them into dwellings.
It is important that tenants are protected from a landlord’s refusal to consent to enter into financial assistance schemes. It is for the tenant farmer to decide what he or she wishes for their farm. Can the Minister confirm that landlords will be prevented from blocking their tenants’ aspirations? The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, gave an example of the farming ladder. The ELM schemes need to work. Cropping licences are an important part of the local economy. This is a short-term licence, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The terms of inheriting farms are very different from those of other enterprises. Children grow up on farms and it is in their blood. They have developed skills throughout the years. They might not be the sons or daughters of the farmer; they might be the nephews, nieces or grandchildren. Should the farmer die suddenly, as has been the case with three of the farms in the village where I live, members will want to take over the farmer’s tenancy. I note the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to this amendment. Often landlords will be keen for this to happen, with continuity being provided. Immediate family might not be in a position to take on the tenancy, and nor might they wish to do so, but other family members of tenant farmers might absolutely want to carry on the farming tradition, having already invested a large part of their lives in the tenant farm. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, spoke of the selling off of hill farms to those living away from the land, with it not being farmed in the way intended but often being used as pony paddocks.
As has been said, the average age of a farmer is now over 60, and this is very concerning. We have to make sure that young farmers are able to get started. Given that it is almost impossible for someone without independent means to buy land or to borrow enough from a bank, as predicted profits are so limited, unpredictable and long-term, a tenancy is the only way to provide for young farmers. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, gave a very powerful example of how elderly farmers are trapped on county farms that are no longer capable of providing a living. Diversification and new ideas are important so that these farms can be taken forward. Therefore, the amendment on widening the inheritance of tenancies seems very important. Can the Minister give an assurance that members of a farmer’s extended family will be able to inherit the farm? This is an important aspect of the Bill and I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance on these issues.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 158 and am very pleased to support it. My noble friend Lord Whitty and others have made an important case for restricting the disposal of county farms and, instead, for making good use of the smallholdings to bring new entrants into the sector, using the assets as exemplars of good environmental practice and providing greater public access. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that this is not about preserving the status quo; it is about providing a renaissance for the sector and the land that it covers. We would like to see these smaller farms have a direct link with their local communities, providing local fresh fruit and vegetables, as well as meat and dairy produce. This should be what “public money for public goods” is all about.
In the past, smaller farms of less than five hectares have been excluded from receiving direct payments, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that these thresholds will now be scrapped and that what will matter is what the farmer does with the land, rather than the size of it. We also hope that local authorities will be persuaded, through the process of a review, to see the potential of their county farms in the longer term and the potential that they can bring to their communities, rather than being a source of short-term cash on disposal.
I also have a great deal of sympathy with the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone about the applications of the community infrastructure levy. I agree that it is in danger of inhibiting innovation and the encouragement of a range of activities in the sector.
I listened to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, talk about creating smallholdings and work spaces. I agree with a number of noble Lords who have been excited about that prospect. I can see the potential, but I also think that it would depend very much on where the land and activities were sited. I have a feeling that the noble Earl mentioned that it might happen on the green belt, and I would certainly have concerns if he did say that. However, with good planning and good organisation, I can see that that could be a real asset among the range of options in the farming community.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has a series of amendments about tenancy reform. We agree that such reform is long overdue. A number of noble Lords have, rightly, made the point that short-term tenancies inhibit long-term investment in farm quality and development, and this is one of the many reforms that needs to be addressed.
We welcome the first steps made in Schedule 3, but clearly they do not go far enough. Having listened to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, it may well be that the scale of the reform that is needed is not well served by being set out in a schedule to the Bill. This is a matter to which we need to pay full attention. For example, we believe that there needs to be a greater rebalancing of the power between the landlord and the tenant.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. At its heart is our consideration about how we ensure that there is a vibrant farming sector in the future, with young people coming into a very important industry and way of life. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, about new skills.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for Amendment 158, which I will address alongside Amendment 159. For a successful long-term future, agriculture relies on attracting new talent and bringing new skills and innovation into the sector. For many years, local authority smallholding estates and council farms have provided opportunities for entrant farmers. While Amendment 158 is aimed at preventing further disposal of smallholdings and council farms by local authorities, such intervention may conflict with the Local Government Act, which gives local authorities the power to manage and dispose of their land according to local priorities and the principle of delivering best value.
Rather than adding regulatory burdens, the Government want to work collaboratively with local authorities, supporting them to retain and invest in the rejuvenation—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, may have used the word regeneration—and development of their smallholdings and council farms. As stated in Defra’s Farming for the Future: Policy and Progress Update, published in February, this Government intend to use the powers under Clause 1 to offer funding to councils, landowners and other organisations to invest in creating more opportunities for new entrants to access land, delivering the kinds of outcomes that my noble friend is seeking through Amendment 159.
Local authorities can take advantage of rural exception sites to help the delivery of affordable housing, and the revised National Planning Policy Framework includes new policies to support the building of homes in isolated locations where this supports farm businesses with succession. We will work with local authorities, community land organisations and other landowners as we develop this funding scheme, and further details will be set out in the Government’s multiannual financial assistance plan. Working collaboratively with local authorities in this way and supporting them to manage their estates to provide important fresh opportunities for new farmers will be more effective than adding regulatory burdens.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford may know—I am sure he does—that in April 2018 the Government amended a national permitted development right to support rural housing and agricultural productivity, meaning that up to five new homes can be created from existing agricultural buildings on a farm, rather than the previous maximum of three. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, regarding allotments, that these are matters for local authorities. The decision to increase local provision is taken at a local level.
On Amendment 222, the community infrastructure levy is a matter for local authorities and the MHCLG. It is an important tool to help them deliver the infrastructure needed to support development in their areas. In setting rates, local authorities must strike an appropriate balance between using CIL to fund the infrastructure required to support the development and the potential effects of imposing CIL on the economic viability of development across the area, including agricultural developments. Although it is a matter of education and therefore within another department’s remit, out of considerable interest I will take what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and see what further I can make of it.
On tenancies, in relation to the stand part debate and Amendment 223, measures in Clause 34 and Schedule 3 are designed to make pragmatic modifications to tenancy legislation. This package of reforms received broad support from respondents to our public consultations in England and Wales last year, and they deliver on many of the recommendations from the Tenancy Reform Industry Group. The provisions have been carefully drafted to balance the interests of tenants and owners. I agree that agricultural tenancy legislation is complex. Any further changes impacting on landlord and tenant property rights must be very carefully considered in a timely way and not rushed.
Some of the proposals that we consulted on last year are not included in Schedule 3 because they did not have broad support, or because responses showed that they needed more detailed development work before the proposed changes could work effectively, and alternative ways of achieving the policy aim should be explored. The UK and Welsh Governments are very willing to engage in further discussions about those proposals and to review the need for further tenancy reform with members of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, which includes representative of owners and tenants.
In Amendment 237 my noble friend Lady McIntosh is seeking assurance that the Government will make these regulations; I can give that assurance. The Government intend to start discussions with members of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group to develop the details of these regulations over the next few months, to ensure that the interests of tenants and owners are taken into account.
On Amendments 238 to 240, 245 and 246, many owners and tenants come to practical agreements on such issues without the need for dispute resolution. To encourage this approach further, the Tenancy Reform Industry Group is working on updated guidance to support tenants and owners in discussions about diversification and environmental schemes highlighting the benefits for both parties. This dispute provision has been carefully constructed, after consultation, to be used in limited circumstances, balancing the interests of both tenants and owners, so that market confidence in the benefits of agricultural tenancy agreements is not undermined. Broadening the provision to cover a much wider range of circumstances, such as for diversified activities, may result in lasting changes to land use and the value of the owner’s assets. As such, it is more appropriate that such requests are negotiated between the parties.
Regarding tiers 2 and 3, and landlord issues relating to public access, I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that we are currently finalising eligibility requirements for ELMS, including whether landlord consent or consultation would be required for tenants to join ELMS, including for tier 2 and tier 3 projects. As I said, our tests and trials are designed to include tenant farmers in the schemes. We are actively considering this as part of the codesign with all stakeholders, and I do not want to pre-empt the process but, as I have said, we are very clear that the tests and trials will include tenant farmers.
Responses to our public consultation show that there is not the same need for dispute provisions for farm business tenancies as there is for Agricultural Holdings Act tenancies. Agricultural Holdings Act agreements were negotiated sometimes 30 or 40 years ago in a very different policy and commercial environment, and often contain outdated restrictions that have not been reviewed for many years. Farm business tenancies are more modern commercial agreements negotiated more recently in the context of environmental schemes being available. They are reviewed more regularly, giving tenants the opportunity to renegotiate the contract’s terms if they deem it necessary, for example, to enable diversifications or to enter future financial assistance schemes.
Respondents to the consultation also noted that there is a risk that providing tenants with opportunities to challenge the terms of recently negotiated agreements could undermine owner confidence in letting land through farm business tenancies, reducing opportunities for tenants in future. Because I have no interest to declare in this matter, I will respond to the point that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made. In all our desire to ensure that there is a vibrant farming sector with both owners and tenants—as well as other sectors—all of which make a great contribution, we need to be mindful of getting the right system in place, one that does not have the consequences of many owners of properties with a small amount of land deciding that this tenancy route may not be for them.
We have sometimes conceptualised this discussion as being about large landowners and small tenants. Very often, the modern arrangements are for owners with a small acreage deciding they might have a farm business tenancy. It is unfortunate that we sometimes characterise these matters in this way. It is often about someone with a smallish acreage wanting a farm business tenancy with an incoming tenant.
I agree that there can be benefits from tenants and owners entering into longer-term tenancy agreements. The Government consulted widely on this last year. The feedback gathered indicates that introducing shorter notices to quit in certain circumstances is unlikely significantly to affect owners’ decisions about the length of tenancy to offer. Other factors, such as the size, quality and location of the land and personal motivations for owning land have a much greater influence on decisions about the length of the tenancy term to offer.
It is also important to recognise that, while there are benefits to longer-term tenancy agreements, shorter-term tenancies can be more suitable for different business models. For example, short-term lets can be more appropriate for new entrants looking to rent land on a flexible basis to gain experience. Short-term lets can also be more suitable for some seasonal horticulture businesses.
I turn to Amendments 243 and 244. The Government consulted on proposals to expand the list of relatives eligible to succeed a tenancy agreement. Concerns were raised that doing so could disproportionately affect owners’ rights to their property because the changes could extend a tenant’s occupation of the holding for many years beyond the timescale an owner has been expecting, particularly in the case of succession by the grandchildren of current tenants.
There are examples of owners being willing to negotiate solutions to family succession, such as offering long-term tenancy agreements to grandchildren of the tenant where they are the most suitable future tenant with the best knowledge and skills to continue the farm successfully. We believe that this is the sensible way forward. The Government will continue to engage in discussions with the Tenancy Reform Industry Group —which represents both tenants and owners—to encourage this process.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach referred to cropping licences—they are not tenancies and they are part of the farming scene now. ELMS will provide funding to those who are carrying out the management of the land or water to deliver the environmental public goods being funded.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, this has been a fantastically interesting debate and I very much support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and many others to do with county farms and the length of tenancies, especially what the Minister was just saying about the variety of agriculture.
However, there is a gap here: urban agriculture. When I ran the London Food Board, which I began in 2008, we started a scheme called Capital Growth to create community gardens in London. The plan was to create 2,012 by 2012, which we did and, in fact, today —I have just checked on the website, where you can type in your postcode to find your nearest garden—we have 2,553 community gardens covering about 250 acres of London and producing £288,000 worth of produce every year.
The thing about urban agriculture is that, for a kid growing up in an urban school on an estate in a poor area, the idea of ever being a farmer is as remote as me thinking I could go to the moon. It is not just that they would not be a farmer; there would be nobody who had a father who was a farmer. Therefore, the introduction of community gardening is vital, not only in educating people but in helping them take the first step on the way to becoming growers and custodians of the land and setting up small businesses. Because I visited so many, I know that many supply restaurants and supermarkets. There are wonderful places where they grow hops and make their own beer, which becomes an industry. Even in these tiny spaces, you can do this.
The social benefits are dramatic—the police, doctors and community leaders all favour this—but it is also extremely cheap, and it means that people get an education about growing. I have listened to almost all of this debate and, all the way through, we have talked about agriculture as though it can happen only in the country. That is not so; it is a fact that it can happen in cities. You see it towns such as Incredible Edible Todmorden, and in schools. I have a proposal in with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who is very enthusiastic. I would very much like the Minister’s support for us to take this project countrywide. It is good for your health, it teaches you to grow food and it is fantastic for the environment.
I will share one small detail. There are hives all over London. At one point, we had more hives than we could supply with flowers, but then we balanced that up. A study was done in Paris about the honey that is produced there—96 different flowers went into the taste of that honey. We held annual honey competitions, and we had honey that went from almost clear, or almost white, through to something that looked like treacle. You could tell the honey that had come from the lime trees in particular parks. It gave people an enormous sense of belonging, and put people on the first step to agriculture. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb said that councils should have allotments. We realised a year and a half in that an allotment was an impossibility because, when you get an allotment, you are saying that the land must be there in perpetuity. We had “meanwhile leases”, which means they can be taken back; that would be a great way forward.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I believe that the noble Baroness made a speech rather than asking a question but I have noted it all. I approve of gardening, community gardening and the production of food.
Lord Whitty [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lady Jones, and others, who supported the general approach of Amendment 158. I thought that I would fall out with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, but I essentially agree with him that, if we are to have a revival of county farms, we will have to redefine the mission. What is clear from all speakers is that, in this brave new world of post-CAP agricultural policy, we will need people to come into farming who have not traditionally been there and who are unlikely to be able to buy their way into it. We need their talents, their skills, their entrepreneurship, their enthusiasm and their recognition that the provision of public goods, which this Bill is all about, is an important part of farming. Regrettably, when it comes to county farms, neither the structure of ownership of agricultural land in this country, nor, in some respects, the provisions of tenancy law, nor the withdrawal of the local state from this area—none of these things—are particularly conducive to bringing new talent, new blood and new ideas into farming; we need to make a new start.
My amendment is quite limited. It asks the counties involved to review their estates, not to sell any for the moment, and then to define a new strategy along with Defra and the farming organisations. That is an important part of the rejuvenation of agriculture. It must be recognised that this Bill should be paralleled with a means of more people coming in with new skills and new backgrounds. I understand the issue of urban agriculture and community gardens and so on as one potential way in, but the traditional way in through county farms is rapidly disappearing. We need to continue to make positive use of what is there, and to ask the counties, effectively, to look at the situation again and do so in this new strategic sense.
The schemes coming through ELMs and through the other provisions of this Bill will need the next generation to seize the opportunities that they present. That means that we need new ways in. I hope that county farms will be a significant provider of those ways in. I will not press my amendment for the moment, but I hope that the Minister will recognise that even the present level of county farms may well deserve some special recognition within this Bill in respect of government support for the public good. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 159A. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 159A
Lord Greaves
“Support in relation to common land, etc
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the circumstances in which financial support is given in relation to registered common land, other land subject to rights of common, and land subject to shared grazing right.(2) In this section, “financial support” means—(a) financial assistance under section 1,(b) relevant payments under Chapter 2, or(c) other financial support under this Chapter.(3) Regulations under this section may include—(a) the circumstances in which financial support may be allocated among two or more persons having an interest in such land;(b) the method and terms on which any financial support may be allocated amongst those persons;(c) the conditions that may be attached to such financial support.(4) In this section, “registered common land” means land registered as common land in a register of common land kept under Part 1 of the Commons Act 2006 or the Commons Registration Act 1965.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.”
Lord Greaves
Amendment 159A, which I rise to move, covers a very specific and important question: the treatment of commons, and their commoners and owners, under the new system of agricultural support. I hope that by getting a full and clear response at this stage I will not have to bring the matter back at Report. This amendment has been put together with the assistance of the Foundation for Common Land and the Open Spaces Society. I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the latter group, and I thank both for their help. A number of noble Lords are knowledgeable about commons, and indeed several survivors of our discussions on the Commons Act back in 2006 are in the House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for adding his name to this amendment, and to the Public Bill Office for its help with phrasing it.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, apologises for not being able to take part in this debate: he has been called to the hills, the lucky man. He has asked me to make the point that where there is common land, which is so prevalent in the uplands, in the event of ELMS the arrangement will have to be multilateral, not bilateral. Hence, every commoner will have to agree, and there is always a difficult so-and-so who could veto the arrangement. There is a need, therefore, for a mechanism to prevent a generally agreed plan being vetoed in this way. This echoes an earlier debate about the resolution of disputes under the new system of environmental and agricultural support.
Clause 2 makes no specific provision for how financial assistance is given in relation to registered common land. The amendment therefore confers powers on the Secretary of State to make regulations to specify or vary the scheme in relation to common land and any lands subject to shared grazing rights, in order to make allowance for the special circumstances inherent in managing common land.
What, in any case, is common land? On one level, it is land registered as common land in a registry kept under Part 1 of the Commons Act 2006 or the Commons Registration Act 1965. In real world terms, it is land owned by one person but subject to the rights of other people—the commoners—to take some product of the land. These rights of commons nowadays typically relate to the grazing of animals, but may also include the right to take wood, peat, bracken, furs or fish. I remember that in our discussions on the commons Bill 14 years ago, noble Lords enjoyed learning words such as estovers, turbary, piscary and, indeed, pannage. Commons are a survival from the medieval period—land that escaped enclosure. They are, however, of huge present-day importance in historical, biological, cultural, landscape and recreational terms.
In England, common land occupies no more than about 3% of the total land area, but it is key to the viability of many upland farms, comprising 37% of all land above the moorland line and over one-fifth of the area of SSSIs in England. Common land delivers many public benefits. Compared with enclosed land it is seven times more likely to be designated for nature and four times more likely to have a scheduled ancient monument on it.
Lord Addington
My Lords, I must apologise for missing the first couple of moments of my noble friend’s speech. That is what comes when you have your back to the Chamber due to social distancing while you have supper, but I apologise.
I add that the land which has the commons is not exclusively in the north or the uplands. I have a little, vaguely second-hand interest, as I usually catch a train from Hungerford in the mornings and get off one there in the evenings. Hungerford has a very picturesque common; it has lots of dog walkers and cattle on it. It goes back a long way and is one of the surviving things from the Inclosure Acts. The Thames Valley has other areas of common land as well. Small agricultural units or smallholdings are usually allowed on them because there is some land you can get to. Sometimes you have tenancies going on them as well, but they change. It is a complicated system down there, from what I have been able to establish with a little research.
These commons are an historic part of our landscape. They allow for different types of activity. We had a long debate about smallholdings and entrants there but the commons allow certain types of entrants into the agriculture system at a lower level, which would not otherwise be allowed. It would be interesting to hear whether the Government have taken on board how these small but interesting and historic parts of our agricultural system are to be accommodated under this new system.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for bringing this amendment forward. I am sorry that I did not have an opportunity to sign it; I hope that he will forgive me for that. They say that when two Scots meet, they form a committee, so I do not know what happens when a Lancastrian and a Yorkshireman meet.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I will let you off, then. What is interesting about our debate so far is how little understanding there is of what constitutes common land and what activities are undertaken on it. My experience of the different activities undertaken on common land in North Yorkshire was not an entirely happy one. My noble friend Lord Inglewood absolutely hit the nail on the head in his advice to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the approach to it should be multilateral, not bilateral.
I support Amendment 159A and thank the noble Lord for moving it—with the support of my noble friend Lord Inglewood and the noble Lord, Lord Addington—because I am particularly concerned about how the new schemes under ELM will take place where there is a dispute, which there inevitably will be. In summing up, can the Minister say what the dispute resolution mechanism will be? Is it not better to have a blanket one that covers all common land rather than leaving it to the parties of each individual agreement to agree it?
I grew up near to the most successful grouse shooting moors in England, on the upper parts of Teesdale. Grouse shooting was a small activity and did not create a lot of income; now, it has almost overtaken the income from the land. There is great concern that shooting and this obsession with tick control for sheep, as I discovered with one particular agreement, will negate many of the schemes that we hope will benefit under the ELM.
With those two questions, I hope that we will hear some encouraging words from the Minister on the use of common land and ELMS.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves spoke to his amendment on providing support for common land, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. During the 20 years when I was a county councillor, two of the parishes in my ward had common land. It was jealously guarded and protected from incursions of all forms. Sheep were often grazed on the common, but fencing to ensure that the sheep did not wander was frowned on by some villagers. As for parking on the common, this was a very serious misdemeanour. Some people have an idyllic picture of what common land looks like. In my experience, it is not a flat area around the local duck pond, with weeping willows dipping their branches in the water. As my noble friend said, it is often on sloping and unpromising land. Nevertheless, it is an important element of rural life in parts of England. It is important that it is preserved. I look forward to the Minister’s response on just how he sees it fitting into the Bill and whether it will qualify for financial assistance under the ELM scheme.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I will also speak briefly. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for raising this issue. I had not considered it before so I am grateful to him for drawing our attention to it. I agree that we need provisions in force in the special circumstances of the use of common land; he made a very good case for the need for a multilateral approach to it. On that basis, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves for his amendment. He is absolutely right: our commons frequently provide some of the richest opportunities for the provision of environmental public goods and they are an important part of our cultural landscape. The Government are designing future financial assistance schemes to be accessible to as many farmers and land managers as possible. This includes tenant farmers and those who work on common land.
As part of the planned three-year pilot for ELM, the Government will be ensuring that it tests how best to enable commoners to participate and to provide those environmental benefits. To support the development of ELM, we are undertaking a number of tests and trials, working with farmers and land managers to co-design the new schemes. They will help us understand how the scheme could work in a real-life environment. Two of our tests and trials, on Dartmoor and in Cumbria, are looking at issues concerning common land.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves was correct to identify the particular difficulties that can arise when administering payment schemes on common land. The general powers given by the Bill in Clause 1(1) and (2) will enable us to develop agreement terms which work for common land. I can add a bit more detail. The Federation of Cumbria Commoners, and partners, aims to develop and trial a delivery model for creating common-specific land management plans. These plans will support the pastoral economy and maintain the balance of the delicate ecosystems found on commons. The delivery model will encompass a commons toolkit, including baseline data gathering, producing maps, health checks for agreeing and enabling public good delivery, developing commons management plans and commons-proof recommendations for ELM.
If I can add any more detail to that brief answer, I will write to the noble Lord and put a copy in the Library. With that, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful reply. I look forward to getting as much extra detail as possible, particularly from the two trials that are taking place. I remind the Minister that, because of the sort of places they are, commons are all inherently different. What might be right for the large, upland commons in the Lake District, which cover most of the fells in many valleys, may not be right for what looks like just a field on the edge of a village. I look forward to hearing from the Minister again and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committee
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 160. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate. I should inform the Committee that if Amendment 160 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 161 or 162.
Clause 17: Duty to report to Parliament on UK food security
Amendment 160
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay the first report on UK food security within 12 months of the Act being passed and publish further reports every three years thereafter.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, there are two amendments in this group in my name, Amendments 160 and 173. Amendment 160 chimes with the amendments of several other noble Lords in calling for the food security report to Parliament, set out in the Bill, to be published within 12 months and every three years thereafter. We welcome the fact that the need for such a report has been acknowledged by the Government, but we want it to be more urgent and ambitious.
There was an excellent debate on this issue in May, initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which highlighted the challenges within our food supply, and food security, all too clearly. The Covid-19 pandemic has brought the shortcomings in our current system even more to the fore. While most farmers, food manufacturers and retailers responded magnificently to the challenge of feeding the nation in a lockdown, the incidence of empty shelves, combined with the economic impact, resulting in many being unable to feed their families, was all too stark. The recent report from the Food Foundation evidenced nearly 5 million people experiencing food insecurity, including 2 million children being forced to skip meals.
The crisis identified the personal and economic hardship of food insecurity, but it also highlighted the fundamental problems with our national supply chain. The UK is currently only 53% self-sufficient in food and drink, and the figure is dropping year on year. Nearly half our food is imported, mainly from the EU. During the pandemic, we were forced to rely on fruit and vegetable trucks continuing to make the journey across Europe. Those UK farmers producing fresh fruit and vegetables faced a crisis of seasonal workers, and it is still not clear whether sufficient UK workers have been recruited and retained to harvest our local produce, or whether some of the crops will have to be left to rot in the fields.
We believe there is an urgent need to drive up the percentage of locally grown food in the UK. We believe we should take steps to make that supply more resilient and reliable, particularly as we face the consequences of leaving the EU. This will not happen without a government strategy driving the policy forward. That is why our amendment would bring the date of publication forward, so that more ambitious change can occur and be reviewed on a timely basis.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 161 in my name. It is supported, I understand, by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, to whom I am very grateful. This is a simpler version of Amendment 160, with which I find myself largely in agreement—I might have put my name to that had there been any space. The amendment seeks, as does Amendment 160, to ensure that the report to Parliament on food security occurs every three years, not every five years. As with multiannual financial assistance plans, I think it is important to delink the cycle from the political cycle; however, whereas I thought multiannual financial assistance plans should take place every seven years, I think the opposite should apply to the food security reports, and they should be provided to Parliament at least every three years. As we have seen recently, food security circumstances change very fast, and doubtless they will change faster in the future.
At Second Reading, I quoted the words of Dieter Helm, who was obviously a prophet in the area of the ELMS, but may have got things wrong with respect to food security. He suggested that
“food security is largely an empty slogan of lobbyists … It should not be taken seriously.”
Coronavirus has clearly shown those words to be incorrect.
From January 2021 onwards, we will lose the relative support of the common market for food and will become subject to the vagaries of the global markets. Couple this with the impacts of global warming, droughts, floods and harvest failures, and the likelihood of food insecurity growing over the coming years will only increase. We should therefore not underestimate the importance of food security and the need to monitor it regularly.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 162 and 171. I am delighted to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and my noble friend Lord Caithness for their support.
I believe that it is essential to have a report on progress on food security more frequently—I would suggest every year. Amendment 162 therefore seeks to increase the frequency of publication by the Government of their proposed reports on food security. While I welcome the fact that the Government have indicated their willingness to produce an early report, a five-year interval between reports is much too long for such an important and sensitive issue. Every 10 years we have an issue of food security or animal health—pest, pestilence and, currently, pandemic. We had BSE; we had foot and mouth disease; and we had the horsegate scandal, which could have been much worse, rather than just a fraud.
The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has, if anything, highlighted even more the strains and stresses within the food supply system. There is no doubt that some of these issues will continue to be a problem for a long time to come. This is the first time in my living memory that we have experienced empty supermarket shelves and people having to queue to shop for food and having restricted choice within food retail outlets. The loss of the food service sector through the government lockdown measures was also a major shock that caused many consumers to consider issues around food security for perhaps the very first time.
We have become complacent over time about our ability, as a relatively rich nation, to secure our necessary food both domestically and internationally, but this could become a much more difficult proposition in the future. One of the most important objectives of a Government is to ensure that their people are well fed and it is therefore imperative that issues around food security are given much greater pre-eminence than envisaged by the Bill, which provides only for five-yearly reports.
Currently, the UK is only around 60% self-sufficient in food and we are reliant upon imports for our remaining food need. If anything, it has become apparent that more and more nations around the world are becoming increasingly nationalistic in terms of their trading policy. There is a risk that a tightening of supplies globally could cause issues for food supply. However, food supply is not just about quantity but quality. The issues of food security go the heart of ensuring that we are not offshoring our environmental and animal welfare problems by the food that we are importing into the UK. We want, surely, to promote, protect and enhance these high standards both at home and internationally and, therefore, our trading policies must reflect that. An annual report from government is a good basis on which to start and a good discipline to ensure that matters are kept in sharp focus.
Turning to Amendment 171, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for their support. Again, while I welcome the Government’s commitment to produce a regular report on food security, it is vital that this is a means through which the Government express their policy targets and mechanisms to address issues around food security.
Currently, the provisions in the Bill envisage a fairly static output that merely reports on the current food security situation. I would prefer to see a more dynamic report that seeks to set out an agenda for change, where change is required. There seems little point in the Government merely producing a report of which Parliament is required to take note rather than for it to be a platform for evaluation, repurposing and informing future actions. At the very least, it will be essential to ensure that food security targets are both met and monitored. Where the report indicates that there are issues with aspects of our food and environmental security, the Government must come forward with their plans and policy for addressing these shortcomings.
Amendment 171 will provide the necessary architecture for the Government to take this forward. It will be a failure if, having taken the time to consider the importance of having a food security report, the Government did not also ensure that this report was used to inform changes in policy and procedures. A statutory requirement for the Government to address these issues is surely the sensible thing to include in this Bill.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, 163 and 172, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for having put his name to them. Since this is the first time I have spoken in Committee on this Bill, I probably need to draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry on the register of interests. More significantly for my noble friend, he will be glad to hear that, though this is the first time I have spoken, it will also be the last time I am going to speak. Bearing in mind the stately progress that is being made, I shall not be holding up proceedings any further.
The amendments in this group discussed so far are about the frequency of reports. I have no particular dog in that fight, but I offer one word of caution, which is that if these reports are going to mean something, they need to be relatively infrequent. If they are too frequent, they lose their impact. I suggest to those who are seeking too frequent reports that these may pass by too easily and quickly. A report wants to be an event when it happens.
My amendments go to another part of this clause and try to give it some teeth. Clause 17, as drafted, could result in some pretty anodyne, platitudinous reports—general statements of principle without any detail. When we talk about food security, detail will be very important. My noble friend on the Front Bench will say, “Absolutely, I understand that, and I will ensure there is going to be detail, and the reports will have plenty of focus.” But we have been here before, and we have been here recently. A Green Future contained similarly impressive objectives and an impressive monitoring procedure. This was to be under the Natural Capital Committee chaired by Professor Dieter Helm, who was the subject of some adverse comments by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about five minutes ago. Professor Helm was to monitor performance under the green future proposals. The last annual report from Professor Helm’s committee, which was in September last year, read as follows:
“Unfortunately, the Progress Report does not in fact tell us very much about whether and to what extent there has been progress. On the contrary, the Progress Report provides a long list of actions, and presents very little evidence of improvements in the state of our natural capital.”
If we do not strengthen the wording in this clause, we will get a long list of actions and very little evidence of improvement. We need to build in some specific teeth.
The second weakness of the clause, as presently drafted, is that it could be a snapshot, whereas what we should be looking for is a continuous look—a cine film in the old-fashioned way—at the process of our food security. Perhaps I could explain further by analogy. When you go to your annual medical, the doctor looks at your heart and lungs, he sees whether your weight has gone up or down, and he tells you what the results are. That is, of course, very important. If you have a poorly performing heart, you want it treated quickly. But what is really important is how you compare with the previous year. Are you getting heavier? Are you getting lighter? Are you losing weight? Has a new mole emerged? Has your blood pressure gone up? All those sorts of things give you an idea, over a period of time, of how your health and physiology are changing. From that, the doctor can prescribe more exercise, less food, pills or whatever.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who spoke with such authority. I wish to speak to my Amendments 164, 167 and 170, to Amendment 160 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and to Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others. They seek to ensure that food security is properly recognised in the Bill, in a way that takes full and explicit account of the legitimate interests of all the devolved Administrations. I am grateful for the support of colleagues who have put their names to my amendments.
The tragedy of the Covid pandemic has demonstrated the links between access to nutritious food and public health. Conditions such as obesity and diabetes, which are linked to poor nutritional standards, have been associated with a higher risk of severe illness, hospitalisation and death from Covid-19.
The panic buying we saw in anticipation of lockdown reminded many of us of the importance of the sustainability, resilience and security of our food supply. However, for many people panic buying is not an option, as poverty means that a secure and nutritious food supply is an everyday challenge. A decade of austerity has widened the gap between the haves and the have-nots in our society, and the recent loss of earnings due to Covid-19 has added massively to the numbers struggling with food insecurity.
The pressures on food banks have increased, and it is estimated by the Food Foundation that over 8 million people, including 2 million children, in the UK have faced food insecurity of some kind during the pandemic. Recently, it took the intervention of Premier League footballer Marcus Rashford to elicit a response from this Government on the need to continue free school meal vouchers over the school holidays. However, as the Children’s Society pointed out, the Government should make the extension of free school meal vouchers over the holiday permanent, whether or not there is a pandemic. The Government need to take much more responsibility for ensuring that all UK citizens have access to adequate supplies of nutritious food.
In a nation where 50% of food is currently imported—30% from the European Union—the importance of protecting high standards of nutritional value, and of the security and quality of both our domestic production and the high-quality fresh produce we import from the EU, cannot be overestimated. The subsector is very dependent on imports, as only 16% of the fruit and 53% of the vegetables we consume are grown in the UK. In this situation, retailers will face potential shortages of supplies if trade barriers are introduced because of a hard Brexit.
Our reliance on fruit and vegetable trucks coming across from Europe reminds us of the importance of securing an extension to the Brexit transition period to allow time to recover from the impacts of the pandemic and for the negotiators to strike the right Brexit deal. However, on the contrary, the Government appear to be prioritising trade deals with countries far beyond Europe, such as the United States, with its inferior food production and unsafe animal welfare standards. If such trade deals are allowed, with no requirement to preserve the high standards that Britain and the European Union have maintained, they will undercut our farmers with poorer-quality cheap food.
For agriculture and the food industry, and for both imports and exports, the continuation of European Union trade, where we have a level playing field, is vital. We need to ensure that Brexit does not mean that supply lines of fresh food from the EU are interrupted because of tariff barriers, or that our farmers lose their important export markets in the EU. In the post-Covid world, to meet nutritional and environmental goals, we need to trade more, not less, with our nearest neighbours.
A legal guarantee of future food, animal welfare and environmental standards would safeguard all UK consumers from unhealthy and unsafe food, while also protecting British farmers at risk of being undercut by poor-quality imports. However, so far, the Government have failed to support calls for such amendments to the Bill. The Bill is an opportunity to protect all British consumers and farmers from food imports of dubious quality, and to maintain current nutritional, environmental and animal welfare standards for vital imports of fresh food.
Lord Northbrook
My Lords, I rise to support the general principle in this group of amendments of more regular reports on food security, although I am not sure whether they should be yearly or three-yearly.
I wish to speak to my Amendment 165 to Clause 17, concerning the
“Duty to report to Parliament on UK food security”.
My amendment fine-tunes the wording of subsection (2), stating that the data analysed in the report “must”—rather than the vague word “may”—include the matters covered in paragraphs (a) to (e). A number of amendments already tabled relate to reporting on food security. Given the period of uncertainty ahead for farmers as we leave the single market and customs union and strike up new trade deals, this reporting should be much more frequent than once every five years. Given the importance of a domestic food supply, it is paramount that the Government re-examine this aspect of the Bill through the lens of the coronavirus crisis. This amendment is an important addition, ensuring that all the matters listed in subsection (2) are included in that food security report when it is produced.
Baroness Boycott [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 166. In doing so, I thank its supporters, the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I also support everything just said by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I was lucky enough to sit on the House of Lords committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which found many cracks and flaws in the food system.
My amendment looks not just at food security, as I want to consider household food security. Sufficient food nationally does not mean that individual households can access it in sufficient quantity, let alone that it is sufficiently healthy food, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. Since April 2019, the Government have been measuring food insecurity as part of their Family Resources Survey. This data will be available early next year. The Food Standards Agency also collects data on household food insecurity, as part of the Food and You survey. Both surveys are internationally recognised and peer reviewed.
In essence, the Government are already doing this; they are collecting the data on which this amendment would have them report. So, this is not an onerous amendment—it is very simple and cost-neutral. The Government are already doing the work. My amendment simply asks that the information be regularly laid before Parliament. If we do not accept this amendment, the Government will be sending a clear message to the millions who struggle to access healthy food that their hunger and problems are not a priority.
We know that more that 2,000 food banks have become embedded in our welfare system. Even before the pandemic, millions in the UK were food insecure. Now, millions more have joined them. Covid-19 has seen food insecurity levels more than double. Refusing to report to Parliament on food insecurity at a household level lets that problem remain hidden. It is only by knowing the true scale of UK hunger that we can start to mitigate it. We should do this annually because unless you measure something, you cannot change it. In a country as rich as ours, no one should go to bed hungry. Accepting this amendment, which is cost-neutral and simple, would demonstrate that the Government are willing to treat the systemic and worsening problem of food insecurity—in a family, every night, in their kitchen—with the seriousness that it deserves.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to be speaking between the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, with whom I sat on the House of Lords committee that produced the report Hungry for Change, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and other noble Lords have been so complimentary.
I speak in support of my Amendment 169 in this group. I am grateful for the support of other noble Lords who have added their names to it. It addresses how, if we are to be food secure in this country, we need to ensure that the minimum amount of food is wasted—yet, in the list of data that will be provided in the food security report to inform policy thinking on our future resilience and food security, there is no mention of food waste.
There are currently significant levels of on-farm food waste in this country. In 2019, WRAP estimated that about 3.6 million tonnes of food is surplus, and waste occurs on farm every year. That is equivalent to about 7% of the total annual UK food harvest. There is huge potential to reduce the amount of surplus and waste by promoting best practice, with new insights being good for growers, businesses, the climate and feeding our people.
One of the priority areas in Clause 1 of the Government’s Environment Bill is resource efficiency and waste reduction. We need better synergy between the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Bill, and a way to achieve that is for us to see where the main problems with food waste are in the supply chain. To do that, we need the data to cover each part of the supply chain. My amendment would provide for that, so that we have a food security report that does the job that we need it to do.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 173, so excellently introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Many of my comments will echo hers.
As an aside, it is perhaps worth clearing up a point of definition. In the debate so far, we have heard the terms “food security” and “food insecurity” used in two distinct ways. First, we have heard “food security” as it applies to the nation as a whole: do we have a system that can guarantee a supply of food for the country as a whole? Secondly, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, we have heard “food insecurity” as it applies to the individual or household that cannot afford enough to eat.
The chief executive of one of the UK’s food companies told me a couple of years ago that when he asked at No. 10 what the Government’s food strategy was, he received a blank look. The question had simply not occurred to the people in No. 10. Fortunately, things have moved on since then with the establishment of Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy, of which we have already heard quite a lot. I have no doubt that the Dimbleby report, and its interim report due out in the next week or two, will be an excellent piece of work and will have much to say about the issues covered in this amendment,
I would also like to mention the recently published report Hungry for Change: Fixing the Failures in Food from the Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment, which I had the privilege of chairing. This report has already been referred to in this debate by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Parminter and Lady Boycott. The latter two sat on the committee with me. I would like to highlight just three points from our report.
First, as we have heard, food insecurity—that is, worrying about not having enough to eat—is a big problem in this country. We do not yet have official figures, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, we should soon have them. However, the UN has estimated that the number of people suffering food insecurity is at least 2.2 million. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, the Food Foundation estimates that more than 5 million people worry about not having enough to eat. This is shocking but not surprising, given that one in five people in Britain live in poverty, according to the Government’s own figures. Furthermore, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, Covid-19 is almost certainly making things worse.
Secondly, poor people tend to have less healthy diets, not through any fault of their own but because the way in which food is manufactured, marketed and priced conspires against healthy eating. Without the time, resources or emotional bandwidth, the least well-off people find it hardest to swim against the tide of cheap, accessible, tasty, heavily marketed and unhealthy junk food.
Thirdly, we know what kinds of measures would be effective in changing our food system for the better. We know that it will not happen by voluntary industry action or by public information campaigns. It will need a more interventionist approach from government on promotion, advertising, reformulation and perhaps taxation on less healthy food. The soft drinks industry levy shows how successful strong government intervention can be, but up till now the Government have been unwilling to do more. This inaction is inexcusable because it condemns the poorest, most disadvantaged children in Britain to a life of ill health followed by an early death.
We are all placing a lot of hope on the Dimbleby report, but there is a risk that it will make excellent recommendations only to gather dust in a corner, following the fate of many other earlier reports of the same kind. Our Select Committee report suggests how this might be prevented. The Government are already committed to publishing a White Paper on the food strategy, but the delivery of the strategy should, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, be monitored by an independent body, analogous to the Committee on Climate Change, reporting regularly to Parliament on progress.
Furthermore, the problem of food and poverty covers several different government departments. Therefore, there is a need for a high-level ministerial co-ordination group to ensure that actions are properly joined up across Government.
This amendment provides an opportunity for the Government to make a radical shift in their approach to food policy. Let us not waste the opportunity in the way that we waste a lot of our food.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the wise words that he has given us. I hope the Government will take heed of what he has to say and the need for action. I support and endorse everything that has been said about food poverty and the difficulty of finding affordable and nutritious food for many people on low incomes.
I will speak in support of Amendments 164 and 167, which I have signed, as well as Amendments 160, 170 and 171, and will take a slightly different approach. The first two amendments are aimed at securing co-ordination on food security across the UK. This is essential if we are not to risk disruption in the supply chain and unfair terms of access to affordable and nutritious food in all parts of the UK. Looking at the devolved regions, one can see that Scottish food exports are about £3.6 billion per annum to the rest of the UK and about £1.6 billion internationally. Northern Ireland exports £3.5 billion, of which £1.26 billion goes out of the UK, and Wales exports around £337 million, most of which goes to the EU. Therefore, agriculture is important to the economies of the devolved Administrations in terms of value and employment, proportionally more so than across England, although the north and the south-west of England also have significant agricultural sectors.
Of course, all parts of the UK are dependent on food imports. We are a long way short of self-sufficiency, as many people have reminded us. Therefore, it is not hard to see the potential tensions that could arise. In reality, the south of England is the main domestic market for the devolved Administrations’ food production. In normal times, this is a good example of our internal market, and I am very proud that we in Scotland produce extremely good-quality food that I think people in London and the south-east appreciate and are often prepared to pay a premium to receive.
However, if there was a crisis of supply that left home-grown food for domestic consumption in short supply in the devolved Administrations while maintaining supply in the south, this could cause problems. Alternatively—in reverse—if the south was kept short by diversion into local markets, the same problems would arise. By the same token, if there was disruption to imports of key food that led to the supplies being diverted to the larger markets at the expense of the periphery—meaning people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would face shortages or higher prices, or both—the same difficulties would arise.
Therefore, for something as critical as food, the market cannot be the sole recourse at times of crisis. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, has quite starkly pointed out that the market puts nutritious food beyond the reach of many people. Co-ordination among all the tiers of government is required to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of affordable and nutritious food. There is a problem now, but it could be considerably worse if we take the combined threats that we can see ahead.
The other amendments that I support are aimed at anticipating the possibility of potential shortages in good time so that appropriate UK-wide action can be taken. It is quite likely that, when we leave the EU on 31 December, we could face disruption to our food supplies; I have pointed this out before. There will be delays for inspection of foods, cost and additional bureaucracy, all of which could lead to a loss of supply and a diversion of supply away from the UK. I have made the point that it may not be due to a lack of willingness to supply the UK or any kind of boycott; it may just be that bureaucracy and cost make other markets more attractive and profitable, leaving us at a disadvantage. Indeed, if trucks or fresh food transport is sufficiently delayed, then food will perish or be damaged, and lose quality.
Even if we manage to avoid a spike that causes that to happen, readjustments will take place in UK and EU agriculture and food production to take account of Brexit arrangements that we do not yet know about. These other amendments, therefore, require the Government to set targets, anticipate adverse changes, take action and report—in the first place within 12 months, and then every three years.
In the post-pandemic, post-Brexit world, with looming climate change and other problems potentially disrupting harvests and yields, the UK cannot rely on the global marketplace and must have a domestic strategy. The Government have not been good at planning for crises or disasters. Accepting these amendments might show that they are willing to learn.
Lord Judd [V]
My Lords, this amendment has been very important in enabling a wider debate. As we have been hearing, food security is fundamental to the welfare of the nation, in terms of health, diet, fitness for work and the ability to live life fully, but it also has implications for what our agricultural production does that accelerates climate change. It relates also to all the other impacts of climate change on our agriculture—a terrific and complex range of impacts.
In view of this, it seems simple and clear that we cannot afford to have a laid-back approach to reporting and accountability. There needs to be vigour and frequent reporting, as far as is reasonable. The Bill is currently too relaxed and complacent, and the debate has emphasised the importance of the first amendment in this group, which demands more frequent reporting. From that standpoint I am very glad that my noble friend has moved this amendment and am only too pleased to support it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, particularly those to which I have added my name. This is probably one of the most important debates in Committee, because it deals with food security and insecurity, which is key to the development of a new agricultural policy in the UK, in the context of both Westminster and the various devolved regions. That is the opportunity afforded by the new dispensation in a post-Brexit relationship, notwithstanding the fact that I would have preferred to remain in the European Union.
In relation to the amendment, there is a need, as has been pointed out by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for a greater level and frequency of reporting, and I have added my name to Amendment 162, which deals with reporting on an annual basis: it should be mandatory and it should be in the Bill.
I have also signed Amendment 167, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, which addresses food insecurity. This really goes back to the issue of individual food insecurity, the issues around resources and the need to improve general health and well-being. That should also be explicit in the Bill.
Looking at the issues of food security and insecurity, there is a clear need for those food security targets to be met and monitored. If we are serious about underpinning food security, the legislation needs to be toughened and strengthened, as stated in Amendment 171. We therefore need a dynamic report, on an annual basis, with a food plan in place.
I was also a member of the Select Committee, under the very able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which produced the report entitled Hungry for Change: Fixing the Failures in Food. As outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the report dealt with issues to do with resources, and the nature of the current welfare system that prohibits people having proper access to the money to buy good-quality, nutritious foods. It dealt with: the lack of availability of nutritious food for certain groups of people; the impact of marketing; the impact of having to go to food banks on people who rely on benefits—raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott; and the need to deal with reformulation.
Another issue is trade deals. We have to ensure that we have better-quality food and that we are not forced to deal with food from other countries that is poorly produced in inhumane conditions, or food that may be infused with hormones or chlorine. Our report asked that the Government commit to detailed and routine monitoring of the levels of food insecurity. That data should be published transparently and be subject to scrutiny, to ensure that trends in food insecurity can be linked to wider socioeconomic reforms and can inform policy in other areas, such as public health and welfare, so that efforts to tackle food insecurity can be targeted effectively.
In summary, it is vital that the Minister is willing to accept these amendments, which strengthen the Bill. Our report has been mentioned in previous sessions. Has the Minister had time to peruse it? Does he have any initial thoughts, in advance of Mr Dimbleby’s report on the whole area of food? I support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 160, 162, 167, 171 and 173, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I am the fifth member of the Select Committee which, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, produced Hungry for Change, to speak on this group of amendments so far. I commend to the Minister the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which covered so many points.
This part of the Bill is headed “Food Security”. As the noble Lord said, there are two meanings of that. The first is the household food security so well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I support what she said; she is renowned for her expertise in this area. The second area of food security concerns food coming into this country. That was part of the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who quoted a figure on how self-sufficient we are. Again, there is a dichotomy here. There is our total self-sufficiency in food and the self-sufficiency in food produced by the UK for consumption or use in the UK. Instead of the rather low figure of about 60% for total food, we are 75% self-sufficient in homegrown food.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, it is a real privilege to take part in the debate on this group of amendments, which has produced some of the most interesting and outstanding speeches in the whole of this Committee stage; the Government may think that some of them were a little long but I think that people can be excused if they are really good.
I signed the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I must say, when I did so, I did not have a clue about what he was going to make of his amendment and what he was going to say. His speech is one of those that I want to go back to and read carefully tomorrow. It was quite outstanding and put some of the problems that we have been talking about in a wider geographical and longer-term context. I am pleased that I signed that amendment.
I am also pleased that I signed the amendment tabled by my long-standing friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, introduced the concept of food insecurity as opposed to food security. It is an absolute scandal, as I have already said in Committee, that we are arguably the fifth or sixth-richest country in the world—one of the richest countries ever in the world—and we have food banks. Something is seriously wrong. I remember that, when I was quite young, in the working class district I grew up in, it was well known that, in the households, the wife would go without food to feed the husband, who was the wage-earner. The vital thing was that that wage continued. Nowadays, even in the town I live in, Colne—near where I represent on the council—we know that young women are going without enough food in order to feed their children. This is 2020. This country has never been as rich as it is now, yet this is going on. Something is seriously wrong. I would say that something has to be done about it, but that is a cliché, I know.
I was very pleased to sign the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Parminter about food waste. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, had, I think, four apocalyptic subheadings in his speech, and one was shortage of food. The amount of food wasted in this country—in all the developed world—is absolutely shocking. It happens on the farm; in production, to some extent; in the supermarkets, which are getting a bit better but it still happens there; and in the hospitality industry. People are buying too much food and throwing appalling amounts away without even putting it on a plate, and people are putting too much on their plates and throwing half away. The amount of food wasted in households is a disgrace. I was a war baby and it is hard-wired inside my head that if the food is on the plate, you damn well eat it. Sending food back on a plate, even if I hate it and it is horrible, is something I find very difficult to do, because that was hard-wired into me in the first 10 years of my life. Nowadays, people do it all the time and do not think anything about it. We have to get back to the idea that you buy food, you cook food, you eat that food, and you do not eat too much—you cook the appropriate amount. This is very important. If we are talking about government propaganda exercises, which they seem to be heavily into at the moment, that is one that they might take on in a big way.
We have been told that we are leaving the European Union—the common market, the single market and the trade area—to have control over our own borders. Then we get this Bill, which is about providing farmers with sufficient income and providing sufficient food and food security and so on. The Bill gives the Government all these powers but, as the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Whitty, and many others keep saying, we do not know what the Government’s policy is for using these new powers that they will have. We do not know if, as far as trade is concerned, they will go for open borders and cheaper food. If that happens, how will they support the farmers? We do not know whether they will encourage more expensive and higher-quality food and keep the imports out. We have no idea. We know that some members of the Conservative Party are very pro-farmer and very worried, but we know that lots of others want us to be a buccaneering, free-trading country and want us to go back to the repeal of the Corn Laws and so on. Until we know the answers to those questions, we do not really know how this Agriculture Bill will pan out. It is very unsatisfactory that we are providing the Government with the framework, but it is in a vacuum.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
My Lords, I begin by referring to Amendment 168, which appears under my name on the Marshalled List, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her support for it. I have already referred to the many environmental and health advantages of plant-based foods, but this amendment refers specifically to the issue of food security.
I refer noble Lords to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2019 report, The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. It points out that nine species are responsible for two-thirds of the world’s crops, and 40 types of livestock produce nearly all the meat, milk and eggs. We suffer from a similar lack of diversity in the UK. A handful of crops dominate our land, as you see when you travel around the country. Not having crop diversity also means that you do not have the variety of insects and microbes—the suite of ecosystems that would accompany different crops. There is also the huge risk of one disease or bad season for a particular crop having a huge impact. But moving more into plant-based foods—perennial crops, tree crops, nuts and fruits—creates a more diverse and secure system, in terms of the first sort of food security identified by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. Moving towards plant-based foods gives you a more diverse and secure food supply.
I refer also to Amendment 169, which appears under the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and which I was pleased to sign. It refers to the issue of food waste, which many noble Lords have already referred to, and demands a report from the Government on food waste and surplus. It would be a crucial step forward that I hope the Government will be prepared to accept. We have a situation where many sides of the House and many parts of the country agree that food waste is a problem, but action has chiefly come from independent charities and community groups. FareShare, for example, rescues huge quantities—but still a tiny percentage—of the food from supermarkets that is largely going to waste, and reaches 11,000 charities and community groups around the country.
That brings me to the crucial way in which waste interrelates with food security in the second sense referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which is people being able to afford the food. A shocking figure from FareShare is that half of the people accessing its food have recently gone a day without food before being able to access that food that has been rescued. I will also mention the Real Junk Food Project, which started just up the road from me in Leeds and has spread to 120 projects in seven countries. We cannot keep relying on such groups to act on food waste; this needs to happen at a government level.
I also refer to Amendment 171 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, signed by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. There is a crucial point to be made about this: it says that the Government must have targets for food security. We have addressed, in many different contexts, the fact that the Government cannot just have powers; they need to have duties. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, said, this is possibly one of the most important areas of the Bill. This has to be a duty, not just a power to act.
This brings me to Amendment 162 on annual reports. I shall refer noble Lords to what is now an old report, from 2008, but still worth looking at: Nine Meals from Anarchy from the New Economics Foundation. Noble Lords may recall the fuel blockade, another occasion on which our shelves suddenly emptied. We have no idea when challenges, risks and sudden changes in the world situation will occur. Many noble Lords have talked about the climate emergency, but they could be natural, political or economic, and all of those things are risks that arise very quickly, so I think annual reports are the way to go.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 160 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendments 164 and 167 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. Along with farmers’ leaders in Wales and many noble Lords who have spoken today, I very much welcome the inclusion of Clause 17. The duty upon the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the UK’s food security is welcome. However, I share their concerns about the frequency of the reporting requirement and have questions about the purpose of the report. I am sure that when the Government initially drafted this clause, they did not dream of the situation we are now in and the challenges to our food security that we face in the short and the longer term.
The Covid-19 pandemic has thrown into sharp focus the fragility of our supply chains and their susceptibility to disruption, and we face the challenge of preparing for a possible second wave of the virus. The increasing inevitability of the negotiations around our future trading relationship with the EU coming to an abrupt halt without a favourable trade deal at the end of the transition period raises real concerns over the possible disruption of food supply chains at our borders. Also, the impact of climate change on global food availability will increasingly demand our attention. These three challenges and others could present the Government with problems. They need to demonstrate that they have responses to events such as these and can deal with them with confidence and agility, but I am afraid that on two counts, Clause 17 fails to allow for that.
As I highlighted at Second Reading, there is merely a requirement for the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament
“containing an analysis of statistical data”.
But what then? There is nothing in this clause to require the UK Government or the Welsh Government to publish a report and to act in response to its findings. We will have data, of course, but how will it be used?
The second weakness in this clause lies, of course, in the inadequacy of the reporting frequency, and I support those who have their names to Amendment 160 in their call for the first report to be prepared within 12 months of the Act passing, to be followed every three years thereafter by similar reports.
The Government’s intention to lay a report every five years appears to border on complacency, when we are still learning lessons from the present pandemic; we are still waiting for the Government to show how they will avoid chaos at our borders and the climate change crisis moves ever closer. But perhaps I am being unfair in accusing the Government of complacency. As I said earlier, this clause was written before the pandemic struck, and I am conscious that I speak with the benefit of hindsight, but I hope it illustrates the need for agility when emergencies arise, the need for up-to-date information to aid decision-making and—as the Prime Minister said at the weekend—the need to prepare for the worst. It would be interesting to hear the Minister outline the Government’s view of how they envisage the information the report would contain would be used to improve food security.
I turn briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain—Amendment 164, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 167. I support both of them. They highlight the need for co-operation and consultation between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations in the production of a food security report. The suggestion was made to the Senedd’s scrutiny committee that the Welsh Government should be
“included in the methodology planning for the report so that Welsh (and other Devolved Administrations) are able to extrapolate their own data to inform future policy making”.
I welcome the co-operative approach taken by the Minister and the Welsh Minister in securing the recognition of devolved competence throughout this Bill, and hope the noble Lord will assure me that the role and responsibility of the Welsh Government, in the production of a food security report, will be recognised as well.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, I will keep my remarks short. I have signed only two of the amendments in this group, 162 and 171. In fact, they all improve the Government’s reporting and planning provisions. A regular comprehensive food report setting out targets and action plans would help the country move towards a resilient, flourishing and sustainable food system.
Lord Addington
I am not sure I can be quite that brief, my Lords, but I will give it a go. I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about food waste. To deal with that first, identifying and removing waste is the easiest way to improve any supply chain. I hope that the Government give serious consideration to this.
I hope they also start to address the marketing chain. The just-in-time delivery system, which produces something that we are perceived to want at the right point, without any capacity for things going wrong, has been exposed for not taking many bumps to be put off course. The fuel crisis did it, as did a pandemic. As pandemics go, this is not as frightening as some that we have been threatened with before—the bird flu crisis and others. Covid-19 is a very unpleasant disease that kills people; it is not the Black Death. The scientists tell us that worse is out there. How good would any supply chain be when put under even greater pressure? Other noble Lords have talked about war and political decisions. A few natural disasters and a breakdown in the food chain is a good way to start a war or political crisis.
Can we have greater frequency of checking? Three years is about right. Can we also take a good long look at waste in the chain? If we can manage to identify the waste, we will suddenly have spare capacity and our supply will look a little more secure.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, with some memorable contributions, including that from my noble friend Lord Krebs.
I fully support Amendment 162, as moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and supported by other noble Lords, which says that food security reporting should take place every year. Clause 17 is an important inclusion, and I am delighted that the Government added it. I cannot understand why, once the data capture systems have been identified and established, an analysis cannot be carried out and published each year. It is hugely important to be able to identify trends quickly and to react accordingly. There is a fundamental risk in waiting five or even three years, as proposed in Amendments 160 and 161, in that a major global event or some macroeconomic activity could distort the analysis within a single year. A major weather event can result in crop failure and disproportionately impact on commodity markets.
I agree with almost all the impressive comments made in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and I support his Amendment 172 other than on the frequency of the analysis. I believe that an annual report would reduce the risk of distortion by a global event and clearly identify trends. That was highlighted by the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys. Harold Wilson said that a week is a long time in politics, and five years is a long time to wait to calculate the impact of climate change on global food production. As has been stated a number of times this evening, the proportion of home-produced food continues to decline—depending on which metric is used, it is around 60%. With a projected population increase in the UK to 70 million or more within the next decade, unless we actively encourage home-produced food, that proportion will decline even further.
I hesitate to contradict the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, but there are opportunities to increase food production. We already import a significant proportion of our fresh produce from water-scarce areas of the world, particularly Africa, where very often people do not have enough food to alleviate hunger within their own countries and communities. We not only have to find better ways to provide economic support for developing countries but should put in place strategic plans to wean ourselves off our dependence on fragile sources of imported food.
I agree with other Peers who have spoken in these debates that it is very unfortunate that we do not have the report from Henry Dimbleby to inform these debates—I hope we will have an indication of his recommendations later this month and before Report. We had an excellent debate last week on whether food security is a public good. It clearly is a public good, and I would be surprised if Henry Dimbleby does not endorse the importance of that fact. So the process of analysis must inform the response.
I therefore regard a five-year analysis of the data suggested in Clause 17 to be inadequate, and even a three year period, as proposed in Amendment 160 and 161. It is really important to inform both government policy and provide industry with information and data on which to develop strategic plans. We need annual reports. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—and that does not happen too frequently. I have listened to some truly informed and insightful comments during this discussion, even if the noble Lord almost came round to the idea, as I suggest, that some of them have been a little too long. Earlier in Committee, I said that I thought that interventions should be as brief as common sense and responsibility allow, so I intend to maintain that.
I would have liked to explore what we really mean by food security. It has a vague meaning and a lack of clear definition in many hands, and it seems to mean too many things to too many people. It needs more rigour if it is to be truly helpful in legislation. The term, like many of the amendments, I fear, suggests a scatter-gun approach, when good legislation requires rigour and precision. However, some of these points have already been made, not just in this group but in earlier ones. We dealt earlier today in the first group with the issues of appropriate timing, and the balance that sound government policy needs to find—that is balance, not rush.
I therefore feel that at this hour of the evening, after such an excellent discussion, I should heed my own advice and avoid any hint of repetition or self-indulgence and allow others to continue so that we can get this vital piece of legislation on to the statute book.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]
It is always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Dobbs, a Wiltshire neighbour; my maiden speech in this House was in a debate led by him.
I support the Government’s proposal, added in response to widespread concern in the countryside and the other place, for a report on food security, underlining the importance of UK food supply and farmers’ role in feeding the nation. Covid-19 has underlined the importance of this, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said. However, the supermarkets and the food supply chain did a great job. The empty shelves referred to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh reflected an initial lack of confidence by consumers, but they soon realised that this reflected a surge in demand, not a real shortage of supply.
Today there are a number of amendments trying to make the food security report more frequent—for example, once a year in Amendment 162—and to broaden its scope; for example, to bring in specific reference to household food security, which I disagree with, or waste in the supply chain, to which I am more sympathetic because of the personal interest I take in waste minimisation and recycling but with which I also disagree in this context. We should keep the review’s remit as simple and focused as possible so that it can be adapted to the needs and concerns of the day.
As a farmer’s daughter and a businesswoman involved in most aspects of the food supply chain in my time—I refer again to my interests in the register—I am strongly against a review more often than every five years. I cannot think of anything more likely to generate constant tinkering with the regulations that affect farmers and the countryside and continued uncertainty in a sector that faces huge change, economic difficulty and fragility —as we have heard during the passage of this Bill. By all means collect and publish data every year and have the first review in 2021 or 2022, but the major review proposed in Clause 17 should not take place more often than once every five years. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson said in a fine and wide-ranging speech, frequent reports would also lose their impact.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. No? We will move on. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on the amendments dealing with the timings of the first report and subsequent reports on food security to be laid by the Secretary of State. It is vital that there are regular reports. Otherwise, of course, there is no proof that the obligations for farmers and horticulturalists have been carried out and had the desired effect, but a report is as good only as the data it collects.
As my noble friend Lord Hodgson mentioned, it should be an event. This is particularly relevant when it comes to farming. A report must be able to observe long-term trends, which will enable future policy development to be of the best. Agriculture and horticulture are areas in which many of the trends are slow moving, with little noticeable year-on-year change.
A report in the first year would arguably be of little use, and it is worth noting that many data services on food security publish annually—for instance, on the resilience of the UK supply, and on food safety and consumer confidence. These are only two of a long list that report annually.
In conclusion, it is vital that, along with the existing annual reports, there is a report that has time to look at the long-term trends. No report is worth the paper it is written on unless there has been enough time for in-depth analysis.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I was most grateful to my noble friend Lord Northbrook for his kind words of thanks for my support for his amendment in an earlier group. However, I fear I must disappoint him this time with his Amendment 165.
I worry that the inclusion in the Bill of onerous food security obligations on the Secretary of State might be counterproductive, because it is not clear whether the Government favour food sourced from domestic production or are even-handed between imported and domestic food. To report in detail more often than once every five years would be unnecessary. I therefore oppose most of the amendments in this group, especially Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, Amendment 167 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and Amendments 168 and 173.
A requirement for food security targets, as envisaged by Amendment 171 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, might arouse suspicion among our trading partners just as we seek to strike comprehensive free trade agreements with several of them. I suggest that improved diet and increased diversity of foods, including those imported from overseas, has contributed greatly to food security and household food security in the years since the Second World War and has much reduced the percentage of the household budget that the less well-off spend on food.
Rather than national food plans and national food strategies, the Government should ensure that, in future, our food markets will be free of the distortions that exist today as a result of our membership of the common agricultural policy. Amendment 173 provides for public procurement to promote the purchase of domestically produced food, which many might think a laudable objective. However, as noble Lords are no doubt aware, campaigns to buy British are usually at arm’s length from government because they fall foul of WTO rules. This amendment could leave the Government exposed to challenge, as I am sure the Minister is well aware.
If we are to have regular reporting on food security every five years, as envisaged by the Bill, I have some sympathy with Amendment 169, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, which should assist in the reduction of food waste from the current unacceptable levels, and with part of Amendment 172 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, except for that part suggesting that the Government could control the amount of food imported compared with domestic production.
Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]
My Lords, I would like to speak briefly to Amendment 162 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I totally support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and I too congratulate the Government for introducing Clause 17 into the Bill.
The excellent thing about Clause 17 is its comprehensive approach. Looking at subsection (2), the relevant factors in these reports—as noted by others—would have to cover a wide range of areas. To name but a few, they would have to report on: our population, its distribution and its nutritional needs; changing tastes and markets; the success or otherwise of a food waste strategy; the percentage of our food that comes from our own diminishing farmland; and port facilities, logistics infrastructure and the cost of transport.
Externally, they would also have to report on: the world political map with regard to food production and consumption; world political stability, for all sorts of reasons, including transport; and now, of course, the world health outlook. There will be other matters to be examined, but that gives you a taste of the breadth of the subject.
As the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said, this will inevitably involve a small team of people at Defra permanently trawling for the relevant up-to-date information across this wide landscape, and this small team cannot just be convened every now and again. We have seen this year how quickly a situation can arise. The department needs to have its finger on the pulse, so if this team is permanently doing the work, and hopefully informing Ministers on a regular basis, why not have done with it and produce a report on an annual, or at the very least biennial, basis? Whether this report needs to be laid formally before Parliament is another matter. Personally, I would support an annual basis, as in Amendment 162.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
My Lords, I agree with Amendment 170, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, which calls for United Kingdom food security reports properly to reflect the necessary link between food provision, diet and the environment. Amendment 169, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and others, points out that such reports ought to assess not just food supply but how much of it is wasted—a point made by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. Clearly, these reports must also be closely connected to targets and actions, as additionally emphasised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and others. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, I am also in favour of her Amendment 62, which would require the Government to produce their report on food security annually, rather than every five years, as in the Bill.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the amendments in this group that propose that the required reporting cycle should be more frequent than at least every five years. A more frequent reporting cycle will give the Government and others a quicker and clearer understanding of the issues and emerging trends, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. At Second Reading, I also said that a more comprehensive understanding of the realities would be gained from reporting if it included reference to emissions, climate change impact and supply chain sustainability. I therefore welcome the spirit of Amendments 163 and 172, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Their exact detail may differ from what I was proposing, but they would broaden the scope and context of the reporting in a not dissimilar direction, as well as encouraging the Government to detail any proposed changes to policy.
Finally, while declaring my interests as a Scottish farmer, I note that certain amendments in the group, notably Amendment 164, seek to ensure liaison, co-ordination or collaboration with the devolved Administrations. This should be seen as an important objective, both in Clause 17 and elsewhere in the Bill.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to say a few brief words in support of what I think is the key amendment, Amendment 173. We need a national food plan. We heard very strategic speeches from my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and other members of his committee, but it has to be a national plan. I say to the Minister that something like this new clause will be in the Bill, and it would be better if it were done with the Government’s agreement.
We in the UK are going to be alone once the transition period has ended, and we need to build our alliances. We can never be self-sufficient: our geography and climate do not allow it, nor does the shape of our country. We will always be food importers. I am in favour, as I have said before, of using as much of our land as possible to grow our own food, and it may not always be land that is open to the sky. It is not a nanny state approach; it requires a national plan. It simply cannot be left to market forces. Market forces have left us with between 2 million and 5 million people without enough food to eat.
Before Covid-19, I think that the general estimate was that about 40% of household meals were eaten outside the home. All that might change, but that 40% is pretty crucial, because the portions are not controlled by those who eat; they are controlled by the food business. As I said in a previous debate—a week ago, I think—portion control science within the food industry is very precise. It is designed to be obesogenic and to make us eat more. Therefore, there is an issue here that has to be dealt with and it is covered in the proposed new clause.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who of course has more knowledge about the UK’s food situation than most of us can ever hope to have.
I come from a background of rearing livestock, which is at one end of the food chain. We have heard this evening from people who have concerns about food all down the chain as far as the question of waste food. It is good that we have had so many contributions from those who sat on the recent committee that produced the Hungry for Change report, and particularly good that we have heard from its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who speaks with great authority on these matters.
I add my support for Amendment 161, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Many of us would like to see the question of a review of food security addressed as soon as possible but, given the scale of the changes that have been wished on agricultural production, anything that is laid down at this point can only be very sketchy. I think that a duty to report every three years is a realistic target; rather as my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts said, it tends to have a bit more impact than a simple annual review.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Curry, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the Government on including a chapter on this subject in the Bill. For the past 40 years, our agricultural policy has been able to ignore this question, as from the start it has been the kernel of the common agricultural policy and that is what we have followed. Now we have to set our own parameters.
Many who have spoken have mentioned the many reports on this topic. I would like to mention where our food security stands at the moment, as calculated in an annual report, the Global Food Security Index, produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit. In 2019, it awarded the UK a ranking of 32nd in a study of 113 countries. Even so, that puts us at the tail end of most other European countries. Those leading the index are the Republic of Ireland and the United States. Perhaps we should heed that our rating was already dropping from the previous year.
The concern now for the industry is whether this new support mechanism will see us land up by trailing even further than that present estimate. If any review of food security is to have meaning at a practical level, it will also have to be broken down into categories of the main commodities. I ask my noble friend the Minister: will the Government give us some idea of where they intend to turn at the start of this process?
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been a fascinating and wide-ranging debate. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that this is probably the most important set of amendments to the Bill.
Certainly from the public’s point of view, whether it is national food security or household security, there is nothing more important to people than keeping food on the table. We have always left the provision of food to the private sector to manage and it has ensured a supply of food very well, even during the early days of the pandemic when things were challenging, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said. However, we are also all aware that its efficiency has come at a price —a price to the environment and to the viability of farms.
Household food insecurity is clearly a growing problem. For many of us it really is a stain on any claim to be a civilised country when a growing number of people are simply unable to eat. Many noble Lords have raised that point.
When the Minister summed up at Second Reading, he said:
“However, in our view food is a private good; it is bought and sold”.—[Official Report, 10/6/20; col. 1830.]
I am sure he has got the message clearly from the last couple of hours that many in your Lordships’ House would challenge that view, and clearly believe that the Government should have an overall food plan in the same way that they have strategies and plans for energy and transport, for example. As drafted, the clause nods in that direction but for many of us it does not go far enough. These amendments begin to move the Government in that direction.
I fear that what is proposed in the Bill is essentially an historic, backward-looking document. A five-yearly report has some uses but there is a real missed opportunity to do much more. More regular reporting would help to spot trends and potential problems sooner, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, pointed out, so whether the parliamentary scrutiny is on a three-year or an annual basis, as set out, there are merits in thinking about doing this more often.
The value of the good co-operation between central and devolved Administrations was a theme picked out by many noble Lords, and is of course very sensible. I was particularly struck by the strategic context put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, about the potential dislocations between the devolved Administrations and England.
The key amendments are Amendment 163 and Amendments 171 to 173. They would begin to turn this document into a genuine strategic plan, which can ensure for us a secure supply of affordable food that does not trash the planet. These points were made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
Amendment 169 raises the important question of food waste, which is a significant environmental issue as well as a social wrong and a financial burden. Food waste on farms is largely driven by supermarket contracts and, as I proposed in earlier amendments, it should be dealt with under the groceries code. My noble friend Lady Parminter was quite right to emphasise the importance of good data. The 2014 EU sub-committee inquiry into food waste, which I chaired, found unequivocally that organisations which start to measure food waste start to do something about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, made that point about hunger: if you measure it, you act on it.
Several amendments in this group all seek to turn this historic document into something of real value to the public, to farmers and growers, to the food production sector and to retailers. This would require thinking right across government, whether about the health of the nation, trade policy, migration levels or levels of benefits and the national living wage. I have a lot of sympathy with this idea of the need for an independent body on the lines of the Committee on Climate Change, and I hope we can consider that further on Report.
I would urge the Government to consider very carefully what has been said by noble Lords today. I am sure that the Minister has understood the strength of feeling on this issue expressed in the Committee, and I look forward to his reply.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for what in many respects has been a heartfelt debate. References to words like “important” set the tone in which your Lordships have spoken. I am very mindful of your Lordships’ recent report Hungry for Change. In that context, I understand all the sentiments that have been expressed.
In thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her amendment and for speaking to Amendments 161 and 162, I should say that it is this Government who have brought forward the food security provision. I am grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and others for at least saying that the Government have brought this forward. Having heard some of the commentary of noble Lords, I could wonder if that had ever been the case.
As I have previously stated, the food security report will be a significant body of work that will use a set of core measurements and indicators for each of the key topic areas. It will go beyond what food security data we currently publish. This will allow consideration of the trends, many of which are slow-moving and do not change significantly year on year over a longer period. Taking a holistic approach, we will consider food security in its complete form, from the global availability of food to UK availability and access. We will use data drawn from a blend of national and international data sources, including UK national statistics as well as data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
The requirement to report within at least a five-year period allows time to observe key trends from a variety of sources. This would not be possible over a significantly shorter period. While we are committing to reporting within at least a five-year frequency, we consider this a maximum period. When we are able to publish the first report will depend upon a range of factors, including the availability of statistical data. Of course, we certainly will not wait for the end of the five-year period to publish the first report, which will include analysis of the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic.
Some of the datasets that will be considered in the food security report are published and made publicly available annually; certain noble Lords know very well that all this data is reported annually. Defra officials routinely track these reports to spot any unexpected or significant changes. For example, the excellent Agriculture in the United Kingdom statistics that Defra publishes alongside departments in the devolved Administrations come out annually, as do the world food production and calorie statistics produced by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The Government intend that the report will consider these and less frequently produced data to provide deeper analysis to help us identify longer-term trends to support the development of policy for the future—a point remarked upon by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, with her unparalleled experience of the food industry, and indeed by my noble friend Lady Chisholm in her important contribution.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. We have had a very well-informed, thoughtful and wise debate on these issues. I also thank the Minister for his, as ever, detailed and thorough response to the amendments. We welcome the inclusion of Clause 17, but it has some of the hallmarks of something added at a late stage. The more you start to put things of that kind in a Bill, the more questions you raise than answer. The Minister was at great pains to list everything that would be included in the food security report, but more of those need to be spelled out in the Bill. All the contributions from noble Lords about needing a more comprehensive plan, with tighter targets and more regular reporting systems, were well made. I ask the Minister to reflect on those issues and on whether more of them can be put in the Bill.
A number of noble Lords raised concerns about the devolved nations and disparities in food growing and food poverty around the different nations, with the complexities of an internal market for food developing within the UK. Without going into detail on that, I recommend our Amendment 290, which is in one of the groups we may get to this evening and proposes setting up an agricultural co-ordination council. This would not only provide a framework for the devolved nations to discuss agriculture but bring together issues around food production. It is a valid point that I hope we will address in that later group. I agree with all the noble Lords who talked about food insecurity, in particular household food insecurity and food poverty—they should be part of food security reporting.
Finally, I pick up and reiterate our arguments for a national food plan. As I said when I introduced it, our amendment was drafted before the Lords report, but I recommend the report to noble Lords and particularly to the Minister. Some of its key recommendations could form the framework for a national food plan in the Bill. We have talked about the Dimbleby report, and I know that interweaving the timing of all this is not ideal, but the Government have accepted that there should be a national food strategy. We would like to see a requirement for this in the Bill, backed up by the detail of the plan and the recommendations in the Lords report.
I genuinely hope that the Minister will reflect on that aspect of this debate, because something like this will probably come back. It was perhaps my noble friend Lord Rooker who made the point that, if the Government do not do it, it will happen anyway. I hope that the Government will take the lead in co-ordinating that, perhaps talking to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others involved in the committee about how their recommendations could best be brought forward in the Bill. I am sure people will co-operate with the Minister, but this cannot be left as it is. Time is moving on and I am sure that people do not want me to talk any more, but it is not the end of this issue. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 174. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate. I should inform the Committee that if Amendment 174 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 175.
Clause 18: Declaration relating to exceptional market conditions
Amendment 174
“(a) there is an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets or a serious threat of an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets caused by economic or environmental factors, and”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I first thank the Government for including this chapter on intervention in agricultural markets and exceptional market conditions, as set out in Clause 18. The purpose of Amendment 174—I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for their support—is entirely complemented by Amendment 285, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The latter amendment refers to Wales, but both amendments deal with ensuring that financial assistance can be provided to the farming industry at times of crisis caused by natural phenomena and in chronic situations, alongside the acute economic situations already covered in the Bill.
Why is there the need for this amendment and to probe the Government in this regard? While I welcome the provision in the Bill, which would allow the Government to provide financial assistance where there is a disturbance to markets of agricultural commodities causing producers to face reductions in income, I am nevertheless concerned that the Bill as drafted will not provide the Government with sufficient ability to intervene in markets where disruption is being caused by environmental factors, such as weather. This year has been quite extraordinary and is a great example of how environmental factors can cause precisely the conditions set out in this amendment. For example, we saw floods in late winter, right into January and February this year, only to be replaced more recently by potential drought. These matters continue on a chronic rather than acute basis, which would cover, for example, animal diseases such as bovine TB.
The amendment does not require the Government to intervene in these widened circumstances but provides a mechanism for them to do so, which seems sensible in a Bill that contains so much about providing the Government with the powers to act when necessary. Not having the power to intervene in markets where environmental or chronic issues prevail could render the Government impotent in responding without bringing forward further primary legislation. It must be better to ensure that powers are available now, on a forward-thinking basis, rather than having to take powers at the time an issue needs to be addressed.
My noble friend the Minister, in concluding the last debate, referred to comments made by other noble Lords about the implications for food companies. We must recognise here, and in the previous debate, that we are talking about farmers and the conditions that farmers have to meet, not those on the food shelves of supermarkets and others. The farmers are of necessity exposed to all sorts of pests and pestilence and I believe that they need the measures set out.
I pay tribute to those charities that will reach out to help farmers in the circumstances set out in this amendment. The Yorkshire Agricultural Society, the Farming Community Network and the RABI do outstanding work. One great regret from the pandemic is that there will not have been any country shows that bring the rural and farming communities together. I also want to recognise the role that national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty play. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has explained this issue extremely clearly. Essentially, Amendments 174 and 285 would greatly improve the definition of when exceptional market conditions exist, which would be a very sensible thing to include in the Bill.
My Amendment 176 would prevent financial assistance in exceptional market conditions being given to producers who do not meet animal welfare standards. I set out the arguments for restricting this assistance in the debates on previous groupings but, in short, public money should not be given to producers who fail on animal welfare—in fact, such producers should not be in business at all.
Lord Hain [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who speaks with such authority and passion on these agricultural questions.
I wish to speak to my Amendment 175; I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. The agricultural sector has always been subject to the whims of nature and climate. However, recent years have seen an increase in disruptive weather patterns, such as prolonged, unseasonal periods of flooding, extreme cold and heat, and drought—often with different challenges at the same time in different areas of the country. We have also experienced the impact that invasive diseases, such as bird influenza, blue tongue and ash dieback, can have on plants and animals.
These unexpected, often catastrophic, events can deliver significant damage to our agriculture businesses, both individuals and whole sectors. A year’s worth of income can be decimated by one bad storm or a few rain-free months during a growing season. In Wales, the 2013 heavy spring snow is a good example; by the way, England was even worse hit then. Another example in Wales is the long summer droughts of 2018 and 2019 that caused even secure water sources to dry up and arable yields to drop significantly as water for irrigation was unavailable. These farming “natural disasters” are at such a scale that there is a case for state sector intervention of the kind that this amendment proposes—especially with the growing impact of climate change, which is undoubtedly a cause of them.
These uncontrollable factors uniquely affect the products that we grow from our land. Increasingly, it is not just the market conditions of the globalised agricultural commodity markets that affect our core industry of food and farming; it is the untameable elements of nature that are getting increasingly erratic and wild. This new reality, already acknowledged and understood when we look at actions around climate change adaptation, needs to be extended into the thinking on how we support farming businesses affected by these situations. The drivers of exceptional circumstances have changed, and we must change with them. I hope that the Government take heed of that.
Indeed, that imperative is underlined by official Defra statistics showing that our food sector is heavily reliant on imports. We export £2.1 billion of meat but import £6.6 billion, and we export £1.3 billion of fruit and veg but import a massive £11.5 billion. We are so vulnerable as a nation over our food supplies; that is made worse by the ravaging effects of climate change.
The policy objective of this Bill is admirable. It is to encourage and incentivise our farmers, the custodians of our countryside and the managers of our land, to deliver more environmental benefits from their land use and use new trade opportunities and markets to increase economic sustainability. This ambition must be balanced with a fresh look at how, when and why the Government are willing to provide additional support to a key economic sector in crisis. That means looking beyond the traditional and narrow definition of what drives economic failures. It also means acknowledging and providing emergency support tools to deal with the reality that our climate, our weather and our environment are changing and that businesses operating in the natural environment will be detrimentally impacted by factors completely beyond their control—indeed, beyond our control—including the Covid-19 pandemic, an unexpected crisis that has shaken the world economy beyond anybody’s imagination. We should be using this opportunity to make sure that we have the tools and powers in place to allow us to support those businesses if and when a natural crisis occurs, which is what Amendment 175 seeks to do. I hope that it finds favour with the Minister, who has played such a constructive role in his sympathetic handling of this Bill.
Lord Carrington
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner, as set out in the register. I had great pleasure in putting my name to the important Amendment 174, and to Amendment 285, proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. This amendment has the support of the Tenant Farmers Association, the National Farmers’ Union and the CLA, together with a high proportion of farmers. They have the invaluable experience of farming the land and are well aware of the many unpredictable factors that can quickly turn a crop from profit to loss or livestock from asset to liability.
Amendment 174 widens the definition of “exceptional market conditions” to make sure that as many circumstances as possible are covered. It moves beyond global market changes to other triggers, such as severe weather and disease. The intention is not to provide an easy escape route for farmers to claim that circumstances have conspired against them. The definition remains tighter than many would wish. It is particularly important that we get this right, in view of the removal of the overall safety net of the basic payment scheme, which has protected farmers from so much volatility, often caused by exceptional market conditions, for over 40 years.
The importance of the amendment is shown by the events earlier this year when rain caused devastating flooding. Happily, the Government stepped in and support was given to flooded farms. However, the effects of this—hopefully exceptional—weather event were felt much more broadly, and the result can be seen across the country: land left fallow, patchy crops and much more. Most farmers have relied on the BPS to cover their fall in income. This sorry situation was compounded by the length of time it took the Government to repeal the three-crop rule. Desperate farmers drilled crops in unsuitable conditions to adhere to the rule, and this has caused environmental damage to soil structure and more.
It is also vital that a process exists to ensure that there are no delays in triggering intervention. The impact of Covid-19 on the dairy industry is a good case in point. Although a support scheme was implemented, it took an inordinate amount of lobbying by the industry to achieve a positive result.
Finally, I am not a lawyer, but I ask the Minister to clarify exactly what is meant by “prices achievable” in subsection (2)(b). It is surely a matter not just of price but of income too. Can the Minister confirm that it covers the situation where a farmer or grower cannot achieve the price because he does not have the product to sell, due to drought, flood, disease or other exceptional conditions?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 174, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. This amendment reflects and acknowledges the situation, while also being probing. The nature of our climate is changing and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, we are now facing disruptive weather conditions. In many ways, those conditions have changed our climate, in geographical terms, from a temperate one to an extreme continental pattern. I hope the Minister will consider that we now have chronic weather patterns and that financial considerations in the Bill should therefore reflect those in some way. The amendment strengthens this clause and brings it up to date in the light not only of Covid but of extreme climatic conditions, and I am content to support it.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
On a previous group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to the quality of the contributions made during the course of this evening, and I echo that. It is true of the prolonged Committee stage of this Bill as a whole. The experience and knowledge that people have explored and delivered over these days has been remarkable, and I have learned quite a lot.
I speak in support of the amendments before us, particularly Amendments 175 and 176. It is clear to me that where the kind of disruption outlined this evening exists, the Government need to be able to intervene, but to do so to support the kind of farming that reflects the society we live in.
I will speak briefly on Amendment 176, because it has been dealt with previously. There is a slogan, “You are what you eat”. I think we are how we treat. At the very beginning of the debate back on Thursday 9 July —so long ago now that it is hard to remember—the noble Lord, Lord Curry, started the afternoon by talking about the educational quality of farming and the way in which children learn. In the past I have been struck, both in going into schools and with my own grandchildren, how they still believe that potatoes come from Tesco and eggs appear on Morrisons’ shelves but are not entirely clear on where they originate. The educative value of the way we treat animals is therefore crucial.
My noble friend and good friend Lord Rooker appeared on 9 July for the first time for many months and again this evening; I am very pleased to have him back. In the contribution he made on 9 July on Amendment 68—I am showing that I have been sitting in on these debates—he talked about poultry farming and the complexity, but also the importance, of the way we treat poultry and animals more generally. Linking this with the critical importance of being able to intervene—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has done in Amendment 176—is vital to ensuring that we get the balance right.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also said earlier this evening that maybe speeches were too long, so I will pause.
Lord Northbrook
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendments 174 and 285 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As other noble Lords have said, Amendment 174 changes the wording in Clause 18 to remove “severe” twice and replace it with “acute or chronic”. Having checked the definition of acute—
“sharp and severe in effect”—
I think this is a better word than just severe. Chronic is even better, defined as
“persisting for a long time and constantly recurring”.
Adding at the end
“caused by economic or environmental factors”
defines more broadly the parameters when financial assistance may be given at times of crisis caused, as other noble Lords have said, by unpredictable natural phenomena such as the flooding earlier this year and drought more recently, and animal diseases. Amendment 285 extends this wording to Wales.
Amendment 175 partially covers ground covered in Amendment 174, but I prefer the broader aspect ofusb the former. I like the definition in my noble friend’s amendment of when exceptional market conditions exist.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, this group of amendments deals with financial assistance under exceptional market circumstances. I have put my name to Amendment 285. All four amendments deal with what may happen in the event of an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, indicated, this is not currently covered in the Bill.
These disturbances may be caused by economic or environmental factors. The most recent occurrence of a disturbance due to environmental factors was reflected in the rules for direct payments being relaxed due to the appalling wet weather in February, which prevented farmers sowing a second crop on their land. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, spoke about exceptional market conditions caused by meeting the needs of the environment, and gave some excellent examples of the wide range of extreme weather. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, also referred to changing weather patterns and their effect on climate change.
In Amendment 176 the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has returned to the issue of producers who do not meet animal welfare standards not being eligible for financial assistance under Clause 19. She is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I and many other noble Lords support this amendment. It would be unpopular in the extreme with the public if those who do not look after their animals in a humane way were seen to profit due to exceptional market conditions. Does the Minister agree with this amendment and will he accept it? If not, will he say why not?
I have put my name to Amendment 285, which seeks to ensure that the farming industry in Wales is treated on the same basis as that in England when it comes to exceptional market circumstances. There can be no separate treatment for those across the Welsh border.
I imagine that everyone is in favour of this group of amendments. The only point of discussion is likely to be what actually qualifies as a serious economic disturbance and an environmental disturbance. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, reminded us of the catastrophic effect on the farming industry of outbreaks of animal disease. Are these likely to qualify? It is likely that an environmental disturbance will be fairly obvious to everyone in the country. Severe flooding affects a number of areas and the television ensures that we all see its devastating effects. Severe drought is sometimes less obvious but as fields and crops brown and are scorched by the sun, realisation will set in. An economic disturbance might go unnoticed to start with, but it will soon manifest itself—again, through social media, radio and television. No matter how this is brought to the public’s attention, they will nevertheless be interested in how the farming community is going to cope. I look forward to the Minister telling us how that is going to happen.
Lord Grantchester
I thank noble Lords for tabling their amendments to Chapter 2 of Part 2, headed “Intervention in agricultural markets” under exceptional market conditions. These clauses—18 to 20—plus their application in Wales bring into domestic legislation the powers the European Commission had to provide emergency assistance in extreme, often weather-related, circumstances. The Secretary of State may modify this retained direct EU legislation by regulations and this would usually involve intervention on storage.
I am sure the Minister would wish to have these fallback provisions included in the Bill. Can she give any guidance as to how the Government might decide whether to intervene? While a member state, the UK was not noted for being eager to apply for these powers to be exercised and assistance to be provided. Do the Government have the inclination to utilise them and can the Minister give any general criteria?
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, regarding welfare that in the wet weather period during the foot and mouth epidemic that struck the UK 20 years ago, the Government stepped in to provide welfare in buying up stranded animals that could not be moved because of the regulations. That was directly in support of welfare. I am not sure that all circumstances would pertain to the amendment she wishes to pursue.
In the past any support has been forthcoming only very late in an emergency and some considerable distance into a crisis. What assurance can the Government give about the exercise of these powers when a timely response to calls for support can be crucial to stabilise a market?
On the other hand, private storage can be notoriously difficult to bring into operation when required. Is the Minister sufficiently confident the UK has enough capacity in the various market sectors? Data on storage capacity could be included in the food security report. There was much debate and experience last year around storage in relation to stockpiling and the possibility, which still exists, that there could be no deal reached in time for the new trading relationship with the EU to be agreed. Can the Minister outline any conclusions and lessons learned regarding those circumstances?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
My Lords, I begin with Amendments 174 and 285, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh. I recognise my noble friend’s desire to ensure that farmers are protected against chronic disturbances such as structural market changes and disturbances caused by environmental factors such as severe weather or the Covid-19 pandemic. Indeed, a number of other noble Lords mentioned their concerns. The existing powers are sufficiently broad to ensure that agricultural producers will be covered should they need financial assistance due to exceptional market conditions caused by economic, environmental or other factors. In most cases, farmers already manage the effects of fluctuating weather conditions.
There are also powers in existing legislation that allow the Government to act in exceptional circumstances to support farmers in the event of extreme weather conditions. For example, the National Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 could be used to make one-off payments to farmers affected by extreme weather conditions. As we saw in response to recent flooding, the Government successfully launched a new farming recovery fund for England using powers under this NERC Act.
The particular powers in Clauses 18 and 19 are framed to deal with unforeseen short-term shocks to agricultural markets rather than chronic conditions. The Covid-19 situation is exactly the type of exceptional circumstance that these new powers are intended to address. Another example would be the dairy crisis in 2015, when the ending of EU dairy production quotas led to increased production, global dairy prices being low and rationed sanctions on imports of dairy products from the EU significantly reducing demand. This caused a sudden and significant drop in the price of dairy products across the EU. This event was unpredictable and caused a severe market disturbance, which had an effect on prices, and future circumstances such as these could be considered exceptional market circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked what we could do to support farmers when more long-lasting difficulties appear, including the after-effects of flooding. The Government want to encourage farmers to manage their own risk and become resilient to foreseeable disturbances. The Government will help farmers to invest in equipment, technology and infrastructure, which will support high-quality research to promote innovation and productivity in agriculture, horticulture and forestry to make farms more resilient. The Bill also sets out powers to strengthen fairness and transparency in the supply chain, enabling food producers to respond more effectively to market signals, strengthen their negotiating position at the farm gate and receive a fairer return.
The second aspect of the amendment seeks to ensure that disturbances caused by environmental factors will be covered by this clause. These powers are triggered by the effects of disturbances rather than by what has caused them. The exceptional market conditions powers could be used to address severe market disturbances caused by economic or environmental factors, so long as there is an adverse effect on the price achievable for one or more agricultural products.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked what is meant by “prices achievable” under Clause 2(b). The price achievable is to be given its ordinary meaning, and includes not having a product available to sell; in that case, the price achievable on the market would obviously be zero. The current Covid-19 pandemic is a disturbance caused by environmental factors and is exactly the type of exceptional circumstance that these new powers are intended to address. We could not have foreseen that this pandemic would be as wide-reaching or prolonged as it has been, and farmers could not have been expected to prepare for the disturbances in daily life it has caused. I understand that Welsh Ministers are content that the existing powers are sufficiently broad to ensure that agriculture producers in Wales will be covered should they need financial assistance due to market conditions.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, considering the lateness of the hour, I am most grateful to those who have remained, including our supporting teams. We have had a very good debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulescoomb, for her support of my amendment and for tabling her own amendment. I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister has confirmed that animal welfare standards are already robustly implemented. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his amendment, which perhaps was a little narrower than mine, and to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and other noble Lords for the points that they have made. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Northbrook for specifying the acute and chronic conditions which should be met. Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, about storage, we had a lengthy debate about this, but I am still not convinced about what constitutes a reservoir. However, I am sure that we can come back to that in the Environment Bill. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 208. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make this clear in the debate.
Clause 32: Identification and traceability of animals
Amendment 208
“(1) The Secretary of State must by order under section 87(1)(a) establish a body to be known as the Animal Food Product Traceability Authority (“the Authority”) with the functions of monitoring and regulating the labelling and marketing of animal food products in accordance with regulations made under section 35 of the Agriculture Act 2020.(1A) The Authority may be assigned functions that are exercisable in relation to England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland under section 87(1)(b) and relate to—(a) collecting, managing and making available information regarding the identification, movement and health of animals, or(b) the means of identifying animals.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, Amendment 208 would turn the wishy-washy wording of Clause 32 into a clear requirement to establish an animal food product traceability authority.
The need for an authority such as this is clear, the horsemeat scandal being just one manifestation of a badly broken system. It would create a trusted system of information for consumers to make better decisions on what they are eating, how the animals are treated and where they came from. The key difference in my amendment, between my wording and the Government’s, is that it would turn a power into a duty, meaning that this authority would definitely be established. I do not understand why it is not already written like that, but perhaps the Minister can reassure me on this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I raise this amendment to probe the Government on the intention behind Clause 32.
Some 27 years ago, as a Member of the Commons, I moved an amendment from the Opposition Front Bench for the establishment of a cattle identification and traceability service. I did so having been prompted by the British Cattle Breeders Club. In 1998, the scheme was set up in Workington, in my former constituency, in the form of the BCMS—the British Cattle Movement Service. At its peak it employed over 1,000 people, although with efficiency savings and the application of new technology, it now employs some 400 people and is one of the largest employers in west Cumbria. It was with some surprise that we noticed reference in the Bill to
“Identification and traceability of animals”
under Clause 32. The Bill having cleared its Commons stages, I was asked to seek some assurances in the Lords.
The Explanatory Notes, in describing the proposed amendments to the legislation for identification and traceability, state:
“The purpose of the clause is to prepare for the introduction of a new digital and multi-species traceability service, the Livestock Information Service (LIS), based on a database of animal identification, health and movement data. Subsection (1) … will allow the Secretary of State to assign to a board … functions related to collecting, managing and sharing certain information in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. This information is identification, movement or health data of animals. It will also allow the assignment of functions relating to the means of identifying animals such as issuing individual identification numbers to animals … These amendments enable the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) to be assigned the function of managing the new Livestock Identification Service.”
First, what is the driver behind the introduction of a new digital and multi-species traceability service, now to be called the livestock information service? Secondly, what is the construct and day-to-day role of the board in the new
“data collecting and sharing functions”?
In what sense would it be able to
“enable the assignment of functions relating to the means of identifying animals”,
and
“disapply … EU legislation on the identification and traceability of cattle, sheep and goats”?
What are the implications of that disapplication here in the United Kingdom? Thirdly, where it states that the board will be able to assign
“functions relating to the means of identifying animals”,
does that have implications for the management of the current service in Workington? On that matter, we are told that the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board will
“be assigned the function of managing the … Livestock Identification Service”.
What is the thinking behind that?
Why am I asking these questions and probing Ministers for answers? I am simply trying to establish, for the benefit of the people in west Cumbria, what stands behind these proposals. At the same time, I seek an assurance that the high-quality service currently provided in Workington will be retained in the long term and will perhaps be further developed with additional services now that we are leaving the European Union.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I opposed him in 1987 and did my level best to become the next Member of Parliament for Workington, but sadly it was not to be.
I congratulate the Government and my noble friend on bringing in Clause 32 on identification and traceability of animals. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who will speak next, served on the Select Committee with me when we looked at the implications of horsegate, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, referred in bringing forward her Amendment 208, which I thank her for. That was a classic example of the supermarkets taking as gospel the food that was provided to them, and there is a very real need to bring forward the highest standards of traceability. Will my noble friend, in summing up, see whether the clause as it stands achieves the purposes he would intend it to?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because this area of animal traceability needs to be strengthened. I served in the other place under the very able chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, when she was chair of the EFRA Select Committee. At her instigation, we as a committee undertook a direct inquiry into the horsegate scandal at that time. For me, that was a very instructive period and it told me that there was a need for a stronger body, an animal food product traceability authority.
Like the noble Baroness, I want to ask whether the Minister feels that Clause 32 as is significantly strong to combat the problems that could occur along the way in relation to those who may wish to flagrantly abuse animal traceability standards. Hence my support for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because I feel we need very strong legislation and an authority equipped with the legal armoury to protect our food production. I am quite happy to support that, but seek that information from the Minister.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
Lord Clark of Windermere? No? Then I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, these two amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, deal with the identification and traceability of animals. The highest standards of traceability are essential. The British public, whether they live in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland or England, are very interested in where the food they eat comes from. Does the pork in their sausages come from Denmark and Holland, or does it come from British pigs raised in outdoor fields? Does the steak they buy for supper on Saturday come from beef cattle raised in Hereford, in Devon or north of the border in Scotland? The purchaser is generally interested, so it is important that all animal food products are properly labelled as to the country of origin.
Small independent butchers and farm shops proudly announce where the meat they are selling that week has come from; which local farm has produced the lamb, which the pork, et cetera. The information is vital to their survival and to that of the farms that supply them with meat. The proper labelling of meat and meat products is going to be all the more important as the UK enters into trade deals with countries outside the EU. I hope the Government will rise to this challenge and provide the transparency that we are all seeking and set up an animal food traceability authority.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport [V]
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in yet another detailed debate this evening, with expertise and enthusiasm equally displayed. The identification and traceability of animals is hugely important for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to food safety and consumer confidence.
Amendment 208 envisages the establishment of a dedicated public authority to carry out a variety of duties in relation to the identification, the movement and the health of animals, with a particular emphasis on enforcing marketing standards. Given the importance of how food is marketed, and the potential implications for public health should something go wrong, there is merit in having a body responsible for this. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours for bringing the House’s attention to the work he completed in another place many years ago on the movement and traceability of animals. He rightly asks what the purpose and construct of the new data collection service is, as well as several other important questions, seeking assurance that the current high-quality service already established in Workington is retained.
The power to establish such a body and confer functions exists in the current drafting, but it would help the Committee if the Minister could outline how it is envisaged this process would unfold, including indicative timings. Will the body be created from scratch, or will functions simply conferred on an existing organisation? Is there potential for different responsibilities to reside in different places—perhaps not Yorkshire—and, if so, how will day-to-day operations be co-ordinated?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for Amendment 208. Clause 32 enables the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board to run the new livestock information service, which will provide a multi-species traceability system in England. As animals can and do move across borders, Clause 32 also provides for the AHDB to exercise functions, such as handling data on animal movements, voluntarily shared by the devolved Administrations, to provide a complete picture of livestock movements across the whole UK.
The new service will replace separate species-specific systems and allow faster, more accurate livestock traceability, benefiting disease control and trade. This is a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, but I emphasise, as the Minister for Biosecurity, that I place the highest importance on having as accurate as possible a livestock traceability system as we can provide. The service is not designed to cover food products or govern labelling and marketing of animal products. Powers relating to the labelling and marketing of animal food products are set out in Clause 35.
On Amendment 210, Clause 32(1) inserts new Section 89A into the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to assign functions to a body established under that Act that are necessary to run the new livestock information service. There is an existing duty under Section 97(5) of the NERC Act to consult organisations representative of affected interests. In 2017, Defra set up the livestock information traceability design user group, a partnership of interested industry and government bodies, which have been involved throughout the design and development of the livestock information service. Having attended some of those meetings, I know that the active endorsement and engagement is strong and clear indeed. Defra is consulting organisations representative of affected interests on its plans to make an order under subsection (1).
I am also well aware of the important work of the BCMS at Workington, and am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for referring to its important and productive work. It is our intention to carry on using the valued staff there, who have a good reputation with farmers, as part of the new service, subject to arriving at an agreement between the RPA and Livestock Information Limited. It is worth noting that some of the work of the BCMS will transition to Scotland and Wales at the same time, as the BCMS currently serves England, Scotland and Wales.
I have tabled a government amendment requiring that the Secretary of State should secure approval from the devolved Administrations for functions of the livestock information service, such as the handling of movement data shared with AHDB by those Administrations. This amendment would enable colleagues in devolved Administrations to recommend legislative consent to their respective legislatures. These UK-wide functions are vital for purposes such as disease control.
I am very much available to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for further discussions about this new system, if there are any outstanding points. I actively endorse it and think it will be of great benefit. With those assurances and confirmations, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and especially at such a late hour—it is certainly late for me anyway. I thank the Minister for his assurances. I am afraid it is too late for me to be coherent on anything; I will pore over Hansard tomorrow to see exactly what his assurances were. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 209. I remind noble Lords that, if anyone wishes to speak after the Minister, they should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 209
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(1A) An order of the Secretary of State assigning functions under section 87(1)(b) by virtue of subsection (1) may only be made with the approval of— (a) the Welsh Ministers, if the functions are exercisable in relation to Wales,(b) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, if the functions are exercisable in relation to Northern Ireland, and(c) the Scottish Ministers, if the functions are exercisable in relation to Scotland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment secures that before making an order which assigns functions to a body that are exercisable in relation to Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, the Secretary of State must obtain the approval of the Welsh Ministers, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland or the Scottish Ministers (as the case may be).
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, in moving Amendment 209, I shall speak also to Amendments 261, 262 and 268 in my name. Amendments 209, 261 and 262 provide that the Secretary of State shall seek consent from the devolved Administrations for orders made relating to functions of the livestock information service which are exercisable in those Administrations or when exercising the powers in the Bill relating to organics, where these regulations will also apply in those Administrations.
We have always said that we would engage intensively with the devolved Administrations prior to making any regulations that will apply to the devolved Administrations. However, the preference of colleagues in the devolved Administrations is for a consent requirement to be added. This would enable them to recommend legislative consent to their respective legislatures for those provisions in scope of the Sewel convention. We remain wholly committed to seeking legislative consent for all provisions that engage the convention in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and I am pleased to table these amendments. An LCM has now been recommended by the Northern Ireland Assembly; Welsh and Scottish Ministers are intending to seek legislative consent from their respective legislatures for these clauses.
Amendment 268 removes Clauses 42(4) and (5), which make provision for regulations requiring devolved Administrations to provide the Secretary of State with information on their classification and use of domestic support. While we consider that Part 6 is reserved to the UK Parliament, the UK Government are content with the assurances made that these subsections are not required in law, and have reached agreement with the devolved Administrations to remove them from the Bill. The UK Government maintains that this amendment now removes any Part 6 provisions in scope of the Sewel convention. It is our intention to enshrine this commitment in a concordat to be developed between the UK Government and all the devolved Administrations, which will sit alongside the regulations made under Part 6. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, the government amendments to Clauses 32 and 37 are welcome. I am aware that they meet a request from the Welsh Government. Removing Clauses 42(4) and (5) is very important because it is deeply unsatisfactory that the Government could, in effect, seek to strong-arm the devolved Governments into giving up elements of their executive competence by inserting such clauses in Bills in the first place.
However, other provisions in this Bill appear to undermine the devolved Governments’ competence, and it has been notable that many noble Lords have spoken powerfully on issues affecting Wales. The process of leaving the EU and resuming international trade negotiations and our independent membership of bodies such as the World Trade Organization is placing a huge—possibly intolerable—strain on our constitution.
As the noble Lord recognised in his recent letter on Second Reading, the power to conduct international negotiations is reserved. However, the rights and responsibilities for implementing international agreements within devolved competence rest with the devolved institutions. I am aware that the Welsh Government, although strongly in favour of preserving the union, albeit on the basis of reform, have taken the view that they cannot be bound to implement agreements which require changes to legislation made by the Senedd unless they have been fully involved with the process of negotiating those agreements. That is surely only reasonable and logical.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 267, to which the noble Lords, Lords Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Wigley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, have very kindly added their names. It seeks to insert into Clause 40 a provision designed to protect the interests of the devolved authorities with regard to the exercise of the regulation-making powers conferred on the Secretary of State by that clause.
I express my support for Amendment 291, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Bruce and Lord Thomas of Gresford. I am also very much in sympathy with the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has just spoken to and to which my Amendment 255, which will be debated some time on Thursday, closely relates.
Turning to my own amendment, Part 6 of the Bill, of which Clause 40 forms part, concerns the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, which came into force in 1995. The agreement, reduced to its simplest terms, contains three pillars: domestic support, market access and export subsidies. The EU’s common agricultural policy has been subject to its discipline ever since the agreement was entered into. That responsibility, so far as the UK is concerned, will pass to the Government of the United Kingdom when the transitional period comes to an end. That, as I understand it, and in short, is what Part 6, and Clause 40 in particular, is all about.
It has been drafted on the assumption that it will be the responsibility of the Government at Westminster to ensure that all UK policies on domestic support, including those of the devolved Administrations, are compliant with the agreement. That is because, so the argument goes, the UK will be the signatory to the agreement, not the individual nations within it. As a matter of international law, there can be no argument with this approach, but the Bill is concerned with the exercise of this responsibility within the United Kingdom. This is a matter which needs to have regard to our own domestic arrangements, and especially to the fact that agriculture is devolved.
Indeed, agriculture is not, in the case of any of the Administrations, reserved to Westminster. Therefore, as these Administrations see it, the starting point for any system of regulation to ensure WTO compliance by the UK as a whole must be that it is the responsibility of each of the devolved Administrations to devise its own system for the support of agriculture with whatever resources may be available.
When one examines Part 6 in that light, it can be seen that it fails to respect these domestic arrangements. Clause 41(5) will enable the Secretary of State, in the exercise of the Clause 40 power, to set financial ceilings in relation to agricultural support provided by the devolved Administrations of a kind that is classified as “Amber Box” by the WTO, and to establish a decision -making process for the classification of agricultural support in accordance with WTO criteria.
The Secretary of State could set limits on the amount of domestic support targeted at specific measures that the devolved Administrations were seeking to apply to meet their own objectives. Those could be at a lower ceiling than exists under the current arrangements. Reducing the amount of support given to sheep farmers in Wales and Scotland, for example, would be a matter of very great concern, given the narrow margins within which hill farmers in those countries have to operate and the formidable challenges they now face due to the collapse of the export market for wool, to take just one example.
My amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State will consult the devolved Administrations when he prepares regulations under this clause. It does not go so far as to require him to secure their agreement. In an ideal world, that would of course be desirable so that all parts of the UK could work together on this matter but, given the political tensions that currently exist, asking him to secure agreement may be asking for too much. I am not asking for that, but I stress the importance of consultation so that the Secretary of State is fully informed before decisions are taken and that this is written into the Bill.
It is good that, as can be seen from Amendment 268, the Government have departed from insisting on the provision of information by the devolved Administrations about their own proposed or existing farming support, as that is their business. But consultation about steps that the Secretary of State proposes to take is essential if serious misunderstandings and, worse still, a real sense of injustice and resentment are to be avoided. I should add that NFU Scotland supports this amendment, although it would prefer that decisions on financial ceilings should be taken not just after consultation but with the agreement of the devolved Administrations.
I recall that on 7 July, replying to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, the Minister said:
“Good progress has already been made by the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations in developing an administrative framework for co-ordinating agricultural policy on the basis of co-operation and mutual consent.”—[Official Report, 7/7/20; col. 1043.]
I think he has said the same thing on a number of occasions this evening. I very much welcome that but I hope that, in that spirit, he will look favourably on my amendment and I look forward very much to his reply.
Lord Hain [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who made some compelling arguments, especially about the devolved question. I endorse the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, about Wales and the Welsh Government’s needs.
I wish to speak to Amendment 284 in my name. The shape and political make-up of the UK have shifted significantly since the last time we laid domestic agriculture legislation 40 years ago. When the UK first adopted the common agricultural policy, it was on behalf of the whole UK. Now, as we seek to replace that policy, we are doing so as four distinct Administrations with overarchingly aligned but divergent interpretations of what the common agricultural policy is able to deliver.
Devolution developed within the context of the CAP. The Welsh Government were given competence for agriculture policy in 1999. The strength of devolution, for agriculture in particular, is that it gave the constituent parts of the UK—areas whose topography and climate have produced vastly different agriculture sectors—the ability to shape the policy and support to suit individual needs. The flexibility to tailor individual needs while working with high-level parameters and outcomes, laid out in the framework of the CAP, was a key component of what made the policy work in terms of its structure, while delivering the careful balance between divergence and uniformity. The common overarching objectives—the commitment to seven-year funding cycles, the broad agreements on spending limits and the overall breadth and intention of the policy framework —combined to produce a competitive but level playing field. It was a structure that enabled disparate areas with different agricultural systems to address local needs while working towards strategic goals.
As the UK Government and devolved Administrations develop new agricultural policy with new policy intent, we must surely take time to consider not merely what CAP delivered but how it delivered it. While the landscape and agricultural sectors of Wales may be different from England or Scotland—or Northern Ireland, for that matter—we are unified by the need to trade effectively both internally and externally. The fundamental need to unify areas of common interest should be accounted for in this Bill.
For Wales, the most pressing issue is the ability to agree and deliver a multi-annual funding arrangement with Her Majesty’s Treasury. Multi-annual funding is key to providing stability to a sector that takes time to see the impact of any investment or delivery of any environmental outcome.
Currently, the budget for Wales is set through the annual spending review negotiation between the Treasury and the Welsh Government. An annual funding mechanism for agriculture and land management will create too much uncertainty for Welsh farmers. This lack of stability will destroy the level playing field for farmers and agribusinesses in Wales and consequently the integrated food supply chain within the UK. This is a uniquely Welsh constitutional and political problem.
In this Agriculture Bill, we have a clear opportunity to put in place steps to design and deliver a multi-annual funding arrangement that can create a common structure with shared opportunity against shared UK objectives while allowing devolved Administrations to meet domestic needs. It is the first building block to ensuring that we can accommodate and build resilience into our agricultural sector, our food and drink sector, and the UK’s national security. This is the context in which I have spoken to my amendments.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
I support the amendments in my name. Amendment 289 seeks to introduce a sunset clause so that provisions relating to Northern Ireland are timebound, while allowing suitable time for the development of bespoke legislation within the next Assembly term—some time post-2022—and taking into account disruptions in future planning as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, providing a clear timeframe for Northern Ireland.
As the Minister has mentioned, Clause 45 and Schedule 6 refer to the devolved regions and, in that respect, to Northern Ireland. While the schedule provides much-needed certainty in the short term, Northern Ireland is still left without a long-term vision for how agriculture and the environment will be supported in the future and without clarity around what outcomes a future policy framework should aim to deliver.
This is despite widespread recognition from stakeholders that the current system is not fit for purpose. Northern Ireland is facing considerable challenges in terms of species and habitat loss, agricultural GHG emissions, poor water quality and marked volatility, among others. The way we manage our land use will directly impact on our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change as well as helping meet a range of other environmental commitments.
There is a need to reform how we farm and manage our land and move towards a resilient, profitable and environmentally sustainable farming sector. The need to outline a future direction of travel for Northern Ireland is of paramount importance. Currently, a risk exists that the provisions within the Northern Ireland schedule could continue indefinitely, and this would result in the long-term continuation of direct payments in their current form, which have been criticised by a range of stakeholders and do little to address the numerous crises facing farming and the environment. While the provisions in the Northern Ireland schedule are similar to those that apply in Wales, there is an important difference: the Welsh provision will expire in 2024, while there is no sunset clause outlined for those relating to Northern Ireland. This is largely due to the fact that the Bill was created in the absence of an operational Assembly. We have now had an operational Assembly since 11 January this year and, in fact, this amendment has already been discussed by the DAERA Assembly Committee in Northern Ireland, which supports it. It is also supported by the Nature Friendly Farming Network.
In that regard, I thank the noble Lords who signed my amendment, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Hain. I know that other noble Lords also support it, so it is important to noble Lords that the presence of a sunset clause relating to the Welsh schedule creates an onus on the Welsh Government to develop domestic legislation in a time-bound manner. The absence of that sunset clause relating to the Northern Ireland schedule creates a risk of the development of a future agricultural policy framework for Northern Ireland being further delayed—hence my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I very much support her points. She can add my name to the list of those she mentioned as supporting her amendment. Again, I declare my registered interests, as I did in earlier Committee debates.
Government Amendment 209, on identification and traceability, which recognises the need to work with the devolved Governments, is of course welcome. I know that this provision was requested by Welsh Ministers. However, this group of amendments goes way beyond identification and traceability. As I indicated in the debate on the very first group of amendments in Committee, I acknowledge that my Amendment 291 sits more comfortably with Amendment 290 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which proposes an agricultural co-ordination council; perhaps we will hear the arguments in favour of that later in this debate.
In fact, that amendment then stood as the lead amendment of a group that lent itself to such a purpose. Tacking Amendments 290 and 291 on to government Amendment 209 makes less sense, but we are where we are. However, I very much add my support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain. The theme has already begun to emerge and it goes way beyond Amendment 290.
None the less, the general setting in which these two amendments arise represents a dimension much broader than the agricultural setting. The issue of a UK single market replacing the European single market goes to the heart of the relationship between the four nations of these islands. If Westminster gets this wrong, it will have far-reaching constitutional implications. However, addressing the issue in an agricultural context is a good starting point.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, emphasised a moment ago, the whole rationale of devolution was to create political structures that can facilitate different policies in different parts of these islands, responding to the different needs and circumstances that exist. That is most certainly the case in the context of agriculture. Because of our mountainous terrain in Wales, the nature of our agriculture is different from that of England, as indeed is much of the farmland of Scotland. Northern Ireland is again different, with its links to the Irish Republic and into the European single market. Our farming in Wales is much more dependent on the livestock sectors—sheep, beef and dairy farming. Unless a free trade agreement can be reached before the cliff edge of 31 December is upon us, our departure from the EU will have absolutely devastating effects on our agriculture, particularly our hill farms, as has been mentioned in several debates in this Committee.
It is totally inconceivable that any Welsh Government of any party or combination of parties would stand by and allow the devastation of our rural life that would ensue. They would be expected to intervene—that would be a political imperative—but, of course, intervening to help Welsh agriculture in such dire circumstances would inevitably have a knock-on effect on agriculture in England and Scotland. Likewise, initiatives by Westminster to help any particular sector in England would have consequences for the other three devolved regimes, so there must be a framework mechanism for the UK single market. On that much we are probably agreed across this Committee.
The problem is to determine the nature of that mechanism; that becomes a political question. The nationalist Benches in the other place are sometimes taunted that we are happy to see our nations conceding power to a European single market but not to a British single market. That gibe ignores the geopolitical reality within the UK compared with that within the EU. If all the rules and priorities within the EU single market were dominated by a single member state—Germany, say—and the German Government had a veto over all other member states, the EU single market would have long since collapsed.
Our fear, shared among many and across parties in the devolved Parliaments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, is that England will insist on determining the policies and priorities of the UK single market at the expense of the ability of the devolved Governments to secure and implement policies needed by their own people—in this case by their own farming communities.
To that extent, Amendment 290 provides a requirement for unanimity between the four Governments in making any changes to the framework; that is welcome. It had been my hope that by the time we were debating these issues in the context of this Bill we would have made progress on the general trading structures alongside which any agricultural provision has to exist. We are not there yet, though there may perhaps be a greater indication of government thinking before we get to Report on the Bill. We may therefore need to come back to it.
In conclusion, I press upon the Government to approach this whole issue from the viewpoint of seeking an agricultural framework compatible with a broader framework of relationships between the four nations of these islands and to accept that, if there is to be a stable ongoing relationship, it has to be based on a partnership of equals. A larger population does not give any nation the right to impose its policies on all others, or we would now be acknowledging that China—by dint of its size—has a right to impose its will on the international order. A framework solution within the UK will inevitably have some form of federal or confederal relationship between the nations of these islands, based on transparent and equitable mechanisms and underpinned by mutual respect, not population size.
I hope that, by the time we come back in September, the Government will have developed their thinking along these lines. If they do not, it bodes very badly not just for co-operation within the agricultural dimension but for the future constitutional outlook of the four nations of these islands.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I will keep my comments very brief. I have already spoken to similar Amendments 147, 148 and 154, highlighting the risk of these potential cost-cutting and corner-cutting clauses—but I welcome the opportunity to prompt the Minister to reassure me, as he so often does.
Agriculture Bill
Thursday 23rd July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-VII Seventh marshalled list for Committee - (23 Jul 2020)
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD) [V]
My Lords, as I was about to say before our proceedings were cut short just before midnight on Tuesday evening, I speak in support of Amendment 267, to which I have added my name. I also say at the outset that shortly before the House adjourned on Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, made a compelling contribution in support of his Amendment 291, which makes a strong case for a United Kingdom framework for agriculture. I would readily support that.
In speaking to his Amendment 267, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, put the issue in context. He reminded us that Part 6, of which Clause 40 forms part, relates to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. As he pointed out, as a matter of international law the United Kingdom Government are responsible for ensuring that UK policies are compliant with the agreement. Clause 40 makes provision for regulations to be made to secure compliance with the UK’s obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture but, as the noble and learned Lord said, as the devolved Administrations see it,
“the starting point for any system of regulation to ensure WTO compliance by the UK as a whole must be that it is the responsibility of each of the devolved Administrations to devise its own system for the support of agriculture with whatever resources may be available”.—[Official Report, 21/7/20; col. 2195.]
What is of concern is that, specifically, regulations can by virtue of Clause 41 impose limits on the amount of domestic assistance available to each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those could be at a lower ceiling than exists under the current arrangements. Thus it is self-evident that this is crucial to the operation of the devolved competence of agriculture, yet there is nothing that requires consultation with the devolved Administrations, let alone consent.
Agriculture is prima facie a devolved matter. Although negotiations on the CAP were the responsibility of the UK Government, the devolved Administrations had direct input into the preparations of the UK negotiating position. It is the case that while implementation of the CAP was devolved, as is the management of direct payments to farmers, the allocation of agricultural budgets between the devolved Administrations has been reserved to the United Kingdom Government. However, that allocation invariably involved detailed consultation, even if not always agreement, as the disputes over the allocation of the EU convergence uplift illustrated.
This amendment proposes that there ought to be consultation before any such regulations are brought forward. I would recognise government Amendment 268, which removes the regulation power in respect of requisitioning information from devolved Governments. That is a welcome move and the Government should be given some credit for responding to representations on that matter. But it is because of this apparent overlap between devolved and reserved responsibilities that great sensitivity will be required.
In its recent report on the constitutional issues arising out of the Brexit legislation, the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, of which I am privileged to be a member, said:
“We recommend that powers for UK Ministers to make delegated legislation in devolved areas, including the power to supersede law made by devolved legislatures, should include a requirement either to consult devolved ministers or to seek their consent, depending on the significance of the power in question.”
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 289, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, not only because agriculture remains Northern Ireland’s most important and largest industry, but because of some particular political issues that affect Northern Ireland. I recognise that the Minister has tabled some amendments in this group on the relationship with Ministers in the devolved Administrations and I welcome that. However, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness has just emphasised, it is important that Ministers in the devolved institutions are serious decision-makers in their own right and in their representation of the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and not just rule-takers from outside.
However, in the case of Northern Ireland, there are two other important issues that I believe this amendment facilitates by encouraging and, indeed, requiring the members of the Northern Ireland Executive to work together to develop bespoke legislation and an approach to agriculture that addresses the particular needs of Northern Ireland and the challenges and opportunities of the island nature of Ireland as a whole.
These agricultural issues are practical matters. I found in the negotiation of the peace process that when they could engage on practical issues, rather than those involving profound constitutional principle, it was often possible to reach a surprising degree of agreement between parties that were otherwise in deep disagreement. Recently, we have seen further evidence of this, as the Northern Ireland Executive have dealt quite well with the Covid-19 crisis in comparison with others. By inserting a sunset clause in this Bill, we would be giving a specific encouragement to Northern Ireland Ministers to engage in practical negotiations on the agricultural industry which, as I say, is not a partisan matter.
It was often noted that the late Lord Bannside, when he was Dr Ian Paisley MEP, was able to work closely with the predecessor of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, as leader of the SDLP, John Hume, who was also a Member of the European Parliament. Their co-operation was especially notable on questions of agriculture and the common agricultural policy. Our sunset clause would, in my view, encourage just this sort of bipartisanship and cross-community co-operation on agriculture in Northern Ireland.
The second reason for ensuring that the Northern Ireland Executive take up the development of their own legislation is that, in my view, the next few years will see significant changes in the relationships between the north and south in Ireland. It is clear from the protocol with the EU that Northern Ireland will have a special relationship with the rest of the island, which remains within the EU—something quite different from the rest of the UK. Indeed, it will be the only part of the UK with a land border with the EU and, with particular reference to this Bill, it uniquely has farms that straddle the border. In some cases, part of a farm will be inside the EU and part outside it.
It seems to me inconceivable that by 2026, the date in this clause, it will not have become necessary to develop new ways of addressing these issues that will be quite different from the ways that other parts of the United Kingdom—whether devolved or not—relate with the EU. By then, we will be almost 30 years on from the end of the Troubles that so deepened division on the island. A sunset clause will give the Northern Ireland Ministers the encouragement and freedom to address this complex and developing network of relationships. For these two reasons, I strongly support the insertion of this new clause after Clause 45 in the Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself with the amendments in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and also with the remarks of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Wallace. I am proud of the fact that I am a non-practising advocate, so I maintain an interest in matters north of the border.
As I entirely endorse the comments that the noble and learned Lords have made, I want to ask my noble friend a specific question with regard to the consultation that is asked for under these amendments. With regard to Amendment 291, I associate myself with the request from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for a UK framework for agriculture. What form will the consultation on these regulations take? Presumably, the regulations must be relatively far advanced, so when would my noble friend expect the consultation to commence? In reply, can he take the opportunity to inform us what developments there have been on the common frameworks? I understand that, originally, there were to be 24; we now hear word that there will be only three. They are absolutely key to this part of the Bill and to ensuring good faith—I know my noble friend likes to use the phrase “bona fides”—between the four parts of the United Kingdom. With those few words, I support the amendments in this group.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am disappointed, like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that Amendments 290 and 291 have been regrouped with others in this group. I was looking forward to a full delineation by the Minister of the way forward envisaged by the Government in creating some body in which the four nations could thrash out the common framework of a single market for the United Kingdom. As I have said earlier in Committee, the agricultural systems of the four nations are bound to diverge, not just because the devolved Administrations are governed by different political parties that may have different aims, policies and ideas, but because of the very diverse nature of their landscapes and communities.
Looking at it broadly, there are two main issues: how funding will be distributed between the four nations, and to what degree divergence is compatible with the single market. My concern is that Wales does not lose its current share of UK funding of 16%. Indeed, it should have a greater share. Mr Michael Gove, addressing the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee of the Scottish Parliament on 27 June 2018, said that
“it is in the nature of the landscape and the environment in Scotland—and also in other parts of the United Kingdom—that the preponderance of less-favoured areas and the nature of upland farming impose particular challenges that require a specific level of support … we need to look in the future at how we allocate funding across the United Kingdom in order to reflect that … My aim … is to ensure that, in the future, we allocate funding in a way that is sensitive to the specific needs of each part of the United Kingdom.”
The United Kingdom Government have guaranteed continued funding of Pillar 1 of the CAP until 2022 and, as we discussed the other day, the continuation of rural development programmes under Pillar 2 of the CAP until contracts come to an end, at the latest in 2023. But what happens then? Farming is not an industry in which capital can be quickly switched from one sector to another. It requires long-term planning, which can be achieved only by clarity on future funding. As for divergence, there should be agreed common standards for animal health, traceability, animal welfare, breeding and trading in animals, fertilisers and the like. What divergence of support in specific areas would be compatible with a single UK market?
There is no issue that there must be some forum—a forum for consent, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace argued a moment ago—in which these questions can be resolved. It would be quite unacceptable and in breach of the principles of devolution for decisions to be made by some Whitehall diktat. Indeed, the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) already agreed in October 2017 that common frameworks will be established, to
“enable the functioning of the UK internal market … ensure compliance with international obligations … enable the management of common resources”,
and to
“administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element”.
It also agreed to
“safeguard the security of the UK”—
in this context, I take it that means food security. However, nothing in the framework of the Bill requires or creates any mechanism, whether by secondary legislation or otherwise, for such a body.
Two alternative approaches are set out in Amendments 290 and 291. Each has their advantages but there really is a hole in the Bill, as I said at Second Reading, which the Government ought to fill themselves. It is no longer satisfactory to be told that civil servants are working away at this—I hope we do not hear that today. We need a commitment to the creation of a forum for negotiation and co-operation, as my noble friend Lord Alderdice said, and it needs to be written into the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
I welcome government Amendments 209 and 262, to Clauses 32 and 37, in particular. Agriculture is self-evidently one of the prime examples of where we must get right the legislation and other arrangements for the interrelationship of the powers of the devolved Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and the powers of the Westminster Government, first, in respect of England and, secondly, in respect of the United Kingdom as a whole—I think we frequently fail to make that distinction of the two distinct hats that the Westminster Government wear and it is important to bear them in mind. As a firm supporter of the union, I consider it vital for the strengthening of the union and the removal of the risks to it that we consider these issues most carefully. In this Bill, as agriculture is plainly one of the areas where serious tensions can arise, whether it be in relation to food standards or the extent of subsidies, it is vital that we do so.
It is of course a great pity that we come to this so late in our planning for Brexit, as this has been an obvious area for debate and for reaching decisions long before now. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, have already spoken powerfully on issues relating to the devolved Governments. The noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Thomas of Gresford, have compellingly explained the need for long-term and fair financial arrangements.
I wish briefly to make three points. The first is the importance of respecting devolved competence in legislation. I welcome the amendments put forward by the Minister, who understands the importance and sensitivity of devolution. It is reassuring to hear him make it clear that the Government remain wholly committed to seeking legislative consent for all the provisions that engage the scope of the convention in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I just wanted to be sure of the correctness of my understanding of why the devolved Governments requested the amendments and the reasons why Her Majesty’s Government have brought them forward.
Am I correct in understanding that the Bill as introduced did not properly recognise the important principle that legislation by the UK Government to apply in the devolved nations but within the devolved competence should be made only with the consent of the devolved Governments or their legislatures? It is regrettable that, at the time of the decision made on the EU withdrawal agreement, legislative consent was not obtained. That is water under the bridge, but it was made clear then that that was a truly exceptional occasion. In view of the confirmation given by the Minister in introducing the government amendments, I hope that he can confirm the Government’s commitment that they will not in future present legislation to the House that does not respect the principle of requiring the consent of devolved institutions for any UK legislation that could be made by legislation within the devolved Parliaments. It is important to the way in which devolution is to operate and the strength of the union that there be such a commitment.
My second point—and I can be brief about this—is about moving forward on the frameworks. It is clearly highly desirable that there be agreement between the different Governments on matters on which there can be a common approach and an agreement of where there can be differences or divergence of the kind of which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, spoke. As I understand it, that is the objective of these frameworks. I therefore welcome the statements made on a number of occasions by the Minister that good progress is being made. The matters to be covered will be extensive and it is important to bear in mind that this is not, as I understand it, a consultation exercise by the UK Government but an attempt to reach agreement. I therefore look forward to their publication and hope that the Minister can update us as to when this is to happen.
There is one other matter why publication is important and that is the dispute resolution mechanism that must be inserted into a framework agreement. It is inevitable that there will be disagreements—I hope that they will be small—but the difference between a framework and a consultation, ultimately, is that if there is a framework, there must be a means of resolving differences, whereas, in a consultation, the decision is ultimately made by the person who consults.
Thirdly and finally, there is the need for a coherent constitutional approach. I warmly support the principles behind Amendment 290, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and Amendment 291, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Thomas of Gresford. An alternative is now being canvassed, which is the provisional views put forward in the paper on the internal market. It will obviously be necessary to turn back to this in the long period between September and Christmas. However, it is important now to point out that the imposition of a policy ultimately determined to be in the interests of by far the biggest and most powerful of the four nations is not the way to ensure the preservation of the union. This constitutional issue will have to be a matter for debate and it will have to be debated in the context of agriculture, as it is so important in that area. I therefore look forward to the development of proposals over the summer, because this urgent matter cannot wait longer. If the union is to be strengthened and preserved, positive steps on this are far more likely to achieve that preservation than other action being taken.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords. I will comment briefly on government Amendments 209, 261, 262 and 268, which I welcome. These amendments cover the areas of outstanding concern to the Welsh Government. They acknowledge their devolved competence and were included at their request.
Amendment 209 deals with an issue that I raised at Second Reading: how the new body created to oversee the identification and traceability of animals would operate in an area of devolved responsibility, particularly if that body was seen to be an English board. That the new body would need to seek the approval of Welsh and other devolved Ministers or institutions is now certainly welcomed.
Amendments 261 and 262 ensure that the consent of the Ministers of the devolved Administrations must be obtained before making cross-border regulations in relation to organic products. I am pleased that the responsibility of the devolved Administrations has again been recognised.
Amendment 268 covers an issue that, again, I raised at Second Reading. By the removal of the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations in the area of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture, this amendment ensures that the rights and responsibilities for implementing international agreements remain with the devolved Administrations.
I welcome all these amendments, as they conclude the process by which the Welsh Government have asserted their competence in these areas. However, I express some disappointment in the fact that there was a need for this process at all. Earlier in this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in her powerful and comprehensive speech on these amendments, described the Government as seeking, in effect,
“to strong-arm the devolved Governments into giving up elements of their executive competence”.—[Official Report, 21/7/20; cols. 2193-94.]
I agree with her sentiments and am pleased that that has been avoided by the Government tabling these amendments, and that the competence of the devolved Governments will now be reflected in the Bill.
Lord Eames (CB) [V]
My Lords, in this group of amendments I will speak to Amendment 209. I refer to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, during our debate on Tuesday.
In this debate so far, I have been impressed by the frequent references that the Minister has made to the need to view the Bill in relation to the devolved nations. On Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke powerfully on the importance of that relationship from a Welsh point of view and this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has reminded us of the connection with the problems in Northern Ireland.
So far as that relationship is concerned, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, reminded the House of the difficulties presented by the period during which the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive did not function. Amendment 209 is influenced by the problems of that period but now, thankfully, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are operating fully. However, the importance of the relationship between central government and the devolved Administrations in areas such as agriculture cannot be overemphasised in this debate. This amendment is an attempt to build on that sensitivity so far as one devolved nation is concerned, but it has implications for the others so far as the whole Bill is concerned and cannot be isolated to one devolved nation alone.
As the United Kingdom prepares to leave the EU, none of us can have a complete picture of the problems which will emerge for the farming community throughout the UK. Amendment 209 recognises this reality. For Northern Ireland farmers, the uncertainties of their geographical situation are well documented, with a land border about to become the border between the United Kingdom and the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, reminded the House, this is vital to farming communities in Northern Ireland. In addition, there continues to be confusion around the issue of what is normally referred to as a border in the Irish Sea. The implications of that confusion for transporting agricultural produce within the United Kingdom cannot be overstated for Northern Ireland farmers—hence their concerns about the future.
I support Amendment 209, for I am well aware of the importance to the Northern Ireland economy of our farming community, but I am equally aware of the contribution of the devolved settlement to the strength of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is why I welcome the Minister’s references to the importance of the relationship between central government and the devolved Administrations, so far as agriculture is concerned. It is surely essential that these reflections are clearly stated in the Bill.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I want to speak on a number of these amendments but will make a small technical point at the beginning. Amendment 209 and others in this group refer to Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and a Northern Ireland department. A number of colleagues have asked why this is the case—in fact the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, challenged it during one exchange some weeks go. But the Government’s amendment is in fact correct because power in Northern Ireland is not vested in the Minister; it is vested in the department. This goes back to some kind of anomaly in 1921. I have never understood or heard an explanation as to why that is the case, but it is. Amendment 209 is correct but some amendments in this group do not quite follow the same pattern. I think that would need to be addressed. The role of a Minister is to direct and control a department in Northern Ireland so that power is vested in the department, not in the Minister.
With regard to the amendments, my first question to the Minister is: what happens if Whitehall fails to get the agreement of one or other of these devolved institutions? What impact would that have and how would it be addressed in practice?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and somewhat to my surprise very much agree with his call for honesty, a reality-based politics about the situation of the border down the middle of the Irish Sea and the need to acknowledge and deal with it. However, I disagree that that means there is any sort of argument against Amendment 290 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, or Amendment 291 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley.
Whether it is a co-ordination council or a framework, the particular situation of Northern Ireland and the differences that will happen under each of the devolved Administrations in all our nations demands some kind of co-ordination. I can imagine that the Minister may get up and say, as we hear so often, “Wait for the regulations, we will sort this out later”. Let us focus on the fact that the other place has already gone off on its summer break. Time is moving on and it is surely essential to have a mechanism for co-ordination in the Bill.
I also support Amendment 283 in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She has done a sterling job throughout this Bill, as I am sure your Lordships’ House has noticed, in ensuring that animal welfare issues remain front and centre of all aspects of the Bill, as they must.
At the special request of the Green Party of Northern Ireland, I have risen chiefly to speak to Amendment 289 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick—in shorthand, the sunset clause for Northern Ireland. Particular circumstances here demand action from the Government to incorporate this into the Bill. Due to the absence of a sitting Assembly from January 2017 to January 2020, there was very little consultation in Northern Ireland on this Bill. The scrutiny that did take place was over one day. The Committee on Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs heard evidence from stakeholders, looking also at the Environment Bill and the Fisheries Bill. Due to the complexity, the committee was unable to explore fully the situation of this Bill, but it indicated in its report that it would endorse a sunset clause similar to that provided by Wales—the provision in Amendment 289.
The committee then recommended a timeframe ending at 2024, but I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, is right: given the practicalities of Covid-19 and the electoral cycle, 2026 is the right timing for this. Without this amendment, Northern Ireland will be stuck with a basic payment system without any end in sight, with all the complexities and complications that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has just outlined. Northern Ireland needs the opportunity to develop its own agricultural legislation, specific to its context. Here we are talking about geography, climate, soils and the political framework.
I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment. Looking to the future, I do not think that I can do better than to quote the remarkably elegant words of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, when he said very late on Tuesday evening that we need a system that works for all the nations and respects the rights and wishes of all the nations,
“based on transparent and equitable mechanisms and underpinned by mutual respect”.—[Official Report, 21/7/20; col. 2200.]
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, devolution is the subject of this group of important amendments. The Minister set out the Government’s case on the functions for the devolved Administrations. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, spoke about the importance of transparency on the consultation and ensuring the agreement of the devolved Administrations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, also spoke very knowledgeably about the need for consultation on Clause 40 with the devolved Administrations on the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. My noble friend Lady Humphreys spoke on the effects on the Welsh and the inclusion of Amendments 209, 261 and 262, which the Welsh Administration had requested. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness gave the Scottish perspective from his considerable experience and knowledge.
The devolved Administrations had direct input into the CAP discussions with the EU. The UK Government are now taking this power to themselves as a reserved matter. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, spoke to the insertion of a sunset clause for Northern Ireland, which was moved very eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, believes that agriculture is a practical issue, not a partisan one. The devolved Administration in Northern Ireland should take up their own legislation on agriculture, and the sunset clause will assist this. Other noble Lords have spoken to this amendment along similar lines. I fully support the sunset clause, which brings Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke to his Amendment 290 very late on Tuesday; it would ensure that the Secretary of State creates a formal agriculture co-ordination council, which would be responsible for monitoring disputes on agriculture and food standards across the different areas of the UK. Other noble Lords have expressed support for this amendment. It is extremely important that this should be done while keeping in mind the relevant common frameworks that already exist. Can the Minister say just how many frameworks there will be? Will there be only three, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has indicated?
I fully support this group of important amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made a very powerful comment on the implications of the border in the Irish Sea and asked the Minister to acknowledge that. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Finally, at the start of this group of 11 amendments on Tuesday evening, there were 24 speakers but, due to the lateness of the hour, seven Peers scratched their names from the list. Today, we are debating 41 different amendments in 10 groups, with the possibility of speeches from 137 noble Lords. We are rapidly approaching the point where everything that can be said about the Bill has been said, but not everyone has yet said it—although some have said it more than once. We must get to our target today; we do our reputation no good at all by dragging things out.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments that raises a variety of issues in relation to how future agricultural policy will work in the light of the devolution settlements. It has been a pleasure to hear so many noble—and noble and learned—Lords contribute so widely and wisely to the debate.
I speak primarily to Amendment 290, in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. This is an evolution of an amendment tabled in the Commons and there are clear links with Amendment 291 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I agree with the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hain earlier in the debate. We have diverse systems in our four nations’ agricultural businesses that have been developed to match local needs. Wales may be different agriculturally, but the need to agree multiannual funding is indeed a key concern for us all. The Bill is a perfect chance for developing a shared opportunity for resilience in the sector across the UK.
So many noble Lords have spoken in this debate about the uniqueness of the agriculture industry and the way in which nature can impede upon the best-laid plans of the farmer, who has to deal with so many changing circumstances. Indeed, it is not without regret that I note that this would have been the week of my regular attendance at the Royal Welsh Show at Llanelwedd, where the best of the industry is evident. I therefore stress, again, that multiannual funding would go a great way to help to support farmers with uncertainties.
While there have been positive discussions between Her Majesty’s Government and the Welsh Government on the Bill, as highlighted by the government amendments in this group, there remain tensions with the Scottish Government, who may propose to the Scottish Parliament that legislative consent is withheld. On this point, there are general concerns over the level of specific engagement with the devolved Administrations in our post-Brexit realities. Indeed, this is highlighted by the recent publication of the UK Internal Market White Paper, which had worryingly little input from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
An agricultural co-ordination council, as proposed in this amendment by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, would allow Her Majesty’s Government and the devolved Administrations to discuss common concerns, map disparities in policy between different parts of the UK and keep common frameworks under review. Such a body would be similar to the joint ministerial committees, a format that still technically exists but whose various incarnations seem to have met very infrequently in recent years, especially during this time of national pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, what an interesting debate we have had. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed.
On Amendment 263A, Defra Ministers meet on an almost monthly basis with counterparts from the devolved Administrations as part of the inter-ministerial group for EFRA. Any potential changes to food standards would be discussed here first. I am also pleased with the progress officials have made in developing the food information to consumers, fish labelling and food compositional standards common UK framework. The framework will focus on consensus-based decision-making but will also include dispute prevention and resolution mechanisms.
On Amendment 267, the powers in Part 6 allow for regulations to be made to ensure compliance with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the WTO agreement on agriculture. The regulations therefore set out procedures and arrangements to ensure that the UK as a whole complies with existing obligations under an international treaty. We have a bilateral agreement with the Welsh Government on the making and operation of regulations under Part 6 of the Bill. We have offered to extend this agreement to the Scottish Government and DAERA Ministers in Northern Ireland.
In addition, my honourable friend the Minister for Farming, Victoria Prentis, committed in the other place to consult with the devolved Administrations on the making of regulations under Part 6. I say in particular to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering that draft regulations have already been shared with devolved Administrations and strong and productive discussions are continuing. Defra officials have been working closely with them; this is another important and positive point.
On Amendment 284, the powers taken by Welsh Ministers through the Bill are intended as a temporary measure while the Welsh Government continue to develop their own legislation. Financial assistance under Clause 1 may be given by the Secretary of State only in relation to England. Welsh Ministers are not taking similar powers in this Bill to operate or introduce new financial assistance schemes. It is the Welsh Government’s intention that these powers will be provided for by a future Senedd Bill.
On Amendment 283, Schedule 5 contains powers requested by the Welsh Government to simplify the existing schemes and improve them for farmers, not to change or reduce standards. The underlying animal welfare standards to which all farmers must adhere are not found in this domestic payments scheme legislation; rather, they are found in underlying domestic and retained EU legislation. Therefore, these underlying protections will continue for all.
I found Amendment 289 an interesting element of our discussions. The Northern Ireland Assembly debated and agreed the legislative consent Motion on 31 March 2020. The DAERA Minister made it clear to the Northern Ireland Assembly in that debate that he did not support a sunset clause at this stage with respect to Northern Ireland provisions in the UK Agriculture Bill. It is the Government’s very strong view—I must say, we have been reminded by all noble Lords who contributed of the importance of this—that we must respect the devolution settlement. I find it difficult to construe how the Government could accept the amendment proposed and respect the desire and wish of the DAERA Minister and, by that token, the Assembly. Therefore, we do not believe that Parliament should seek to override the constitutional view already agreed by the Assembly on 31 March 2020. If we are to be consistent in our respect for the devolution settlement, it is difficult to believe that your Lordships or the Government should seek to impose something on a devolved Administration when they have given their legislative consent Motion to legislation. To be very clear, my noble friend and I are honest brokers for both the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly in the schedules before us.
On Amendments 290 and 291, the UK Government have created IMG EFRA, as I have said, and a series of specialist official-level working groups to deliver effective joint working with the devolved Administrations. This has proven a highly successful governance mechanism. The UK Government have collaborated closely with each devolved Administration on a UK-wide framework for agricultural support based on the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations principles agreed in 2017. The framework is planned to cover policy areas such as agricultural support spending, crisis measures, public intervention and private storage aid, marketing standards, cross-border farms and data collection and sharing. I think the point about cross-border farms was raised in particular.
Good progress is being made on the framework. The UK Government shared their first draft with officials from the devolved Administrations this February. Since then, there have been continuing discussions with officials in the devolved Administrations on a common framework for agricultural support. In our view, placing additional statutory requirements in this area risks disrupting an ongoing process of what has been described as excellent collaborative working, which is working extremely well. It would also create inconsistency with wider framework discussions.
I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, first used the word “sensitivity”. We are all of a view that we must deal with these matters with sensitivity. When I meet fellow Ministers from all parts of the United Kingdom, I see this as an endeavour of equal partnership. We believe that it is inappropriate for the UK Government to seek to legislate on frameworks, certainly without prior discussion and consideration with the devolved Administrations.
I also say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd—and I repeat this from my opening remarks on Tuesday—that we remain wholly committed to seeking legislative consent for all provisions that engage the convention in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is why I was pleased to make those amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, and other noble Lords raised the budgets for the devolved Administrations. Intra-UK funding is being discussed as part of current Treasury settlement discussions with Defra. Her Majesty’s Treasury will discuss this directly with the devolved Administrations. I absolutely understand the importance of certainty on funding for all parts of the United Kingdom and, from the visits I have had, am well aware of the importance of farming to all parts of the United Kingdom, and its importance in terms of UK internal markets.
To answer my noble friend Lord Empey on the Northern Ireland border, the Government are working very closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure unfettered market access between Northern Ireland and Great Britain while meeting our obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. I also say this to my noble friend, because of my biosecurity interest: as an epidemiological unit in itself, the island of Ireland has some advantages. Also, we already have requirements, as does Northern Ireland, as part of that unit. Obviously, we want to make sure that the biosecurity arrangements for the island of Ireland are as strong as they can be, but our working with Northern Ireland will be absolutely imperative for the frameworks. The success of that is where I believe we will find a satisfactory resolution for all parts of the United Kingdom. I say that as a unionist.
The UK Government believe in close collaboration in the coming months to agree and implement administrative frameworks to set out future working and co-ordination on agriculture. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, asked when that will happen; the answer is, by the end of the transition period. We think that close collaboration is, to pick up on a word used earlier, the respectful way to work. I am conscious that the relationship between all four parts of the United Kingdom needs to be strong and positive. If it is not, it makes things much more difficult.
I want to bring forward the fact that the relationship that all of us as Ministers in Defra have with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations is strong and positive. There is a common endeavour to ensure that we have vibrant agriculture and strong food production, and that we make a success of it all and make a success of the United Kingdom.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have received three requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Hope of Craighead.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, the Minister mentioned his meetings with his counterparts in the devolved Administrations. Does he or any of his colleagues have any such meetings planned between now and Report to discuss and get their views on these amendments, and others, before we come to discuss them on Report? If not, would he consider arranging some meetings? It would be very helpful for the House to get the results of these sorts of discussions.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a fair point. I am not the Minister having these discussions, but I will make sure that the noble Lord’s point is put to my ministerial colleagues. Again, consideration and discussion of all these matters is the healthy way forward. I will certainly ensure that a record of Hansard is passed on to my ministerial colleagues. It is a good point.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness [V]
My Lords, in his response to the debate, the Minister indicated that, in another place, Victoria Prentis had committed to consulting on regulations arising from Clauses 40 and 41. If that is the Government’s position, what cogent reason is there for not including this amendment in the Bill?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The noble and learned Lord makes an interesting point. I am just repeating the commitment that my honourable friend made. Perhaps I might take that one back.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wanted to make exactly the same point as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say. I am afraid that I did not understand why a requirement for consultation should not be in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could take this matter away and reconsider it so that we can possibly come back to it on Report.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Two noble and learned Lords making those remarks that makes it doubly important that I take their points back to the department.
“(1) The red meat levy is to be known as the animal slaughter levy.(1A) A scheme under this section (“the scheme”)—(a) may make provision for amounts of animal slaughter levy collected by the levy body for one country in Great Britain to be paid to the levy body for another such country, or(b) may amend, suspend or revoke an earlier scheme made under this section, and (c) must by regulations make provision so that the levy is applied to all meats and carcasses from animals slaughtered in the United Kingdom.(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A)(c), regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate. I should inform the Committee that if Amendment 211 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 212.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, here we are, back again with renewed energy and enthusiasm.
My Amendments 211 and 213 to 216 seek to improve Clause 33. I can also see the power and value in Amendment 212 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. My amendments would require an animal slaughter levy to be established for all animals slaughtered in the United Kingdom. The funds raised from that levy would then be used to support farms to transition from livestock to plant-based food production.
As many Peers have said, meat consumption in the British diet is, on average, far too high. It is too much meat for our health. If all other countries in the developing world aspired to eat as much meat as we do, we would need dozens more planets to accommodate that meat production. As we have only one planet, reducing meat production and promoting plant-based foods are major steps in creating a fair and sustainable world.
Tucked into Amendment 211 is a requirement that the animal slaughter levy actually be set up, since the current drafting of Clause 33 grants the power to establish a red meat levy but places no duty on the Government to implement it. It is worth noting that creating a red meat levy is a big step for the Government; it is the kind of thing that, until very recently, us Greens have been mocked for even suggesting. Can the Minister be bolder than just red meat and go the whole hog to make this a full animal slaughter levy? I beg to move.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments, specifically those on Amendment 212, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Wigley, which seeks to
“provide for repatriation of the levy collected in the United Kingdom supply chain to the devolved administration of origin.”
The agricultural processing sector in Wales, from whence I am speaking, is relatively small in comparison to the agricultural output of Welsh farms. The red meat sector is the predominant agricultural activity in Wales, and the processing facilities servicing this sector are strategically placed throughout the UK to maximise accessibility in a system that is heavily reliant on roads and HGV transportation for the movement of livestock.
With levy funding allocated according to place of cull rather than an animal’s point of origin, the centralised processing system disadvantages farmers in Wales. Furthermore, key products such as Welsh lamb and beef, which benefit from the protected geographical indication status—PGI—and derive a greater market share due to this status, are culled in other areas of the UK. It is these locations, not Wales, that receive the levy funds. This imbalance, driven by the streamlining and consolidation of the red meat processing and supply chain sector, is causing additional stress on a red meat sector already under significant financial strain in Wales. Levy Boards, with their increasingly important role in promoting the food products of Wales and working with the agricultural sector to improve efficiency and profitability through knowledge and best practice, should receive an equitable share of levy funds that allow them to work effectively in their respective areas of the UK.
As the UK seeks to negotiate new trade deals with other nations, it is the successful marketing and promotion of our flagship products in Wales, such Welsh lamb, 92% of which is currently exported to the European Union, that could deliver transformational change for farmers there. It would be unfortunate if these opportunities could not be delivered due to a poorly structured levy funding mechanism.
The issue of fair levy funding dispersal is also an important consideration when looking at the delivery of sustainable food production in the UK, a point referred to in passing by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. A proportionately funded levy body could look beyond helping farmers and the supply chain with economic performance towards a focus on environmental and social considerations, especially sustainability.
Looking further ahead, we would all like to see a food supply chain based around local production, processing and consumption; that would provide potential benefits not only for the farmer but for the climate change mitigation agenda, which is so crucial. That is the long-term goal. In the meantime, having resources allocated fairly to the levy bodies will enable them better to support our agricultural producers as they move towards economic and environmental sustainability. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment and indicate that when he comes to reply.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and I agree with her comments. I also agree particularly with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, about the sectoral challenges in Wales and the importance of the facilities being available and of directing, as far as possible, resources towards sustaining them.
Slaughter being located close to the point of production is important from the environmental point of view and indeed to sustaining employment in rural areas. This has been challenged in recent years by a number of economic factors which have tended to favour moves towards centralisation. The question of the resources available from the levy has been a burning issue in Wales. I am convinced that Ministers are aware of that; indeed, the Government have acknowledged it. It is therefore important that a guarantee be put into the Bill regarding the availability of such a levy to Wales, as well as to other locations where beef slaughter takes place. For these reasons, I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I shall speak only briefly on this group of amendments in order to probe my noble friend the Minister on when we will have the Government’s response to the recent consultation on the activities of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. There was overwhelming support for keeping the existing levy, and I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I do not think that farmers would welcome another levy in addition to the existing one. Support for the levy is fairly overwhelming at 66%, but it is important that we review the purposes for which it is used.
I want to place on the record the difficulties that abattoirs and auction marts are experiencing at this time because of Covid-19. I hope that we appreciate those difficulties and sympathise with farmers who, as sellers, are still not allowed to enter the auction mart because, as I understand it, the restrictions are still in place. Only the buyers are allowed to do so and if I was a livestock owner, I would find not being there very worrying. I would be interested to see the Government’s response to the consultation. I do not think that I have missed it—the website sets out only the responses that were submitted to the consultation.
Looking ahead to when we discuss other amendments to the Bill, I hope that part of the levy will be used for marketing and for export. I am sorry to raise my Danish connections again, but I have been hugely impressed by how the Danes use their levy, which is raised from livestock and other producers and then quite substantially matched by funding from the Government, to run marketing centres. I think that we are learning from that because we opened a marketing centre in Beijing and saw an immediate incremental rise in our exports of those parts of the pig that we do not like to eat. With those few words, I shall wait to hear my noble friend’s response.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, given her historic links to Yorkshire. It is not surprising that she has advocated a kind of danegeld in terms of this levy.
I am intervening in this debate because my name was not on the speakers’ list for the debate that took place earlier in Committee in which my noble friend Lady Mallalieu drew attention to the plight of small and niche abattoirs, many of which have gone out of business. This issue was flagged in the long-standing Radio 4 series “The Archers” when people engaged in a dialogue on it. I had been thinking mischievously of moving an amendment to try to get dialogue back into “The Archers” via this Bill. However, I take note of the stricture of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that many people have spoken at great length in these debates and so we are moving slowly through the Committee stage. For example, I spoke in the Chamber on 7 July and again at 11.05 pm on Tuesday night.
The point is that we need to coalesce the debates that have taken place. On Tuesday, I said that I have learned a great deal by following the debates and listening to those who have a great deal more knowledge than I do. My early time in politics was mainly informed by listening to my predecessor in the Sheffield Brightside constituency. His home and roots were in north Yorkshire, and his campaign to protect the rights of tenure of farm workers was successful. I come at this as a novice, but I believe that unless we get some clarity, both today and on Tuesday, on how we are going to take the Bill forward on Report, it is unlikely to see the light of day for a very long time.
I say to the mover of the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that I hope that in debating this levy, we take into account an earlier debate in Committee that revealed, to my surprise, the very small amount of land in the UK that can be described as being of grade one quality. Be careful what you do when allocating a levy, given the impact it could have on the different nations and geographic regions of the UK, as well as avoiding proselytising for vegetarianism.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and I can assure him that my wife would be delighted if there were some means of restoring dialogue to “The Archers”. I want to speak briefly in support of Amendment 212, tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Wigley. Clause 33 is a welcome step forward in making provision for a scheme which will address the long-running issue of a levy on livestock produced in one part of the UK but slaughtered in another being retained in that other part of the UK. This has long appeared to me to be unfair and has been the source of some contention, so the Government are to be commended for their initiative in this clause.
I support the amendment because it puts further flesh on the scheme to be devised by providing for the levy to be repatriated to the devolved Administration of origin, thus making it clearer what a key objective of that scheme should be. Quality Meat Scotland estimates that over £1.5 million of levy on Scottish animals is lost each year due to the fact that some cattle, sheep and pigs produced in Scotland are slaughtered elsewhere in the UK. I rather suspect that little goes in the opposite direction. If such a sum were repatriated, it could be applied to the promotion of quality Scottish beef, lamb and pig products. I therefore support the amendment and I hope that it commends itself to the Minister.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
I strongly oppose Amendments 211, 213, 214, 215 and 216 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. These amendments seek to rename the red meat levy “the animal slaughter levy”, which seems to me completely unnecessary. Worse, she proposes that the money raised by the levy should go towards assisting farmers to transition from livestock farming to plant-based farming. As long as there is demand for meat in this country, her amendment would simply result in an increase in meat imports from overseas.
Does the Minister agree that these amendments have no place in this Bill and represent a misguided attempt to use taxpayers’ money to interfere with citizens’ freedom to eat meat if they want to? As well as creating the impression that eating meat is somehow bad or less good than eating vegetables, they cast aspersions on our excellent livestock farms and our meat-production industry. Besides, has the noble Baroness not seen the recent research that shows that vegetarians need to eat much greater quantities of food than meat- eaters to absorb enough protein to prevent muscle wastage as people age?
I understand the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in Amendment 212. There is an argument that the levy should logically be applied at the point of slaughter. The argument supporting this amendment seems to derive from the fact that there are not so many abattoirs in the other three nations, and I would like to hear the Minister’s view on this point.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who always speaks with wonderful, robust, basic common sense. He spoke for my wife when he talked of “The Archers”, and he spoke for me when he referred to the beguiling speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who is a very popular Member of your Lordships’ House, and deservedly so. But I would say to her this: just watch it when it comes to pushing the vegetarian agenda. I am entirely happy for people to be vegetarian—I have a daughter-in-law, to whom I am devoted, who is a vegan—but that is by choice, and we should not use surreptitious means.
I am wholly in favour of the spirit of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and seconded by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. There is a great deal of basic common sense in that, and I hope it will commend itself to my noble friend, if not in its precise form, then in a similar one.
We should be enormously proud of the quality of British meat. Welsh lamb was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on a number of occasions—I love it, as well as Welsh and Scottish beef, and the wonderful lamb we produce in Lincolnshire. From all over the country comes marvellous produce. I think the favourite day of the month for my wife and me is going to the farmers’ market in Lincoln and buying quantities of good, home-produced meat, as well as other things.
I love vegetables; I have my five a day religiously. But we should not use legislation to try to undermine a great industry. We should take great pride not only in the quality of the meat produced in this country but in what can be done in this Bill to safeguard the lives of the farmers who produce it. Producing lamb in Wales is not the easiest of things, and there can be hardly anyone in your Lordships’ House who does not remember the terrible years after Chernobyl, when the Welsh farmers had such a very difficult time.
To my noble friend I say this. By all means, give strong support to Amendment 212, but beware of the wonderfully beguiling talents of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, the red meat levy has been debated earlier in our deliberations on this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, wishes to rename the red meat levy “the animal slaughter levy”. Essentially, the rest of Clause 33(1) remains the same, with the levy going to help farmers move from livestock to plant-based food production. This amendment is not trying to introduce something by subterfuge, since here we are debating it on television. There is no compulsion here.
The noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Wigley, and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, have spoken in favour of the repatriation of the red meat levy to the country of origin. Livestock often travels across the border from the farm where it was raised to the slaughterhouse, and we have previously debated the long journeys that some animals have to make. The levy is currently collected at the point of slaughter, and this may not be the country of origin. I support the repatriation of this levy to the relevant devolved Administration where the livestock was reared. This is where the majority of the cost of rearing occurred, so the levy should be used in that area. That is the most sensible and equitable way of dealing with this levy, and I hope the Minister will agree.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Hain for raising these issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has made an interesting point about extending the levy, but I would like far more detail about the economic and perhaps unforeseen animal welfare consequences of broadening the levy via some kind of impact assessment. I would also like to see the proposal underscored by a commitment to consult on the proposals in advance.
We have touched on the benefits of diets based more on plants and less on meat on several occasions. I believe that measures like this should be introduced as part of a wider national food strategy, rather than in isolation. To the noble Viscount, Lord, Trenchard, I say that there are plenty of sources of vegetable protein; we do not have to rely on eating meat.
My noble friend Lord Hain is right to raise the issue of the repatriation of levies raised to the point of slaughter, rather than where the animals were raised. This is particularly concerning in the case of Welsh lamb, as he very eloquently pointed out, and it will become more of an issue as smaller slaughterhouses close down and animals are forced to travel greater distances for slaughter. This point was made well by my noble friend Lord Blunkett.
It has been good to have this short debate. A number of useful issues were raised, but if we are serious about it, a great deal more work would need to be done. In the meantime, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for Amendments 211, 213, 214 and 216. Perhaps I could tell her at the outset that we have the red meat levy; it was established in 1967 under the Agriculture Act.
The term “red meat”, or “cig coch”, is written into Welsh legislation to describe the cattle, sheep and pig industries and has been used regarding the levy for those sectors for many years. Changing the name of the red meat levy in the Bill would necessitate amendments to related legislation across the UK and risk confusion and complications with the existing provisions. A further levy extending to all meats and carcasses of animals slaughtered in the UK would probably require a new levy body to be established, or the scope of the existing levy bodies to be broadened, to cover the additional species, such as goats and deer, that do not fall within the remit of the existing levy bodies. Consultation to determine the need for, and the benefit of, such a levy would also be required. This is set out in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. More importantly, agriculture is a devolved matter, as are these industry levies. It would therefore be for the devolved Administrations to choose to take forward their own regulations in this area, should they wish to do so.
Turning to Amendment 215, plant-based food production already benefits significantly from the UK levy system. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board collects levies that are used to fund activities in this area, valued at approximately £27 million. Legislation providing for our levy bodies clearly sets out the collection of these levies and that they are to be spent to benefit the industry from which they are collected.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering also asked some questions about how they are collected, and I should say that the red meat levy collected in one country can be spent only to benefit the contributing industry in that country. For example, any pig levy that is collected in England must be spent to the benefit of the pigmeat industry in England. Currently, levy cannot be spent for the sole benefit of producers in another jurisdiction.
Clause 33 addresses an acknowledged unfairness in the GB red-meat levy system that has existed for a number of years. It is not intended to change the way these levies are collected or spent. The Government wish simply to right the wrong that has been identified in the red-meat levy system. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering also asked when we would have the government response to the AHDB consultation. The government response to the request for views on this was published in April 2020.
Turning to Amendment 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, Clause 33 was introduced to provide for a scheme that allows for the redistribution of red-meat levy between the levy bodies of Great Britain. It will provide a fair approach to resolving an inequity that has been acknowledged by the Governments of these Administrations for several years. The provision in this amendment is based purely on the origin of the animal, rather than where it has gained economic value. It will allow for the repatriation of levy to the devolved Administrations themselves, whereas the scheme established using the provisions in Clause 33 would allow for the redistribution of levy between levy bodies in the three Administrations. By widening the provision of the scheme from that of Great Britain to that of the United Kingdom, the amendment extends the repatriation of red-meat levy to Northern Ireland. However, the scheme is to be made jointly by Ministers of England, Scotland and Wales, and is not needed by Northern Ireland.
In addition, the repatriation of levy is restricted by this amendment to the devolved Administrations. This could create a disparity between the devolved Administrations and England, as the devolved Administrations will be allowed to repatriate levy dependent upon origin, but England will not.
The noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Wigley, also brought up the question of small abattoirs, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, made the point that slaughtering animals close to the point of production is an important consideration in animal welfare. I am delighted to say, since they may not have heard my earlier response to this issue, that they are included in Clause 1(5) of the Bill, which provides for small abattoirs, under “preparing” and “processing”.
With this reassurance, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which I have very much enjoyed. I spent almost the whole time smiling. I note the comments from the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Wigley, about Wales, and their other comments. As I have said, there is a lot of value in that. I will say to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that I am proselytising not for vegetarianism but for the future of the planet and the health of the people who still survive. I am happy to debate that with him.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, seems to have misunderstood my amendment, because I am not doing anything about his citizen’s freedom to eat meat—first, because we do not have citizens in this country but subjects, and secondly, I am a meat eater myself and, were I standing for election anywhere, that would probably lose me a lot of green votes. I was a vegetarian for 20 years and I have stopped. I now eat a minimal amount of healthy organic meat.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made some kind comments. No one has ever accused me of surreptitious means—in fact, quite the opposite usually—so I feel very flattered. I also note that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, made comments about an impact assessment, which would obviously be a very valuable addition. I note that the Minister has pointed out all the difficulties that this would cause with legislation, but it would surely be just a tidying-up exercise, just like her Brexit Bill, and should not take long at all.
With all those comments in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 218. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 218
“Duty to sustain the UK agricultural industry workforce
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a strategy outlining the steps that Her Majesty’s Government proposes to take to—(a) ensure an appropriate supply of seasonal agricultural workers,(b) increase the number of people undertaking—(i) practical training, and(ii) formal qualificationsrelating to agricultural work,(c) ensure agricultural workers have sufficient access to—(i) financial advice,(ii) mental health support, and(iii) any other support the Secretary of State deems appropriate, and(d) ensure agricultural workers are subject to fair sectoral terms and conditions.(2) In preparing the strategy under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must consult—(a) other relevant UK Ministers,(b) the Scottish Ministers,(c) the Welsh Ministers,(d) the Northern Ireland department, and(e) bodies that appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of the UK agricultural industry.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, my Amendment 218 is on the issue of a duty to sustain the agricultural industry workforce. I also welcome Amendment 219, tabled by my noble friend Lord Judd. Our amendments would require the Government to draw up and consult on proposals to put employment in the farming sector on a more secure and better-rewarded footing.
It is clear at the outset that the workforce will be fundamental to delivering the changes that we are envisaging in this Bill. For example, in 2017, there were 474,000 people working in agriculture across the UK—about half a million people—with about 80,000 seasonal workers in that mix. However, the recent Covid-19 crisis has highlighted what we have known for some time: the sector relies too much on casual workers from the EU, the temporary and permanent opportunities are currently unattractive to most UK workers, there are few opportunities for training and career advancement and the pay and conditions have not kept pace with comparable employment opportunities in other sectors. So far, the temporary fixes put in place by the Government, such as the Pick for Britain scheme, have not provided a permanent solution to a problem that is symptomatic of a more fundamental lack of good training and career prospects in this sector.
Of course, there are good employers, with good employment practices and workers who are valued and well trained. I pay tribute to them. They know that investment and support for their staff bring rewards for the individuals and for the prosperity of their farm. However, many other workers, particularly those living in small, isolated communities, have local employment as farm labourers but are not in a position to bargain over their work conditions, and for them, exploitation is all too common. The fact that we had to introduce gangmasters legislation, in part to protect casual agricultural workers, is an indication of how lowly this work is, and how much exploitation there can be.
We also know that, sadly, this sector is characterised by low mental health and an indefensible safety record. The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board in England has compounded the problem. Predictably, surveys show that, since the board’s abolition, there has been a reduction in pay awards and increased working hours. There is also evidence of increased wage theft, illegal clawbacks and non-compliance with employment law. England is now the only country in the UK without an effective collective bargaining body for agricultural workers, and it is time that we addressed that gap.
My noble friend’s amendment also talks about affordable housing; he is right to raise this issue. Many farm workers are provided with accommodation tied to their jobs. It can be a blessing but also a burden. Mobility is curtailed and alternative housing options are rare. It is also a major barrier to new entrants wanting to work in agriculture, who simply cannot find affordable homes anywhere near where they would like to work. So we are a long way from where we ought to be in terms of training and employment in this sector.
The world of farming is changing. It will require far greater technical skills in the future. The outcome of all the exciting agritech research will need practical applications, such as robotics, IT and scientific measurement. It will require a much greater knowledge of land management and biodiversity. It will also need—dare I say it?—some understanding of the record-keeping and bureaucracy needed to ensure that farmers can make claims successfully under the new ELMS. All this will require a structured training programme, with progression and rewards. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Curry, talk about the skills leadership group in a previous debate and I hope that he will say more about that today.
Although I fully acknowledge that Michael Gove was a good Environment Secretary, he was a disastrous Education Secretary. During his tenure, many of the practical agricultural and horticultural courses were abolished. However, we have to start from where we are now and face that reality, rather than going back and rehearsing old arguments.
This sector faces one of the biggest transformations of any in the UK, moving very rapidly from low skilled to high-tech, and we will need the training courses to deliver that change. This could make employment in the agricultural sector a really exciting proposition, provided it is accompanied by pay and conditions that will encourage people to stay. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will support this amendment as a serious contribution to making the rest of the ambitions set out in the Bill a practical reality. I beg to move.
Amendment 219 (to Amendment 218)
“(ia) affordable housing,”
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the very warm reception that she given to my amendment. I strongly support what she is putting before the Committee. It seems to me vital and very sensible.
The word “crisis” is overused these days, but we really do have a crisis in rural areas. What used to be thriving communities based on agriculture have become very dependent on people from other parts of the country who, like me—I plead guilty—have settled in those areas. We have now reached the stage where communities in rural areas have real difficulty in getting even the basic services that they need, such as social workers, health workers and the rest, because they simply cannot afford to live in the area. That goes for farmers, people who want to farm and those who have come from generations of farmers and want to continue that tradition.
On Tuesday, we debated the measures to help people who want to farm to prepare to do so, and my noble friend Lord Whitty put forward a very important amendment in that context. However, we must recognise that, if that intention is to be fulfilled, it is essential that they have the facilities and support that they need to establish themselves. My noble friend’s Amendment 218 talks about ensuring that
“agricultural workers have sufficient access to … financial advice … mental health support, and … any other support the Secretary of State deems appropriate”.
That is right, but I feel that no single provision is more important than ensuring that they have the housing they need to be able to maintain family life and do not to have to travel great distances so they can to play a full part in the community, as well as performing in agriculture.
As I have said, I am grateful to my noble friend for being so friendly towards my amendment. I just hope that her amendment, and my amendment to it, will commend themselves to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a farmer and landowner, as set out in the register. I have added my name to this important amendment—Amendment 218—tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, because I believe that without a duty to sustain the UK agricultural industry workforce, the aims of the Bill, and in particular the continuation and development of sustainable farming, cannot happen.
Currently, farming is characterised by one-third of farmers being over 65 and only 3% being under 35 and by a very unattractive career image in terms of earnings. With this Bill and its aim of encouraging the retirement of older farmers and intention of bringing younger people into the industry, it is vital that education and training are raised up the agenda, and that means improving formal qualifications.
At the same time as encouraging our own young into the industry, we need to make sure that, as envisaged in subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new clause, where necessary we can supply seasonal workers, even if that means bringing them in from abroad. A vegetable or fruit grower in Lincolnshire, or wherever, will soon give up his labour-intensive operation if he cannot get the pickers. The result will be that production moves overseas, with the associated negative consequences for the environment and food security.
After a 185% growth in UK soft fruit production over the past 20 years, this is a very dangerous situation. The National Farmers’ Union estimates that we require around 70,000 seasonal workers, with the bulk being required between April and September. The ONS estimates that 99% come from the EU. Up until March—the slow season—the shortage was estimated at around 5%. The Pick for Britain campaign has been very welcome but the results have been somewhat patchy, and, as the economy recovers, furloughed workers will return to their jobs, which will exacerbate the problem. The Government’s seasonal workers pilot scheme, although expanded from 2,500 to 10,000 overseas workers, is woefully inadequate and is scheduled to end this year. Can the Minister tell us what is likely to replace this scheme?
In his letter of 29 June, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, drew attention to government activity in the area of training and skills—in particular, the apprenticeship programme and technical education—together with the increasing funding that is available, all of which is most encouraging. This is the purpose of proposed new subsection (1)(b). We should all welcome the development of a new farming qualification to attract teenagers into the business by increasing the support of T-level courses. The Government’s Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education is currently looking at the content of courses. Currently listed are crop production, forestry, habitat management, land-based engineering, livestock production, ornamental and environmental horticulture, and trees and woodland management and maintenance. All that is ongoing. I believe it is of such overall importance that it needs to be specifically contained in the Bill and thereby protected from future attempts to pare back this crucial element of both agriculture and the wider skills of the environmental land management scheme.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I enthusiastically added my name to the amendment proposed so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I also enthusiastically support the whole amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who is an expert in this subject.
What the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is really talking about is not just agricultural workers, but the future health and prosperity of villages. In much of south-eastern England, villages have effectively been turned into dormitory settlements for some time. The same process, particularly together with people retiring, is happening in the rest of England. If we really want viable, thriving, multigenerational communities that can support schools, shops and so on in villages throughout England then we have to have housing that ordinary young people can occupy when they get together, get married and so on, otherwise they will be forced out into the towns and lost for ever, and the villages will become older and older. We see that process happening all over the place.
Not everything that Baroness Thatcher’s Government did was a disaster, but one of their great disasters was the right to buy in rural areas. Every village used to have its own little council estate, as well as little cottages that provided for young people and what I call ordinary people—working-class rural folk. They have almost all gone; a few places were lucky and were allowed to except themselves.
Some 46 years ago I became the chairman of the housing committee in Pendle. In one village there was a little settlement of two rows of cottages owned by the water board, which had let them go derelict. It was going to demolish them because they were of no use to it anymore. I managed to get the council to buy and renovate them. By working with the parish council and the WI in that village, we made sure that they were available to rent for local people. Then came the right to buy. I am still proud of the fact that, as a result of what I did, that wonderful little settlement still exists and was not knocked down but, unfortunately, it is all now owner-occupied and selling for extraordinary high prices by east Lancashire standards.
Something has to be done about this. I believe that a new generation of rural housing to rent at affordable prices should be an absolute priority for a Government. Having said that, this issue is not for this Bill, but for other action by the Government, but Governments of all kinds have not taken this seriously for years.
The only other thing I will say on this is that the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, refers to seasonal workers. There are a lot of people going around now saying it is dreadful that people in this country are too lazy, too fat or whatever it is to pick strawberries, plant cabbages or whatever they might be required to do. I do not think that is the problem at all. The problem is that, for young people setting off and making their lives, seasonal work by its very nature is not attractive. They want qualifications and training, as in this amendment, and jobs—not jobs for life, because they have gone, but nevertheless skills and qualifications that will lead them to a secure career and the ability to get jobs throughout their lives. Going to pick potatoes in potato-picking season simply does not do that.
I believe that the future for seasonal work is to reduce a large amount of it by introducing far more robots and mechanisation into the countryside. That may be what the parts of the Bill concerning productivity are all about, I do not know; perhaps the Minister can tell us. I also believe that if that happens, it may be possible to turn some of that seasonal labour—I say some of it; perhaps not a very high proportion—into permanent full-time jobs. Perhaps that would be not for the farmers themselves, but for the contracting companies providing the labour and the machinery to do different things at different times of the year. That is the kind of strategic approach that we want.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness’s strategy thinks along those lines, nor whether the Government are thinking about a strategy for this, or whether they are just panicking about the fact that fruit will go unpicked this year, next year or whenever, but that kind of strategic view is what is required. It is a very good reason to pass the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I can be reasonably brief because my noble friend Lady Jones introduced her amendment so comprehensively. I also support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Judd.
A new British agricultural policy requires a new sort of agricultural and horticultural workforce that is more highly skilled, with differential skills but nevertheless better skills and qualifications recognised, and with a more permanent existence. We certainly do not require a reliance on gangmasters and seasonal workers imported temporarily from overseas.
It has been a mistake to rely so heavily on overseas labour for our agricultural workforce. It has been a mistake to cut back on agricultural and horticultural training. It has been a mistake to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, which I strongly opposed at the time. It has been a mistake not to use the powers introduced in legislation in my time at Defra to enforce proper standards where there are gangmasters. There are some decent gangmasters, but the Covid episode has shown that many workers in this sector, both agriculture and the processing industries, are treated appallingly and housed in terrible conditions, which in some cases has thrown up problems with the spread of Covid. There have been a number of mistakes and we are not starting from a good position.
The new form of agricultural policy throws up a lot of new challenges that will need flexibility, higher skills and better management, but we have a chance to rectify this. The terms of the amendment set out a framework for a much more substantial strategy to recognise and update the skills of the workforce that we will require. Without it, we will not deliver a brave new world of English agriculture or a better impact by agriculture on our environment and our countryside. I strongly support the amendment; indeed, I regard it as an essential part of the Bill and of our future strategy.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 218 and Amendment 219 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, respectively.
The Bill provides us with an opportunity to change and update agricultural policy. As part of this, we must have the infrastructure on the ground to deliver the services, the product and the food. We had a long debate on Tuesday about food security, and this involves having the agricultural workers to do the picking and harvesting. If we want to professionalise the operation, we need agricultural workers who are trained, given incentives and have access to affordable housing—all of that is required. Therefore, I believe a duty must be placed in the legislation to sustain the employment of agricultural workers and put it on a very permanent footing.
On 20 July, the Minister very kindly provided a detailed Written Answer to my Parliamentary Question on the supply of labour on farms in England and Northern Ireland. He mentioned the seasonal workers pilot, which seems to have been impacted upon by the effect of Covid-19 on the allocation of visas, particularly in Ukraine and Belarus. I understand that those restrictions were lifted on 1 June. Could the Minister update your Lordships’ House on the number of additional workers who have come in?
Secondly, there is no doubt that farming and agriculture face many challenges, notwithstanding Brexit and Covid. Workers have to ensure they and those working for them are protected from the pandemic; hence the need for this strategy and for the duty to be placed in legislation. I have no hesitation in supporting Amendment 218, of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 219, of the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I view Amendment 218—and Amendment 219, which seeks to amend it—as one of the most important amendments we have had the privilege of debating across the House. It is not party political at all, other than the odd swipe that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, found necessary to give. Being serious, agriculture is a major industry in this country, and we have a unique opportunity now to get a grip on how we take it forward.
Yesterday, a number of us took part in the Second Reading of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. Among the issues debated was the question of the arrangements for importing seasonal workers, particularly for places like Lincolnshire. I am sorry to say to the Minister that it was none too clear to me, on our Benches, nor on the other Benches, what the way forward was.
I live in an agricultural county, in Bedfordshire, and agriculture does not wait. I walked round my kitchen garden only this morning, and due to the amount of talking we have done on these screens, there are a fair number of jobs that need doing. Agriculture does not wait, and it is not the same every season. I used to do a lot of work for the Mars Corporation, and with certain areas of their work you knew exactly when the season would hit—but you do not know with agriculture, so you need a flexible system.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
My Lords, I offer the Green group’s support for Amendments 218 and 219. I associate myself particularly with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, as she moved Amendment 218, referring to the lack of collective bargaining for agricultural workers in England as exceptionally damaging. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, commented, the loss of the Agricultural Wages Board was a disaster and something that I also opposed at the time.
Where I perhaps have cause for some pause is on
“an appropriate supply of seasonal agricultural workers”.
As a number of noble Lords have reflected, a heavy reliance on seasonal workers is not necessarily a way to produce fair, decent jobs, a well-populated countryside and strong communities in it. We want people who are resident year-round to have good, solid, reliable jobs. We should still think of agricultural labour as something that fits in with the desire of many people for part-time and flexible working that suits their needs. Back in 2013, I was at a Fruit Focus horticultural field day and spoke to a grower there who talked about how, back in the 1970s, housewives—as they were then described—students home from the holidays and people coming from the towns into surrounding orchards would work as and when they could. That of course requires a very different sort of agriculture and food supply system that supermarkets would have great difficulty with, but it would be a way of ensuring that people had the opportunity to earn money. Labour is available.
I contrast that with a report in the Times newspaper a couple of weeks ago reflecting, as many noble Lords have done, on how the lack of workers from the European Union and beyond this year has caused difficulties. An asparagus grower was quoted as saying, “Well, you know, British workers just won’t do 12 hours a day of back-breaking work.” Well, I do not believe that we should have a food system that relies on anybody doing 12 hours a day of back-breaking work. We need to ensure that there are jobs that a reasonable range of people can do over a reasonable range of their lifetime, and that needs to fit in with people’s capabilities and capacities, and the skills, as the amendment alludes to, very much need to be developed through far more education and training.
I want to reflect also on what the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, just said about mutuals being involved in supplying housing for workers. We also need to look at encouraging, supporting and assisting in the growth of co-operative models of food production and food growing. Your Lordships might be interested in looking at OrganicLea, not very far from where those of you who are in the Chamber are sitting. It is a co-operative growing good, healthy fruit and vegetables and ensuring that its workers are part of a whole team.
I want also to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on her reference to mental health. An issue that I have been raising elsewhere in your Lordships’ House is the epidemic and truly awful levels of mental ill-health in the building industry. We have been talking a lot about key workers recently; builders and farm workers are clearly key workers. They need to have good, stable, secure jobs that can last through a working life, that fit within their practical capabilities and that give them a decent life and decent wages. So I commend both amendments to the Committee.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the expertise in this area of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but am sceptical that her Amendment 218 would achieve the purposes she envisages and believe that it is unnecessary and indeed could be counterproductive. As my noble friend Lord Naseby mentioned, we already have excellent agricultural colleges, such as Shuttleworth and Cirencester.
The amendment represents an attempt to interfere with the supply of workers in ways which the market may or may not support. It presumes that there is likely to remain a shortage of trained agricultural workers. Is it not likely that further mechanisation will reduce the demand for agricultural workers? Is it not also true that much agricultural work does not require much training and is seasonal in nature? I ask the Minister to confirm that our future immigration policy will recognise the need and provide that foreign workers may be admitted to the UK for limited periods to carry out fruit picking and related jobs.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as recorded in the register. I want to speak to Amendment 218 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Parminter, and the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Carrington, and express my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her introduction of the amendment and for her comments.
The Minister kindly referred in his response to Amendment 12 two weeks ago—was it just two weeks ago?—to work on agricultural and horticultural skills that I have been involved with during the past two years or so. Of course, the coronavirus lockdown earlier this year highlighted how vulnerable we are to disruption when we depend so heavily on a seasonal labour supply from overseas. So I agree wholeheartedly on the need for a strategy to address this vulnerability. However, such a strategy should encompass all labour markets in agriculture and horticulture, not just those of seasonal workers. We are lagging well behind other professions in projecting our sector as an attractive career choice, with no clear signposting, no accurate labour market information, a fragmented and confusing landscape of skills delivery, very few nationally recognised qualifications and no record of individual achievements, including CPD.
A comprehensive skills strategy which includes engaging with schools, FE and HE institutions, the apprenticeship scheme and training and lifelong learning is long overdue. All of us who are involved with the agriculture and horticulture sectors are regularly impressed by the range of skills required to farm successfully, as listed by my noble friend Lord Carrington in an earlier debate and referred to again today. As has been stated, the digital age and robotics will extend the range of skills required to embrace the many challenges we face in a fast-moving world, whether improving productivity or delivering the multiple potential outcomes through the ELM scheme, as well as adding value in exploring markets for our produce.
As indicated earlier by both the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Carrington, I have been engaged in a cross-industry skills leadership group which has the widespread support of all key industry organisations. This is not an appropriate time to do a sales job, but the group has recommended the establishment of a professional body to raise the profile of the sector and the exciting opportunities that exist in it, to recognise national qualifications and standards, to establish a single national data source of information, and to provide signposting for both employers and employees to encourage career development and CPD.
I once again thank the Minister for his personal support in trying to achieve these objectives and for the constructive discussions with and advice received from his officials within the department. I have to say that I do not agree with the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, a few moments ago.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. I pay tribute to the work that he has done and continues to do on the skills and leadership group.
In passing, I commend Amendment 219 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, because I think there is a problem of affordable housing in this sector, particularly when it comes to migrant workers. We saw an outbreak of Covid recently at a facility where the facilities that were available were less than desirable.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who has done so much work on the Bill. She is an excellent contributor to the Select Committee that I chair, which deals with some of these areas. I declare a non-financial interest as an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association.
The proposed new clause relates to a duty to sustain the UK’s agricultural industry workforce. Part of that workforce that has not yet been mentioned is the veterinary surgeons and operatives, who are so essential to the agricultural sector. We know what they do with domestic animals and in their normal work with farm animals, but they also certify and supervise the import and export of animals and animal products. As official veterinarians, they sign and countersign export health certificates and they control much of the sanitary and phytosanitary processes at our ports. They are essential to the United Kingdom’s biosecurity strategies. Approximately 25% of our veterinarians are EU or EEA citizens, and in the industrial and food supply chain sector, it is a much larger percentage: some 95% of our vets in abattoirs are from EU and EEA states. They perform essential roles in dealing with food fraud, animal welfare, public health and biosecurity.
At present, there is an estimated 10% shortage of people in the profession as a whole, so there is already a great challenge. However, at the end of this year, as we finish the transition stage of our exit from the European Union, there will be an even greater demand for this profession. They have to be at ports to check phytosanitary and sanitary procedures, not just at the borders between the UK and EU but, now, for imports into Northern Ireland as well. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, has done a lot of work on this, and on biosecurity. What are the Government doing to make sure that there is a suitable supply of veterinarians, given the risk that a number will go back to EU and EEA countries? It will be more difficult, thanks to bureaucracy and red tape, for veterinary practices and companies to bring vets into the country. Although I welcome the fact that vets are now on the shortage occupation list, when will the details of how that system will work be available to the sector?
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 218, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and other noble Lords. I declare my interests as a landowner and arable farmer.
At the time of the Second Reading of the Bill, there was a double-page government advert in the Mail on Sunday headlined: “Why there’s never been a better time to support our farmers and fishermen”.
It added:
“By buying local … you’ll be guaranteed to get the very best produce”.
However, the advert also said, revealingly:
“Another challenge for farmers has been getting enough people to harvest”
the vegetable and fruit crop. This can be fairly blamed, this year, on Covid-19, but the campaign to get local people to pick crops, to take the place of the EU pickers who normally do the job, does not seem to have gone very well. The Government have sensibly allowed foreign workers in this sector to be exempted from the quarantine rules. The fact remains that, as I understand it, from next year only 20,000 overseas workers will be allowed in the UK to do this work. The NFU says that 80,000 are needed.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard said that extra workers should be allowed in in the short term, but that automation will then solve the problem at the flick of a switch. I am far from being an expert on this subject, but I wonder whether automation could take place that quickly. It will certainly require time and a considerable amount of capital investment, which I hope will be aided by the ELM scheme. I therefore completely agree that Her Majesty’s Government should, as Amendment 218 states,
“lay before Parliament a strategy to ensure an appropriate supply of seasonal agricultural workers”.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch is absolutely right to move this amendment. She spoke eloquently at the beginning of this group and I do not need to repeat any of her persuasive arguments. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Judd has moved his amendment, because affordable housing in rural and agricultural areas is vital and has been under threat for a long time. The availability of affordable housing for the agricultural and countryside workforce should be a vital component of the strategy demanded by the amendment.
There have been many excellent speeches, and I hope that the Minister and the Government are persuaded, but I shall add one more point that I do not think has been made by any other Members of your Lordships’ House during the debate. As someone who, as I have said before, grew up on a farmstead and was never very good at agricultural work—never mind ever wanting to be an agricultural worker—and who therefore got away quickly when I had the opportunity, at the age of 17, I have always been struck by the increasing development, over the decades, of a split between those who live in the town and those who live in the country.
One of the reasons for that is that it is so difficult for people who did not grow up in the countryside to become engaged with the opportunities for agricultural and other countryside work, or even to visualise themselves in that situation and see what it might entail. We have often discussed in your Lordships’ Chamber the lack of knowledge among children and young people who live in towns and cities about what goes on in the countryside. It is a contributory factor to their inability to see themselves in that line of work in the future. Among the many barriers to our having a good, secure agricultural workforce that my noble friend Lady Jones mentioned in introducing the debate, is the need to encourage new people to see that as an appropriate choice for their future.
I was struck by a scheme set up by Project Scotland, our national youth volunteering scheme, which was established when I was First Minister. One of its early projects was to take young people who were at risk of offending and who were in difficulties in the school environment away from school into full-time volunteering in agricultural and forestry work in Dumfries and Galloway. The life chances of those young people were transformed by finding something new and interesting, out of the town and out of their normal environment, that used their labour productively and suddenly gave them a real sense of purpose in life.
That is a model that could help with a lot of our social problems with certain kinds of young lads in different parts of the country, giving them a different kind of opportunity that maybe they have never seen before. If the Minister is minded to accept the amendment, or a form of it, during our debates on the Bill, and to have such a strategy in the future, one element of that strategy should be to see the opportunities that exist in agriculture and countryside work for those who may never have visualised themselves in that position, but who could find really productive careers and futures in it.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, encouraging and supporting the agricultural workforce is essential. Farming can be a dangerous occupation, and accidents often happen on farms. Ensuring that the workforce is properly trained, with formal relevant qualifications, and is properly paid, with their mental and physical health properly catered for, will ensure that agriculture as a sector goes from strength to strength. The right skills are not an optional extra. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, supported the amendment passionately, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
During the lockdown we have seen how important it is to have a sufficient supply of seasonal workers to pick the crops and work on the farms during their busiest period. It is estimated that over a 12-month period, some 17,000 additional migrant workers will be needed on our farms throughout the UK—although the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, gave a slightly different figure. It is essential that the Government ensure that workers are available to harvest crops, and the success in recent years in the expansion of soft fruit growing will be adversely affected by the proposed regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, fully made the case for her amendment, and I support her comments about the need to direct and have a proper employed workforce. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, gave some statistics about the age of current farmers: less than 35% of them are classified as what we would call “young”. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, made the same speech and the same points as I did on yesterday’s immigration Second Reading, so there is political agreement across the House on this issue.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a thought-provoking debate. In thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and all noble Lords who have participated, I can say that the Government take all that has been said extremely seriously. I shall spend a little time, but not too long, explaining the work that is going on. As this is the first of these debates, I should start by declaring my farming interests as set out in the register.
The noble Baroness is right to highlight so many of the significant issues to which the agricultural sector is currently responding. This year, more than any in recent memory, has shown how important those who work across agriculture and horticulture are, and the need to ensure that this workforce is robust and resilient.
On seasonal labour, the importance for the sector of securing the labour it needs is well understood. In 2019, around 300,000 people were employed permanently in the agriculture sector, of whom around 18,000 were EEA nationals. Horticulture relies heavily on seasonal labour and, while the number of workers needed varies throughout and between years, Defra estimates that around 30,000 to 40,000 seasonal workers harvest fruit and vegetables at peak periods.
We have heard about innovation, and my visit to Harper Adams, among other places and institutions, of which there are a number, shows the direction of travel, and the fact that this is increasingly going to be a skilled area of advance and innovation.
As I know from my own experience, agriculture, horticulture and fisheries involve long hours. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that we will remain out there harvesting if we think there is a storm coming the next day. As long as the moisture level does not go too high, we—the owner, the worker, all of us—will carry on through the night, because we have a common endeavour to get the crops in. And I have to say also that for the livestock farmer, it is not 12 hours a day but 24 hours a day—so let us get a bit more realistic about the demands on all of us, particularly on the workers who work so hard in the agricultural sector. There is also a sense of purpose for so many who work on the land.
This year has been exceptional in terms of the collaboration there has had to be between industry and government, through the highly successful Pick for Britain campaign, to raise awareness of the roles available on fruit and vegetable farms and to link jobseekers with farms looking for seasonal workers. The expanded seasonal worker pilot in 2020 will enable us to carry out a more extensive evaluation ahead of any decisions being taken on how the future needs of the sector will be addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, asked how many workers have come in. The Home Office reports that 4,488 visas have been granted this year. Some workers have yet to travel to the UK, and we estimate that approximately 3,000 seasonal pilot workers are currently in the UK.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lady McIntosh that the importance of this pilot is that it will enable us to carry on that more extensive evaluation of the systems and processes in place to access labour from non-EEA countries ahead of any decisions being taken on the future needs of the sector and how that would best be addressed. At the same time, the Government are continuing to implement that pilot this year and to support migrant workers who wish to travel to work.
The noble Baroness raised the really important issue of training and qualifications. Under the auspices of the Food and Drink Sector Council, the Agricultural Productivity Working Group, headed by Sir Peter Kendall, produced a report in February this year. It included recommendations to enhance access to and recognition of training and formal qualifications in the agriculture and horticulture sector. The Government are heavily involved in developing that work and are working with industry, via the skills leadership group, of which the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is an ambassador, to progress these recommendations. I think we are all extremely fortunate that the noble Lord, with his immense experience across the rural world and agriculture, is an ambassador of this group.
We are also very supportive of the work undertaken by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board —AHDB—to create a new range of training materials to help growers recruit, train and motivate new seasonal workers. They will receive tailored training for their particular workplace, which will, of course, vary depending on the crop and activity involved at each farm. The Government recognise the importance of business advice and, indeed, mental health support. We recently awarded £1 million to nine projects as part of the initial phase of the future farming resilience funding. This will go towards projects that provide support for farmers, including through information sessions, workshops, one-to-one advice and on-farm and business reviews. This initial phase will be thoroughly evaluated to inform future decisions about expanding the future farming resilience funding so that more farmers have access to advice and guidance about future changes in the sector.
Amendment 218 refers to fair terms and conditions. It is a key priority of this Government to ensure that not only is there a successful and effective agricultural sector but one in which workers are treated fairly. All workers, permanent and seasonal, come under the auspices of the National Minimum Wage Act, the Employment Rights Act and the Equality Act. I think my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering referred to that, and I emphasise that the Government place great importance on ensuring that farmers and producers understand that they have responsibilities to their workforce. I am very conscious in my discussions with the NFU, for instance, and its deputy president, Stuart Roberts, of safety on farms. The farming industry is very well aware that the need to improve safety is imperative.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned vets. I therefore have to say that two members of my family are veterinary surgeons. Defra is working closely with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association and other key stakeholders to develop a flexible and skilled workforce which meets the UK’s long-term future veterinary needs. For instance, we have legislated to recognise a new veterinary degree from the University of Surrey, with the first 40 students graduating last July, and a new joint vet school at Harper Adams University and Keele University is due to accept its first entry this year. I have experience of the importance of vets in both in the private and state sectors. Many in the state sector come from the European Union, and I have said many times at this Dispatch Box that I very much hope that they will feel at home here and will stay. They are very much respected and needed. I work very closely with many of them, and it is a great privilege to do so.
Turning to Amendment 219, I am very aware of rural housing issues. I should perhaps say that I facilitated a rural housing scheme at Kimble many years ago because I am very conscious of the need to ensure that families can remain in their villages. I have no interest to declare, but I endorse the work of the Hastoe Housing Association and many other rural housing associations. It is really important that we have multigenerational villages across rural Britain. In referring to affordable housing, seasonal workers often live on the farms on which they work. If they choose to do so, they must be charged reasonable rents in line with the national accommodation offset rates. More than 165,000 affordable homes have been provided in rural local authorities in England between April 2010 and March 2019. I place great importance on this. It is an area in which I have been working hard with Ministers in MHCLG to ensure that there is a very strong rural housing chapter in our national housing proposals.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this matter because we clearly need to advance the matters raised in the amendment. The Government are already working on them, as I have outlined. This is a continuing piece of work, rather than a one-off strategy. Defra is working closely with the Home Office, MHCLG, BEIS and others to address these issues, as well as with the devolved Administrations, of course. I emphasise that I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising these issues, and I have spent a little longer than perhaps I might explaining the work the Government are undertaking on all these matters. If she or other noble Lords felt it would be helpful, we could have discussions so that they can see that this is an area of work on which the Government wish to make advances in the ways I have outlined. With that, I very much hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
Lord Adonis [V]
My Lords, the Minister has given a very full response, but may I check that we have the numbers right in respect of the seasonal workers pilot? This is clearly crucial in how we recruit workers from overseas to meet our vital seasonal needs. Did I take the Minister to say that 4,486 visas had been granted, of which 3,000—so about two-thirds—have actually come to the country? Have I correctly understood that that number is out of the 10,000 visas that the Government said, some months ago, they would make available to seasonal workers? If that is correct, is it the case that less than one-third of the visas that the Government said would be available for seasonal workers from outside the EU have actually been taken up? If that number is as low as it seems—3,000 out of 10,000—does the Minister have a view as to why the take-up has been so low?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I did not say that they are absolutely correct; I said that the Home Office reports that 4,488 visas have been granted. Some workers are yet to travel to the UK, and we estimate—this is an approximate figure—that 3,000 seasonal pilot workers are currently in the UK. I think it is the case that, due to the coronavirus situation, the route was closed for some time for Ukraine and Belarus, and therefore the numbers are lower than what would have been in the pilot.
I am constantly asking farmers about this situation, and my understanding is that farmers and growers, through many of their local contacts, have been getting support and help from local people, coming forward either through Pick For Britain or through the contacts and tentacles that many farmers have across their communities. However, those are the figures I have been given. If the noble Lord would like any further assistance outside the Chamber, I am very happy to have a further discussion with him.
Lord Judd [V]
I most warmly thank all those who have participated in this debate; it has been a good debate. I also thank the Minister; I find that it is important to the quality of our whole proceedings that we have a Minister who is rooted in the issues with which we are involved. He speaks with great understanding and sympathy, and a good deal of enlightenment. His remarks have been encouraging, particularly his offer to continue talking with those of us who have concerns in this area.
I also take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for the warm welcome she gave to my amendment. Everything that has happened in the debate demonstrates how right she was to bring her amendment. I hope, therefore, that what I have proposed is helpful and that when—it probably will be “when”—we pursue this on Report, we will simply take a belt-and-braces approach to ensure that the Minister’s good intentions and undertakings to us are entrenched in the legislation and incorporate the two amendments together. I think that would be a sensible thing to do. In this context, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, since we strayed quite a lot into innovation, robotics and so on, I thought that, in retrospect, I should declare an interest regarding my involvement with Rothamsted Enterprises, which is on the record.
I thank all noble Lords for the pretty fulsome support for my amendment from around the Chamber. I emphasise that this is not a prescriptive amendment; it simply asks the Government to pull together all the strands that we have talked about this afternoon—and the issues the Minister has flagged up in the work that is already ongoing—into one coherent strategy, which I feel we would all find useful. So often when we have these debates, the problem is that we find that there is some work going on in the Department for Education over here and other work going on in BEIS over there, but this is a fundamental part of how we are going to deliver the new agricultural programme that we are all enthusiastic about and aspire to. It is so much at the heart of it that bringing the strands together in one document that we can all see, sign off on and understand would be a really welcome step.
As I and many noble Lords have said, training and skills are absolutely key to this, and we cannot afford to be behind the curve—it is moving so quickly. I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Curry, talk about his recommendation of a professional body, which I would like to see in the strategy. I was interested in the Minister’s comments about the Peter Kendall recommendations. Again, it would be good to see some of that spelled out in the strategy. All of this information and these recommendations are great, but they need to be brought to fruition and this is the Bill in which to do that. I am not saying that the current wording of my amendment is perfect, but something like it needs to be on the face of the Bill.
I will pick out a few questions. I was asked about seasonal workers. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that not all seasonal work needs to be 12 hours long and back-breaking—I know that the Minister has a different view on this, and I understand that some seasonal work has to go with the weather. However, it does not all have to be back-breaking, 12-hour shifts. One of the problems we have is that a lot of UK workers do not come forward, precisely because of the length of the shifts; personally, I do not understand why there cannot be shorter shifts running in parallel.
The Minister talked about all workers having a buy-in and working 24 hours a day if needs be. For longer-term workers, I can see that that is the case, but casual workers maybe do not have the same buy-in to the outcome. This is what we are trying to find: we are trying to build longer-term relationships where, year after year, people care about the produce and outcomes, and feel that they have a say, a buy-in and some ownership of the profitability of the companies they are employed by.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked whether migrant workers should be covered. I thought that that was implied by what I said, but I am happy to say that of course that is the case. I will go one step further: if you are going to have training courses, it is absolutely vital that migrant workers and UK workers have the same training courses, particularly when it comes to safety issues or the use of machinery. You cannot afford to have one person who is less well trained and could let the side down by not knowing how to use the equipment. All of that training should be available to migrant workers and other workers alike.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that issues around vets very much underpin this issue. We absolutely need to have a system where everybody is treated equally and where the proper pay and conditions apply equally to UK workers and those from the EU.
A comment was made about the minimum wage. If this sector has a future, I do not see it being a minimum-wage sector. Of course, there will always be entry-level jobs that will be minimum-wage, but there needs to be career progression and extra pay for the extra skills that you develop. One of the things that is lacking at the moment is that when people upgrade their skills, they do not necessarily see that they will automatically get a higher rate of pay for doing so, which is what would happen in many other sectors.
At the outset of the Bill in the other place, evidence was taken from the agricultural workers’ unions. That evidence was that even people on the minimum wage were having part of it docked for clothing, food and all sorts of other charges. I am not saying whether or not these were legitimate, but there is no standard scheme to say that if your clothing is provided, you can have your wages docked by a certain percentage. All the evidence they gave was that wages have gone down since the Agricultural Wages Board was abolished. I am not saying that it should be brought back in its old form, but something is needed to bring all of these collective bargaining bodies together. As I think I said in my opening, they already have such bodies in the other UK countries of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; it is only in England where we do not have a means of providing advice on wages and conditions.
I reiterate that change is coming fast in this sector. If we are to deliver the Bill, we need the subsidies, the finance that goes with that and all the advice and expertise we can bring into this sector, but we also need the labour force and the skills. That is the third leg of the stool that will prop this whole enterprise up. Unless this is an essential part of the Bill, I do not think the Bill will be sustainable.
I was pleased that the Minister said there is work going on—that is great. I really feel we need to pull those themes together, and this is the time to do it. I am grateful for his offer of discussions and would like to take him up. If not our amendment, something akin to it should be in the Bill. I really hope the Minister will not close his mind to the idea that the Government could put down their own amendment to deliver that; maybe that is an issue for another day. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 220. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or the other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 220
Baroness Fookes
“Export of farmed animals for slaughter or fattening
(1) A person commits an offence if the person exports to any country outside the United Kingdom a farmed animal for slaughter or fattening.(2) A person commits an offence if the person arranges or facilitates the export to any country outside the United Kingdom of a farmed animal for slaughter or fattening.(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to the export of a farmed animal from Northern Ireland to the European Union.(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is liable on summary conviction—(a) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine or to both;(b) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both;(c) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.(5) In relation to an offence committed before section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, subsection (4)(a) has effect as if for “51 weeks” there were substituted “6 months”.(6) This section extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.(7) This section shall come into force on “IP completion day”, where “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause prohibits the export from the UK of farm animals for slaughter or fattening. It includes an exception for exports from Northern Ireland to the EU as the Withdrawal Agreement prohibits restrictions on exports from Northern Ireland to the EU.
Baroness Fookes (Con) [V]
My Lords, in moving the amendment standing in my name, I declare a non-financial interest as set out in the register. I am delighted to be supported on this amendment by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
It is a perfectly straightforward amendment. I seek to ban the exports of farmed animals for slaughter and fattening. It excludes a ban on trade between Northern Ireland and the EU, simply because the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU makes it difficult to do otherwise. There is also a set of suitable penalties for people who do not abide by the ban.
I have a strong sense of déjà vu, because I remember, as a youngish MP in the 1970s and into the 1980s, drawing attention to the scandal of animals being exported live for slaughter and further fattening. In particular, I recall the time in 1973 when we were debating whether a temporary ban on the export of these animals should be extended or withdrawn. I was angry with the Minister, because I thought he was vacillating and weak in his approach. I said then that
“nothing will induce me to sanction the export of live animals”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/12/1973; col. 833.]
I felt it strongly then and feel equally strongly about it 47 years later.
At that time I was a member of the council of the RSPCA, which gave me the opportunity to discuss first-hand with RSPCA inspectors their experience of that live trade. At that time they had an undercover agents operation and followed the consignments from the beginning to the end. The stories they told me were utterly horrific; I shall never forget them. Not only did these poor animals endure excessively long journeys—very often in wholly unsuitable vehicles and with little attention paid to rest—but they often went short of food and water and ended up deep in their own waste. The RSPCA inspectors themselves often endured considerable hardships, not least from the drivers of vehicles who did not want this kind of vigilant oversight of their activities.
I fear that great suffering is still endured by animals in the present day. Fortunately, it is not the large numbers I recall from those days—but even so, according to official figures in 2019, 3,500 calves were exported, very often from Scotland, going via England and France into Spain. That would be bad enough for mature animals, but for very young animals totally unsuited to such journeys I find that totally unacceptable. Worse still, if they stay there for further fattening, they are likely to be put in conditions that in this country would be illegal, frankly.
Far more sheep go. In 2019, 31,000-odd went on quite long journeys to the continent, even as far as Bulgaria. Again, the conditions at their destination are probably far from satisfactory. We do not even know whether some might be destined for slaughter without pre-stunning.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak to this amendment in my name, so ably led by my noble friend Lady Fookes. It enables us to put an end to much suffering incurred by thousands of animals over the years when they are exported for slaughter.
Animals have to endure many hours of transport to meet their end. While I understand that the EU has comparable slaughter regulations, not all countries oversee these with the rigour they should. A report in September 2016 by a committee of inquiry of the French Assemblée Nationale confirmed that there were serious welfare problems and breaches of EU law on welfare at slaughter in French abattoirs.
Exporting animals for slaughter is simply a welfare insult. As we have heard, the long journeys are stressful for the animals and in some cases result in enormous suffering due, for example, to overcrowding, high summer temperatures and animals receiving injury en route. As mentioned in debates on other amendments, animals should be slaughtered at the closest possible point to production. In this day and age, there is no reason why they cannot travel on the hook, rather than on the hoof.
Figures provided by the Animal and Plant Health Agency show that around 40,000 animals were exported last year. Of these, I understand that around 30,000 were sheep, with just over half going to the continent. These animals are mostly going to France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, but some are going to Hungary and Bulgaria, which have a large onward trade to the Middle East, where slaughter conditions can be simply terrible.
The proposed new clause also bans export for fattening. APHA figures show that 3,446 calves were sent from Scotland on long journeys to Spain and Italy in 2017, to be fattened for beef and veal. I gather that a number of English calves have also been sent. Not only does scientific evidence indicate that young calves are not well adapted to cope with transport; they may end up being kept in systems that are illegal in the UK on welfare grounds. It is therefore important that the ban included fattening as well as slaughter. Otherwise, animals will be exported for fattening that will then result in slaughter.
There will be limited impact from this clause on British farming, because the numbers are small when compared with the UK herd size. As my noble friend has mentioned, banning exports for slaughter was in our Conservative manifesto. The Bill is the perfect place to bring in this provision. While I understand that there may be some work to make this happen, that is no reason to delay the legislation. This trade is cruel, and if the UK wishes to consider itself to be a country leading in animal welfare, it needs to act to stop such practices now. I therefore hope that the Government will use this opportunity to back a ban on live exports for slaughter and fattening, due to the extensive suffering that it causes, and accept the amendment or undertake to work to bring something similar forward at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I added my name to that of my noble friends Lady Fookes and Lady Hodgson of Abinger. I did so slightly warily because I was not convinced that the Bill is the measure in which we should be adding this provision, but I do not doubt the need for it. As we have heard, it was a commitment in the Conservative manifesto at the last election, and I admire the doggedness of my noble friend Lady Fookes in keeping on this subject for a long time. She has been incredibly patient, and it is time that we looked at this matter seriously. It is incredibly complex to legislate for this and is not quite as simple as it might seem, for a variety of reasons that I am sure the Minister will tell us.
However, as regards travel within the UK, I can remember—not as far back as 1973 but in 1979—travelling on the “Good Shepherd” between Shetland and Fair Isle, where sheep were being transported. It was stormy, and I remember that sheep are not good sailors on small boats. I will not go into the result, but it is not easy to transport animals.
Our worry is, as has been said, that while we are told that inspections take place once animals leave our shores, we have great doubts that that has been done properly. Onward transport, not just across the channel, but to Bulgaria and elsewhere, and then on to the Middle East is of concern. I should like the Minister in his reply to say exactly where we are with this.
I should also add that I cannot support Amendment 277 in this group. However appalling the production of foie gras is—I am no great fan— criminalising people who might have some in their luggage as they come across the channel is not the way forward. It should be more about education.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, I support both amendments in the group. On the first, it was a pleasure to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and her long, noble and sincere fight to protect animals that are exported.
Amendment 277, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, is about foie gras. I strongly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Randall, that we should not penalise people who import it. We would not like it if people brought back bits of dead dog in their luggage. We hate the thought that, in some countries, dogs are eaten; yet, somehow, it is okay with ducks and geese. Foie gras is a brutal and horrific system of animal abuse. The practice is illegal in this country, but it can be circumvented by allowing people to import it from elsewhere. The simple point is that it does not matter if the animal abuse happens here or abroad; it is still animal abuse. A duck or goose is harmed just as badly in another country as it would be here.
I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, in asking why both these provisions are not already in law. Why will the Government not commit to amending the Bill on Report on these issues? It would get a lot of public approval, which the Government are probably in need of at the moment. Banning live animal exports was always a given by Brexiteers, who gave it as an example to lure green-minded people to support Brexit. It is time for the Government to make good on that and give us what we voted for.
Lord Trees (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for this important amendment, Amendment 220, and for her continuing commitment to animal welfare. I realise that the Government are committed to reducing livestock journey times for slaughter and fattening, and that a consultation is expected. I sincerely hope that the amendment will hasten action in that aim.
Since the basic tenet of the EU is free movement of people, capital and goods—and goods include animals—it has been impossible to act decisively with regard to export limitation. However, post Brexit, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, indicated, there is now that opportunity. There are also nuances and complexities, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, stated.
With regard to the transport of animals and their welfare, as a recent report of the Animal Welfare Committee emphasised, the aim should be to reduce as much as possible the length of travel. However, other factors such as the health of animals at the time of travel, the quality of the travel vehicle and the conditions, and the frequency of loading and unloading are important elements. Transport is physically stressful. There are rules, and for export they are somewhat stricter than for in-country movement. But as has been said, there can be failure to enforce those rules. Whatever maximum time is set for a journey, if it is suspended before that, it can resume after a short rest.
The export of sheep to the continent can involve journeys of 18 to 29 hours or more, with the longest uninterrupted period of travel between stops of up to 14 hours. Therefore, because we cannot control what goes on outside the UK, there is justification to restrict the export of live animals that originate in the UK at least to an absolute minimum, as may be required for breeding. We also need to be mindful to minimise journey times and the number of journeys in each animal’s life within the UK, because some animals also undergo long journeys here. Although that is without the terms of the amendment, there needs to be a consistent approach to animal transport in general.
Returning to the issue of exports as covered by the amendment, we need to ask why we make live animals cover these distances. Data shows that, in 2018, nearly 25,000 live cattle were exported to Spain for “production”. Is there clear justification for this? Was this number necessary for breeding purposes? With cattle, we can now export frozen embryos and semen. Why are any live animals exported for slaughter? In recent years, thousands of sheep have been exported to France, ostensibly for slaughter. Why are they not killed in the UK and exported on the hook, not on the hoof, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, argued? I strongly support the amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too support Amendment 220. I remind the House of my farming interests as set out in the register.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, I have wanted to see an end to live export for slaughter for many years. The majority of the animals exported in recent years appear to be sheep. The figures are not clear, but it looks as if the numbers have come down dramatically. However, I am very worried that we may see them rise because we are looking for new trade agreements and deals abroad and there is without question a demand in some places for live animals for slaughter.
The majority of the sheep that currently go are cull ewes going to France for non-stun slaughter for religious festivals. English sheep are cheaper than French ones, and every sheep farmer here knows that the best time to sell your old ewes, if you have the stomach for it, is just before the end of Ramadan. As has been said, the calves that go now come mainly from Scotland and are destined for the continent. They are dairy bull calves, which are a by-product of the milk industry, and are destined either to be killed at about eight months old or to be re-exported to north Africa as adults for non-stun slaughter there.
As we have heard, those animals face very long journey times. The Scottish ones used to go via Ireland, then on a ferry all the way round to the continent, where they were distributed to the countries where they had been purchased. In the abattoir inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, which produced a recent report, we heard that the most distressing part of the journey is loading and unloading. On these long journeys, particularly with very young calves, that happens repeatedly—many, many times—to comply with the regulations when they are observed.
I understand that the English trade for such calves has largely ended because they are now finding a market in England for further rearing. Rose veal was heavily publicised and marketed, and people are now rearing them on contract for some of our main supermarkets and food outlets. One wonders whether the animal welfare, financial and environmental costs of sending some 3,500 Scottish calves to Europe every year could not be better avoided by good marketing and better provision in the Scottish abattoir system.
There are potential markets for all these animals at home and on the hook overseas. The campaign to sell rose veal was successful. Mutton was once highly prized but became unfashionable, despite the fact that, slow cooked, it has a great deal more flavour than highly prized new season spring lamb. With better marketing and promotion, it could be prized again. You never see it advertised in a butcher’s shop, yet I, as a sheep farmer, am often asked for it. I believe that the latent demand is there.
We are just about to embark on a number of important trade deals. As a livestock-producing nation, our products are likely to be in increasing demand, particularly in the Middle East and elsewhere where grass does not grow as ours does. We can, and must, expand our overseas markets, but, as the Government and their advisers say we should, slaughter the animals here, close the point of production, and export them dead, not alive.
We have heard a number of times during the long course of this Committee that we have wonderful, high animal welfare standards. In many areas, we do, of course, but we cannot simply shut our eyes and look the other way once we ship the animals that we have produced over national borders. I share the frustration of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and look to the Government to keep a promise at last.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 220. There is absolutely no question that we must maintain the highest standards of animal welfare. In the farming sector, we are proud of our standards and reputation for such standards, so we must not tolerate or condone bad practice. We must stamp it out and ensure that the regulations are enforced.
However, I am concerned about the amendment. The export of live animals for slaughter is without question an emotional issue and generates lots of public concern, as it has for a long time. When I chaired the Meat and Livestock Commission it invested in widespread research into the impact of transport on stress levels in sheep, cattle and pigs. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, we should slaughter animals as close to home as possible and add value wherever possible so that we benefit from the marketing of those products in local, mainstream or export markets. We absolutely should do what we can to achieve that, but, as has been said, the reality is that animals suffer the most stress when being loaded on to and unloaded from lorries, not during transport, provided that the lorries comply with EU legislation, such as on journey times, and have the correct facilities on board.
I have always found it rather odd that crossing the 22 miles of water of the channel is such a major problem. It is misleading to believe, as has been stated, that all animals are likely to be mistreated as soon as they arrive. The reality does not support this belief. All the EU abattoirs that I have visited—and I have visited a lot—were of the highest standard, although I confess that I have not been to abattoirs in central Europe. Finished sheep and cattle travel much further than 22 miles from islands around the United Kingdom, including Shetland and Orkney, to the UK mainland for further finishing and for slaughter. Many lorries transporting animals for further fattening or slaughter in the UK travel 220 miles, never mind 22 miles across the channel. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned, it is also often difficult to determine whether animals are being moved for slaughter, further fattening or breeding purposes, so it would be extremely difficult—almost impossible—to police the reason for movement.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I have every sympathy for the sentiments behind Amendment 220, but I query the basis on which it is drafted. I experienced early on the concerns that people rightly have about the trade of live animals for export. It first came home to me when I was an MEP back in the mid-1990s and represented the port of Brightlingsea in north-east Essex. The trade was closed over Dover and moved to Brightlingsea so, mindful of the concern, I boarded the ferry and saw the movement of the animals from the truck on to the ferry. I must say, they were transported in much more comfort than any North Sea passenger, from my experience of ferries at the time.
I urge the authors of the amendment to go back to the RSPCA and, I am sure, Compassion in World Farming, to check the veracity of the allegations. It is true that 20, 30 or 40 years ago—I pay tribute to the work that my noble friend Lady Fookes has done in this regard —there were horrendous tales of the live trade in animals but, when you got to the basis of them, many were not in this country or even on this continent. I was appalled at that time to see that videos were being made and shown in schools in north Essex and south Suffolk to try to drum up support for banning the live trade.
As the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, just said, you have to be very careful to differentiate between animals that are being exported for fattening and slaughter and those that are being exported for breeding, showing and other purposes; as he rightly said, it is difficult to differentiate between the two.
I would like to see the live trade as it currently exists, certainly between here and mainland Europe, which I understand most of it is—that is, for every live animal that is exported, only six or seven are carried in carcass form. It is a very limited trade, it is highly regulated, and no farmer in their right mind would like to see an animal stressed by transport because the meat would be worthless and there would be no market for it at all.
There is a scenario that we seem to have lost sight of in this amendment: new subsection (6) cannot possibly apply to Northern Ireland because of the Northern Ireland protocol. I hope my noble friend will set out that it is simply not going to happen there.
I also hope my noble friend will take the opportunity to say—and I take great comfort from this fact—that if it is true that we are leaving the European Union and the transition period will end at the end of this year, the rules of the World Trade Organization will apply. I think the RSPCA is well aware of that fact. Under the “most favoured nation” clause and non-discrimination treatment, the likelihood is that the WTO would rule to prevent any such ban on the import or export of live animals under that principle.
With these few remarks, I hope my noble friend will continue to reassure us that this minimum, highly regulated level of trade can continue, but there are implications from the protocol and the WTO that I am sure he would wish to have regard to.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, 20-odd years ago, when we formed the Government in 1997, this was new to me and not something that I had not given any thought to. I was responsible for animal health and Elliot Morley was responsible for animal welfare. We toughened up the regulations and we thought they were working, but over the years I have come to share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, so I wholeheartedly support the view that she has put forward today.
There are some caveats that need to be dealt with, which I will raise, but I cannot see any excuse for the export of live animals for slaughter or for fattening. Frankly, I am not an expert, but I well understand how I could distinguish between the export of animals for breeding and the export of those for fattening and slaughter; I do not think it is that difficult. We have—or, probably, had—quite a big export trade in pigs with China. They wanted to vastly improve their stock, and it was done with breeding expertise from the UK.
It is a fact that we have far fewer live exports than we used to. If memory serves me correctly, 20 or 25 years ago the figures were probably nearer to 250,000 or 300,000. I remember the rows at Brightlingsea that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has just referred to. I also remember the tragedy there of at least one person being killed under the wheels of a lorry while campaigning to try to stop the export of live animals.
We have to be careful of certain things. There is a Northern Ireland route to France. Slipping animals across the land border and then on into France is certainly a method that would have to stop. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, and someone else raised the issue of France. As I understand it, the reason why the French want our sheep is that if they are slaughtered in France, they can legitimately put “French lamb” on the menu. It is as simple as that. They do not have to declare it as British. It is slaughtered in France and therefore it is French lamb, so it is a selling point in French restaurants. That is what I have always understood the position to be.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a real delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—I want to call him my noble friend because he certainly is one—but he has rather stolen my thunder, in the sense that he and I share a capacity for looking at loopholes. I wish I were able to support the amendment that my noble friend Lady Fookes has tabled, because she has laid out a very strong case for banning both slaughtered animals and animals for fattening through third-party countries.
However, I would not want to see an exporter consign all live animal export via Northern Ireland in order to re-consign to a third country or even, as the noble Lord pointed out, the Isle of Man. I would expect such abuse to happen should the amendment be accepted, because Northern Ireland is especially excluded for exports to European countries under the withdrawal Act.
There may be other loopholes, and I hope the Minister can confirm what they are, along with the consequences of the amendment as it stands, although I am sure he will want to support the general thrust of what my noble friend Lady Fookes has been saying.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, Amendment 220 relates to animals being exported from the UK for the purposes of slaughter or fattening prior to slaughter. The sanctions imposed on those found guilty are severe and will, I hope, act as sufficient deterrent to prevent it happening.
Moving animals long distances causes extreme distress and is unnecessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, spoke passionately against the export of live animals for fattening, especially young animals. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, and the noble Lords, Lord Randall of Uxbridge and Lord Trees, made compelling arguments against exporting live animals, which I fully support. Does the Minister agree that the export of animals should be stopped? I know that he is passionate about animal welfare and I look forward to his support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, spoke to Amendment 277—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, will shortly—on banning the import of foie gras from 31 December 2021. This is plenty of time for regulations to be put in place for producers of foie gras to adjust and find other markets. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, intends the ban to extend to individual tourists returning from a holiday in a country where it is possible to buy foie gras. I support the whole impact of the foie gras ban but not penalising individual tourists.
The vast majority of the experienced and knowledgeable noble Lords who spoke on this amendment support it, except the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. While the loading and unloading of trucks may have improved in some cases, the length and nature of the transportation in many cases has not. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, drew attention to that and confirmed that this is the case. I ask the Minister to support this amendment and look forward to his comments on the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 277 but also in support of Amendment 220, which would ban the export of farmed animals for slaughter or fattening. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and many other noble Lords set out the case for this extremely well.
My amendment has a very specific intent: to ban the import of foie gras into the UK and to introduce fines for those found guilty of the offence after 31 December 2021. This is an issue of blatant animal cruelty, which has been widely recognised. Foie gras is created by force-feeding ducks and geese massive amounts of food to make their livers swell to 10 times their natural size. It causes enormous suffering. The birds are kept in tiny cages with wire mesh floors and no bedding or rest area. The process of jamming food down their throats several times a day causes disease and inflammation of the oesophagus. There is no higher-welfare alternative for making foie gras. It is intrinsically cruel.
The production of foie gras on UK soil has rightly been banned since 2000. However, imports have sadly not been banned, with the result that the UK continues to import around 200 tonnes of foie gras each year, mostly from mainland Europe. It is time to put a stop to this. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, that it is not about the odd tin of foie gras in someone’s luggage; it is about commercial profit from animal suffering.
When a similar amendment was considered in the Commons, the Minister, Victoria Prentis, agreed that it raised serious welfare issues but that we should consider the matter after the transition from the EU. However, noble Lords will have spotted that the implementation date in my amendment is a year after we have left the EU, so there is plenty of time to bring this law into effect. Noble Lords might also like to know that force- feeding animals is already prohibited in a number of other European countries, including Germany, Italy and Poland.
We need to join the international movement against this cruel activity and implement a ban on imports of foie gras here as soon as we can. Let us hope that if enough countries take a stand on this, it will make foie gras production uneconomical and end this cruel practice for good.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for participating in this debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Fookes —the word “tenacity” comes to mind. I think everyone agrees that animals should be slaughtered as close as possible to where they have spent their productive lives. I understand, and indeed share, the sentiments behind this amendment.
Over the last 30 years, EU free trade rules have prevented previous Administrations from taking meaningful action on live exports. Having left the EU, the Government are clear that we want to tackle this issue. However, any restriction on trade must of course be in accordance with WTO rules. We are giving careful consideration to the animal health and public morals exceptions in the design of our policy. My noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge used the word “complex”, which is apposite.
The Government committed in their manifesto to end excessively long journeys of animals going for slaughter or fattening. In 2018, along with the devolved Administrations, we tasked the independent Farm Animal Welfare Committee, or FAWC—now actually called AWC—to look into controlling live exports and at what improvements should be made to animal welfare in transport. FAWC produced a report that provides a good basis for future reforms to control live exports and improve animal welfare in transport more broadly, which is also very important.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach and others referred to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will continue to apply the current EU rules as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol, and so cannot prevent the export of live animals to the EU and beyond. While the amendment recognises that fact, it would regrettably create a loophole which would be detrimental to animal welfare. Animals could be transported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, rested for a short time in accordance with EU law, and then transported to the EU or a third country. There is also a risk that, to ensure enforcement was possible, we would need to introduce greater restrictions on animal movements from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
I say to all noble Lords that the Government are actively considering how they will take forward their manifesto pledge. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked whether the amendment would hasten this; as I have said, the Government are actively considering how they will bring forward their manifesto pledge to end long journeys to slaughter and fattening, using the FAWC report as a basis for future proposals.
I turn to Amendment 277. While allowed under EU law, the production of foie gras from ducks or geese by using force-feeding raises serious welfare concerns. The domestic production of foie gras by force-feeding is not compatible with our animal welfare legislation. However, this amendment would penalise someone for bringing foie gras into the country for their personal consumption. The individual British consumer or retailer currently has the choice to engage with the product or not. I understand the strength of feeling on the issue, but in the Government’s view the Bill is about reforming domestic agriculture, not introducing penalties to consumers.
As I ask my noble friend Lady Fookes to withdraw her amendment, I hope that she will not suggest that I am weak or vacillating. We are seeking to plot a course through a complex issue to adhere to and achieve our manifesto commitment. With that, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no requests from noble Lords to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes.
Baroness Fookes [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for what has been a very interesting debate with a lot of very good points made—not all of which, of course, I agree with. However, it has certainly aired the whole subject again, for which I am grateful.
I appreciate that my noble friend the Minister has difficulties afforded him. I take it that he is genuine in his wish to bring about an end to the export of animals for slaughter and fattening. He mentioned the WTO rules, but I understand that a good exemption is possible under Article XX, to which he referred briefly, and I am quite sure that, if a good case could be made, there should be no great problems on that subject. I remind him that certain bans on the export of animals are already in existence and appear to be unchallenged, particularly the ban on the export of horses and ponies under a certain value.
I obviously want to think very carefully about my amendment, because of the possible—or perhaps certain —loophole of animals going from England to Northern Ireland and then perhaps to the Republic and on through other countries, which is exactly what we do not want. I therefore want to give further consideration to whether I should pursue my amendment on Report. I would like to have further discussions with my noble friend to see in more detail what the Government have in mind to fulfil their manifesto commitment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 221. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and that anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 221
Lord Whitty
“Application of pesticides: limitations on use to protect human health
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for prohibiting the application of any pesticide for the purposes of agriculture near—(a) any building used for human habitation;(b) any building or open space used for work or recreation; or(c) any public or private building where members of the public may be present including, but not limited to—(i) schools and childcare nurseries, and(ii) hospitals.(2) Regulations under this section must specify a minimum distance between any of the locations listed under subsection (1)(a) to (c) to be maintained during the application of any pesticide, and list any category of building or location.(3) For the purposes of this section “public building” includes any building used for the purposes of education.(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would have the effect of protecting members of the public from hazardous health impacts from the application of chemical pesticides near buildings and spaces used by residents and members of the public.
Lord Whitty [V]
My Lords, earlier in this Committee stage, a number of noble Lords—I remember, in particular, speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—spoke movingly about the impact of pesticides on human beings and the distress that it had caused. I thank them for that. I also thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for co-signing what is clearly a multiparty amendment.
The amendment is a vital but limited attempt to protect residents in rural areas from exposure to the spraying of pesticides and herbicides by requiring spraying to be carried out well away from homes and public buildings and from spaces where the public congregate. I am well aware that there is a wider background to this, which I will partially comment on, and it can be quite controversial, but this amendment is straightforward and, as such, I hope that it will be adopted by the Government at the end of this debate.
Much of the Bill is about the protection of wildlife, the health and welfare of farm animals, biodiversity, plant conservation, and water and air quality, but there is little recognition of the terrible damage to humans of ingesting chemical pesticides directly into their lungs, eyes and bloodstream. Many chemicals used in agriculture, including on UK farms and elsewhere, can, on their own or in combination, cause the breakdown of parts of the human immune system. They can poison the nervous system and cause cancer, mutations and birth defects. Rural residents are well aware of the problems. Campaigners on this have dossiers on rural families who have suffered, and I shall give your Lordships a couple of examples of the testimonies.
One is from a woman in the countryside in the north of England:
“I have brought up my family of three next to a frequently sprayed arable field. On many occasions, the spray has gone over the children as they’ve played. It has covered our washing and gone through our windows. We are long-term tenants on this land, yet we are treated as if this has nothing to do with us. We do not know what these chemicals are, only that the farmer, when mixing them and pouring them into his tank, wears full protective clothing and then sits in a protected cab.”
Another says:
“I live in a rural area and have done all my life. The spraying of crops has been carried out almost daily. I suffer from two chronic diseases, one of which is likely to be fatal.”
Another resident says:
“My neighbour sprays so close we can sometimes feel the drops on our faces and there is nothing we can do. My children are at risk.”
However, there is something that we can do. At the moment, manufacturers, rightly, attempt to label their pesticide, insecticide and herbicide products with warnings. These comes in various forms, with labels saying “Very toxic by inhalation”; “Do not breathe spray, fumes or vapour”; “Risk of serious damage to the eyes”; or “Harmful: possible risk of irreversible effects through inhalation”.
Farm workers are covered under health and safety laws and by manufacturers’ advice to wear protective clothing, and most do so, but residents are not so covered. Guidance has been given to users that they should inform residents in advance of spraying and that the chemicals used should be clearly identified and communicated to residents. That advice is normally ignored and pretty well never enforced.
Ministers and others have, in debate on this Bill and elsewhere, lauded the UK pesticide regime as one of the best in the world. Frankly, that is not a great accolade given the exposure of whole populations in much of the world to pesticide damage, as recent reports by the United Nations have emphasised. It is wrong to claim that the EU or UK systems are safe. In particular, they do not protect those who live close by.
When I more or less did the Minister’s job 20 years ago, I inherited the responsibility for pesticides, and I was concerned then about the degree to which the pesticide industry influenced the regulatory structures, and particularly enforcement. There was a degree of producer capture, and that anxiety has not gone away. Now that we are so-called free of EU regulations, there is a danger that that influence will grow further and that the lives of residents in the UK will be less safe. There have been occasions when the UK has been the country least keen on EU regulation in these areas. Whereas in most of the Bill, and in most of the Government’s vision for the future of agriculture, we are trying to go further than the CAP straitjacket in order to protect the environment and animal health, there is a danger that we will relax the pesticide regulations. However, we should be adopting strategies that enhance protection.
The amendment would at least have the effect of protecting residents and the public from the hazardous health impacts of spraying near buildings and spaces used by the public. As I said, it is in a sense a relatively small step, but it is absolutely vital for those families and populations. Ultimately, we need to see a longer-term strategy to develop non-chemical methods of crop protection, but this is an improvement that we can impose now, and one which should be part of the Bill.
Crucially, it establishes the principle that there must be minimum distances between pesticide spraying and occupied buildings. The details would be subject to wide consultation and to secondary legislation. A number of noble Lords have asked me why we do not specify the distance in this primary legislation. As we know, there will be some discussion about that and it would be normal for the details to come in regulations. However, there will be differences of opinion between farmers, manufacturers and campaigners for rural residents, and it is best that the precise distance is left for consultation and scientific measures. I myself would be inclined towards a substantial distance, but there will be other views about the practicality of that.
Tonight, let us establish, as part of the Bill, the very basic principle that human life and human health are protected and need to be protected. In the longer run, we need a proper strategy to reduce and eventually eliminate chemical pesticides, or at least the wholesale use of them, and to replace them with non-chemical forms of plant protection. However, that is a wider issue. Immediately, we need to protect the rural residents who are at risk. My amendment is a very small but vital part of the journey and I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept it, either this evening or on Report, for the sake of those rural residents who feel, and are, unsafe, and the many who have been distressed by the impact of pesticides on them and potentially on others. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I have signed his amendment, which he has explained extremely eloquently. I also support—although I have not signed—the other amendment in this group, because both recognise the harmful effects of pesticides on human health and the health of our wildlife and countryside. This comes just days after Monsanto/Bayer agreed an out-of-court settlement of $10 billion in compensation to farmers who claim that Roundup caused their cancers.
Agricultural chemicals is a huge industry, and big agri-businesses are spending billions of dollars to avoid a court finding that their products cause cancer and other health problems. These two amendments are common sense when it comes to protecting our health and that of our countryside from these dangerous chemicals. Banning the application of pesticides in areas of human habitation, work and education will directly protect people from their toxic consequences.
Amendment 226 would help us shift more broadly from pesticide use towards alternative farming practices. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I would be very happy to work with noble Lords to bring these amendments back on Report, because they need to be included in the Bill.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge [V]
My Lords, I thoroughly support these two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, have expressed everything I wanted to say. We have talked about the need to look after biodiversity and the environment, but what could be more important than the health of fellow human beings? I support these amendments.
Baroness Henig (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 221, to which I have also put my name. This is my first contribution in Committee, and I have listened and learned an awful lot from the debates thus far. I have long-held concerns about the pollution and contamination caused by the widespread use of pesticides and chemical treatments across increasingly large parts of our agricultural land.
I am no expert on the effects of pesticides on human health and our wildlife, but the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, most definitely are. The House heard them talk in detail on a previous group of amendments about how exposure to agricultural pesticides is linked with many diseases and conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, emphasised that in moving the amendment. It is obvious that those living near crop fields are particularly vulnerable to exposure.
The Government have had in place a national action plan looking into this problem since 2013, but little seems to have resulted and unsurprisingly, it has been described as “woefully weak”. I read the Minister’s letters to Peers after Second Reading, in which he said that the Government will develop their policy in a revised national action plan on the sustainable use of pesticides, and that they will consult in coming months. This is not an adequate response to what is a serious, well-documented and ongoing health hazard.
We have all agreed that the Agriculture Bill is a landmark piece of legislation. It is going to provide the foundation for our agricultural and environmental policies for decades to come. The Minister in the other place described it as an ambitious Bill. But it is not ambitious in this area. What is our strategy regarding the use of pesticides? Are we going to have a target to reduce their use to, say, half, as the EU has adopted? Or, is our strategy to aim to remove them completely from our food and farming system, as at least one Chief Scientific Adviser has advocated? We need to hear about more concrete action and a clearer strategy than that revealed thus far.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 221 and 226. As a rural resident in Northern Ireland, I am fully aware of the use of pesticides and their harmful impact on the many people who live close by. So, I am fully equipped with knowledge of the deployment of pesticides and their impact on humanity, animals and the wider environment. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I know that, as a former Agriculture Minister, he made strenuous efforts in this respect.
There is no doubt that highly toxic agrochemicals remain the biggest contributor of pollution, contaminating the air, soil, water and the overall agricultural environment, as well damaging human health. We are all aware of the damage caused by sheep dip and its impact on the human population; other types of human illnesses are also associated with farm husbandry and pesticides generally.
For the sake of humanity, and for agriculture to be profitable, this issue needs to be addressed in symbiotic, healthy way. The best way to achieve that is through the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in which he suggests minimum distances to ensure that human life is protected. I support both amendments and commend them to the Committee.
Lord Naseby [V]
My Lords, I have a different point of view. I was brought up in Bedfordshire for much of my life. At one point I was a consultant to Fison’s Agrochemicals. We are not just talking about the generic term “pesticide”, which conjures up images of locusts doing this, that and the other, we are talking about insecticides, fungicides, herbicides or weed killers, and we need to differentiate between them.
I want to make two points to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. First, nobody should be spraying in windy conditions so that children in a back garden are somehow drenched. That particular farmer is way outside the code of conduct and he would not be doing any good for his employer because the spray would not be going on to the crops it was designed for. Secondly, if you live in a village—I live on the edge of one—you know that most people have gardens and use some form of pesticide for the various problems in a garden. Ordinary consumers are reasonably well briefed. They read the instructions on the container. They know they may or may not have to mix, and it is fairly rare to mix two chemicals. In most cases, you pour 20 millilitres, or whatever it may be, into 2 litres of water. You make sure that the container is clean and that the sprayer is working properly. Quite frankly, the idea that people living in rural villages have no idea about pesticides is a myth.
We have only to go back to the 1960s when the British Agricultural Association had a code of conduct; I have the old booklet here somewhere. Over time, that code has been improved immeasurably. Furthermore, the scientific work that is done on agrochemicals is every bit as thorough as that done on medicines, medical trials and so on. If there is a failure in the use of spraying somewhere in the UK, that farmer should be jumped on, but most of the farmers I know are careful.
I live next door to the RSPB. It and others have done a wonderful job of restoring birds in the countryside in co-operation with British farmers. Spraying is altered to suit particular bird species. Along with granddaughter I have been to RSPB briefings recently and you cannot help but be impressed by the way the industry is working with those who are trying to look after our wild birds. I say to my noble friend that this is all very nice. If pesticides are used properly, I do not think that people are dying. I do not think that any harm is being done to them. Further, let us not forget that this is not the year in which to make dramatic changes to any sector of agriculture. This is the year of transition. It is a year where we need to move forward smoothly to ensure that our dear farmers can take on board changes that are being forced on them without having to muck about with whether less herbicide x or fungicide y should be used here or there.
I shall say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that he may not be 100% popular but, for my money, he should strongly resist both these amendments.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Naseby, especially since I agree with so much of what he has said. On this occasion, however, I regret that I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I shall be brief because I am conscious that I must leave time for those colleagues who wish to speak on every single amendment. Where I take issue with my noble friend Lord Randall is on the words, “application” and “any pesticide”. I have made this point previously so I need not go into the detail, but we must not demonise all pesticides if they are no threat to humans, animals and wildlife, and if they are applied properly, as my noble friend Lord Naseby has just said. I agree with my noble friend Lord Randall that I do not want to see clouds of aerosol spray wafting across fields and settling on people, animals and buildings outside the intended zone, even if that spray is just soapy water, and I agree completely with what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in his moving introduction to this amendment. It is just not acceptable for people anywhere to be sprayed with any substance, no matter how harmless, from agricultural activities.
As a former MP for a rural constituency with lots of villages, I deplored incomers who would complain about cowpats on the road, but everyone is entitled to a pesticide spray-free environment. However, we are now getting the technology that can permit the micro-application of tiny amounts of pesticide. The chemical is not sprayed over everything, but is applied to the individual weed. I used to use Roundup in the garden because it was an excellent pesticide, but latterly I applied it by touching just one leaf of the weed with a tiny bit of it on a sponge attached to the end of a cane. That is the poor man’s garden method of micro-application. Farmers cannot do that over vast acreages, but I do not want to see a blanket ban on all pesticides, however safe and however applied, as the amendment suggests. The technology is coming onstream to permit the safe application of small amounts of pesticide directly on to weeds. They are of crucial importance and they cause no harm to people, food or the environment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in this Committee, not least because I am mesmerised by the picture of that wonderful mountain, Blencathra, in the background while he speaks. I have a terrible problem listening to what he is saying because I am remembering wonderful days out on Blencathra. I congratulate him on a common-sense speech. It saves me having to try to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
I wanted to add my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, because it is a cross-party amendment and I thought there should be a Liberal Democrat on it, but the list was full, so I added my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness instead. They are both sensible amendments with which to pursue this debate. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, concentrated mainly on the problems for residents who are subjected to spraying, whether it is done in ideal conditions or whether it is being done in accordance with the instructions on the packet. That the health of too many people is suffering as a result of this is pretty well established. Many of us have had letters before this Committee with individual instances and anecdotes. As someone once said, anecdote is the singular of data, and there is enough of it around.
It is also a problem for people who visit the countryside and use footpaths that are not adjacent to fields but are around the field margins or across the middle of the field. At the very least, we ought to be moving to a situation where notices are put up. Farmers may say that is an imposition, but it is not. During the recent Covid lockdown, loads of farmers put up notices asking people to behave sensibly and to keep away from their houses. Some very sensible notices were produced by the NFU which showed how farmers could comply with the access law and at the same time ask people to behave sensibly when they—we—were walking on their land, so it can be done. A requirement for sensible signage during the periods when spraying is taking place telling people what is going to be sprayed is only sensible so they can watch out. People go walking in the countryside for their health, and they do not want to walk through clouds of poison.
I support both these amendments and hope that the Government will find a way of adding a provision to the Bill on Report.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I pay tribute to the restraint and brevity of my noble friend Lady Henig, with whom I had the pleasure to serve on the ad hoc Select Committee on the Licensing Act 2003.
I believe that Amendment 221 is well-meaning, but it is very prescriptive. On Amendment 226, I would like to associate myself with the call for research in this area, and I urge the Minister to outline in her reply to this debate what commitment the Government are making to conduct that research. I imagine that much of the research would have been done on a cross-European basis, and I would like to know how the Government are going to make up the funding, as they are committed to do—they have said that on a number of occasions.
I also pay tribute to the work that Rothamsted and other institutes are doing, but we need to have alternatives that are technically feasible and commercially viable. I hope my noble friend the Minister will put my mind at rest as to how this will be funded going forward.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, both these amendments are very difficult to argue against. They are telling us to be careful about how we use chemicals designed to kill things. My noble friend beat me to the word “poison”, but that is what they are for: to kill the organic life that we do not want in certain places at certain times.
Having controls about where you can use such substances is fairly basic. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, describing a farmer effectively getting into a biohazard suit before using them gives a hint that they are potentially dangerous. If can think of examples just from this Chamber. I look across to where the noble Countess, Lady Mar, sat for many years: organophosphates ruined her life and she led a campaign to get rid of them.
Many people have told us that we do not know what we are talking about and to just use these substances sensibly—but we can then discover that they are lethal. Another example is DDT, and I could carry on. The fact that these chemicals cause problems when they get into ground-water is very well established. We should be more cautious and targeted about their use—there is a lot of technology which enables us to be more targeted, and we should embrace this.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on her amendment. I think that something like the study she suggests should be in the Bill. My gut reaction is to say yes to Amendment 221, but unlike the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I would like it to be more specific, so we know what we are dealing with. Such guidelines probably would depend on work that would be done under the later amendment.
There is potential risk here. We have tolerated a degree of damage to ourselves and to members of our society because we did not know what we were doing in the past. We would not tolerate that now and our standards are probably going to get tighter. Therefore, tightening up the process of observation should be encouraged.
I have one last anecdote: how many people have still got a bottle of blue slug pellets at the back of their garden cabinet which they are not quite sure what to do with? We have discovered that these destroy far more than just the slugs. I have used them in the past, and probably should not have done.
We are tightening our standards and becoming more targeted and smarter all the time with chemicals. It is about time we took this on in a more coherent fashion, and these amendments are a good step forward. I salute the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on her amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have some sympathy with these amendments. I like the way that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has drafted his amendment so that it is not prescriptive, because further work needs to be done.
We are used to buffer strips already: you cannot spray near a watercourse and you cannot put organic manure near bore-holes or wells. Why are human beings excluded from those same provisions? It seems to me a little perverse. I listened with care to my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Blencathra; yes, most farmers are good and are careful, but sadly we all know bad farmers. They are the ones causing the damage and are a major cause of the problem that pesticides create.
My noble friend Lord Naseby was right to say that “pesticide” is a generic term. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether she would consider different schemes for fungicides, pesticides and insecticides? Herbicides are probably the least damaging to human beings, but they do leach through the soil, particularly sandy soil, very quickly. The others—for example, insecticides—can be particularly nasty to human beings. It does not require much breeze for there to be quite a fine spray which goes much further than most people recognise. Even in the United States, they are beginning to clamp down on the excessive use of these sprays and have better buffer zones. I think it is time we followed suit; this is something which should be researched and then implemented.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too wish to speak in support of these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, gave a passionate and well-informed explanation for why he has tabled Amendment 221.
Amendment 226 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State must
“monitor the use and effects of pesticides”
and
“conduct research into alternative methods of pest control and … promote their take-up”.
The proposals include assessments of the
“effect of pesticides on environmental health”
and “on human health”. The amendment covers
“farmers, farm workers and their families, operators, bystanders, rural residents and the general public.”
This is wider than Amendment 221.
We have become increasingly aware of the dangers of pesticides. We know that intensive farming has driven the loss of wildlife; I was brought up on a farm and recall birds and flowers that you rarely see now. Chemical pesticides also damage human health, and I recall chemicals everywhere, spilling out of sacks. When pesticides were spread, they drifted over us if the wind picked up or changed direction, which it was always doing.
Farmers have a higher than average incidence of kidney cancer, which my father had. That is not down to chance—it is not a common cancer. There must be a risk that this is associated with the use of chemicals. I hope that our outstanding cancer registries will continue to draw effective conclusions here. From that we get data, not just datum. Professor Ian Boyd, former chief scientific adviser at Defra, and Dr Alice Milner compared the overuse of pesticides to that of antibiotics, and they are surely right. The Food and Agriculture Organization is seeking to combat this worldwide, and the first step is collecting data on pesticide use.
As we seek to reduce the use of pesticides, it is extremely important that farmers can access advice, independent of merchants and manufacturers, as specified in this amendment. For so many years, farmers have depended on industry advice, as I recall my father having to do. However, as a tenant farmer with his head just above water, he usually cut in half what they recommended, simply on the basis of cost and the assumption that they had overestimated what was required. I therefore recognise the Friends of the Earth statement that:
“Farmers support the need to cut unnecessary use of pesticides—and it’s better for their bottom line too.”
I am concerned that going it alone, out of the EU, will lead not to higher standards, as the noble Lord so often assures us, but to lower ones. I recall a debate over neonicotinoids—neonics—when I was in Defra. Trials in the EU had led to the conclusion that they should be banned because of their potential effect on the bee population, which has declined dramatically. The United Kingdom opposed, slowing down action in the UK and across the EU. Also, with reference to the last group of amendments that we discussed, the UK also opposed stopping the transport of live animals, despite what was said in the referendum. These are not encouraging examples. Therefore, it is important to have this commitment on pesticides in the Bill. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, but I particularly support the wider-ranging Amendment 226, which could immediately be added to the Bill.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief, because much of what needs to be said has already been said. I sympathise with the intent of Amendment 221 but, like my noble friend Lady McIntosh, I would prefer something less prescriptive.
I will focus briefly on Amendment 226 and (1)(b) of the proposed new clause, to promote the conduct of
“research into alternative methods of pest control and to promote their take-up”.
That must be the best long-term solution, that we simply use less of these poisonous substances. Sadly, Amendment 235 is not being moved today; it would have encouraged, or at least made easier, the development of genetically edited plants and so on which would be more resistant to pesticides. I used to represent Rothamsted —it develops all sorts of plants, some by genetic modification and some by traditional methods.
If we can develop plants which themselves repel insects, the need for insecticides will be reduced. I very much hope that we do not actually incorporate it in law but that the Government will take the message from this debate that the only long-term solution is to find ways which do not rely on pesticides to reduce the impact of malevolent insects on our crops—the same goes for weeds, as well.
That is all that needs to be said on this occasion.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I fully support Amendment 226, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It implies four actions: first, analysis and monitoring of the harmful impact of pesticides; secondly, proper research into alternative methods of pest control; thirdly, such alternatives should be not just researched but, once identified, used so that they take over from pesticides; therefore, fourthly, an inferred timetable, with target dates set for phasing out pesticides, without which discipline the aspiration and process of replacing them at all is likely, yet again, to be procrastinated and prevaricated.
Some may even argue that the harmful effects of pesticides require no further analysis and monitoring in any case, pointing out that despite overwhelming evidence that a variety of these are carcinogenic, and that others pollute air, food and environment alike, nothing much has ever been done to control them, and that any future corroboration would probably be similarly disregarded and equally given short shrift. What might work much better, however, is to adopt a firm, balanced and comprehensive approach in the first place. If so, that is exactly the essence of this amendment, which calls for and contains several other elements alongside, and additional to, the request for continuing analysis of damage caused. Such a pragmatic approach is relevant, taking into account that, as long ago as 1975, Fred Peart, when he was Minister of Agriculture, correctly wrote:
“The repeated use of pesticides, even in small quantities, can have cumulative effects which may not be noticed until a dangerous amount has been absorbed.”
Looking back between then and now, sadly, this statement of 44 years ago only too clearly reveals also that successive Governments have been well aware of the cumulative effect of pesticides but have taken hardly any action to give protection against them to rural communities, wildlife and waterways.
Of course, as my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Blencathra have pointed out, some pesticides are not as bad as others, but the framework of Amendment 226 would enable such qualifications to be taken into account. Following its direction, target dates should now be set for phasing out pesticides and replacing them with alternative methods. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can endorse that prescription.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who have tabled these two amendments, that pesticides that cause harm to people and livestock should be banned. However, other pesticides have unreasonably been banned as a result of too rigid an application by the EU of the precautionary principle. I very much agree with the remarks of my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Blencathra. For example, the ban on neonics has made the cultivation of oilseed rape in this country uneconomic. The evidence about its toxicity is not clear, and its ban has been counterproductive in that farmers have been forced to use older and less effective pesticides such as pyrethroids and organophosphates, that are less effective and must be sprayed several times during the growing season. They really do harm bees, other insects and even birds.
The prohibition of neonics in the EU was the result of misguided pressure campaigns and false claims that bees are threatened by neonics; actual data show the opposite is true. Contrary to some reports, honeybee colonies have been rising worldwide since the 1990s, when neonics first came on the market. Surveys by the US Department of Agriculture show that American honeybee hive numbers have increased in seven of the last 10 years, and that there are now over 150,000 more beehives in the US than in 1995.
As a result of the EU’s ban on neonics, oilseed rape has become an uneconomic crop for British farmers, and the area cultivated in the UK has fallen by 60% since 2012. The deficit in this crop has been made up by imports, much of them from the Ukraine and other countries which still permit the use of neo-nicotinoids. These amendments would keep British farmers trapped under unnecessary rules. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the neonics ban is an example of rules dictated by mumbo-jumbo rather than science, referred to by the Prime Minister in his speech at Greenwich in February?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, this should have been the last group of amendments debated on Tuesday evening, dealing with pesticides, which we had previously debated. This debate has roused passions on both sides of the argument. Whichever side you come from, we all seem to agree that being sprayed with chemicals is unacceptable. I fully support Amendment 221 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who has also added his name to Amendment 226 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, as has my noble friend Lord Greaves.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked of the protection of wildlife biodiversity. Terrible damage can be done to humans by ingesting chemicals which can cause health problems and deformities. The noble Lord gave a graphic example of the sprayer of pesticides who was wearing full protective clothing but taking no care to ensure that those nearby, not protected by clothing, were not covered by the spray. This is not right. Rural residents deserve to be protected, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, reminded us of the previous contributions by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Will we remove toxic chemicals from our environment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, said? There is a cumulative effect on humans, as well as the decimation of the insect population.
I regret that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. Not all of us who have gardens spray our plants, fruit and vegetables with noxious chemicals to prevent pests. There are other means of discouraging pests and blight which do not contain poisons or spray up on our produce.
Over the years we have seen the devastating effects on humans of the use of pesticides and insecticides. Some noble Lords mentioned Roundup. I have experience of the effect of sheep dip. My noble friend Lord Addington mentioned DDT and organophosphates. We take an unconscionable time to act when presented with evidence of harm. It is, therefore, much better to ban toxic sprays and move to more environmentally friendly means of pest control, such as nematode worms to control slugs, instead of slug pellets, which kill birds that eat the slugs that have eaten the pellets, and eat the pellets themselves. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for his valuable contribution to this debate. These amendments are linked; both monitor the use of pesticides and alternatives. We cannot monitor the use of pesticides if we do not collect data on their use, as my noble friend Lady Northover indicated. I am grateful for her contribution and her attention to the UK’s history in preventing the banning of neonicotinoids and the transport of live animals—we should be ashamed of our part in that.
Noble Lords taking part in this debate have made important points. In earlier debates, the noble Baroness the Minister gave reassurances on the implementation of alternative pesticide use. It is important that the public are protected from possible pesticide spraying. The IPM should be implemented as soon as possible. When will it be consulted on and then implemented? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 226 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Randall and Lord Greaves. I also support Amendment 221, which was expertly introduced by my noble friend Lord Whitty. I remind noble Lords of my Rothamsted connections in the register.
Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to monitor the effects of pesticides on livestock and the land, conduct research into alternative methods of pest control and consult on a target to reduce their use. It complements the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty, which focuses more on the impact of pesticides on human health, which is, rightly, also a great cause for concern. As I mentioned in an earlier debate on the agricultural workforce, there are nearly half a million people working on the land who have immediate and worrying exposure to pesticides and herbicides on a daily basis. It is right that that should be properly regulated.
My noble friend Lord Whitty also raised the concerns of those living in rural areas adjoining fields where crops are being sprayed, sometimes indiscriminately. They come with health warnings that are rarely shared with the local population. Clearly these practices can cause substantial pollution, not only to the individuals concerned but to the air quality in nearby areas. It was notable that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, rightly pointed out the irony that water courses seem to be better protected than human beings. As my noble friend Lady Henig said, it is a sad fact that the health impacts of these chemicals often become clear all too late in the day. This is certainly the case with glyphosate, a widely used agricultural and domestic weedkiller.
This is why we argued emphatically that we should retain the precautionary principle when we transpose EU law into UK law. In response to noble Lords who have been critical of these amendments, my noble friend’s amendment calls not for a ban but for a minimum distance between spraying and homes and schools. That is a reasonable prospect, on any measure. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, not everybody operates to the high standards to which he referred and aspires. We cannot just assume that human nature will operate to the best and highest standards.
The amendment in my name concentrates more on the effects of pesticides on the land and its biodiversity. The objectives in Clause 1 place a welcome emphasis on managing land to improve the environment, to protect it from environmental hazards and to embrace agroecology. If we are serious about land management schemes that deliver for the environment, we have to be serious about a review of our pesticide use. As we have debated before, this needs to be based on an integrated pest-management principle which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, understands the interrelationship between insects and the need to keep their presence in balance, rather than wiping them out indiscriminately with pesticides. A few months ago, I talked to a farmer who described the success of the beetle banks that had been laid in rows between his crops. The beetles come out in the daytime; they roam around the field eating aphids; and then they return to the bank at dusk, and everyone is happy. These are surely the kinds of innovations that we should be supporting, along with precision application where pesticides are absolutely necessary.
We also need to be aware of the threat from imported foods with lower restrictions on the use of pesticides which might flood our market post Brexit. We need specific measures to ensure that UK farmers cannot be undercut by cheap food from non-EU countries with less strict controls, which might be contaminated by pesticide residues. Will maintaining pesticide standards and the precautionary principle apply to all imported food post Brexit?
When a similar amendment was put forward by my Labour colleagues in the Commons, the Minister, Victoria Prentis, agreed that the use of pesticides should be minimised and their usage and effect carefully monitored. She argued that further details would be included in the 25-year environment plan. But I see no reason why this issue cannot be progressed as part of this Bill. All we are asking for is up-to-date research on the impact of pesticides and alternative methods of pest control. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley; it is happening at Rothamsted and a number of other research institutes. But we need to pull that evidence together in one place, so that we have a strategy for alternative and better use. This is necessary if we are to have the good practice that the environment land management in the Bill desires. If we are serious about this, the future is about alternatives to pesticide use. All we are asking is that we capture that and put it in the Bill in a constructive way.
I urge noble Lords to look closely at the wording of my noble friend Lord Whitty’s amendment and mine. They are both very modest in their aspiration and scope. They do not ask for a great deal, but they do ask for practical solutions for the way forward. I hope that noble Lords will support both amendments.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for Amendment 221, which I will take together with Amendment 226 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The Committee has heard a number of heartfelt speeches, most notably from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when he moved his amendment. A number of noble Lords also mentioned the thoughtful and considered contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on day three of Committee, when soils, pesticides and nature-friendly farming were debated in the first group of amendments. The Government understand these concerns and recognise the importance of ensuring that the use of pesticides is minimised, that alternatives are developed and that there is monitoring of pesticide use and its effects.
The Government agree that pesticides should not be used where they may harm human health. A robust regulatory system is already in place to deliver that objective. Pesticides are authorised only if scientific assessment shows that their use will not harm human health and will not have unacceptable impacts on the environment. The assessment is carried out by experts at the Health and Safety Executive, with independent input from the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides. The assessment of risks is therefore rigorous, and authorisation is frequently refused—but at this stage I take on board the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about sensible signage.
Monitoring schemes report on the level of usage of each pesticide and on residue levels in food. They also collect and consider reports of possible harm to people or to the environment. These controls ensure that people are properly protected, and they are based on risks. They allow pesticides to be used where this is safe and will help UK farmers to provide high-quality, affordable food.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I have received a single request to speak after the Minister and call on the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
The agrichemical monitoring system has lagged behind emerging evidence, partly because the epidemiology is so difficult to do on a population basis. The standard trial model is difficult.
Do the Government recognise that Canada’s largest agribusiness, Richardson International, is banning glyphosate spray on oats and that Bayer, which is the production route now that it has bought out Monsanto, is spending $10.9 billion settling around 125,000 cancer lawsuits out of court over cancers such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma? I worry that we cannot ignore these trends and simply rely on past papers and so on. Do the Government recognise that an amendment to this Bill that flagged up the precautionary principle would be a key plank in safety, would be completely compatible with the type of request that has come from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in her report on health-related issues, and would move us forward to being a leader in the modern world in food production?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s comments and know that they come from a deep knowledge and understanding of the issues surrounding this sector. We have our own experts in the HSE who are undertaking ongoing research. I am aware of the settlement in the States relating to the use of glyphosates and its potential connection with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Her concerns are being addressed in ongoing research programmes within government.
Lord Whitty [V]
My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s reply. My amendment relates to several hundred thousand people in rural areas who are not protected by the present law. In so far as there are codes of practice, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, those have frequently been breached and, as far as I am aware, nobody is being prosecuted for it. We therefore need something in primary legislation to deal with the situation of residents.
Others are covered. Workers are clearly covered by the health and safety regulations, and, these days, most farm workers observe the need to protect themselves. That they have to, as I said earlier, indicates that there is a serious danger to human health from coming into contact with some of these chemicals.
That danger has been underlined for years. We had a royal commission 12 or 13 years ago which showed the dangers. We have had the chief scientific adviser to Defra report on the global use of chemicals and the dangers they present to human health. On the legal side, we have High Court judgments and United Nations reports. There is no need for any more proof that such chemicals are dangerous, particularly to those who are frequently exposed. Clearly, workers used to be frequently exposed before they adopted protective means and some, regrettably, still are, but the next group who are exposed, rural residents, are not so protected by the law. My amendment would reduce the exposure of rural residents. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in general supported this approach. He emphasised walkers, bystanders and visitors, but they are sort of protected by the health and safety legislation already because they would be on the premises of the user of those chemicals. People who are a few yards away from those premises are not so protected, yet medical records show that continuous exposure over several applications of spray has caused serious medical problems.
My amendment would protect a group which is not currently seriously protected by the present law or present practice. Clearly, there are different sorts of chemicals, and we are concerned particularly with those which are sprayed across large fields and affect those adjacent to them.
However, there is an overall problem in the use of pesticides in relation both to human health and to adverse effects on soil, water and air quality. We need a strategy. Amendment 226 would begin to give us a strategy, although, if we are to have a comprehensive strategy, we need clear targets for the elimination of chemical pesticides in as many areas as possible and for the development of alternatives.
Yes, there are serious possibilities for replacing these chemicals in the research labs and in industry. Serious strategies on the application of chemical pesticides, insecticides and fungicides are being adopted to limit the exposure to others, but there is no legal protection for those who are most frequently vulnerable to pesticide spray—that is, those who are right next to fields where it is being sprayed across the crops. This is a problem not only when the wind is blowing; the droplets stay in the air for some time, even when there is not a heavy wind. We have a sufficient history of medical problems to prove that those rural residents are seriously affected, but we do not have any serious legal protection for them. One simple way of doing it is in my amendment: to restrict the spraying of crops close by residential buildings and other public buildings.
I want to return to this. I am really sorry that the Government did not see this as a modest but important step for the protection of people whom, frankly, our law does not protect at present. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I will decide what to do at the next stage.
“Land use strategy for England
(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than 31 March 2022, lay an agricultural land use strategy for England before Parliament.(2) The strategy must set out—(a) the Secretary of State’s objectives in relation to sustainable agricultural land use within an integrated land use framework;(b) proposals and policies for meeting those objectives;(c) the timescales over which those proposals and policies are expected to take effect.(3) The objectives, proposals and policies referred to in subsection (2) must contribute to—(a) achievement of the purposes for financial assistance under section 1(1) and 1(2);(b) achievement of objectives in relation to mitigation and adaptation to climate change, including achieving carbon budgets under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;(c) sustainable development including the use of previously agricultural land for development and infrastructure;(d) the achievement of objectives of the 25 Year Environment Plan for halting the decline of biodiversity.(4) Before laying the strategy before Parliament, the Secretary of State must publish a draft strategy and consult with—(a) such bodies as he or she considers appropriate, and(b) the general public.(5) The Secretary of State must, no later than—(a) 5 years after laying a strategy before Parliament under subsection (1), and(b) the end of every subsequent period of 5 years,lay a revised strategy before Parliament under the terms set out in subsections (2) to (4).(6) The Secretary of State must, no later than 3 years after the laying of a strategy before Parliament under this section, lay before Parliament a report on the implementation of the strategy and progress in achieving the objectives, proposals and policies under subsection (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would provide a land use context to enable the Secretary of State to make optimal decisions about the balance of financial assistance to the various purposes in Clause 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 227. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust.
This amendment would require the Government to put in place a land use framework for England to provide a structure for resolving competing land uses, including agricultural land use. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support for my amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who had hoped to voice his support today before events intervened.
There are multiple pressures on our finite amount of land, and they are all growing. We need more land for increased food security, for storing carbon, for biodiversity, for managing floods, for trees and increased timber self-sufficiency, for recreation and health, and for built development, housing and infrastructure. There are probably more pressures that I have not added to the list. The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership recently conducted a demand/supply analysis and found that,
“to meet a growing UK population’s food, space and energy needs while increasing the area needed to protect and enhance the nation’s natural capital”,
the UK would have to have a third more land than it currently has—so the future competition for land will be huge. As we tackle these multiple pressures for land, we are hampered by the lack of a common framework within which to reconcile these competing needs.
It is interesting that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have a land use framework and are using it to greater or lesser effect to guide policy on these competing areas of land need. As we build the new future post Covid, it is overdue that England should develop and use such a framework. This has been called for by many people, including the Select Committee on the Rural Economy of your Lordships’ House a couple of years ago and the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission. That commission will be commencing some real-life, county-level pilots on land use frameworks in the next few months. So I urge the Government to agree that a land use framework for England should be put in place. Otherwise, the competition for land will be a free-for-all and will fail to optimise the choices made to ensure that the most important land uses are given priority in the places that are best suited to them.
I assure noble Lords, landowners and land managers that I am not talking about lines on maps and precise delineations of what goes where. I am talking about a high-level framework within which negotiations, probably at county level, can take place. Let me give an example from Wales, which has the most promising land use framework in the UK. There was considerable concern among Welsh sheep farmers that some of these competing land uses would simply mean that there were no sheep left in the uplands. Discussions on the best places to put additional trees and woodland and convert land to agroecological farming have shown that only about 0.2% of the current agricultural land in Wales would have to change its use. It will be a huge reassurance for sheep farmers in Wales that woodland and agroecology schemes are not the Antichrist, banishing sheep from the uplands for ever, but can be integrated with comparative ease. That land use framework was extremely valuable in that respect.
The Earl of Dundee
“(d) proposals to support landowners to make land available to new entrants and farming entrepreneurs.”Member’s explanatory statement
Within the land use context of the new Clause this amendment would enable the Secretary of State to support landowners to make land available to new entrants and farming entrepreneurs.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and others, I support Amendment 227, which, as a proposed new clause, advises a land use strategy for England, as the noble Baroness explained.
First, it is consistent with the purposes of the Bill, for if we carry out the Bill’s dual intention of improved food security and environment conservation, we will have followed a different land use strategy in any case.
Secondly, however, we do need targets—this is what the noble Baroness’s amendment implies—for these are what strategies must use if they are to be successful. Meeting them does not have to be mandatory, but setting them in the first place makes it far more likely that we will get nearer to where we hope to be in 30 years’ time than if we do not start out with such targets in the land use strategy for England.
My Amendment 228 relates directly to the new clause suggested by the noble Baroness. It
“would enable the Secretary of State to support landowners to make land available to new entrants and farming entrepreneurs.”
As we are well aware, the average age of a United Kingdom farmer is 60—that has been mentioned frequently in our debates—yet for new and aspiring farmers, land continues to be hard to come by. Nevertheless, although it is a long-standing problem, we are now even more challenged in two ways.
We are challenged first by the terms of the Bill, for its twin aims of improved food security and land conservation require of our farmers ever more energy, vision and initiative; and, secondly, by the economic circumstances affecting and surrounding the United Kingdom, including the impact of cheap imports from the United States and of highly subsidised agricultural produce from European Union states. These considerations make it all the more necessary to encourage new entrants to farming.
On measures to increase their opportunities, the Scottish Land Commission recently made some useful recommendations proposing business incentives for young farmers and income tax relief incentives for landowners to make more land available. Provided that they already own three hectares of land and produce a workable plan, new entrants aged between 16 and 41 would qualify for a business grant, some of which would be paid at the outset and the balance of which would be paid at the end of four years if by then they have generated a stipulated amount of business income. Corresponding to this, under the current farm business tenancy scheme, income tax relief incentives would also be offered to landowners provided that they have contracted with a new entrant for not less than 10 years.
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that new entrants to farming are essential to the success of the Government’s intentions; that measures along the lines of the Scottish Land Commission’s recommendation would achieve a significant uptake; yet, that apart, but in the first place, the resolve of the Secretary of State to provide such incentives to encourage new entrants to farming should now be incorporated within the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I have put down Amendment 228A largely because I had an amendment down in one of the mega-groups at the beginning of this Committee—that seems a long time ago now—which I never spoke to, because there was too much to speak to in that group and so I just ignored it. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, very carefully and kindly spoke at length about it, which I was very grateful for, and the Minister actually replied to my amendment, even though I had not spoken to it, so I got something out of it.
It seemed to me that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady—I am going senile, I think—
Lord Greaves
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone—at least I can pronounce “Scone” correctly. Her amendment provides a good handle to put this issue back in as far as planning is concerned.
My original amendment was all about the need to incorporate or relate the ELM schemes—particularly in tier 2 and tier 3—to all the other strategies of different bodies and organisations in an area, particularly the planning system. It seems to me that, if there is to be a new system whereby the Government put money into farm-level schemes under ELMS, larger schemes under tier 2 and even larger landscape schemes under tier 3, there should be a very clear relationship between these and the local planning system, and it should be a two-way relationship.
First, the scheme should take account of the local planning system and the local plan. Secondly, the local plan and local development control decisions on planning permissions should take account of the tier 2 and tier 3 schemes in particular. Otherwise, we will end up with public money, provided through the new ELM system, being put into schemes that then conflict with the policies of the local planning authority.
This is true for both plan making—which is one half of local planning—and actually determining particularly large-scale planning applications. If there is a tier 3 scheme to do something exciting with a valley and then somebody comes along and wants to build a large housing estate there, and the local plan itself—whether it is the district plan or the neighbourhood plan—does not take account of the tier 3 scheme being in existence, one can see that it is not going to be very helpful.
Therefore, the national planning policy statement ought to be modified to say that local planning—local plans and local planning decisions—should take account of ELM schemes, particularly the landscape-scale schemes and the larger-scale tier 2 schemes. The advice to local planning authorities about developing their local plans, and to parish councils about developing their neighbourhood plans, should say that they should take account of ELM schemes in their area. That just seems to be common sense to me.
Local planning is about spatial structures and elements, and it is increasingly about environmental and ecological things like wildlife corridors. If there is going to be a wildlife corridor in the local plan, then that needs to be linked up with the tier 2 or tier 3 scheme so that the farmers are then encouraged, by being provided with money, to do useful things in that wildlife corridor. The same applies to biological enhancement zones, large-scale SSSIs and even small-scale SSSIs—the abandonment, or neglect, of many SSSIs is a scandal. Landscape-scale policies in the local plan ought to be linked in with landscape-scale policies under ELMS.
I happen to live in a parish called Trawden Forest on the edge of Colne. The whole of Trawden Forest is a landscape conservation area, the purpose of which is to try to prevent people doing damage to such things as the special, historic local walls around fields that we have, and local structures such as that. If that is in existence as a council policy and part of the local plan, which it is, then it ought to be taken into account by whoever Defra appoints in that area to develop landscape or tier 2 schemes. Enhancing the structures in the conservation area scheme should be part of the farm-level schemes, the tier 2 schemes or whatever.
I had to do some campaigning, along with the Ribble Rivers Trust, which has done excellent work, because when the northern forest was announced two or three years ago, for some reason Lancashire was missed out. There is a huge bite in Lancashire that was not to be in it, despite the fact that adjoining parts of West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire were. We are in it now, so that is okay, but if there is to be a northern forest, with a particular focus on a lot of tree planting in the area, that ought to be taken into account in the ELMS. ELMS ought not to be regarded as something on its own; it ought to be incorporated with all the other planning that is taking place locally, so that the whole thing is integrated and the public money going into the public goods in ELMS contributes not just to the farms, but to everything else going on in the area.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, the evidence we received when I sat on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Committee, the Rural Economy Committee and then the Food Poverty, Health and Environment Committee convinced me that we need a land strategy plan in this country. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, it does not need to be a detailed one; that is not the objective, which is to take a holistic look at the countryside in the way the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, just said so that there is no contradiction between various types of development.
There is only a finite amount of land in England, but there are often many competing demands for that land. If we take the north face of Scafell Pike, for instance, there is not much competition for that land, but if we take the triangle between Milton Keynes, Cambridge and Oxford, there is huge competition—from agriculture, horticulture and forestry, with the demand to fulfil the Government’s requirement to plant more trees, from industry, new roads, new railways and new housing. We are told that we need to grow different types of crops, to change our diets or to grow more fruit and vegetables in this country, but there is only a limited amount of land that can grow those sort of crops and there is no security for that land.
The National Infrastructure Commission and developers will be keen to take any agricultural land it possibly can to fulfil its development ambitions. Can the Minister confirm that the National Infrastructure Commission does not have to take biodiversity and climate change into account in its proposals? If it does not, then farming is at real risk and the proposals that my noble friend is so ably putting before the Committee are in jeopardy.
We need to assess what agriculture needs over the next period to secure production and the growth of the right crops so that it does not conflict with forestry ambitions or the Prime Minister’s demand to “build, build, build” wherever we can, and so that our countryside is not ruined as a result. We are at the brink of making a huge mistake for our grandchildren and future generations. In our effort to improve this country’s economy and drive it forward, which we very much want, we must also secure the landscapes and the agricultural land that needs to be kept for production of food and which is now under threat.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
My Lords, I was delighted to attach my name to Amendment 227, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and Amendment 228, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I also express my support for Amendment 228A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which makes an important point about the need for joined-up thinking to ensure that what is being decided and acted on at a local level is reflected in national action. I also very much put myself behind his comments on the state of our SSSIs and the issues in that whole area that desperately need to be addressed.
When I came to think about the whole idea of a land use strategy, I started by reflecting on how many invitations I have had to conferences, how many reports I have had sent to me, and how much work has been done by a whole range of civil society actors, academics and campaign groups over recent years on how land is used in the UK, and in particular in England. There is real frustration, determination and understanding of the need for change. I will refer to a couple of these.
Back in 2014, perhaps one of the most aptly and clearly named was a report on The Best Use of UK Agricultural Land, produced by the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. Look at the ongoing work from what was the Royal Society of Arts’ Food, Farming and Countryside Commission—it does a great deal of exciting work, although it has now perhaps moved more towards a local level. It asked how we should, can and must use our land. I also point to an excellent report from Dr Helen Harwatt from Harvard University, Eating Away at Climate Change with Negative Emissions, which was presented at an excellent Grow Green conference that I went to.
I will not take up too much of your Lordships’ time in making a long list, but I am sure that most noble Lords taking part in this debate would be able to add a dozen or half a dozen similar to those on that list. There is clearly a real hunger for an overview or vision of what land use should look like. If we are to say how we, as the nation of England, are to form a view of what we want our land to be used for, surely the Government have to provide the place where that is coalesced. I hope that that would be in some kind of citizens’ assembly, with a consultative process, but producing the sort of outcome that Amendment 227 refers to.
Before I comment directly on Amendment 228, I stress that what I am about to say reflects my personal views. I should be fair to the noble Earl and say that it may or may not reflect exactly his intentions in placing the amendment. When I saw this amendment and decided to put my name to it, I thought of a brilliant performance which has been described as a show, a sing-along, and a TED talk-style live event: “Three Acres and a Cow”. It draws its title from campaigns over land use and access to land in the 1880s, and which we saw again in the 1920s. We have a long-term drive in England in particular—we have already seen some fruitful developments in Scotland in these areas—for people to be able to get access to land to start their own small businesses, produce food for themselves and for others, and get together in co-operatives. I point also to the excellent The Land Magazine, which describes itself as an occasional magazine about land rights and which often explores these issues.
These two amendments aim to ensure that there is a sense of direction— something which we have heard again and again is lacking from the Bill. However, I want briefly to address the comments made in an earlier debate by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, when talking about pesticides. He said that this is not the year to make dramatic changes. Respectfully, I very strongly disagree with him. ELMS is a dramatic change from the CAP, we are seeing dramatic changes in the climate, and Covid-19 is of course imposing dramatic changes on us all. We are heading in a very different direction from what we have seen for decades. The British countryside is headed in the direction of ever-larger farms, ever-greater mechanisation, and the production of fewer and fewer crops, very often with more and more expensive inputs. We are changing direction, so it is very important that we have a sense of where we are going, which is what these amendments aim to achieve.
I see from looking at the news during the break that there are hints that, over the weekend, we will see a dramatic change in the Government’s obesity strategy. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made reference to the drop in rapeseed plantings, which is a dramatic change that has come about through the ban on neonicotinoid pesticides—here I commend the Minister for her strong defence of that ban. Perhaps now, when we are seeing this big change in the Government’s obesity strategy, we will see a similar change in direction and great reductions in the planting of sugar beets, and the preservation of fields and very good soils by the planting of vegetables instead.
We are very much in a time of change and we need some kind of road map or guide, so that we do not flail around wildly. We cannot just say that we have a Secretary of State with the power to make decisions, while we have no idea where he is seeking to direct the use of our land, which is so valuable and so scarce.
Lord Addington
My Lords, I will try to focus on the amendments in front of us. If we are talking about land use and a land use strategy, it has to go fairly wide —a bit of lateral thought will make this stick together better.
My name is down, along with that of my noble friend Lord Greaves, on the amendment to bring the local government plan in alongside this. However, it encapsulates just about everything we have in the Bill. I spoke about many things, such as access. If I can remind the Government Front Bench about Clause 1 without them grimacing too much, all the things we have down there should be working into a strategy. A strategy is a good idea, but it has to go wide and bring things in. The exact form of that will be slightly difficult, but the idea of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is sound.
I am not quite sure how you do this without having a list that never ends. What is and what is not on the list has always been a parliamentary challenge, has it not? I like going back to the parliamentary clichés every now and again. If we are to try to get this, it has to encapsulate much more thinking. It cannot just be about agriculture but must touch on other things as well. We have established that agriculture does not stand by itself. Whether it is housing or other things, everything else has to be in there. I will be interested to hear what the Government say about this. This cannot stand alone; agriculture is not another planet.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 228, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, talked about the need for a land-use strategy—I could not agree more—and said that Northern Ireland had a land use framework. Part of that framework is a land mobility scheme, designed to bring into farming new entrants and young people, who hitherto would not have been able to do so because they did not have access to land or were waiting on succession arrangements in their own family structure. This is a voluntary initiative between the Young Farmers Clubs of Ulster and the Ulster Farmers Union, and it gets some funding from the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.
To underpin what the noble Earl was saying about bringing new entrants in, I can tell the Committee that the land mobility scheme is about helping to restructure our industry. It is about how we encourage young people into farming, and how we bring new skills, new thinking and a new generation into agriculture by matching people with opportunities and providing a service to facilitate workable arrangements. This much-needed initiative will match older farmers with no succession arrangements in place with younger farmers, and together they can develop long-term operational and financial plans for the farms in question, on an agreed basis. That is one way of bringing young entrants, and new entrants, into farming. It is a very slow process, but it is well worth examining. I recommend it to the noble Earl and to the Minister. We should see whether there are any possibilities to share experience. I suggest that something like this should be written into the Bill. That is why I support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, never let it be said that we do not range widely in our discussions. “Three acres and a cow” was, of course, the mainspring of the distributist movement, which enjoyed some popularity in the late 19th century and again in the 1920s. I have not heard it discussed for a long time, and the noble Baroness who brought it to our attention has allowed us to reflect on history.
I shall speak to Amendment 228A, in the names of my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Addington, but having heard those who tabled Amendments 227 and 228, I support those amendments as well. Amendment 228A would create a statutory obligation that a land-use strategy, if adopted, should be taken into account in the development plan documents and the planning decisions of all planning authorities. It is worth asking: what would be the point of it if it did not enjoy that kind of notice?
As has been said, we are embarking on a period of considerable uncertainty in agriculture. We are changing from a long-standing regime to a new one, and in that change, planning authorities would be much assisted by a land-use strategy. If they adopt it as far as relevant in their development plans and use it to determine competing land uses, they will produce valid and consistent policies and informed decisions on such planning applications as come before them.
There is one particular area in which planning authorities will need to be consistent and informed. If the present Government’s announced policies in relation to the provision of housing are to be achieved, there is little doubt that local authorities and planning authorities will be under severe pressure to permit residential development. Volume housebuilders prefer green fields. They do not like brownfield sites because of the problems of land assembly or access, and they certainly do not like contaminated land because of the considerable expenditure involved in making it suitable for construction.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. He has a barrister’s brain and an Olympian’s frame. Mark Twain said, “Buy land, they aren’t making it any more”. Although he did not see the Dutch project of polderisation, he certainly had a point, which goes to the essence of the amendments in this group. What has connected every speaker so far is a simple point of coherence. It makes coherent sense to have a land-use strategy. Anything else would inevitably mean competing interests, with land often going to the highest bidder or the largest voice. I support, in particular, the comments of my noble friend Lord Caithness, and, in essence, I support the amendments in this group.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 227, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. England—not Britain, but England—is the fifth most densely populated country in the world, from a list that includes the city state of Singapore. The south-east of England, with London at its commuter heart, is obviously very crowded, but so too are the Midlands. For instance, the Peak District National Park has 21 million people within an hour’s drive of it. That is a staggering number of human beings.
The second fact to note is that, as Bill Bryson once said, the unique feature of the English countryside is that its citizens love it to death. We all feel it belongs to us. Furthermore, most of us want to live in it and to have a home there. A survey in the 1990s showed that more than 80% of those living in southern England wanted to live in the countryside, where less than 20% currently live, so there are immense pressures on our countryside, even before we start to plan our nation’s food production. There are demands for leisure, housing, transport, energy, forestry and business property, as well as our obligations in relation to biodiversity, landscape and climate change.
How do we deal with all these pressures? At the moment, the way our countryside produces all those services and goods is a matter of haphazard chance. There are, of course, myriad strategic and neighbourhood plans, guided by the national planning policy framework, but there is a difference between what people need to get planning permission for and how we actually want to use the land on the ground.
At the moment, most of the usage is dictated by the marketplace and responded to—admirably, in a way—by a new generation of young, entrepreneurial landowners and others who look for whatever possible use the land might be suitable for. But we have already decided in this Bill that the marketplace cannot and should not drive all land usage. With the powers in the Bill, the state is going to step in with large amounts of money—£3 billion per annum is promised—to buy land uses that the market does not cater for.
This brings us to the question of what we should use our land for, and where. The answer may be that we need a plan, or rather a framework or frameworks, possibly at different levels—we possibly need a national framework and a regional framework. Personally, I would avoid local frameworks as I fear they might encourage too much nimbyism, which could destroy the innovation we so badly need for our future land use. The one thing we do not need, of course, is a Soviet-style plan that knocks local enterprise on the head.
Although I think a land use strategy is a good and useful idea, I strongly support the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his wish to have a one-off Select Committee in this House to really examine how best we could set up and implement such a land use strategy. There are now many new variables to go into the mix, including the need to plant more trees to absorb CO2, maybe the need for more domestic tourism venues now that overseas travel has taken such a hit, and maybe even the imminent arrival of lab-produced meat and milk, which could dramatically change our farming landscape and what we want from our land. I strongly believe that this is just the sort of issue that a Lords Select Committee could get its teeth into to produce an illuminating and compelling message for government.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell remarked that this is a wide-ranging debate and that the whole Committee stage has been. There is an inevitability about that, because our shared objective of a thriving agricultural sector delivering a range of public goods can be met only if certain foundations are in place. It is those foundations that I think are troubling many Members of your Lordships’ House. We discussed one in the previous Committee session, namely the lack of an overall food strategy.
Today we discuss another: the total absence of any kind of comprehensive land use strategy. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, had it exactly right when he remarked about having no framework on which to balance and manage the competing demands we make of our land. In May the RSA published a report and said:
“Land use is not an aspect of policy that can be compartmentalised, parcelled away and deemed to matter only in certain places and to certain people. We all live with the choices over how land is used every day.”
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, highlighted that this was just one of a whole number of reports and organisations doing a lot of thinking in this area.
We know that Scotland has a land use strategy, Wales has a spatial plan and Northern Ireland has a regional development strategy. It was fascinating to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, how that is used to help new entrants. On the other hand, England has no overall framework. What it has for planning is a morass of strategies, plans and initiatives, so I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her cosignatories for tabling the amendment to set out the vision for a land use strategy that could help the Government to deliver their agriculture and forestry aspirations, as we are debating today, but also the 25-year environment plan, the 12 policy statements for critical infrastructure, and this sense of place, which is something on which the Government have based their civil society strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was quite right to highlight just what a crowded island this is, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, talked about the lack of coherence; he is quite right too.
Amendment 228, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, addresses this problem of new entrants to agriculture and the difficulties they face. In some ways this links with amendments on county farms in earlier groups, because county farms were intended to do just this, but, as we have heard, are becoming rarer. That links with land use, of course, because if you are a cash-strapped council and can sell some land on the edge of town for a housing development, I am afraid you are likely to do that. It is a fact that land for agricultural purposes will struggle to compete against the land demands of housing, for example.
Finally, Amendment 228A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves, would create this link with local development plans and the neighbourhood plan process. This is absolutely the right thing to do. It has seemed to me for some time—clearly the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, tends to feel the same—that in this country we are very good at development control but not very good at planning. We had some elements of it up until about 2004 in the form of county structure plans. They did not cover the whole country, but they were at least strategic. However, they often got stymied by differences with district councils, which had the development control function. County structure plans disappeared in 2004, replaced by regional development plans, which bit the dust in 2010. It seems sensible to include local planning in any provisions and thought in Amendment 227.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone for raising the case for an integrated land use framework today and in her very good contribution at Second Reading. She makes a very important point.
As all noble Lords have said, there are huge competing pressures on land use, and we do not currently have a mechanism to resolve the priorities among those competing claims. We already have expectations on land to deliver carbon storage, extensive tree planting, renewed biodiversity, flood management, water storage and, of course, food, and we are about to add the pressures of all the environmental and habitat improvements set out in Clause 1.
In his excellent speech on food security on Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, reminded us that population growth and urban development are producing demands to build 2 million to 3 million more houses, with all the services and infrastructure needed to underpin those communities—new shops, schools, hospitals and so on. This will inevitably put the squeeze on land available for food production.
As we have debated several times, we are busy making policy and legislative decisions in silos and not taking account of the impact of one on the other. This is a major criticism in the latest report by the Natural Capital Committee. It quite rightly identifies the need for a “natural capital assets baseline” against which priorities can be assessed and progress measured.
A land use framework could comprehensively map out the opportunities and benefits of different forms of land use. It could provide clear guidance on cross-departmental priorities and mechanisms for resolving conflicts over land use. It could join up resources and money to rural areas, providing funding on a game-changing scale rather than separate pots of money and layers of bureaucracy. It could also ensure that overarching government priorities such as tackling climate change are delivered coherently, utilising national, local and private funding. I see great benefits in this approach.
I also have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. These are issues that we have debated in other groups, most notably in the debate on county farms and tenancies. I think we all agree that we need to find new ways to bring new blood and business skills into the sector. The question remains: where will that land come from? How can we make that aspiration a reality?
Finally, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would make it more explicit that local planning should be part of the land use strategy. This is understood as one of the competing forces that needs to be balanced by the mechanisms in my noble friend’s amendment, but it is nevertheless helpful to have it spelt out.
This debate has raised some important questions about competing pressures on a scarce, finite and precious resource. I hope the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance that the proposal laid out so ably by my noble friend is being taken seriously.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who has moved Amendment 227, which I will address along with Amendments 228 and 228A.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Earl, Lord Dundee.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
My Lords, on the need for better and clearer incentives to encourage many more new entrants into farming, and as indicated in my opening remarks, I believe that the Scottish Land Commission’s recent recommendations are well worth studying. These set out to provide mutually attractive incentives to both parties, landowners and new entrants, to form farming business contracts together.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to all noble Lords for their useful comments. I will look carefully at what has been said and possibly return to the matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his amendment requiring close links between the planning system and any land use strategy. My view is that we need an overarching land use strategy which would guide all sorts of decision-making processes—the planning system, the ELM schemes and some of the initiatives the Minister referred to, such as local nature recovery strategies and some of the work of the National Infrastructure Commission.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who rightly pointed out that we are at a time of great flux in land use and that a strategy is very much needed now. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who was quite right about it needing to be wide and not just about agriculture; this is really a strategy about what land is for and how we get the right balance between competing uses.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has huge experience in these areas and rightly stressed that there should be perhaps one framework at a national level and others more regionally, but also that we have to guard against the nimbyism of too local a structure. If I cannot get the Minister to agree to this amendment, I would be delighted if there were to be a relevant Select Committee of this House.
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s response. Much as I love the National Planning Policy Framework, and I have worked hard on it over the years, it is partial. The reality is that the planning system does not really do anything to weigh up from a range of competing needs what should happen in a given area. It is much more focused on development needs, particularly built development needs. I still think that, irrespective of the National Planning Policy Framework, there is a need for an overarching land use strategy.
The same goes for local nature recovery strategies, which are very much about biodiversity. We are currently looking at a piecemeal arrangement which needs integrating into this strategy. I do not think it needs to be statist at all; it can be generated in ways that make it very much about conversations at a county level and at a national level about the right way to maximise the benefit for all these uses of our limited land.
To touch on the point made by the Minister about the National Infrastructure Commission, I had a hugely interesting discussion with its acting chief executive just before lockdown. It is now getting the hang of its climate change responsibilities, but it has never been tasked with responsibilities for other things such as biodiversity. It is time that the Government tasked the infrastructure commission with taking account of biodiversity needs, as well as the other half of the twin challenges, climate change.
I thank the noble Lord for his offer of further discussion. Although I would much prefer him to accept the amendment, clearly that is not going to happen. I should say that even if we cannot get this amendment accepted in the Agriculture Bill, there are myriad opportunities on which I shall not be backward in coming forward, including the Environment Bill—if it ever comes to our House—and the rumoured changes to planning legislation. When we talk about flooding or carbon or water, I shall be there to talk about an integrated land use strategy. I shall become the Countess of Mar of integrated land use strategies.
As has been said, land is a finite resource—we are not making any more. We need a framework now, and the pressures are growing. I hope that the Minister will recognise the need for some such way forward, but at this moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We come now to the group beginning with Amendment 229. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 229
“Duty to consult on a new environmental regulatory regime for agriculture in England
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, publish proposals for a new environmental regulatory regime for agriculture in England in accordance with this section.(2) Following publication, the Secretary of State must consult all interested stakeholders on the proposals mentioned in subsection (3).(3) The proposals for a new regulatory regime mentioned in subsection (1) must include—(a) consideration of the role of agriculture in achieving environmental objectives;(b) clear objectives for the regulatory regime with specific reference to the agricultural sector;(c) a new model for securing compliance with regulation formulated with a view to ensuring significant change in the behaviour of producers;(d) targets for compliance with environmental regulation;(e) amendments to existing regulations and new regulations required to maintain agricultural environmental standards following the removal of cross-compliance, and to support the new environmental objectives and priorities proposed in accordance with this section;(f) assessment of the resources needed to implement the new model mentioned in paragraph (c) and achieve the compliance targets mentioned in subsection paragraph (d);(g) any other issues that the Secretary of State considers relevant.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would update the regulatory framework for agriculture to fill gaps and bring it in line with environmental objectives, and to create effective compliance mechanisms.
Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]
My Lords, I hope that at this time of the night noble Lords are not getting fed up with my voice. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the noble Earl, Lord Cormack, for their support for it. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish proposals for an updated regulatory framework for agriculture to fill regulatory gaps that result from our leaving the common agricultural policy, and which would bring the regulatory framework into line with the environmental objectives stated in the Bill and the 25-year environment plan. It would also help to create effective monitoring and compliance mechanisms.
Everyone is pretty clear that the regulatory framework around farming is not fit for purpose. Some farming and land management practices continue to have adverse environmental impacts—ammonia emissions, pollution of rivers, greenhouse gas emissions and soil erosion, to mention just a few. It is staggering that agriculture is the primary cause of 30% of our sites of special scientific interest—those jewels in our wildlife crown—being in an unfavourable condition. Yet the current average inspection rate for the environment on farms is once every 200 years. I am not counting inspections by the rural payments inspectors, which are about EU requirements to audit funding and which, hopefully, Brexit will see the end of. However, once in 200 years is not much of an environmental inspection regime.
Changes to the farm support system, as outlined in the Bill, will further jeopardise effective farm regulation. Under the current basic payment scheme, all farmers and land managers in receipt of payments must, under the cross-compliance conditions, deliver something that is catchily called good agricultural and environmental condition—GAEC. It is the regulatory baseline of environmental performance. That requirement to achieve GAEC if one is in receipt of payments disappears with the common agricultural policy. There remains no less need to have a strong set of baseline environmental standards universally required of all land managers so that the specific public good provided above this baseline by the ELM scheme can be rewarded with payment. It would be heinous if ELM scheme public money were to be paid, for example, to improve water quality to a farmer, who, meanwhile, was failing to comply with the basic agricultural conditions that currently exist for other water quality protection arrangements.
Defra’s Farming for the Future update committed to introducing an alternative inspection and enforcement approach. I would welcome that, provided it does not mean a new stand-alone agricultural regulator which would duplicate the expert regulators we already have in Natural England and the Environment Agency—I declare an interest having been chairman of one and chief executive of the other—which not only know their onions but draw on knowledge gleaned from regulating a range of sectors, not just farming. That cross-learning from other sectors is very important. What these existing regulators need is not another regulator on the pitch but a proper framework for agricultural regulation, within which they can work with land managers. They also need proper resources to do an effective job in inspection and enforcement. All of this would be enabled by my Amendment 229, which I am moving.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge [V]
My Lords, it is always a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and I am sure that nobody would tire of hearing her, even at this time. I am sure that I will hear a collective sigh of relief because I think this will be my last contribution to the Committee. I thank the Committee for its indulgence, not least my two noble friends on the Front Bench who have had to listen to my ramblings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has already referred to the two amendments standing in my name. I am grateful to her and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Quin, for putting their names to Amendment 230. I am grateful again to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and to the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Addington, for doing so on Amendment 231.
As has been discussed, these amendments regard the potential loss of the good agricultural and environmental conditions—the GAECs, or whatever they are to be called. Amendment 230 relates to GAEC 7a, which includes: maintaining green cover at the base of a hedge for two metres either side from its centre; not trimming hedges during the main breeding season of nesting birds; not removing stone walls, earth banks, stone banks or material from these, as they provide important habitats for many plants and animals. If this amendment were inserted, it would amend the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 to ensure that these important protections are maintained.
Replacing elements of GAEC 1 to protect ponds and small water body habitats is also important, because a wide variety of small water bodies are vital for freshwater biodiversity. But they remain largely overlooked and generally excluded, as I understand it, from government policies such as the water framework directive and river basin management plans, which describe how we should protect freshwaters. Small standing waters, ponds and small lakes are particularly important for biodiversity compared to other freshwaters. These waters support a surprisingly large proportion of freshwater biodiversity and are especially important for uncommon freshwater species.
Amendment 231 would change the Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018 to provide a requirement for buffer strips of green cover adjacent to watercourses, surface waters, et cetera, mirroring the current cross-compliance requirements in GAEC 1. This amendment would also require land managers to keep a farm map with surface water, boreholes and so on marked outside nitrate-vulnerable zones. The term “surface waters” is included in GAEC 1 and is taken in common parlance to include ponds and lakes. I think that Amendment 231 would provide legal certainty on this. I thank noble Lords for listening to me.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. He set out very clearly the benefits of Amendment 230, to which I was pleased to attach my name, and Amendment 231, to which I am pleased to offer my support. It is a little unfortunate that this got split from Amendment 117 on meadows, which the noble Lord kindly backed after I had tabled it, because the two fit together rather nicely. They are two hugely valuable biological and ecological resources that are to a large extent being destroyed and lost in parts of our countryside. It is undoubtedly true that the common agricultural policy was responsible for a huge amount of destruction, but the cross-compliance, or GAEC, regulations have in recent years helped to at least keep what we still have. It is crucial that under the new arrangements we do not lose that protection, and that is what these two simple amendments aim to do. I hope very much that the Government will be able to take them on board and incorporate them in the Bill.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the previous three speakers. I added my name to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone and I support the point that she made in moving her amendment, especially her explanation that this is about updating the regulatory framework, plugging gaps in it, bringing it into line with environmental goals and creating, as I think she put it, viable cross-compliance mechanisms.
Earlier in this Committee stage, I spoke about the need to know what we are talking about when we refer to “environmentally friendly farming” and “nature-friendly farming”. I believe that this amendment, along with others, would help to forge a proper understanding of this and avoid getting trapped in silos—a point made a few minutes ago by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
I also added my name to Amendment 230 on hedgerows, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I have always felt very strongly about the removal of hedgerows and about their proper maintenance in an environmentally friendly way. The debate about hedgerows goes back a long way—even to before we entered the EU. In many ways, British agriculture was a leader in hedge removal over the years, and I am very glad that the mood on this has changed greatly in recent times.
The replacement of hedges and the retention of hedgerows are very important. There is a certain irony in that originally there were grants for removing hedgerows, whereas now there are grants for replacing them. None the less, I welcome that change in priorities. When I was an Agriculture Minister, I was keen to support EU action to protect hedgerows as part of the development of the CAP’s second pillar.
I believe that many farmers are keen to play their part in the maintenance and re-establishment of hedgerows. An interesting example that I came across recently was of a farmer who had replaced a long stretch of tumbled stone wall with new hedging but then used the redundant stone to construct a series of rubble mounds to create a bespoke habitat for wheatears. It struck me that that was a good example of thinking about the environment at every stage of an agricultural project.
I agree very much with the part of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, that concerns the ban on cutting hedges from 1 March to 31 August during the breeding and nesting season. In conclusion, perhaps this is something all of us with gardens should consider carefully. Earlier today in this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I think, talked about the fact that gardeners as well as farmers use pesticides. Well, gardeners often have hedges and sometimes they cut those hedges, even savagely, during the nesting season. Obviously, action to encourage gardeners on hedges is outwith the scope of this amendment and even of the Bill. But I would ask the Minister whether encouraging gardeners to be more environmentally friendly is something that the Government are taking up with the Education Department, perhaps, to make it part of environmental education in schools.
In short, I support both amendments I have spoken to. I hope the spirit of them, even if not every word of them, will be taken on board by the Government.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, what a pleasure to follow a succession of speakers with whom one agrees almost entirely. I added my name to Amendment 231 as an expression of solidarity with all the amendments in this group, which come to the heart of one of the major problems of the Bill. Okay, we are doing away with cross-compliance from the CAP grants most farms have taken advantage of, and moving to a system where a proportion of farms—perhaps a high proportion—will take advantage of, for example, tier 1 schemes. They will be an improvement on cross-compliance if they work properly, because each one will be tailored to the specific circumstances of that farm. That ought to be an advantage, as it ought to be possible to get the best benefit from the particular and unique circumstances of every farm that takes part.
However, the main problem is that there will be some farms—we do not know how many, but they may be large, efficient farms—that decide not to take part in ELMS because they think they can make a profit in the new environment without doing so, without doing all the fiddly things the Government are insisting on through ELMS. Those are the farms where there is a huge risk of a severe loss of environmental benefit and a severe deterioration of everything good that farms give that people have been talking about—ponds, hedgerows and everything else. I do not think we have had an answer from the Government yet on how they are going to deal with that particular problem. These amendments seek to do it by setting up a system of regulation—if I have understood them properly—that will insist that all farms undertake certain basic minimum things.
The Minister has said on at least two occasions in Committee that under the new system there will be no compulsion, and everything will be voluntary. I am very worried about some of these big, supposedly efficient but environmentally inefficient enterprises that might undermine the whole thing.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has withdrawn from the debate so I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Lord Addington
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who have both tabled amendments in this group. This is the last time that we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Randall, in today’s proceedings. He has diminished our discussions by removing himself. I have attached my name to two of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord where I could find a space: the one on hedgerows and the other about ponds.
When we think about the classic vision of farmland, it will contain hedgerows—the amendment also refers to dry stone walls. They define fields and serve as the highways for wildlife. It has already been said that ponds are incredibly important to maintain natural diversity and encouraging the newt population that is much decried by the Prime Minister. All of these things are vital to a healthy and balanced environment and they help to make up a classic pastoral setting. I hope that the Minister can at least say that the protections enjoyed under the previous regime will be transferred and that the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, are recognised. As I say, that is the very least that should happen.
We should have a major framework for environmental standards, but let us leave that argument to one side for a moment and concentrate on the hedgerow and the pond. If we start with those, we will probably not go too far wrong.
Baroness Worthington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I want to speak briefly in support of this group of amendments. I would have added my name to Amendment 297 had I got there in time. A key feature mentioned by a number of noble Lords is that the shift towards a system of payments for public goods will remove a layer of regulatory protection from our countryside that we must address. We must ensure that a strong regulatory floor is created so that people can be rewarded for doing additional good work for the countryside. If we shift to a world with no regulatory standards so that everything is expected to be paid for, we will find a huge pressure on the public purse and we will see the potential for backsliding from the standards that we enjoy today.
I particularly wanted to add my name to Amendment 297. Although it appears to be technical in nature, it is an important and significant one in terms of protecting the current standards from the climate change perspective. The amendment would do two things—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will articulate this far better than I when she speaks. It would introduce a requirement for environmental permitting to cover the keeping of livestock in intensive fashion. It would add beef and dairy and outdoor pig farms to the environmental permitting process. Adding intensive farming facilities, which can be very significant sources of methane and ammonia emissions, to environmental permitting would ensure that we do not waste public money on reducing those sources of pollution if we can continue to use the existing regulatory standards that do the job for us.
Amendment 297 would also reintroduce a requirement that would be lost through the loss of cross-compliance on farmers to take reasonable steps to maintain soil cover and to limit the loss of soil through wind erosion. These again are sensible standards that we would expect farmers to abide by in order to preserve our soil stock. Soil is a vital element of a healthy, functioning farming system and of our countryside. I will leave my comments there, but I am grateful to make a short contribution to this debate. It is hugely important to ensure that we do not allow any loss of regulatory standards as we shift to the new regime.
Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. Dr Pangloss found the hedge a perfect place for him to do his experimentation. Hedges and ponds are not only items of beauty for our countryside; they are the bedrock above the ground of the countryside. There is no negative impact, except for pursuit of profit, to getting behind these two amendments. In support of them, I ask my noble friend whether the Government will support them; we would not then have to be Panglossian in that respect.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I speak briefly in support of Amendment 230, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. Hedgerows are much more than boundaries and a way to manage animals, as a recent story in my local newspaper, the Halesowen News, illustrated. Local residents in Halesowen were furious when the council “butchered” their local hedgerows. The residents recognised that the hedgerow blocked noise and reduced pollution and they also welcomed the fact that it provided a habitat for many species of wildlife, including nesting birds and small mammals such as hedgehogs, and contained many flowers and fruits essential for the bees.
Hedgerows are an essential component of the local agri-eco system; that is why Amendment 230 is so important in making sure that we continue to give hedgerows the protections that they need. They also play a vital role in reducing the rate of climate change through carbon storage, they regulate the water supply for crops and reduce soil erosion. Animal health can also be improved by hedgerows: a thick stock-proof hedge can prove a barrier to the spread of disease and can provide shade and shelter and reduce wind speeds. Recent research has shown, for example, that lamb survival rates are increased by hedgerows reducing the chilling effect of the wind.
Where there are gaps in the law after we leave the EU, we should take the opportunity through this Bill to ensure that they are filled. Amendment 230 makes sure that hedgerows are not overlooked by the Bill. We cannot let some areas of nature be overlooked, and I hope that the Government will accept this amendment. If the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, cannot accept it, can he set out in some detail for the Committee how the protection that this amendment seeks to put in force will be delivered?
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, makes a powerful case for a new environmental regulatory regime for agriculture in introducing Amendment 229. While I accept that regulation will never stand still but always evolve in line with famers’ and consumers’ priorities and our understanding of the natural environment and what affects it, I think that, at a time when farmers are having to adapt their business models to reflect the loss of what is, for many, the largest single component of their annual incomes, introducing a new regulatory regime would be unnecessarily burdensome and confusing.
I seek clarification from my noble friend the Minister that the cross-compliance rules will also apply to payments under the ELM scheme; I expect that this would mean that this amendment and, indeed, Amendments 230 and 231, in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, are not necessary. Furthermore, his intention to reduce from 20 metres to 10 metres the minimum length of hedgerows to which regulations apply is surely disproportionate and unreasonable. Is my noble friend not aware that, up and down the country, farmers are putting in new hedgerows?
In Amendment 297, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, seeks to place a limit on rearing pigs on any land at a density greater than 20 healthy pigs per hectare. A friend of mine whose family have farmed pigs in Lincolnshire for generations tells me that this density is very low. I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that he agrees.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend because I was also hoping to ask for confirmation that hedgerows will be covered within ELMS and that famers will have to meet the cross-compliance requirements. From memory, when we had the debate on Clause 1 and the many amendments that were tabled at that time, it was my understanding that that would be the case. I know that my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge has taken great interest and is very expert in this area. I also am concerned about water quality and our requirements under the water framework directive; I am interested to know if we will keep up with the requirements of the successor water framework directives to come.
My main point is that I find Amendment 229 from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, very interesting, but I would be rather aghast to think that we were going to have a new environmental regulatory regime. I take this opportunity, if I may, to say to my noble friend the Minister that there is great uncertainty at the moment as to what the regulatory regime will be, as we have not yet had sight of the Environment Bill. Perhaps I am being slow here, but I do not see what the relationship will be between the office for environmental protection and the Environment Agency, Natural England, Rural Payments Agency and the host of other bodies. Who will be the policeman in all this and who will be giving the friendly advice to farmers in this regard?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, the case for environmental and agricultural regulation has been set out very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. It is important that there is an updated regulatory framework. The Agriculture Bill makes radical changes to the way that funding is allocated. The ELMS are very different from direct payments, and it is therefore essential that the framework reflects the thrust of the Government’s intentions. A farm inspection only once every 200 years is pathetic, and indeed dangerous. Bringing the framework in line with the environmental standards that will pertain once the Bill has passed is essential. We cannot have two separate standards, otherwise there will be wholesale confusion. Effective compliance cannot be implemented without an updated regulatory framework; without this, it appears like putting the cart before the horse.
Amendment 230 proposes a new clause to protect hedgerows and gives detail on how this should be designed and implemented. I fully support this amendment, as other noble Lords have. Over the years, since I was a child, I have seen hedgerows ripped out to allow farmers to plough larger tracts of land. This has meant that the feeding and breeding grounds of small birds and insects have disappeared, leading to the disappearance of some iconic species, such as the bullfinch. This amendment seeks to protect the margins at the edges of fields and to reinstate hedgerows. It is important to reconnect with the wildlife that previously lived in our hedgerows and field margins. I believe this is a move in the right direction, and support the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Quin.
Amendment 231, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, seeks to protect water, wells, springs and bore-holes from pollution. The area where I live is covered with natural springs, some of which provide domestic water supplies; preventing the pollution of this water is therefore extremely important. Farmers should do everything possible to prevent poisonous chemicals from entering the watercourses, and this should include pesticides and herbicides. Water is an important, life-saving ingredient in agriculture, and it provides biodiversity. I welcome this amendment and look forward to the Minister agreeing to this.
Amendments 296 and 297 propose a new schedule, which would introduce animal welfare standards for pigs, cows and cattle, give minimum standards of space and give protection to water and soil quality. Intensive farming and livestock management has a downside on both animal welfare and soil quality. I support this amendment and look forward to hearing positive comments from the Minister. I feel a bit sad that I am getting quite excited at the prospect of actually reaching—[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
She is excited. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Yes, we are all excited.
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 296 and 297 in this group. I am also speaking in support of the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall. He has made a significant contribution to this and other debates, and we are grateful to him for raising the issue of protecting hedgerows this evening. It is an issue which many people care deeply about, and a number of noble Lords have reflected that this evening.
Our amendments propose a new schedule to modernise regulations relating to intensive farming and the management of livestock and soil. They fit in with the suite of amendments on the need to create a new regulatory framework regime, which has been expertly introduced by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. As she and other noble Lords have pointed out, the Bill in its current form fails to provide the regulatory baseline which will be lost when we leave the CAP cross-compliance requirements. For example, when we are no longer bound by the good agricultural and environmental condition standards in England, there will be gaps left in relation to good soil management, hedgerow management and the protection of small water bodies.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for another thought-provoking debate. Agriculture has a key role to play in the protection of the environment and helping us achieve the targets set out in the 25-year environment plan. The noble Baroness’s amendment raises some important aspects of an effective regulatory regime. We agree on the importance of consultation. The Government will increase their engagement with interested parties on agricultural regulation in the autumn. We will be seeking evidence and views to help develop plans and policies, to ensure that we have the best possible regulatory system for the agricultural sector in the future.
Existing regulations and regulatory bodies will continue to protect the environment. Having listened to their comments, is seems that some noble Lords are forgetting —or choosing to airbrush—all the domestic regulation that protects our air, water and land. For example, the Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations include important protections that mandate action to reduce soil loss. The regulations on nitrates and on slurry, silage and agricultural fuel oil are designed to protect our watercourses. The Government will also raise standards, where needed, to protect our environment. As announced in the clean air strategy, the Government will require and support farmers to take more action to reduce ammonia emissions. We will work with farmers and land managers to uphold our standards.
While our current regulatory regimes will continue to work to ensure that the environment is protected, leaving the CAP is an important moment. The Government intend to seize this opportunity, engage with industry and work in partnership to strengthen how we regulate in the future. In establishing a new regulatory model, we want to work with the sector to get it right while ensuring that we always have a robust system of inspection and enforcement in place to uphold our important standards.
The Government envisage a future regulatory system designed with a focus on outcomes, both environmental and related to animal, health and welfare, with the core principles of partnership, adaptability, proportionality, transparency and efficiency at its heart. The Government will work across the Defra group to develop a shared strategy for farming and land-management regulation. This shared strategy will set out a clear vision for agricultural regulation and allow co-ordinated action and improvement across agencies aligned to Defra’s priorities, including those in the 25-year environment plan.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge tabled Amendment 230. Hedgerows and field boundaries are the very essence of our countryside; they provide vital resources for mammals, birds and insect species. As well as being an important habitat in their own right, they act as wildlife corridors, allowing dispersal between isolated habitats. Many are also important historical and cultural landscape features. The Government recognise the crucial role hedgerows play in providing habitat in the 25-year environment plan and are committed to protecting them.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who is probably involved with this matter, that we already have domestic legislation, as he must be well aware, in the form of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, which prohibit the removal of important hedgerows and have played a role in helping to stop the net loss of hedgerows that was observed before their introduction. Since the Hedgerows Regulations came into effect, evidence shows that the decline in the length of hedges reported in the 1980s has been halted and rates of removal have fallen markedly.
The role of hedgerows as important habitats for birds and their nesting sites is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Specifically, hedges may not be cut during bird-nesting season as this would harm birds or destroy their nests. Existing regulatory regimes protect hedgerows from removal and protect their function as important habitats. We want to support farmers, as custodians of the countryside, including through the creation, maintenance and protection of our hedgerows and other field boundaries.
My noble friend’s amendment would bring the rules on hedgerows, stone walls and stone and earth banks, which are contained in cross compliance, into domestic legislation. Cross compliance will continue for all BPS recipients for the time being. We will not start making delinked payments until 2022 at the earliest and not before consultation. In place of automatically replicating cross compliance rules in regulation, the Government intend to review the most effective mechanism to deliver against their environmental goals. A number of noble Lords have raised the fact that, under Clause 1, ELMS can provide financial assistance for hedgerow planting and maintenance where this helps to deliver environmental public goods.
The Government want to work with their partners to ensure that their regulatory response is effective and proportionate. We are committed to maintaining and improving environmental standards, working with and listening to industry to help us do so. To my noble friend I say that the Government are absolutely seized of the importance of hedgerows and boundaries, and we will be working in all respects to safeguard their future. They are really important.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, I say that I am reminded of the Year of Green Action last year and the importance of encouraging—well beyond the farming community—those of us who garden, have allotments or can make a difference in some way. I certainly use this opportunity to suggest that, unless it is for safety reasons, we should not cut our hedges too early. I am also mowing a lot less and it is interesting to see so many more pollinators on my very scrappy grass.
Amendment 231 would amend the farming rules for water, and with it I shall also address Amendments 296 and 297. The Government understand the urgent importance of protecting our soils and have committed in the 25-year environment plan to having sustainably managed soils by 2030. Clause 1(1)(j) provides for financial assistance to manage land or water in a way that protects and improves the environment and for the protection and improvement of soil. The Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations, known as the farming rules for water, already cover the management of buffer strips. It is expected that all farmers will continue to implement these as a reasonable precaution to prevent diffuse pollution. If farmers fail adequately to utilise such measures where necessary, they will be considered to be non-compliant.
The Government agree that records can be important for demonstrating compliance and also understand the value of buffer strips in mitigating pollution. The Government will conduct and publish a review of the farming rules for water early next year, where the effectiveness of these regulations will be fully assessed and stakeholders consulted. During the review, the Government will ensure that watercourse buffer strips and the inclusion of inland water sources are duly considered. The clean air strategy commits to extend environmental permitting to the dairy and intensive beef sectors by 2025, and the powers to extend the legislation to these sectors are already in place. As part of this work, we will consider whether other sectors need further regulation.
On pig production, I say to my noble friend that the largest intensive pig sector installations are already regulated through the environmental permitting regulations. Installations with more than 2,000 places for production pigs over 30 kg and 750 places for sows currently require a permit. I have taken some advice on pig density: it is considered that a proposed pig density limit of 20 pigs per hectare is particularly low.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about policing and advisers. Existing bodies will continue to protect the environment. The Environment Agency and Natural England will use advice-led enforcement.
I turn to Amendment 233. The Government are conducting a comprehensive post-implementation review of the slurry, silage and agricultural fuel oil and related nitrate regulations. This review will consider all the provisions in the regulations holistically and look at how we regulate more modern practices, such as the use of slurry bags. The Government are committed to the environment and have set ourselves challenging goals in the 25-year environment plan. To meet these, we need to consider the best way to manage environmental pressures, including slurry and silage. This review is already under way and we should not pre-empt its outcome. We should take a broad view of the changes, if any, needed to ensure we can meet those 25-year environment plan goals.
I shall repeat what I said on the previous group to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I am very happy to discuss her thoughts on these matters, particularly since the Government are well-seized of the importance of a proportionate and proper regulatory regime. We already have our domestic regulations and requirements, and we will continue with cross-compliance until there has been consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, should not worry; they will not be lost until we are working on replacements. It is very important that we work together on this, so I say to the noble Baroness that I am sure the experts will be happy to discuss this with her, and I would be delighted to be part of that if she would like. I hope she is reassured of the importance that the Government place on ensuring that we have contemporary regulations that are couched to improve the environment and to work with farmers. On that basis, I hope she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, rightly pointed out the possible environmental downside of those farmers who choose not to enter ELMS, which will of course be voluntary. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, rightly pointed out that if we have to pay for minimum environmental standards that are currently delivered under the cross-compliance regime it would have a huge impact on the public purse.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, were anxious about a new regulatory regime being too burdensome for farmers at this time of flux, but I think that this is just the time. It is really important to give farmers a clear regulatory framework in which they can operate and make other changes to their farming businesses driven by the requirements of this Bill and our exit from the CAP. It would be really useful for farmers to know what is expected of them and to get the help and advice they need from the regulator on how to comply with the regulatory framework. I press the Government to move as quickly as possible on this.
I was not quite clear on, and I will want to read again in Hansard, what the Minister said about the continuation of some sort of cross-compliance. It would be useful to get from the Minister, if possible, a note to clarify the assurances that he gave about many of these issues being covered by other regulatory regimes, just so that we can be sure that all the things put in these amendments as needing to be preserved when the cross-compliance regime disappears are fully covered by existing regulatory requirements, particularly domestic regulation. We are not airbrushing that out; I simply continue to point to the fact that, even though we may have domestic regulation on soils, muddy floods continue to occur. It is only where we have seen local engagement by the Environment Agency with groups of maize farmers, for example, working with them collectively, that some of the intrinsically difficult practices in maize production have been reduced. The domestic regulation does not seem to be working; only in-depth collaboration in an advisory capacity with the regulator produces the results.
I thank the Minister for his offer of a meeting; I shall take him up on that. I look forward to the consultation and the extensive work on a new regulatory model that will kick off in the autumn. I hope that does not mean that anything dreadful is going to be done to the Environment Agency or Natural England. They need to get on with it, rather than be reorganised. We do not need a single environmental regulator just for agriculture. It is vital that we have skilful regulators who know what they are talking about because they are specialists and who draw their expertise also from case law and experience in regulating the same issues across a range of sectors. I welcome the fact that the Government will think long and deep and talk earnestly with the rest of us about that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I understand that neither the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, nor anyone else listed to speak wishes to move his Amendment 235.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 236A. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or any other amendment in this group, to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 236A
Baroness Worthington
“Agriculture carbon levy and carbon sequestration reward scheme
Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct a consultation on—(a) the introduction of a carbon levy for greenhouse gas emissions resulting from agricultural and land use activities in the United Kingdom;(b) the implementation of a payment scheme for farmers and connected persons with the objective of reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions; and(c) the application of a carbon levy to imported agricultural products.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires public consultation on: the introduction of an agricultural carbon levy, applied to greenhouse gases for which the agricultural and land use sector is responsible; introducing incentive payments that reward actions to mitigate and sequester carbon emissions; and the application of the levy to imported products.
Baroness Worthington [V]
My Lords, I am conscious that we are into our sixth session of debate on this Bill. I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily, so I will be very brief. I am also very conscious that the remaining amendments in this group pertain to the marketing standards in organic products, while my amendment relates to the climate change impacts of agriculture. We had a very good debate last week when we looked at a group of amendments focused on climate change, and I certainly felt that there was strong cross- party support for a strengthening of the references to climate change in the Bill.
Agriculture makes up a significant proportion of the UK’s greenhouse gases, and I am sad to say that over the last 30 years that contribution to our greenhouse gas emissions has remained relatively unchanged. In 1990 agriculture was responsible for 58.9 million tonnes of greenhouse gases, and in 2017, the latest figures, the figure was 45.6 million tonnes. That accounts for 10% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The two most prominent gases for which UK agriculture is responsible are nitrous oxide and methane. Some 70% of the UK’s nitrous oxide emissions and 50% of our methane emissions arise from agricultural practices. These are both powerful gases in the short term, and we have seen very little change in the contribution that we have been making to the global climate risk from these sources.
My amendment would require the Government to start to consult on the introduction of a comprehensive policy to address these climate change causing emissions from agriculture. As I tried to convey last week, this should be seen as an opportunity for the sector. By implementing a very low-level carbon price in the sector, the Government would be able to implement a polluter pays principle, but, more importantly, through the gathering of revenues from those sources of pollution they would then be able to make payments, grants and rewards to farmers who took actions to reduce their emissions.
I believe that there is an interest in the Government in extending the use of carbon pricing, since it has had such a beneficial and successful effect in other parts of the economy. We have used a succession of different ways of carbon pricing in the power sector to unleash huge sums of investment into novel solutions. I have no doubt that the ingenuity of our farmers and land managers would be unleashed if we implemented a similar system of levying a small charge and then rewarding innovation in the sector.
The time is late and I will be brief. The consultation that we would require the Government to undertake would also look at the protection of UK practices by levying a similar carbon price on equivalent imported products. I am very grateful for being given this opportunity to speak again about the important subject of climate change. Agriculture, as we have debated previously—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I think the noble Baroness has frozen. I call the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
Lord Carrington [V]
I tabled Amendment 247, which relates to marketing standards, after discussion with the National Farmers’ Union. It is important and appropriate to be clear about why we should have marketing standards for agricultural products. This is something that the European Union has undertaken, with our full support. It therefore follows that, on leaving the European Union, we too should ensure that the provisions for establishing marketing standards in the UK are clearly set out in the Bill.
The precise wording of the amendment is taken from the purposes in the common market organisation EU regulation 1308/2013. If the purpose of marketing standards is clearly defined then subsequent regulations could be brought in only for legitimate purposes, as defined in Clause 35. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could give his reasons for departing from this previously agreed and acceptable wording, as set out in the CMO.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 248, 250, 251, 252, 254 and 266 in my name, some of which are supported by my noble friend Lord Holmes. I will speak also to Amendment 256 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Agricultural products, especially animal products, should all be raised to and maintained at the highest possible standards. While the Government prefer to leave so much to consumer choice, good and informative product labelling on foods is absolutely essential. People deserve to have reliable information about the food they are eating that is rigorously tested and independently verified, and there should also be appropriate fines for misleading labelling.
Too much greenwashing and misleading information is put out by big companies and trade bodies, which trick consumers into thinking that things are healthier, happier or fairer than they actually are. This needs to be sorted out so that truly great producers thrive without false competition.
Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 250, 251 and 252 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and Amendment 253 in my name.
As the noble Baroness said, there is tremendous and as yet largely untapped potential in labelling, not least in the use of QR codes. With technological advances, such codes contain so much information and have such positive uses for producers, consumers and indeed everybody in the chain. This takes me to the purpose behind my Amendment 253. It is in the marketing section of the Bill but is about more than that. It is about what we can do in agriculture and horticulture for all the products in this Bill, and speaks to products way beyond it in terms of the digital opportunity to drive efficiency and information for all in the chain.
When I speak of digitisation, I do not mean what is all too often the case, where a form gets put on to a database and that is called a digital transformation. That is doing nothing different; it is merely taking something on paper and putting it into electronic form. We need to consider what data is required, whether on welfare, provenance, ingredients, or the type of soil where the product was grown. What do we need, how can we then best collect it and at what stage of the production or supply chain can it be best provided?
Amendment 253 relates specifically to VI-1 forms for wine products to give a specific example but also to underscore the point that this is about all agricultural and horticultural produce. Indeed, it is about all goods and services. It could not have more resonance for the autumn and winter that we are about to go into. Currently, wines coming into the UK from Europe do not have to go through the VI-1 process or have lab tests. Given that 55% of the wine coming into this country comes from Europe, come 1 January, this is absolutely what will be required.
I am grateful for the background notes from the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, which makes these points extremely clearly. It should be noted that the British wine trade is worth some £19 billion and provides 130,000 jobs. In fact, wine is the UK’s sixth-biggest export in the food and drink classification. We are a world hub for wine import and export. With this amendment, rather than just going for a form that would impose extreme levels of friction on the process, we have the opportunity for a digital solution: digital passports for wine coming into the country, leaving it and going anywhere in the world.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to support Amendment 236A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, with whom I agree that there is an appetite within the House to put climate change more to the front and centre of this Bill, although it is in Clause 1. She picks up on the point that I tried to make last time we discussed climate change, about making a payment scheme for the farmers, so that climate mitigation is what they are aiming for when they are farming. That is well covered in subsection (b) of her proposed new clause.
Turning to Amendment 253A in my name, I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She has already underlined the importance of accurate food labelling, which I so agree with. My amendment makes provision for information on the greenhouse gases emitted during the lifecycle of agricultural products to be available to consumers at the point of sale, such as on packaging, and offers financial assistance for producers and accreditation bodies to compile this information.
There are three key points to bear in mind. About a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions come from food. On average, each person in the world causes six kilos of emissions every day because of the food that they eat. By 2030, only 10 years from now, we will need to halve our emissions. That will correspond to the average person causing three kilos of emissions every day for food. In assessing how the greenhouse gas figure is calculated, we must add up the greenhouse gas emissions from all parts of the food chain, including growing, clearing the land, processing, manufacturing, packaging and transportation, as well as cooking the food at home and disposing of any waste. That is not an impractical proposition. Some food is already labelled for greenhouse gas emissions, but this gives us all a role that we can play in tackling climate change. For most people climate change is too big a subject, and they feel they cannot actively contribute themselves. However, they can by changing their diet.
On labelling, I draw my noble friend’s and the Committee’s attention to our recommendation in our Hungry for Change report. In paragraph 324, we recommend that
“the Government should conduct a review of labelling on food and drinks products.”
We go on to say:
“The new regulations should be compulsory for all food manufacturers and retailers.”
It was for that reason that I included in my amendment the paragraph relating to provision of financial assistance for businesses towards the cost of providing that information. A lot of work has to be done on this, but it is a market for the future, and one in which everybody in this country can play their part.
The Minister has not warmly accepted any of my amendments, but I hope he will accept my recommendation that he and his officials read a book that is about to be published, called Food and Climate Change Without the Hot Air, by Professor Bridle of Manchester University. It will be published on 3 September, but advance copies can be obtained in August. It would be extremely useful if my noble friend, and particularly his officials, could read that book before Report, because I hope it will influence their thinking.
I commend my amendment on greenhouse gas labelling to the Government.
Lord Hope of Craighead [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I wish to speak to Amendment 255, to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, have kindly added their names. It seeks to insert into Clause 35 a provision that is designed to protect the interests of the devolved authorities regarding the exercise of regulation-making powers concerning marketing standards in England that are conferred on the Secretary of State by that clause.
Clause 35(1) tells us that the Secretary of State may make provision about marketing standards with which the agricultural products listed in Schedule 4 must conform if they are to be marketed in England. The products listed in that schedule include milk and milk products, beef, veal—although, curiously, not lamb or wool—poultry and poultry meat, eggs and egg products, and fruit and vegetables other than olives. The list of matters that the regulations may cover is extensive, and that is leaving aside the points made by noble Lords who preceded me on this group. There are 14 matters on the list as it stands. They include species, plant variety, animal breed, the type of farming, the production method, the place or origin of farming, and restrictions on the use of certain substances and practices.
The clause makes it clear that the power to prescribe food standards extends to agricultural products that are to be marketed—I stress the word “marketed”—in England, not just to those produced in England. Nothing is said in the clause about where these agricultural products may come from, but it requires little imagination to appreciate the power may extend to agricultural products that are sent for marketing in England from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We are told that Clause 52 extends to England and Wales only. It is odd, then, that the power does not cover agricultural products that are to be marketed in Wales as well as England. The Minister may be able to explain why that is so. If, as I suspect, the reason is that the standards to be applied to the marketing of agricultural products in Wales is a matter to be determined by Welsh Ministers, one wonders why Clause 52 does not say that Clause 35 applies to England only. But that is not the point that concerns me.
I am concerned that Clause 35 appears to overlook the fact that agricultural products marketed in England, listed in Schedule 4, may include things that have been produced in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I do not have figures at my disposal, but we know that
“Northern Ireland sells more to the rest of the UK than to all EU member states combined”
and that
“Scotland sells more to the rest of the UK than to the rest of the world put together.”
My source for that is the Business Secretary’s foreword to the UK Internal Market White Paper, published on 16 July. What is said there about Scotland must be true for Wales too.
Much of what comes to England from those other parts of the UK consists of agricultural products. To take just one example, it is common for farmers in Scotland who grow seasonal crops such as peas and raspberries to do so under contract to the supermarkets, which distribute them to serve the needs of markets throughout the UK, including England. There must be many farmers in Wales and Scotland, especially those close to the borders, who look to England as the place to take their goods to market. Because their business is agriculture, which is devolved, they must look to the Governments in Wales and Scotland to set the standards with which they must comply. The same is true for farmers in Northern Ireland. It cannot be assumed, then, that the standards set by the devolved Governments as regards species and farming methods will be the same as those the Secretary of State will think appropriate for markets in England.
This raises the crucial question of how Clause 35 is intended to fit in with the concept of a UK internal market. I appreciate that the White Paper to which I have referred seeks to meet the needs of marketing across the whole range of products that move around between our nations and that it was not produced by Defra. But the whole must include the sum of its parts, so I read its comments as applying to products for food as well as everything else.
We are told that under the plans in the White Paper, the UK will continue to operate as a coherent internal market, with a guarantee that UK companies—this must include farmers—can trade unhindered in every part of the United Kingdom. The White Paper states:
“If a baker sells bread in both Glasgow and Carlisle, they will not need to create different packaging because they are selling between Scotland and England.”
The principle of mutual recognition is explained further in paragraph 48 of the White Paper, which states:
“The fundamental aim of all mutual recognition systems is to ensure that compliance with regulation in any one territory is recognised as compliance in the other(s). For example, if a good produced in Scotland, and adhering to the Scottish labelling regulations, can be placed on the Scottish market, it can … be placed on the English and Welsh markets without the additional need to comply with English or Welsh requirements.”
With respect, it seems that Clause 35 as drafted does not address itself at all to the concept of a UK internal market, as explained in that paragraph. I suggest that it could do that in one or other of two ways. It could include a requirement that the Secretary of State consult with the devolved Governments when exercising the regulation-making power, which is what my amendment seeks to do. That would at least ensure that barriers were not erected to trade in agricultural products coming from elsewhere in the UK by accident or through a misunderstanding. Alternatively, exemptions could be written into the regulations for the English market to serve the needs of growers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The other way might be to write into the clause a provision, such as that in the White Paper from which I have been quoting, stating that products grown there that comply with standards laid down by the devolved Governments could be marketed in England without having to comply with the English requirements.
I add that my amendment was conceived by me and not prompted by what I have read in the White Paper. It was drafted several weeks before the White Paper was published, but I am encouraged by what the White Paper says to suggest to the Minister that there is a real issue here, about the structure of the internal market in agricultural products, that needs to be thought through very carefully before the Bill leaves this House. Of course, I will listen carefully to what he has to say, but the issue seems so important to the working of the internal market that, depending on what he says, I may have to come back to it on Report.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I am delighted to support Amendment 255 and I entirely endorse his comments. Subject to his decision, I would be willing to support a similar amendment on Report, if that is helpful at this stage.
I shall confine my remarks to the amendments in this group that relate to labelling and marketing, particularly Amendment 256 in my name. I am delighted to have the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I am very grateful to them for their support.
If this wording is familiar to the House and to my noble friend the Minister, indeed it should be. It is the form of words that was adopted by my noble friend Lady Fairhead during the Trade Bill, which I think was technically the rollover Trade Bill, that we debated a year ago but which then did not pass because of the general election. I was delighted that after some toing and froing and lots of debate in Committee, on Report my noble friend Lady Fairhead literally adopted this wording, so I therefore take it to be government policy. Obviously I have adapted it, taking advice, to make sure that it fits the remit of the Bill before us today.
I take great heart from the fact that my noble friend said again, in winding up a previous debate, that the Government will keep and raise our own environmental standards. What concerns me here is that we seem to be disadvantaging our own farmers and producers in two ways. One is that while we are keeping the same high standards that we currently have and possibly raising them even higher, we seem to be contemplating importing produce of lower standards in marketing, environmental health, animal welfare and hygiene. That to me is just not a Conservative thing to do; I cannot believe we are even contemplating it. That is why the thrust of my Amendment 256 is that the regulations within this clause cannot be used to make provisions that will have the effect of lowering animal health, hygiene or welfare standards for agricultural products below those established in the EU or the UK.
This is something that we are already familiar with, having been members of the European Union since 1973. I remember that in my days briefly in practice as a European lawyer we relied very heavily on the original Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome, which basically set out a limited number of exceptions to the free movement of goods, specifying that if it was deemed necessary on the grounds of the protection of the health and life of humans, animals or plants then under Article 36 an exemption could be applied for to prevent those products from coming into another European country from a neighbouring country or another member state. I see that that is now increasingly coming into trade deals that are negotiated multilaterally or bilaterally under the auspices of the World Trade Organization, so I am hoping that my noble friend will say that when it comes to the end of the transition period, this is where we will be.
I caution against something that Minister Prentis said in the other place: that the Government are considering consulting on mandatory labelling at the end of the transition period. Labelling seems very attractive. It is something that we looked at after the horsemeat scandal, because I am afraid that supermarkets were caught a little on the hop; they had not conducted a full test of the probity of the supply chain, and that is why we had the case of fraud and the passing off as beef, lamb and other products what was effectively horsemeat.
The difficulty is that labelling does not encourage people to eat home-produced meat, which is something we have discussed in the context of other clauses in the Bill. Another example I would give in this regard is what happened when we unilaterally banned the use of sow stalls and tethers. Technically, the Red Tractor label is meant to advise people that the pork, lamb and beef that we produce in this country—particularly, in this instance, the pork—is produced to those high standards. But that is not the basis on which people buy their food; they buy on price. It can have as pretty a red label as you like, but people will often still buy the cheapest cut of meat.
The other issue with labelling is this. How am I, as a consumer eating out in a restaurant or other catering establishment, to know that what I am eating is from this country and meets the high standards that the Government have asked our own producers to meet? This could create a two-tier system and mean that only those who can afford the higher prices of our home-produced food would be able to buy it.
As for what we are being told, I shall repeat again what the Minister, Victoria Prentis, said in Committee on the Agriculture Bill in the other place. She said that
“we are retaining existing UK legislation, and at the end of the transition period, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will convert on to the UK statute book all EU food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards. That will ensure that our high standards, including import requirements, continue to apply.”—[Official Report, Commons, Agriculture Bill Committee, 5/3/20; col. 372.]
As was helpfully pointed out to us by a letter from the Food Standards Agency, the difficulty with that—I will take as long as it takes here, because this is the crux of the Bill—is that those standards are enshrined in statutory instruments, so primary legislation is not needed to amend them; only a subsequent statutory instrument would be needed.
I hope that we can learn from previous mistakes and will seek to maintain the high standards that we have and ensure that we refuse to accept any standards lower than those that our own producers meet.
Baroness Mallalieu [V]
My Lords, I share some of the concerns that the noble Baroness has just raised, but I take a different view about the need for mandatory labelling of animal products. I shall speak just to Amendment 258, in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who will speak shortly.
On 29 June, Peers received an open letter from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, which said:
“The Government has committed to a rapid review and consultation on the role of labelling to promote high standards and animal welfare, and remains committed to delivering informative food and drink labelling and marketing standards to protect consumer interests, ensuring that consumers can have confidence in the food and drink they buy.”
I welcome that, and I thank the noble Lord, but I would like the Minister to tell us, first, what the word “rapid” means to Defra. Will he give us the proposed timetable for the initial consultation and the review, and then for publishing the proposals that follow, and for making the necessary regulations? My amendment suggests six months from the passing of this Act—which I hope will mean March 2021—for the earlier steps, and 12 months for the regulations to come into force, in about September 2021. I hope that he will agree with that.
The regulations on labelling are urgent because, as a result of the new trade deals we are, we hope, about to receive—they are being negotiated—we shall shortly see new products coming on to our markets from overseas. People will, as the letter says, need to have
“confidence in the food and drink they buy.”
That means they need to be confident that those meet the high standards that we were promised, but which the Government would not, apparently, put into the Bill.
The Government say that they are concerned about tackling obesity, encouraging healthy food choices, making more use of local produce, reducing food miles, limiting carbon outputs and improving animal welfare—and I am sure they are. But if consumers are not given the information on the packet, how are they to know where it comes from, how it was produced or whether it complies with any of those objectives?
I am also afraid that if you do not give sufficient information then, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has just suggested, consumers will simply select on price—some will do that anyway—and highest animal welfare standards considerations will simply not feature. The result will be that producers who meet high standards, which are usually more expensive, will simply go to the wall.
Consumers surely need to know the country of origin, particularly in these times. Amendment 254 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, makes that point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, with great force in our debates on Tuesday. That does not mean simply where the chicken was processed, but where it was reared. They need to know the method of production. We already do it for eggs; we have free-range, barn-reared, organic and so on, but we do not do it routinely for milk, meat or egg products. We should. The consumer needs to know whether his meat comes from a feedlot, was intensively reared or was pasture-fed. Some people will not care—they will just go for the cheapest—but more and more people do care and are looking. They could be told simply in words or, with enough publicity as to what they mean, through symbols.
The method of slaughter matters too, and to some members of the public it matters a great deal. I accept that this Bill is not the place to argue for the abolition of non-stun slaughter, which I very much want to see. However, it is the place to argue that consumer choice matters. Whether you require meat slaughtered in accordance with the requirements of your religion or meat which has been pre-stunned before slaughter because you have animal welfare concerns, you want to know, one way or the other, from the label of the joint you pick up at the supermarket. You want “confidence”, to use the Minister’s word, that you have picked the one you want and are getting the type of meat you selected. Will the Minister share his timetable and plans for doing what Amendment 258 suggests?
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, I confine my remarks to Amendment 263 in my name and those of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace, my noble friend Lord Bruce and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.
This new clause seeks to secure exactly equal protection for traditional speciality food and drink products, for which the UK is famous and which have such economic benefits for particular areas, as is currently enjoyed under the EU geographical indications scheme. I am sure that there is shared enthusiasm in every part of the Committee for the success of this excellent scheme, not least since it was extended as a result of the initiative of British Ministers during the coalition Government.
I know that the Minister will be able to assure us that the protection of these products can continue within the UK. However, that is not the issue in question. I asked the then Minister for International Trade during Committee stage of the Trade Bill on 23 January 2019 for an explicit assurance that the GI protection would continue on exactly the same terms—that is, outside the UK—and was told that an amendment was unnecessary because this would be secured. In view of the vagueness of that promise, I repeated an amendment on Report on 6 March 2019 and withdrew it only when a firmer assurance was given.
Now it would seem that there may be another broken Brexit promise. According to newspaper reports:
“Cornish pasties could soon be made in France and still be called ‘Cornish’ after British Brexit negotiators failed to secure the same guarantees for British products in the EU … British officials argue that the Withdrawal Agreement calls for the current arrangement for existing GIs to be superseded by a free trade agreement.”
This threat becomes ever more alarming if, as the latest news of failing negotiations makes all too likely, we end up with the disaster of a no-deal outcome in just five months’ time. The dogmatic insistence of No. 10 to row back on even their very limited withdrawal agreement puts yet another obstacle in the path of British food and drink producers. The failure of the UK negotiators could result in a ludicrous situation in which proper Cornish pasties cannot be marketed from Cardiff, Cumbernauld or Cambridge but can be sold as Cornish by manufacturers in Cologne or Calais. Indeed, without any protection from the EU scheme and with no involvement in EU trade agreements in future, they could be passed off as Cornish in Canberra, Calgary or Cambridge, Massachusetts or in Truro in that same state.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff [V]
My Lords, I commend the Minister for his role as honest broker, as he described himself earlier today, with the devolved Governments. He must take full credit for the working relationship that he has established. Sadly, though, he will not always be there. The history of what went before his time has influence, and the Government’s White Paper on the internal market raises a level of concern, hence my Amendment 263A.
I endorse many of the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead, who it is a pleasure to follow. For 20 years, the devolved legislatures have exercised legislative and executive responsibilities for environmental and public health standards relating to agricultural products produced and marketed in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Like the UK Government, they had to work within the framework of EU law, but this did not prevent them taking their own positions, for example, on GM crops or animal welfare. The Welsh Government and, indeed, the other devolved Administrations, have worked hard with the UK Government to develop common frameworks for the UK after transition ends to ensure that a level playing field is maintained while protecting devolved competencies. They have also urged the UK Government to engage fully with them on international trade negotiations, including the vital talks with the EU, to ensure that what emerges with regard to devolved issues such as agriculture is acceptable to them, since they have a responsibility and duty to implement international agreements.
As I understand it, these new internal market proposals are likely to disrupt, if not destroy, these efforts to develop a mature, respectful relationship between the four Governments within the UK. Thus, products that can be legally marketed in one part of the UK, whether they are produced locally or imported, can automatically be placed on the market in the other nations. In a no-deal scenario with Europe, despite opposition, new trade deals will be struck, but at what cost? The problem is far wider than hormone-injected beef or chlorinated chicken. Say, for example, the UK agrees to pork fed with ractopamine, which artificially increases muscle mass but can make animals aggressive, collapse and suffer organ failure. It is banned in Europe and China because it has been linked to heart problems and even poisoning in humans. The US allows double the somatic cell count in milk compared with the UK, thereby signalling lower quality and nutritional value, and it can indicate poor animal welfare.
In 2015, the data showed that 88% of the land area in Wales was utilised for agriculture, with 51% focused on livestock and 35% on livestock products. Some 29% of the UK’s sheep are within Wales, and 11% of the UK’s cattle, of which 60% in Wales are dairy. The Welsh Government have been updating their food legislation to ensure that the legislative framework in this area remains operable if the UK leaves the EU in a no-deal scenario. However, if US food regulations were allowed, this could price out Welsh farmers by flooding the market with lower-quality meat and milk, including school milk. This is a public health concern, quite apart from the threat to livelihoods.
We can expect strong and vocal opposition if Parliament legislates to allow such foods, because if these products are on the market in England, that will automatically mean that they can also be marketed and sold in Wales, even if Welsh legislation bans them. If my understanding of this is right, this will undermine the ability of the Welsh parliament—the Senedd—to exercise its given powers. Such a retrograde and centralising measure might appear to be designed to get the UK Government off the hook of having to listen to the devolved Administrations as they go about negotiating trade agreements and deregulating their own market, but any such approach will seriously undermine the union. This amendment is designed to prevent that. More immediately, I seek clarification of whether that really is the Government’s intention. I look forward to the reply.
Lord Wigley [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and I agree very much with the points that she has made. They underpin the reason I added my name to Amendment 255, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who spoke earlier. The points made by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, very much come together in the context of this amendment and this part of the Bill.
Earlier today, we started with a debate that was carried over from late on Tuesday evening. We discussed the relationship between the Governments of these islands, the way to secure a harmonious relationship within the UK single market and the need to get a framework for that purpose. The response that we got from the Minister to that debate, and particularly to the points that I raised at some length on Tuesday evening, was, quite frankly, non-existent. It is not good enough to say that we can have a semi-ad hoc working relationship between Ministers and that they will come together and sort things out. There has to be a formal framework.
I accept that the Minister, who replied to the earlier debate, might not be in a position to bring forward those proposals at this point, but in the light of points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others, I press him very strongly to give a commitment at the end of this debate that, between now and Report, the Government will seriously look at some practical working framework arrangement that can be agreed between the four Governments and that meets the sort of practical difficulties that have been pinpointed in this series of debates.
I believe it is important to get that sorted out now and not to find further down the road that we are in an almighty mess and that unnecessary tensions have built up which threaten to undermine the structures that we are currently so keen to construct for a harmonious working of the agricultural market within these islands.
Baroness Henig
I am very pleased indeed to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. This is a very wide-ranging set of amendments in this group: it covers food labelling, climate change and greenhouse gas labelling, marketing standards—including the importing of wine—and a geographical indications scheme. That is pretty wide-ranging, it seems to me.
However, I only wish to speak to Amendment 256 on standards. I have added my name to it and was happy to be able to support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on it because, as she said earlier, she and I—together with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—pursued the issues of high-quality food and high standards of animal health, welfare and hygiene in the context of the Government’s Trade Bill last year. We were very pleased eventually to get a form of words agreed with the then Minister, which were included in the Bill. Amendment 256 is very much based on that amendment that was agreed last year.
Therefore, I am rather disappointed that we now seem to be back to square one, with the Government once again talking about the importance of high standards in these important areas but refusing to turn these words into any form of legislative commitment. We know how widespread and strong public support is across the United Kingdom for our existing high standards of animal hygiene, health and welfare and for high-quality foodstuffs. I could cite any number of public surveys on these issues, and they all show strong public support for the existing United Kingdom regime and high levels of opposition to cheap food imports from abroad reared without regard for animal health or hygiene and often, as we know, in extremely insanitary conditions.
It is not often that I have to tell the House that I have found myself in full sympathy with both the National Farmers’ Union and the Mail on Sunday. However, on this issue, I am at one with their campaigning and, clearly, so are well over a million of my fellow citizens, who have signed their petitions.
It is very clear to me—though I am sure the Minister will deny it—that the Government are pursuing two incompatible goals. They are expressing their verbal support for high food and animal hygiene and welfare standards, but at the same time they are pursuing trade deals with the United States and potentially other countries whose farm lobbies are working aggressively to open up new markets in the United Kingdom for their inferior but cheaper products.
I thought that the issues this raised were put extremely well by a Conservative former Cabinet Minister in the other place—again, I do not often agree with former Conservative Cabinet Ministers but, on this occasion, she said something that rang absolutely true. She said:
“Exposing our farmers to uncontrolled competition from lower-cost, lower-welfare imports would not only undermine our commitments on protecting the environment and on the compassionate treatment of animals, it would have a huge impact on the rural economy. There is a great risk that many livestock businesses could go bust across the country.”
I could not agree more and, in fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said something very similar about Wales. Is this risk something that the Minister is prepared to countenance as the new agricultural framework takes shape?
A further serious issue for the Government in relation to standards has also just been raised. Northern Ireland, as we know, will remain in the EU’s single market and customs union, so its standards will be protected. However, Scotland is not in this position, much as it would like to be. There is no way that the Scottish Government will agree to any trade deal that allows for the reduction of existing food and animal welfare standards. The United Kingdom Government have the power to negotiate treaties, but they have to work with the devolved Administrations to implement those provisions, and I can see serious differences developing here, which would inevitably drag the devolved Administrations further away from London. Hence, I very much support Amendment 263A.
I fully understand and respect the Government’s determination to ensure that their ability and flexibility to negotiate trade treaties in the best interests of the United Kingdom is not undermined by legislative provisions. The noble Lord made that point in his letter to noble Lords after the Second Reading debate. Of course, the problem is that the great majority of people in England and the devolved Administrations do not believe that lower food and animal welfare standards are in the best interests of the country, and that is where the problem lies. This issue of standards is not going to go away; it will continue to be a big issue and I am quite sure we will return to it on Report.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, whose speech was imbued with such enthusiasm—an enthusiasm and a content with which I agree. I support Amendment 256, which is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lady Henig and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I hope that there will be a deal and that we will not have a no-deal Brexit. I am concerned about what Michel Barnier said today: that the UK and the EU were quite far apart on achieving that deal. In order to maintain our high standards of welfare, labelling and marketing, and animal health and hygiene, it is vital that there is a trade deal. Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady McIntosh, I do not want to see a situation where our imports are undermined by cheaper and inferior products from other countries, such as chlorinated chicken from the United States—which there are some suggestions about—or hormone-infused beef. I therefore ask the Minister to accept this amendment, to ensure that our high standards can be maintained and that that is replicated throughout the regions of the UK.
As I come from Northern Ireland, I refer to the the Northern Ireland protocol, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, which means that Northern Ireland will remain in the EU for agricultural products. It is, therefore, important that it adheres to the EU standards. It will be exporting to other regions of the UK and other parts of Europe. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that Northern Ireland’s exports go, in the main, to Britain. Evidence-based research is available that that is the case. It is, therefore, vital that standards are maintained, that there is equality in those standards and that there is good-quality welfare and labelling.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to our Select Committee’s report Hungry for Change: fixing the failures in food. I will reiterate what he said, because it is interesting. The findings of the review into labelling should form the basis of regulations to address both date labelling and the standardisation and simplification of front-of-pack traffic-light labels. The new regulations should be compulsory for all food manufacturers and retailers. I cast noble Lords’ minds back to the horsemeat scandal referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Labelling was part of that problem and members of the EFRA Select Committee in the other place dealt with it. This proves the point that the highest possible standards of labelling and marketing, with due reference to animal health, hygiene and welfare standards in the quality of food that we produce are vital and must be adhered to. There should be no diminution or lessening of existing EU or UK standards.
Lord Trees (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to have added my name to and support Amendment 258, tabled by and introduced so superbly by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I draw attention to my interests as previously declared in this Committee.
In 2018, the House of Commons EFRA Committee recommended that the Government should introduced mandatory methods of production labelling, which is the aim of the amendment. It is based on similar amendments introduced earlier in the other place by Conservative Members of Parliament and I know that this is a matter of much interest to the Government. Indeed, after the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, noted
“The Government has committed to a rapid review … of the role of labelling to promote high standards and animal welfare”.
I welcome that statement very much and I look forward to progress.
Previous amendments and subsection (2) of this proposed new clause refer to methods of production labelling. While that is an important step, it is not always as easy to do in practice as it appears in theory. The term “free range”, for example, has been hugely influential in terms of boosting the sale of eggs from chickens kept free range, but it is not always easy to encapsulate complex rearing, feeding and husbandry systems in such concise and easily understood terms. That becomes particularly challenging with cattle rearing and maintenance. Currently in the UK, “grass fed” just means predominantly grass fed; that is, as little as 51% of the diet is grass based. Interestingly, I note that in the USA, it is mandatory for the term “grass fed” to be supported by an independently audited labelling system to indicate the actual percentage.
Another important consideration is that while input measures such as methods of production will influence welfare, the connection is not always as it may seem. For example, outdoor rearing sounds lovely, but there can be negative aspects to it such as exposure to certain parasitic diseases, just as there can be negative aspects associated with indoor rearing. I say that to emphasise that this issue is nuanced and complex. The amendment recognises that by referring not only to methods of production but also to welfare outcomes, which are increasingly being recognised as the ultimate and ideal way to categorise the welfare impact of different production systems. Of importance too in the amendment is the inclusion of method of slaughter, which has been called for by, among others, the RSPCA.
Labelling is not as easy or simple a goal as it may seem, but it is a goal worth achieving, and it is achievable with effort. After all, it is about giving the consumer choice. If the statutory protection of our high animal welfare, environmental and food standards is not to be put in place for imported food, labelling is potentially a very important means of ensuring that the consumer can determine whether the imported food they buy is produced to equivalent standards to our own. In this respect, I note with interest that Clauses 35 and 36 make provision for the certification of organic food products in the UK and overseas with the drawing up of regulations with respect to, among other things, the mitigation of climate change and the protection of the health and welfare of livestock. Imported products, in order to be designated organic, must comply with these standards.
Interestingly, of course, we do not have equivalent legislation for non-organic food products. The establishment of a similar certification scheme for non- organic products that is backed by statute for ethically produced food products that might be called, say, “UK quality assured” that would be available to UK and imported food products would be a major step forward. It could be developed in collaboration with existing food assurance schemes using labelling along the lines suggested in the amendment or revisions of it. That would not be as ideal as a blanket legal requirement that all imported food should meet certain standards, but it would comply with WTO rules and complement the proposed trade and agriculture commission. Are the Government considering such developments, and if not, will they do so?
Our consumers are increasingly knowledgeable and discerning about food matters, and we know that issues such as animal welfare and the environment are of huge importance to the public. There is very considerable demand for further information on these issues to be available with the food we buy or consume, when we buy or consume it. There is also an opportunity to develop a voluntary system of certified minimum standards recognised internationally, which I have mentioned above, and which would complement this amendment.
As outlined in this amendment, statutory labelling to describe the method of production, slaughter and/or welfare outcomes associated with all food products—of whatever origin—would help consumers make their own choice and would help to maintain high welfare and environmental standards.
Lord De Mauley (Con) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Trees, I would like to speak to Amendment 258. On 25 June, the Government announced that they would consult on mandatory labelling provisions by December this year. This amendment builds on that verbal commitment, to mandate in legislation that the Government must report to Parliament, within six months of the Agriculture Act coming into force, how they will take forward mandatory labelling provisions, what they will cover and when regulations will be adopted. It sets a timetable of six months for the report and one year for the regulations to be laid.
At present, there is only one mandatory method of production labelling scheme, for shell eggs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said. This has been in place for 17 years and has been highly successful in driving up animal welfare standards, providing consumers with clear information on animal welfare provenance and helping British egg farmers.
In 2020, over 55% of British egg production is on free-range systems, up from only 15% when the scheme started in 2003. It is clear that, where other sectors have only voluntary labelling on methods of production —such as for chicken, pork meat, bacon and beef—consumers can experience difficulty choosing higher-welfare products, and farmers who wish to raise their standards are hindered in doing so.
This amendment would change that situation by asking the Government for a clear timetable on announcing the sectors and species they intend to bring into mandatory production labelling. Of course, this is particularly important as we seek new trade deals. Giving consumers clear information on provenance and production methods will help support UK farmers and raise standards. If imports of a product are permitted, consumers need to be able to choose to prefer or avoid certain methods of production. A mandatory labelling scheme provides this assurance and gives transparency in the market.
The six-month timescale proposed by the amendment for the Secretary of State to publish a report detailing proposals is broadly in line with present government commitments to produce such a report by the end of the year. Moving this forward swiftly would give producers and retailers time to plan for labelling provisions and allow a year before regulations need to be laid, giving them enough time to implement the provisions.
Lord Addington
My Lords, this is a very wide-ranging set of amendments. I feel slightly sorry for the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, because I thought her amendment was a good one with good points, but it seems to have been rather left behind by the debate.
If we are to keep up standards in agriculture, there will be costs, which the consumer will ultimately have to bear. If we do anything to undermine that, products simply will not be purchased in sufficiently high numbers for many of our producers to carry on.
I am not just repeating the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in parrot-fashion: this is exactly what happened in the past. If your production levels are left behind and your prices are too high, people buy something else. It was called the great agricultural depression when the steam ship and a free market policy opened up the prairie and the pampas to production. Look it up: most British farmland was rough grazing.
So it is clear that, if we need to keep people in production, and to keep that production going, we need to maintain standards. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said in conversation to me that everything has been too reasonable. Well, I give her all the encouragement to be as unreasonable as she likes on this one. I hope that the Minister will take away the need for it by agreeing to make sure that standards are kept. If they are not, I am afraid that we are going to have to readdress this issue at every available opportunity.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, Clause 35 on marketing standards is an extremely important part of the Bill. It is odd at this late stage to add a lead amendment slotted in ahead of it containing a new clause on a carbon levy and a carbon sequestration reward scheme. I am against both new suggestions, particularly as part of this Bill. Adding some new idea without costing or analysis, albeit with the excuse that it is just a consultation, sets an unfortunate precedent and reflects badly on this House’s role as scrutineers of legislation. I am disappointed to see the suggestion coming from the Cross Benches, especially in the wake of Covid-19, as it would impose huge burdens on mainly small and struggling rural businesses. It also suggests a carbon levy on imports, which would put up consumer prices at a time when households will be under growing pressure and at risk of unemployment.
The lead amendment should be that in the name of my noble friend Lord Carrington. Amendment 247 tries to focus the extremely wide powers in Part 5 so that they are used to improve the economic conditions of production, marketing and quality of agricultural products, taking account of the expectations of consumers. This seems very sensible and I support him.
I will not delay the House at this late hour with my doubts about various amendments on labelling, except to say that in my long experience in the industry, here and overseas, politicians and other interests are much more interested in labelling than is the consumer whom we are meant to serve, and that there is not nearly enough evidence-gathering and research into the effectiveness of food labelling.
Finally, I agree that standards are important and help to support UK production, as we will discuss in the next group. However, the horsemeat scandal dates back to 2013. Lessons have been learned, and it should not be a driver for the wrong kind of new regulation.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness [V]
My Lords, I support the new clause in Amendment 263, which has already been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Tyler and to which I have added my name.
Before addressing the issue of geographical indication schemes, I will say a word about the related issue of countries-of-origin labelling and express support for the relevant provisions in Amendment 254 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. My right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael, MP for Orkney and Shetland, recently raised this issue at Prime Minister’s Questions and received what might be interpreted as an encouraging response. Having drawn the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that Orkney beef producers have their efforts to market a quality product undermined by the labelling legislation in this country, which allows beef from anywhere in the world to be labelled as “British beef” as long as it is packaged in this country, he asked whether in light of any future trade arrangements the Prime Minister would do something to close that loophole. In reply, the Prime Minister said that
“we intend to take advantage of the freedoms that we have—the freedoms that the British people have decided to take back—to make sure that Scottish beef farmers have the protections that they need.”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/20; col. 805.]
So this evening the Minister has the opportunity to indicate that the Government will indeed give Scottish beef farmers the protections that they need and to signal a willingness to use this legislation to close a loophole in country-of-origin labelling, thus giving confidence and reassurance to producers and consumers alike.
I would have thought there was common ground that geographical indication schemes bring market benefits to a considerable number of products. Scotland has 14 protected geographical indications. The NFUS describes some—the Scotch beef PGI and the Scotch lamb PGI—as being of strategic importance to Scottish agriculture’s output.
I assume that in future the starting point will be Article 54.2 of the European Union/UK withdrawal agreement of 19 October 2019. It provides that persons who under EU law are entitled to use the geographical indication or the designation of origin
“shall be entitled, as from the end of the transition period … to use the geographical indication, the designation of origin”
concerned in the UK, and that they
“shall be granted at least the same level of protection under the law of the United Kingdom as under the … provisions of Union law”.
Can the Minister confirm how, with less than six months to go, that binding treaty obligation is to be implemented? Is there yet a United Kingdom register?
Of course, this ensures protection in the United Kingdom for a number of geographical indication products that are of importance to European Union countries and for UK produce currently given protection by these EU schemes. The object of this proposed new clause is to probe what continuing protection will be given to the United Kingdom’s geographical indications in the European Union and further afield after the end of the transition period. That is important, not least given the somewhat alarming reports referred to by my noble friend Lord Tyler.
In the Government’s response to a consultation paper on GIs published last year, Defra claimed that
“we anticipate that existing UK GIs will continue to be protected by the EU’s GI schemes after we leave the EU. This is because UK GIs are already protected by virtue of being on the EU’s various GI registers. That protection will continue automatically in the EU unless relevant entries are removed, which would require additional EU legislation.”
Can the Minister confirm that that remains the Government’s expectation, or are the kind of newspaper reports referred to by my noble friend founded and do they give rise to a matter for concern?
Moreover, GI protection has hitherto been afforded to UK products by way of free trade agreements with a large number of non-EU countries. In replying to the debate, can the Minister tell us how many rollover agreements have now been reached, what proportion of UK trade agreements with these countries represent and whether GI provisions have been agreed in each case?
That leaves the question of countries with which we have not yet managed to reach a rollover agreement or where there has yet been no EU free trade agreement to roll over. The USA springs to mind, where there is believed to be some scepticism of GIs in trade agreements. Will the Minister indicate whether the incorporation of GI protection for UK products will be a negotiating objective in any trade agreement with the United States?
Then, of course, there is the proviso of Article 54.2, which states:
“This paragraph shall apply unless and until an agreement as referred to in Article 184 that supersedes this paragraph enters into force or becomes applicable.”
On 2 April, the Financial Times reported:
“The UK is pushing to water down its obligation to recognise valuable EU regional food trademarks for products like Parma ham and Champagne”.
Is that the case? Can the Minister confirm that, in the absence of any agreement by the end of the transition period or if the agreement does not amend the provisions of Article 54.2, the United Kingdom continues to be bound by those provisions as a matter of international law?
I am currently within six or seven miles of two distilleries—Highland Park and Scapa—and my son-in-law works for the Tullibardine distillery in Perthshire, so before concluding I wish to say a word about one of the most valuable protected geographic indications, namely Scotch whisky. It has been defined in United Kingdom law since 1933 and has been protected in a US federal code as whisky
“manufactured in Scotland in compliance with the laws of the United Kingdom”
since the 1960s. Nevertheless, GI schemes have been of enormous benefit to the Scotch whisky industry. It is believed that the protection enjoyed in the United Kingdom as an EU GI is stronger than that provided under our domestic law. The provisions of the EU withdrawal agreement are therefore particularly important in that respect. It is therefore vital that the Minister makes it clear that the protection currently offered to UK GIs will be maintained through the EU withdrawal agreement or any further treaty agreement with the European Union and that, in seeking rollover agreements and other free trade agreements, GI protection, not least for Scotch, will be a negotiating objective. Sláinte.
Lord Lilley [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. I support what he said about ending the absurdity of allowing beef to be labelled as British or Scottish if it is merely packaged in this country. I cannot understand why that has ever been permitted. If it was something to do with EU law, we should change it as soon as we are free to do so. I also agree with him on the importance of Scotch labelling. He mentioned that it began in 1933. I am old enough to remember that in the post-war period Japan started producing its own, supposedly Scotch whisky. One brand sold under the label, “Genuine Scottish whisky made from genuine Scottish grapes”. I do not know how successful it was.
I will focus on the issue of labelling, which is behind a number of these amendments. In principle, giving information to consumers is a good thing, but the proposals in the amendments raise several issues. First, why does labelling need to be compulsory? If food producers have adopted high standards, it is in their interest to publicise this if they believe the public would be more attracted to their product if they knew it was produced to high standards. Of course, they often do so, as another noble Lord mentioned in the case of free-range eggs; some two-thirds of our eggs are now labelled “free range”. I suspect, however, that what is actually sought by some noble Lords is not positive labelling about the virtues of a product but negative or pejorative labelling, or simply labelling it as coming from a country of which they disapprove—usually America.
The second issue is: will voluntary labelling work? Will people choose products which are produced to a high standard rather than the less expensive variety? The sad truth is that less than 2% of the poultry that people buy is labelled as organic; for pigs, the figure is less than 1%, and for cattle, it is less than 3%. In general, people seem to prefer the least expensive product as long as it is safe for them to eat, and that is perfectly reasonable. It is all right for Members of your Lordships’ House to sneer at people buying on the basis of price, but a lot of people have to. Food is one of the biggest items of their budget and they want it to be available to them as cheaply as possible.
The third issue is: would compulsory labelling be compliant with WTO rules? Very probably not, although there are some doubts about that. Historically, under the GATT rules, there were cases which suggested that it would not. Some think that under the rules on non- tariff barriers there might be arguments for introducing some labelling. It seems to me rather unlikely that compulsory labelling would be permitted, particularly relating to imports.
Fourthly, if there is a health risk, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, suggested, we should not deal with it through labelling or banning imports. If a certain type of product is a risk to the health of the consumer, it should be banned. The health regulations rather than the measures in this Bill are the appropriate way of dealing with it
Fifthly, will labelling protect UK farmers, particularly from US products—which is clearly what a lot of noble Lords want to achieve? That clearly depends on what the label says. If the label simply gives the facts and says, for example, in respect of poultry that if it comes from the UK, the maximum density under which it may be produced is 39 kilograms per square metre, and if, for the US, the label says that its rules are that, for young poultry, it has to be less than 31 kilograms per square metre, which is significantly less dense than ours, and, for larger birds, a maximum of 43 kilograms per square meter, which is not very different from ours, I do not know that that will convince people that American standards are so different or so much worse than ours.
According to Compassion in World Farming, the UK has some 800 US-style mega farms, as it calls them —for example, warehousing 40,000 birds or 2,000 pigs. The largest UK farm houses 1.7 million birds and the biggest pig factory houses 23,000 pigs. We have large- scale farming in this country; we have smaller-scale farms too, and they compete successfully with the bigger farms.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I remind the noble Lord of the pressure on time. This is the Government Whip speaking.
Lord Lilley [V]
Sorry—I shall finish in one second. And allowing consumers to buy on the basis of cost.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie. No? I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, after which we will return to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd [V]
My Lords, I wish I had the privilege of following the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, but I will be brief, in view of the lateness of the hour. I support Amendments 255, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and 263A, in the name the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The noble and learned Lord has clearly analysed the issues that need to be addressed in relation to the interrelationship of the Bill with the internal market proposals. The noble Baroness has eloquently spelled out the consequences of our failing to deal with that properly. Both amendments, therefore, are examples of what needs to be done if we are to respect the devolution schemes or change them to make them work better. Again, I pay tribute to the Minister’s efforts in this respect in relation to agriculture.
We must now concentrate on two matters. One is the way in which the internal market is to operate in relation to agriculture; the second is the structures needed. It is too late to begin on the internal market tonight, but I urge that when we return in September to consider the Bill on Report, we are in a position to look at the interrelationship of the Bill with the provisions to be put forward on the internal market. Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spelled out so clearly earlier, we must have something to look at on the structures that are necessary to make this work. If we fail to do so, even at the eleventh hour, the consequences for the union will be dire indeed.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
I am not sure what happened there, but I am glad noble Lords can now hear me. I shall speak to Amendment 255, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, which I would have signed had there been space to do so, and Amendment 263, in the name of my noble friend Lord Tyler, which I have signed, along with my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. We have already had an important debate on devolution with specific reference to devolved issues throughout the Bill, and I very much appreciate the clear and valuable case made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in Amendment 267, which I have also signed.
Amendment 255 requires the Secretary of State, when making regulations for England, to consult the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations and bodies that represent the UK farming industry. The scope of these regulations is a extensive and detailed, covering every aspect of agricultural production, processing, packaging, standards and distribution. Any significant changes could be very disruptive to the UK single market if it means divergence from practices in parts of the United Kingdom outside England.
Livestock production is more prominent in the devolved areas, especially in the more prevalent and less favoured upland farms. As I have pointed out in previous contributions, England is the main market for much of the produce from farms in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It matters, therefore, to Scottish and Northern Irish producers, that any changes to established practice and procedure do not interfere with farming methods and costs for non-English producers.
It also matters to English consumers if it disrupts or increases the costs of supply for markets to England. It would be invidious to single out individual companies, but I can think of a number in my part of Scotland whose main markets are in the south. The products are high-quality and well-received; indeed, the fact that the ingredients are sourced from quality Scottish farms is a key part of the branding. I hope that English Ministers would resist any measures deliberately designed to disadvantage farmers in the devolved areas, but lack of consultation could do damage unintentionally, to the detriment of producers and consumers throughout the UK.
Turning to Amendment 263, which I was pleased to sign, there can be no doubt that the protection of traditional speciality food and drink products delivers comparative advantage, which is of huge importance to our terms of trade. There are many parts of the world where the only visible expression of UK brands is Scotch whisky—where that is all you would know about the United Kingdom. It is one of our leading exports, if not the leading one. But there are many products that are distinctly British and that benefit from GI protection; so, are the Government resisting maintaining reciprocal GI arrangements, and if so, can the Minister explain why? The suggestion that EU GIs can be replaced by a domestic regime puts exports in an invidious position. Are there products from the EU 27 that the UK Government want to deny GI to? Do we want the freedom to designate English sparkling wine as champagne?
Over the years, battles have been fought to secure GI designation. Why should we now throw it to the winds? If we refuse to recognise established EU GIs, and it creates a conflict between our brands and theirs, it will sour the entire trade relationship. I support my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and his powerful analysis of what the consequences would be. I urge the Government to accept this amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am speaking against Amendments 254 and 258.
What concerns me is not the labelling of meat products, as it is right that, as far as possible, purchasers should know how an animal was killed. There is an increasing number of people who are against the slaughter of animals for food. I respect these views; however, what is being addressed in these amendments is an acceptance of people eating meat, but a desire to label as to the method of slaughter. I must say, a visit to an abattoir could easily make one a vegetarian.
What concerns me is that when the supporters of labelling make their case, there is often a concentration on whether the animal was or was not pre-stunned—in other words, a preoccupation with describing meat killed by kosher or halal methods. I have no problem with this labelling as long as it describes all methods of slaughter. I draw your Lordships’ attention to FarmWell’s proposal: a method-of-slaughter label with 12 categories. Three are electrical methods and two are gas methods; then, there is halal, halal pre-stunned, the Jewish shechita method, the non-penetrative captive bolt, the penetrative captive bolt, and, of course, lastly, being shot—the animal, that is, not your Lordships.
Where the bolt method is used, it should say whether it takes more than one attempt to kill or sedate the animal. If meat is to be labelled as humane religious slaughter, why not label when it is shot? Why not label that a captive bolt gun to the skull was used for cows and sheep? Why not label where chickens were shackled by their ankles and dipped in a water bath with an electric current running through it, which your Lordships should know does not always work, depending on the size of the chicken? Should labels also say whether pigs are herded into a room and gassed? A previous speaker has told the Committee about the numbers so killed. Then there is trapping and clubbing, but that is mostly by hunters. here are reputable reports on the failure rate of mis-stunning for the penetrative captive bolt for cattle as being 6.6% to 8%. The failure rates at the first attempt for non-penetrative captive bolt stunning and electric stunning could be as high as a fantastic 31%.
Some 2 million cattle, 8 million pigs and 9 million sheep and lambs are killed each year. The Jewish community slaughters only 90,000 red meat animals. Rounded to the nearest percentage point, I get 0%. Some 750 million birds are killed. The Jewish community kills a mere 500,000—that is a lot of chickens, but still not a lot.
Previous speakers—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu—spoke very eloquently about labelling. She made an important point about labelling the country of origin. I certainly subscribe to labelling the country of origin for whisky. I like to think I can tell the country of origin, but maybe it should be labelled for others who cannot. When she went on to say that the method of production should be labelled, the only production method she mentioned, as far as I am aware, was whether it was pre-stunned or not. What I am trying to make clear is that I am against Amendments 254 and 258 but I am for labelling as long as it is comprehensive or not labelled at all.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, produced what I suppose could be a red herring, but it was actually horsemeat. Labelling horsemeat as beef or lamb is fraud; it is nothing to do with whether the customer has the choice.
If we are looking at labelling to stop cruelty, I am afraid that most abattoirs are really cruel. They try their best, but the electricity method of killing animals—mainly chickens—very often fails. The bolt system fails and they have to do it again. If we are labelling, can we just bear in mind that it should be labelling not specifically with regard to stunning and pre-stunning but for all forms of slaughter?
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support the aims of Amendment 256 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which was spoken to by so many noble Lords. I share the desire to ensure that our current food and animal product standards are not debased by our leaving the EU. I believe the Minister, who is one of our most outstanding and popular Ministers, may also have some sympathy with its intentions. I hope he will express that later.
However, my main remarks relate to Amendments 254 and 258. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I refer in particular to the animal slaughter elements of those amendments and express my view that these elements—although perhaps well intentioned —could be damaging to the agriculture sector and, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, they are not generally desired by consumers.
I declare an interest as an observant Jew. Great care needs to be taken with labelling about animal slaughter. In my view, further regulation is unnecessary. All kosher meat is labelled as such. The UK religious Jewish authorities have always fully supported the idea that consumers have every right to know what they are eating, but I believe it is also important to make a distinction between even-handed, non-discriminatory labelling and proposals that may mislead consumers with a false impression that animals killed in one way or another will somehow not experience discomfort or that there is a readily agreed hierarchical structure for assessing the feelings of animals about to be killed.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, I, too, address myself to Amendments 254 and 258 and the issue of slaughter. Across the animal world, killing is done in ways that we do not like to think about. These amendments are a deliberate targeting of methods of slaughter of meat in the expectation that the consumer will read the label, understand it and be affected by it. No doubt there would be a campaign to persuade consumers not to buy certain products if regulations were made under these amendments. I want to draw attention to the selectivity in them.
This is a country in which fishing is a national pastime. It has recently been reported that even fish that are approved by eco-labelling schemes and sold in leading supermarkets have lived in grossly overcrowded cages and died slowly and painfully. Wild-caught fish are gutted or have their gills cut while fully conscious. Farmed fish are starved for a fortnight before they are killed. I have never understood how a kind person who enjoys fishing for himself can leave the fish to suffocate on the ground next to him. Trillions of fish not covered by these amendments suffer globally as a result of these methods of slaughter. In the UK, we shoot stags and pheasants for pleasure. Rabbits are killed for food by decapitation, breaking the neck and blows to the head. Millions of lobsters are killed every year by being semi- frozen and then thrown into boiling water, where they are left to thrash around for several minutes. Secret videos of horrors within UK slaughterhouses abound.
No doubt we will be told that stunning is humane and that non-stunning is not, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has pointed out, it does not always work. Poultry slaughter is highly mechanised for speed rather than for the minimising of suffering, and it frequently goes wrong. According to the European Food Safety Authority, 180 million chickens and other poultry were killed in the most recent count using an insufficient electric charge. According to Compassion in World Farming, 1 billion chickens are ineffectively stunned in the EU each year, and millions of pigs that are stunned before slaughter with CO2 gas suffer.
My point is that our concerns should extend to all; they should not be crudely divided into stunning and non-stunning. The kosher requirement in this country is so tiny it is likely that many times more cattle were inadequately stunned, and therefore suffered, than were non-stunned and killed according to the kosher method. Consumers have every right to know what they are eating, but there should be honest, non-discriminatory labelling which should not deceive the consumer or insult faith communities. If you wanted to be comprehensive, every chicken leg would have to have a little booklet attached to it.
The European Commission’s Study on Information to Consumers on the Stunning of Animals in 2016 concluded that:
“for most consumers information on pre-slaughter stunning is not an important issue unless brought to their attention. However, this is an issue for a certain proportion of motivated consumers. It is by no means clear that consumers would actually act on this information if it were to be available.”
Its clear conclusion was that there is little accurate consumer understanding of the slaughter process. Kosher and halal meat is already labelled, so it is difficult to see a need for any further labelling. What then is the purpose of these amendments, in so far as they affect slaughter, because they are selective and pejorative in effect? They do not promote honest labelling, and they should be opposed.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, Amendment 247, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, seems sensible and I applaud his attention to economic conditions and to the expectations of consumers, as specified in the common market organisation regulation. I support his purpose, that regulations are only brought in for legitimate purposes.
I sympathise with my noble friend Lord Lucas in his Amendment 249, which seeks to explore the reasons why live poultry, poultry meat and spreadable fats are excluded from subsection (2)(j).
I am sympathetic, to a point, towards the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which seek to increase the amount of information available to consumers by labelling and QR codes, but I expect that my noble friend will not want to go beyond what is proportionate and justified in terms of cost. For that reason, I prefer Amendment 258, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, which is the right way forward to deal with the animal welfare concerns which are often, misleadingly, confused with food standards.
I trust that the Minister will reject Amendment 256, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which would bind the UK to dynamic alignment with EU animal health, hygiene or welfare standards over which, even in this current implementation period, we have no influence whatever. As my noble friend knows, she and I are on opposite sides on EU alignment. I point out that these standards are not necessarily higher or lower—they are multidimensional. Her perceptions of standards do not take sufficient account of equivalence of outcomes.
Besides, we need to take up the opportunity that Brexit offers to improve our domestic regulatory environment. At present, the playing field for British cattle and sheep farmers is very uneven. Their French competitors receive €1 billion of voluntary coupled support payments every year. In the UK, the equivalent is a mere €39 million available to Scottish crofters. The threat to British beef is highly subsidised French and Irish beef, not American beef. Amendment 256 would make it much more difficult for the UK to enter into a good free trade agreement with the US and other third countries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is a tireless campaigner for higher animal welfare standards. However, Amendment 266 in her name would directly conflict with the aim of Clause 40, which is to ensure that the UK, exercising its rights as an independent member of the WTO for the first time since 1973, must be compliant with the Agreement on Agriculture. The UK now has a chance to establish itself as a global campaigner for free trade and it is important not to deny British farmers the opportunity to export high-quality products to markets such as the US, Australia and New Zealand. Does the Minister agree that the amendment would put the UK in violation of WTO rules in these and other areas where we do not have an EU protected sector, such as olive oil?
Almost 50 countries have made a submission complaining about the EU’s SPS rules, including many poor, developing countries as well as the major agricultural exporting countries. Those who argue that the UK should maintain its illogical ban on the import of chlorinated or even peracetic acid-rinsed chicken should answer three questions. First, would they not think it a good idea if the incidence of campylobacter in the UK could be lowered to the average level of occurrence in the US, a little over one-fifth of the level here? Secondly, are they aware that the American maximum stocking density for poultry, as my noble friend Lord Lilley explained, is broadly equivalent to our own? Thirdly, are they aware that the UK imports chicken from Poland —an EU member state—Thailand and Brazil, in all of which poultry stocking densities are higher than those found in the US or the UK?
Finally, I turn to Amendment 263, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, which requires the Government to seek an agreement for the continued protection of UK speciality food and drink products. The Government announced in February last year that they will set up their own geographical indications scheme in fulfilment of our WTO obligations. Does my noble friend think this amendment would help him achieve his objectives?
Baroness Northover [V]
My Lords, this group of amendments covers a wide range of areas that relate to standards, labelling and speciality foods, and to how the market will operate after transition, not least in the different parts of the United Kingdom. There are some very important amendments here.
This section of the Bill is full of words such as “may”, not “must”, and in some places noble Lords are seeking to rectify this. This is extremely important if we are to maintain the standards that the Minister says we will have now that we have left the EU and will not compromise to do trade deals.
Amendment 236A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, the first amendment here, is slightly different from others in this group, most of which seek to maintain standards. The noble Baroness is seeking to move standards forward to address climate change. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in Amendment 253A also takes up climate change issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, wishes to ensure in Amendment 247 that reasons for regulations should be, as now in the EU, clearly defined as necessary—as one would certainly hope they would be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, was commendably brief, emphasising the importance of labelling for full transparency and proposing smart labelling, animal welfare and traceability. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, adds wine in his Amendment 253.
Crucial in this group is Amendment 254 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. Here they have scooped up key points in this permissive section to make it into a provision which says that Ministers “must” take action. So much in this Bill is permissive and does not specify what “must” happen. They seek to specify here that origin, transportation and method of slaughter should be transparent to consumers, but I note that my noble friend Lord Palmer and the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Deech, are concerned about this.
Then there are the amendments ranged around the country. Amendment 255 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Bruce, would ensure that the Secretary of State consults the devolved Administrations and other bodies on regulations relating to marketing standards and the nature of the potential internal market in the UK. Amendment 263A from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also explores the balance in devolution and the risks of trade deals agreed by the UK Government which might be unacceptable and destructive, for example in Wales, damaging the union itself. The Minister was going back to think about devolution. He will need to examine this as well.
Lord Grantchester
I thank all noble Lords for their amendments in this group on marketing standards. The large number of amendments reflects many thoughtful contributions around the scope of the provisions in Part 5, Clauses 35 to 37. As previously, I declare my agricultural interests as recorded on the register. I congratulate my previous colleague and noble friend Lady Worthington on leading the group with her late amendment, Amendment 236A, on a consultation regarding the climate change impacts of agriculture. It is forward-looking and under proposed subsection (a), agriculture needs to be aware of its emissions if it is to become subject to a carbon levy on greenhouse gas emissions. However, a lot of analysis needs to be provided beforehand.
Agriculture takes its responsibilities seriously. As a member of the Tesco supply group, my carbon footprint of business operations is measured and assessed annually. I was happy to encourage and explore how accurate measurements from the initial development of the Dairy Roadmap many years ago could tackle this challenge. However, it will take many years of analysis to fully understand what is happening behind the statistics and how robust they may be. It is easy to overemphasise the role of agriculture in climate change, but that does not lessen the recognition of the need for agriculture to play its part in reaching net zero by 2050, mitigate its carbon footprint in its energy use and mitigate GHG emissions from the livestock sector with innovative schemes to redirect them to more positive outcomes.
Similarly importantly, agriculture can fulfil the desire to mitigate climate change through payments for schemes to reduce other industries’ and general impacts, as well as providing carbon sinks and upland water storage to reduce flood risk. The noble Baroness also makes a good point in the last aspect of her amendment, concerning drawing attention to the effect of food purchases from overseas and the need to recognise the impacts of their agricultural systems and production methods.
The noble Baroness’s amendment is echoed by Amendment 253A in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This amendment and Amendments 248, 250, 254 and 258 concern labelling and providing information to the consumer. Matching on a label the food contained within with an accurate description that does not mislead the consumer is heavily prescribed in legislation. Consumers are arguably the most well informed about food that they have ever been.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on their Amendment 250, which suggested the use of quick-response QR codes as a way of supplementing physical labelling with additional digital content. This is perhaps something that Defra could look at as a way of bringing in the extra subject matter these amendments would provide to the consumer, be that carbon footprints, welfare standards, transportation methods, or methods of production and slaughter.
Traceability is already part of the food chain operations concerning livestock products. Labels are already challenged for space. On the regulatory side, it is important that we have clear rules that can continue to evolve as the information required becomes more sophisticated. To answer these demands fundamentally, altering existing requirements should proceed only on the basis of proper and widespread consultation with producers, the supply chain and the consumer to ensure an appropriate balance.
Consultations form the basis of Amendment 236A, as discussed, as well as Amendments 263A—in the name the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—and 255, to which my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch has added her name. The latter two are concerned with proper consultation with the devolved Administrations. I appreciate and thank the Minister for constantly reminding the House that his department has developed the Bill’s proposals in full consultation with the nations of the UK. However, we remain concerned about the quality of that dialogue. The areas of devolved competence also remain the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and were expressed by my noble friend Lady Wilcox of Newport in the debate on an earlier grouping of amendments concerning provisions with regard to Wales.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, asked questions about the operation of the internal market in food across the UK. Amendment 256 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, my noble friend Lady Henig and others is concerned that regulations and provisions may have the effect of lowering production standards below those already established in the EU and UK. We agree with this, and this is why we will be introducing amendments later to enshrine production standards in law around Amendment 271. The immediate priority is to ensure that the Government do not use their suite of delegated powers to water down the EU-derived provisions that consumers have demanded over so many years.
Amendment 247, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, seeks to enshrine the wording of the CMO regulation—EU Regulation 1308/2013—into the legislation. The Explanatory Note to the Bill signifies that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 does that. The pertinent EU Council regulations are listed. But may I ask the Minister whether food information to consumers directives—FICs—notably Regulation 1169/2011, on labelling, are included in the list provided, and therefore also covered by the withdrawal Act?
The list of EU Commission-delegated acts covers the various product sectors, including wine, the subject of Amendment 253, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I thank him for highlighting the importance of the wine trade. These Commission-delegated regulations under the withdrawal Act also include country of origin, protection of designation of origin, geographical indicators and traditional terms—the subject matter of Amendment 263, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. He and I had independently tabled similar amendments to the Trade Bill last year, when the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, confirmed the Government’s commitment to continue implementation of these PDO and PGI schemes.
Can the Minister reconfirm that, and also confirm that this will be a key part of the future trading relationship that the UK seeks with the EU? Producers in this country will be keen to understand whether this will be an agreement with the EU covering mutual recognition of brandings that will require only one application to apply in both the UK and the EU. The adding of value to local specialisms is a crucial element in encouraging niche products to be protected by branding IP. This encourages skills, pride and prestige in rural entrepreneurship.
Finally, I commend the diligence of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in her examination of Clause 32, inserting traceability of animal produce into the context of the devolved Administrations in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, in her Amendment 248. Cross-referencing to other pieces of legislation can be very confusing. I thank her also for Amendment 266, which returns us again to the key concern of animal welfare standards, this time under the WTO provisions of the Bill. Under WTO rules, this will be very difficult.
The noble Baroness’s Amendment 248 seems potentially to contradict the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his Amendment 249, concerning poultry. I await the Minister’s resolution of this, and his many responses to all the issues that have been mentioned under this group. I wish him good luck.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, what an interesting discussion we have had. I will start with Amendment 236A. We have already debated the topic of climate change extensively. Robust measures to address climate change are already in place through other legislation. The Government recognise the importance of reducing emissions. The clean growth strategy and the 25-year environment plan set out a range of specific commitments further to reduce emissions from agriculture, including through environmental land management, strengthening biosecurity, controlling endemic diseases in livestock and encouraging the use of low-emissions fertilisers. Defra is exploring a number of policy mechanisms to contribute to achieving net zero by 2050 from its sectors, including by reducing emissions from farming practices.
Clause 21 of the Environment Bill will also establish the Office for Environmental Protection, which will be responsible for matters relating to climate change where these are included in the environmental improvement plan—currently the 25-year environment plan—and in environmental law. The Government agree whole- heartedly with the aim of implementing a payment scheme for farmers and land managers, with an objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and sequestering carbon.
Turning to Amendment 247, Clause 35(1) has been drafted to provide more flexibility to update the marketing standards than the existing EU rules, which allow for amendments to be made only in prescribed circumstances, such as improving the economic conditions for the production, marketing and quality of agricultural products, taking into account the expectations of consumers.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call Lord Holmes of Richmond.
Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]
My Lords, I have two quick points for clarification, if I may. First, could the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box that GI schemes have not already been wittingly or unwittingly traded away in the EU deal? Secondly, on the VI-1 forms, it seemed to me that he was saying that we will not be looking to impose a VI-1 paper-based regime come 31 December. Is it right that we will not be seeking to have such a scheme when we leave?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I have been very clear that the Government are determined to work in support of all the 88 geographical indications from the UK, which will remain protected after the end of the transition period. I will have to let my noble friend know about VI-1 forms, but there is scope to replace them and that is covered under retained EU law. I am afraid I do not know the timing of that matter.
Baroness Worthington [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his characteristically thorough and detailed response, and for his patience despite the late hour. This has been a fantastically varied and wonderful debate from which I have learned a huge amount. I echo the words of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Mallalieu, that ultimately, although labelling is hugely important, consumers tend to purchase on price. When we think about how to tackle environmental standards and the huge risk of climate change, internalising a carbon price into this sector will unleash investment and help consumers to make the right choices. However, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, we now come to Amendment 257. I remind noble Lords that anybody wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 257
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“( ) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult anyone reasonably likely to be affected by the regulations and lay a report summarising the responses to that consultation before Parliament.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]
In moving this amendment, I remind the Committee again of my interest as chair of Assured Food Standards, commonly known as Red Tractor—a world-leading food chain assurance scheme used, in some form, by every major retailer and food service operator in the UK. It is owned by the entire food chain and allows the free flow of certified food and drink across the UK.
Part 5 of the Bill, particularly Clause 35 on marketing standards, is very important and wide-ranging, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said during discussion on the previous group. It permits the Government, with only the safeguard of an affirmative resolution procedure, to make regulations of a stunningly wide kind, from the definition of agricultural products, their labelling, packaging and claimed attributes, to the farming methods used. These are backed up by highly intrusive enforcement powers, such as powers of entry, inspection, seizure and monetary penalties. Clearly, much of this activity was previously regulated in Brussels. We need powers to operate in the new world beyond the carryover provisions in previous Brexit legislation.
However, as someone concerned with setting and improving standards, farm and factory inspection, and generating consumer awareness and support for British produce—we cover everything except eggs and fish, for historical reasons—I would like to hear much more from the Minister on his intentions. All assurance schemes, such as the RSPCA, Soil Association, LEAF and any devolved variants, have an interest in such plans. However, as the largest such scheme, assuring over £14 billion of British food and drink, and with regular inspections by UKAS-accredited bodies underpinning safety, traceability, animal welfare and environmental protection, we have the biggest interest.
We can also contribute most to future success directly and as agents of government bodies such as the Environment Agency. We can help to promote export success, and I know from operating around the world that, especially in Asia, certified standards are very important after decades of food safety problems in certain markets. We can be the flagship of British food and farming. Without EU country of origin labelling rules we can promote it better, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said among his wise words.
Some of this is in the realm of developing policy, and we all await the Dimbleby findings with great impatience. However, my amendment is designed to require a proper consultation process before new regulations are made on marketing standards, and a report to Parliament summarising the responses.
In his comments on the previous group, the Minister suggested that the requirement to consult arises in food law already and would bite here. That is helpful, but many of us, coming at these provisions from different angles, as we do, would like to see a provision here too, given the scale and breadth of the powers proposed, which could make or break many rural food or drink operators.
I would also like confirmation that impact assessments will be made and published on such draft regulations. This seemed to be the helpful response that the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay at Second Reading.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on moving this amendment. The Red Tractor has much to commend it; I expressed one or two reservations about it but I fully endorse the call for a consultation on the regulations. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look favourably on the amendment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, I spoke too soon about the fact that we may reach our target tonight, but we are nearly there. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, explained her reason for tabling her amendment, which is about assured schemes. They are extremely important in improving food standards but, as she said, this measure could make or break some small food companies.
I have looked at the amendment and where it comes in the Bill, and I find it unnecessarily restrictive. It is important that the Secretary of State should consult those likely to be affected by the regulations in Part 5 on marketing standards, organic products and carcass classifications, but there is a limit. In previous debates, we heard that the UK lags far behind other European Union states in the incidence of organic farming. Most supermarkets have sections where organic produce is properly labelled and displayed, enabling shoppers to make an informed choice. It is important that we promote organic food.
In her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, wants the Secretary of State to
“consult anyone reasonably likely to be affected by the regulations”.
I find “anyone reasonably likely to be affected” difficult. “Anyone” seems unreasonable. It is a catch-all that I am not sure can be delivered. I remember a case when a child regularly complained to a crisp manufacturer that he was not completely satisfied with the packet of crisps he had purchased. The packet stated that anyone “not completely satisfied” could have a replacement. The dialogue between this enterprising child and the manufacturer went on for some time until the manufacturer realised that it was dealing with a child and called a halt to it. I give this as an example of why we should be very careful about exactly what wording we have in Bill. The Secretary of State should consult but the question of with whom needs to be more tightly worded, otherwise he or she could consult the whole population.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport [V]
My Lords, we know that the vast majority of marketing regulations have been set by the EU in recent decades. As part of that process, there has been a healthy level of engagement with producers and consumers. The expertise on the subject demonstrated by noble Lords this evening is extremely incisive, as evidenced in the opening proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
In future, when we are outside the European Community, although the rules will be retained immediately after the end of the transition period, there will be scope for the United Kingdom to depart from that way of working either incrementally or wholesale. Whatever the scale of that change may be, it will be most important to understand what information consumers will want from producers and what the cost and bureaucracy of such requirements will be in the short, medium and longer term.
A Government would not change any other major areas of regulation without first consulting and before laying a summary report on responses before Parliament, so it is curious and somewhat remiss that no requirement to consult is built into the Bill as drafted. We therefore support Amendment 257.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her amendment. Before any changes are made to the marketing standards, stakeholder engagement and public consultation will need to take place. Any organisation which represents the interests of the UK agriculture industry will be given the opportunity to put forward their views.
I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, that marketing standards are covered by food law and a duty to consult is contained in Article 9 of Regulation 178/2002. This regulation will become retained EU law via the powers in the EU withdrawal Act. The regulation states:
“There shall be open and transparent public consultation, directly or through representative bodies, during the preparation, evaluation and revision of food law, except where the urgency of the matter does not allow it.”
It is the procedure that a summary of the responses to the consultation will be published on GOV.UK within 12 weeks of the consultation closing.
Any statutory instruments made using the power will also be accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum and a proportionate analysis or full regulatory impact assessment where net direct cost to business is above £5 million. The impact assessment will provide the rationale for government intervention, details of all the options considered and the expected costs and benefits, particularly for businesses. With that reassurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]
I thank noble Lords for their support in this short debate. I think that there is a general feeling that consultation on new rules and regulations is extremely important. The Minister has helpfully acknowledged that and pointed out that some provisions already exist that may give us most of what we want. I would like to study this, because the wording that he gave us suggested that it was consultation either generally or with representative bodies, and that where there was urgency there would not be consultation. Given the breadth and scale of the powers that we are talking about in this Bill—I focused on marketing standards, but it may go more broadly—we should return to the issue of what the right consultation provisions are. However, in view of the helpful comments that have been made and the lateness of the hour, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the other amendment to clause 37 in Lord Gardiner’s name.
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only make regulations under section 36 containing provision which could be made under that section by an authority referred to in subsection (1)(b) to (d) with the consent of that authority.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment secures that before making cross-border regulations under clause 36 that are also within the competence of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to make, the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the authority concerned.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We now come to the group of amendments beginning with Amendment 264. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 40: Power to make regulations for securing compliance with WTO Agreement on Agriculture: general
Amendment 264
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders when making regulations as specified.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock [V]
My Lords, I shall speak also to my other amendment in the group, Amendment 265. They both relate to Clause 40, which concerns powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations for securing compliance with the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. As presently drafted, there is no requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to consult any parties prior to making regulations under this clause. The amendment would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders if making such regulations.
As I and many others have highlighted in respect of this Bill—we have heard it earlier today and I have argued for it frequently in my parliamentary career in both Houses—it is important that we provide an additional layer of scrutiny of government action from the stakeholders who have a direct interest and relevant responsibility, and of course agriculture is devolved. Such a requirement to consult included in the regulations under this clause would help to ensure openness and transparency from government, and it might also provide exposure to critical comment from stakeholders which could improve the instrument.
Amendment 265 would remove powers in the Bill for the Secretary of State to confer and delegate functions. In the clause as it stands, it is not clear why it is necessary for the Secretary of State to have these powers. It is not clear to whom it is intended that such functions would be conferred or delegated, or who would require to exercise a discretion for what purpose. The provisions are therefore too vague. In addition, subsection (3)(c) seems to attempt to grant unlimited scope for exercise of this discretion. The amendment would remove these powers in the Bill to confer and delegate functions and to exercise discretion by removing subsection (3).
Lord Hain [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 269 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Wigley.
Brexit has returned significant powers to the UK Government to negotiate and agree international trade agreements with other nations. As a reserved power, it is the responsibility of the UK Government to represent the interests of the agriculture sectors throughout the UK, including those within the political boundaries of devolved Administrations.
To ensure that agriculture businesses in Wales have access to equal opportunities in relation to trade as counterparts in England, it is reasonable to assume that any devolved Administration, responsible as they are for their own agriculture policy, support and monitoring, would share any information necessary with the UK Government in relation to trade. Enabling, where reasonable, the sharing of information to support trade policy and enable the free flow of tradable commodities within and beyond the UK should surely be considered a common-sense matter.
Large areas of rural Wales are heavily dependent on the agriculture sector as their primary economic industry. The symbiosis of agriculture and trade should be a priority; these policy areas must work together to ease the short-term economic shock and longer-term adaptation to new markets that will arise from the UK’s new trading arrangements. It is not an area where political wrangling should overrule what is most beneficial to the people and livelihoods of those affected on the ground.
As food has become a global commodity, the UK does not have the land area to compete on a volume basis with larger developing nations where agricultural production is increasing year on year. However, due in no small part to the structure of the CAP, the agriculture sector in the UK, and Wales in particular, produces agricultural outputs at a commodity scale where the amount of land available would indicate that a focus on higher-quality outputs rather than quantity would be more beneficial.
Generally within the UK, but more specifically in Wales, where legislation such as the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act (2016) are steering the nation to deliver against sustainability goals, there is a growing and marketable evidence base around the value of the sustainable production of food products. This provides significant potential for agriculture producers in Wales not only to promote our current high standards for animal health and welfare but to move into the added value, niche world of “sustainable brand values”, with the potential that this brings to extend into new international markets. Such standards and brand values would demonstrate that a foodstuff grown in Wales was produced with all due consideration for its impact against every aspect of sustainable food production and the sustainable management of natural resources. Businesses in Wales are already starting to look at the potential such a USP could deliver.
To deliver a trade policy that complements Welsh farmers and food businesses, it is essential that the UK Government not only adheres to our existing high standards when negotiating trade deals involving agricultural produce but opens wider avenues for those within the UK whose ambition reaches beyond our current understanding of food standards, to open new and exciting markets. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will indicate the Government’s acceptance of the substance of this amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, on his Amendments 264 and 265, which I was delighted to sign. I endorse his sentiments and hope my noble friend will look favourably on his amendments, particularly Amendment 264, in much the same vein as I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s Amendment 257. I think it is essential there should be proper consultation with the relevant interested parties before regulations are adopted, as I will set out. For the same reason, I support Amendment 265, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I am sure my noble friend will agree that this is a genuine oversight and I hope she will look favourably at approving these or similar provisions before the Bill leaves the House. I also associate myself with Amendment 269, which is incredibly similar to the provisions in my Amendment 256, which was supported by other noble Lords: I would like to see the same apply in Wales as in England and other parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Wigley [V]
My Lords, it is a delight, even at this late hour of the night, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I very much agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and particularly, of course, with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on Amendment 269, which also carries my name.
There are many threats facing agriculture in Wales and in the other parts of the United Kingdom at this time, but there are also opportunities, and to grasp those opportunities to the full we have to build on the reality and the understanding of the standard of food we produce. Therefore, we need whatever co-operation mechanisms that have to be brought forward to ensure that agriculture in Wales, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, is working to that agenda, and that the world knows that we are working to that agenda, and that food and food products from Wales and the UK will be seen in that light, and equally that those food products coming into the UK from agricultural regimes that are of a lower standard will be seen as unacceptable.
This is relevant not only in terms of the food itself—the content and the way it is manufactured—but also in terms of the impact that the process has on the environment. That will be an increasing consideration in all parts of the world when people come to judge the products of these islands. The policies we have in Wales, putting an emphasis on the needs of future generations, is particularly relevant in this context, and this group of amendments gives the Government the opportunity to respond on this issue and to give some certainty as to how they see these important elements being safeguarded.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord and to agree with his remarks, and to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I support the need for consultation, for the good reasons outlined at the very beginning of today’s proceedings by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who is also taking part in this group.
Can the Minister clarify the status of the legislative consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament with regard to this part of the Bill? If he can give information about that, I would be grateful. Formal consultations are vital in this part of the Bill, given that the regulations made under this clause could have significant impacts on the design and implementation of support schemes in Wales and Scotland. What is the policy framework for the limits on the regulations?
The Government have said that the regulations are concerned with maintaining WTO compliance under the agriculture agreement; however, they can also allow for regulations made by a Minister serving in a capacity as an English Minister, but impacting Scottish and Welsh schemes for the benefit of English farmers. Given the need for a resolution of disputes between the appropriate authorities regarding the classification of domestic support, with the Secretary of State in effect acting as a final arbiter, clarification from the Minister on this point will be important.
As well as proposing individual limits on the amount of domestic support that may be given in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Government will set the effective aggregate ceiling, which is more in line with the relevant national budget, to meet the AMS ceiling under the agriculture agreement.
I understand that the EU has successfully transformed its agricultural support under the CAP from the amber box to the green box under the agreement. It has been argued that this change has not been challenged by other WTO members to date because of the scale of the EU. We may not necessarily have that in future as a stand- alone, individual country, so what is the Government’s policy intent? How will we engage in negotiations with other countries, which may take a different view from the one they took with regard to classification and interpretation while we were a member of the EU?
Given that this could be very relevant in our trade negotiations, can the Minister confirm that these regulations will not be used as part of any trade deal with the US? Given that the US has a more relaxed interpretation of the schemes under the WTO box classifications, there is not a level playing field between the UK and the US. That provides the US with a competitive advantage. We operate a number of quality schemes that it does not, but the US insists that the WTO agreement is the ceiling; we do not. Under its recent agreement with China on poultry, for example, neither country will go beyond what the WTO has agreed. We do not take that position. Will the Government allay some concerns and state that we would not reduce any of the support schemes with regard to the viability, standards and quality of our markets—not necessarily changing primary legislation but the support schemes that ensure our market is of the highest standard? I would like reassurances from the Minister in that regard.
The Minister is a sincere man. We have had these discussions during the Trade Bill and no doubt we will in September. He has said there will be no changes to primary legislation. When I asked the Trade Minister recently whether any trade agreements going forward—not continuity agreements but new trade agreements—will not change any of the support schemes or statutory instruments regarding standards, he could not give that assurance. I would be grateful if the Minister could allay my concerns and state that these regulations will not be used to make a meaningful change to any of the existing standards and qualities that the Americans might see as uncompetitive.
Lord Hope of Craighead [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 264, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. By a curious chance, I spoke to Amendment 267, a mirror image of this one, shortly before midnight on Tuesday evening. I do not need to repeat what I said then, because I am sure that the Minister knows very well the points that I wanted to make. The amendment moved this evening is almost exactly the same, except that in my case, instead of using the phrase, “the relevant stakeholders”, I set out who the relevant stakeholders were. For the reasons I mentioned at about this time two days ago, I absolutely support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on this amendment be adjourned.
Agriculture Bill
Tuesday 28th July 2020
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-VII Seventh marshalled list for Committee - (23 Jul 2020)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, albeit after several days’ rest from this marathon Committee stage. He has taught me a great deal in this House.
I am a supporter of the World Trade Organization and its predecessor, GATT. Trained as an economist, I know that trade brings great benefits in terms of world prosperity, as is convincingly explained by the theory of comparative advantage. This is particularly important when we face recession and the shock of the Covid pandemic affecting every corner of the globe. As noble Lords know, I am an advocate of well-informed consultation. However, we must have regard to WTO rules, and I doubt that these suggestions are compatible with them. The UK benefits greatly from the international order and enduring economic ties, especially in free trade. In closing, the Minister may want to comment on whether the amendments in this group could fall foul of WTO rules.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 264 and 265 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, relate to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. The noble Lord made the case for the Secretary of State to be required to consult with relevant stakeholders before making regulations for the purpose of securing compliance with the UK under the Agreement on Agriculture. As always, he set out his case with great clarity.
The second amendment removes the power from the Secretary of State to allow others to make the decision for him or her, or to delegate to others and any other person who might exercise discretion in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, does not believe that the reason for these powers is clear. There is no explanation of what they may be used for.
Amendment 269 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Wigley, would insert a new subsection at the end of Clause 42. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, set out so clearly, this supports delivery of Welsh animal and plant health, food safety and environmental standards, which should not have the effect of lowering these below EU standards. The noble Lord is concerned about the large areas of Wales that are heavily dependent on agriculture. Food standards are extremely important for sustainable food production. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said that there are opportunities for agriculture in Wales and that building on food standards will be important. The products in Wales stand up against produce from the rest of the world.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, supported these amendments—particularly Amendments 264 and 265 —and believes that this is a genuine oversight. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, also supported the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
My noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed feels that the regulations are concerned with WTO compliance. Is this compliance of Scottish and Welsh farmers for their benefit or for the benefit of English farmers? My noble friend had discussions with the Trade Minister about continuity agreements but did not get reassurance. Can the Minister confirm that these regulations will not be used in negotiations with the US? We seek that reassurance.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes for leading the debate on this group of amendments—relating to Part 6 and the WTO Agreement on Agriculture—by moving Amendment 264, to which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, added her name. As is customary on each day of the Committee’s deliberations, I declare my agricultural interests as recorded in the register.
The United Kingdom has been an independent member of the World Trade Organization, and was also a member as a member state of the EU, when it was one. On leaving the EU, the UK will continue to ensure that domestic support schemes are consistent with WTO rules. The Minister will correct me on this interpretation if needed.
The Bill’s Explanatory Notes remind me of the non-distortion trading requirements of green box designations and so on, which characterised the discussions on CAP reform of decoupled income support payments and environmental programmes many years ago. This will not be the issue at the WTO once the UK begins to “record”, if that is the correct terminology, the various trade deals that it seeks with other countries around the world. There will be many challenges over, for example, state aid provisions. As we know, the countries implicated in the various EU rollover deals that the UK seeks ratification of have already lodged objections with the WTO.
There are various angles to this, as other speakers referred to in our proceedings last week. First, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes explained, his amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders. That is necessary as agriculture and food are matters devolved to the other nations of the union. In Amendment 269, my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, are concerned about compliance and consistency with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, specifically with regard to the sustainable brand values of Wales.
In other parts of the Bill, we have expressed our concern at the quality of the Government’s discussions with the devolved Administrations and how that will translate into representations at the WTO. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, expressed this point in his remarks. Last Thursday—I remind noble Lords that this was at 10 minutes to midnight—he asked the Minister to clarify the status of the legislative consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament with regard to this part of the Bill. Regulations could have a significant impact on the design and implementation of support schemes in Scotland and Wales—by the way, no one has yet seen the full details of those schemes because the Government are yet to finalise them. By what mechanisms will the Secretary of State resolve any disputes that may arise with the devolved Administrations, such that he or she can fulfil the functions of Clause 40? Can the Minister confirm that any regulations made under the powers at Clause 40 will be only with the express agreement of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly by the affirmative resolution procedure, as in subsection (4)?
My noble friend Lord Foulkes also asked about subsection (3), which may have relevance in this respect. However, the power under Clause 40(3)(c) seems inexplicably wide and vague. I also have concerns about paragraph (c), which refers to provision for “a person”—unspecified—
“to exercise a discretion in dealing with any matter.”
No provision seems to have been given for any oversight or reporting publicly. Can the Minister explain what the Government have in mind in needing these powers?
The clause refers to the Secretary of State. It may be assumed that, as this is the Agriculture Bill and the responsibility of the Minister’s department, this will not be the Secretary of State for the trade department. Which Secretary of State will be responsible to Parliament on this matter? Where will the cross-over apply in relation to WTO engagement?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for contributing to this interesting debate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his amendment. I declare my farming interests, as set out in the register.
Part 6 of the Bill allows regulations to be made to ensure compliance with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. I should say immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that Defra and the Defra Secretary of State will be responsible for the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. To be clear, the Agreement on Agriculture is an international treaty that sets out a number of general rules and commitments on agriculture trade practices, as agreed by WTO members. These measures fall under three pillars, the domestic support pillar being the focus of Part 6. The regulations will set out procedures and arrangements to ensure that the UK as a whole complies with existing obligations under this international treaty.
We have a bilateral agreement in place with the Welsh Government on the making and operation of regulations under Part 6, and we have offered to extend this agreement to the Scottish Government and DAERA Ministers in Northern Ireland. In practice, we are already working very closely with officials from all Administrations on drafting regulations under these powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised it, I can report that good progress has been made and that officials from all four Administrations are working together to finalise a draft of the regulations. A concordat will shortly set out the detail of administrative arrangements and other routine matters, in order for these regulations to be in place for the end of the year.
Furthermore, my honourable friend the Farming Minister, Victoria Prentis, placed on record in the other place a commitment to consult with the devolved Administrations on the making of the regulations under Part 6. We have therefore already given strong assurances of our commitment to consult with the devolved Administrations on the making of regulations under these powers.
In reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I reiterate that the Government fully recognise the devolved status of agriculture. That is why Clause 40(1) makes it clear that regulations can be made only for the narrow purpose of ensuring WTO compliance, a function that is reserved to the UK Parliament. Consultation with the devolved Administrations in cases such as this is a matter of good practice, and is done regularly on many matters. While it is usual practice to place commitments to consult on the record, as we have done in this case, we certainly do not wish to signal that consultation with the devolved Administrations will be carried out only where there is a legislative requirement. Indeed—and I hope noble Lords will understand this and will have seen this—Defra has a strong record of consulting the devolved Administrations where appropriate.
Amendment 265 seeks to remove the part of the clause which will allow functions to be conferred or delegated by the Secretary of State, or provide for a person to exercise discretion in dealing with matters relating to Part 6. Again, this was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised. This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State delegating routine matters, such as the collection and collation of information related to support schemes for agriculture. It is quite proper that routine matters such as data gathering can be delegated to independent bodies. For example, certain data on farm subsidy payments is currently collected for all four Administrations by the UK Co-ordinating Body—an arrangement that works well for all parties. The intention of Clause 40(3) is to mirror existing arrangements as far as possible, to ensure a smooth and efficient process for all Administrations.
In our debate on these amendments on Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked about the policy framework for limits on the regulations. I can confirm that discussions have been held with the devolved Administrations outlining our intention to put in place limits which will enable them to maintain existing levels of agricultural support spending, if they wish to do so. Any impact on the design and implementation of schemes will therefore be limited to measures to ensure that schemes do not breach WTO obligations. The opening subsection makes it clear that the power can be used only for ensuring compliance with WTO rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also asked about the future classification of agricultural support. As an independent WTO member, the UK will continue to have the same rights and obligations as the EU under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, and will retain the same avenues for challenging disputes raised by other WTO members. It is of course important that we get classifications right to avoid any risk of challenge. That is why Clause 42(3) allows for provision to be made for a process for the appropriate authorities to decide how different types of domestic support should be classified.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also asked about the status of the LCM in the Scottish Parliament. In May, the Scottish Government recommended legislative consent for all provisions that apply to Scotland and that those we maintain are in scope of the Sewel convention, except subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 42, which have now been removed by Amendment 268, in my name. Defra Ministers have written to their counterparts to inform them of the changes. We await the view of the Scottish Parliament, which is currently in recess.
On Amendments 266 and 269, and in response to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, during Thursday’s consideration, Part 6 deals exclusively with ensuring UK compliance with the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, as laid out in Clause 40(1). None of the areas cited in Amendments 266 and 269, or raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed—including animal welfare, food labelling, animal health, hygiene standards, plant health standards, food safety and traceability for agricultural products, and environmental standards—are within scope of the Agreement on Agriculture. As such, it would not be possible for regulations on these amendments to be made under Part 6. In reply to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, my understanding is that the amendments are compatible with WTO matters. However, I hope that the pragmatic points I have raised on the amendments in this group assure her that the Government seek to ensure the very important compliance with the WTO rules.
I hope that, with the reassurances I have given, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s fulsome response, which is characteristic of him, as well as for the good news that the talks are progressing well. No doubt we will have an opportunity during the remaining stages of the Bill after the Recess to see how well they have gone.
I wanted to come back after the Minister. I hear what he said and we have heard, not only on this piece of legislation but previously on the Trade Bill—which we will come back to—Ministers saying from the Dispatch Box that they have good intentions of consultation with devolved Ministers. However, we have seen that they have had to apologise for not carrying out consultation, including on the continuity agreement on the Faroe Islands, which was so obviously an issue which linked with Scottish Ministers, and which was not carried out. That is why this House is right to continue to press this case.
I have two questions, which arise from the Minister’s full response. The first relates to the fact that the determination for these regulations will still be made by a UK department, which means, in effect, an English department. Are the Government closed to there being a distinct process, separate from a UK government department, which would look at WTO and state aid compliance? The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was correct to say that these issues are linked with state aid issues. I know there is an ongoing question as to whether this should be dealt with by a UK government department or a separate body that looks at compliance. Is the Government’s mind closed on that?
The second question relates to the WTO. As Clause 40(5) states, this is about compliance with
“’the Agreement on Agriculture’ … (as modified from time to time).”
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, indicated that there are live discussions at the moment, especially with those developing countries that seek both changes to the Agreement on Agriculture and potentially a new agriculture agreement. With regard to the Trade and Agriculture Commission which is launching today, can the Minister indicate whether, as part of its remit to report to the Government, it will consider the ongoing discussions at the WTO about either a successor to the Agreement on Agriculture part of the WTO agreement or significant modifications to it? If there are modifications to it, there will have to be a new set of regulations to ensure that the UK is also compliant.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I hope I have been very clear that we are dealing with a situation where ensuring WTO compliance is a function reserved not to the English Parliament but to the UK Parliament. I have also said, and demonstrated by the active discussions already ongoing within the four nations, that this is a matter on which we place great importance and on which we are working together. However, I emphasise that this is a function reserved to the UK Parliament. That will continue to be the case as we collaborate with the devolved Administrations. We have come to a bilateral agreement with the Welsh Government, and we await the Scottish Government and DAERA Ministers—our work has been successful and collaborative.
On any future development of the Agreement on Agriculture and the WTO agreement, we would all of course have to be mindful of what any such changes would be. At the moment, there are three distinct pillars of the Agreement on Agriculture, and I cannot crystal-ball-gaze as to what may happen in the future. The bottom line always is that the UK Government would have to be compliant and have to work to ensure compliance, as is their responsibility. The point that I have always made is that this is done, and should be done, working with all parts of the United Kingdom, so that this is of benefit to all parts of the United Kingdom. That is of course one of the strengths of having a United Kingdom.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, a great deal has happened since I moved this amendment at twenty minutes to midnight, last Thursday. I must say I am particularly glad that I did not try to spend the weekend in Spain, so here I am in Edinburgh, able to respond to the points that have been made during the debate.
There has been one very encouraging development over the weekend. I have been approached by the special adviser to the rural affairs Cabinet Secretary in the Scottish Government, seeking to work closely with us in considering amendments in Committee and on Report. This is a very good development. I pointed out that the Minister earlier on Thursday did say that he would talk with his colleagues about further meetings with the various Governments between Committee and Report. I also pointed out that a number of Scottish Peers are interested in this Bill—my noble friend Lord McConnell, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and many others. If we as Back-Benchers co-operate and discuss things with the Scottish Government, that can only be of assistance in opening up agreements between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Governments. I am certainly willing to be very helpful and as co-operative as I can.
Since this is the last time I am speaking, I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy—he is unfailingly courteous to us all in these debates—and the Minister and shadow Ministers for their diligence. They have been really diligent during the course of this Committee. I also add my thanks to the Public Bill Office and the Government Whips’ Office, which have been really helpful to those of us who have moved amendments. In what is a new and difficult procedure for us all, they have really helped. I am sure other Members who have moved amendments will agree with me on that.
Having said all that, I look forward to returning on Report to the points I have raised during the discussion on this amendment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the specific power in clause 42(4) for the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or a Northern Ireland Department to provide information to the Secretary of State in connection with the Agreement on Agriculture. Clause 42(5), which relates to that power, is also omitted.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 270. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 270
“International Trade Standards Commission
(1) The Government must establish an International Trade Standards Commission within 12 months of the passing of this Act. (2) The International Trade Standards Commission must establish criteria for maintaining standards as high as or higher than standards applied within the United Kingdom at the time of import for agricultural goods imported under a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and any other state.(3) “Agricultural goods” under subsection (2) includes, but is not limited to, standards relating to—(a) animal welfare,(b) protection of the environment,(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and(d) plant health.(4) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 that contains provisions relating to the importation of agricultural and food products into the United Kingdom unless satisfied that the criteria established by the International Trade Standards Commission under subsection (2) have been met.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to open the group of amendments leading off with that in my name and to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for lending their support to this amendment.
It is very timely, as today we learned that the official launch of the new Trade and Agriculture Commission has taken place. We learned that the commission will report directly to the International Trade Secretary and will produce an advisory report at the end of its six months’ work. I congratulate my noble friend, his department and the Department for International Trade on recognising the wish for such a commission. I hope he will look kindly on the need for Amendment 270 and possibly some of the other amendments in this group.
A million people have signed up to say we would like to support our farmers. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, people care much more about where their food comes from and the standards to which it has been produced. In Amendment 270 I ask that the Government establish an international trade standards commission within 12 months of passing the Act. At the time I drafted and submitted this amendment, we did not think even in our wildest dreams that there would be such a commission, so obviously the name change is not reflected in this amendment.
My disappointment is that the trade commission is not permanent; its work will wind up after only six months. We were told at its official launch that it will function as an advisory board to the Department for International Trade and the Secretary. I make a plea that the advice and recommendations given by the international trade commission be as binding on the Government as those of the Migration Advisory Committee. We heard from our noble friend Lady Williams at the Second Reading of the immigration Bill that the Home Office follows the MAC’s recommendations very closely indeed. That is the sort of recommendation-following I would like to see from the new Trade and Agriculture Commission.
I believe that it should be permanent and that the model we should look to is that in other countries with which we seek trade agreements. For example, why not model it on the US International Trade Commission, which is independent, non-partisan and quasi-judicial? It is a federal agency fulfilling a range of trade-related mandates, providing analysis of international trade issues to the President and Congress and adjudicating on intellectual property and trade disputes. We could look to similar trade commissions that are also permanent and independent in New Zealand, Australia and other such authorities.
In proposed subsection (2) of Amendment 270, we say:
“The International Trade Standards Commission must establish criteria for maintaining standards as high as or higher than standards applied within the United Kingdom at the time of import for agricultural goods imported under a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and any other state.”
I congratulate and thank my noble friend the Minister, who confirmed on Thursday that Britain will not lower its high standards of animal health, welfare and environmental protection, but today I make a plea to my noble friend: we need fair competition and a level playing field. We need to give our farmers an assurance that they will not be undercut by imports of substandard farm produce and that their good husbandry will be recognised. It is good husbandry in particular that we should take cognisance of, rather than necessarily the processes.
A number of figures on stock density were bandied about on Thursday. I put it to the Committee that in the US—it is a matter of note—there are no federal laws on the control of stock density for pigs. In nine states, sow stalls are banned. In the remaining states, it is legally permissible to keep sows in stalls for the entire 16-week gestation period. Similarly, sow stalls are legally permitted in Brazil. I applaud the fact that in the UK we have a gold standard for stock density for pigs and that we currently have a relatively level playing field with our competitors in the European Union.
Proposed subsection (3) refers to:
“‘Agricultural goods’ under subsection (2)”,
which
“includes, but is not limited to, standards relating to … animal welfare … protection of the environment … food safety, hygiene and traceability, and … plant health.”
On a personal note, I will probably be accused of being protectionist. I am protectionist. I am protective of the chicken, the cattle and the lamb produced under potentially inhumane and intensive conditions that we would simply not tolerate in this country. Their production frequently bears no resemblance to ours, and those imports should not have any place against the produce we currently produce to our high standards in this country.
In proposed subsection (4), we go on to say:
“A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 that contains provisions relating to the importation of agricultural and food products into the United Kingdom unless satisfied that the criteria established by the International Trade Standards Commission”—
now the Trade and Agriculture Commission, obviously—
“under subsection (2) have been met.”
That encapsulates my wish that the commission will give binding advice and operate independently and that the advice will be followed by both the international trade and agriculture departments. At the moment, it appears that every time a press release is issued by the new commission it is issued from the department, and that does not demonstrate any act of independence whatever. I hope my noble friend’s department, Defra, and the Department for International Trade will look at this.
You cannot have a perverse situation whereby farmers continue to meet our high standards of trade, welfare and environmental protection, only to be undercut by potentially substandard imports from third countries. I have a question for my noble friend. I understand that we have probably left the expert trade in agriculture group, which meets fortnightly under the auspices of the EU Commission. What will replace it? I hope the replacement will be the new Trade and Agriculture Commission but if not, which body will hold the Government’s feet to the fire as they set out the detail and criteria that will be followed in negotiating international trade agreements? In my view, the Trade and Agriculture Commission will be the best place to do so but should have sight of trade texts and provide detailed feedback, which is why Amendment 270 is so badly needed. If the commission is to wind up after six months, that is not satisfactory.
I will comment briefly on two of the other amendments in this group. Amendment 271, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and other noble Lords, is well thought out, but my concern is that it does not set out the role of the international trade commission or who would draft criteria against which the international trade agreements being concluded would be measured. Subsection (5)(b) of Amendment 271 just refers to a take-note report submitted, presumably, to both Houses. I believe that there should be full scrutiny through the normal means of Select Committees, assuming that the trade commission will be a permanent body.
Amendment 279 again has been well thought out and is commendable, but I believe it is fatally flawed. Having read it, I wait with great anticipation to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Curry, says. It is not satisfactory that the report will have been submitted but we cannot revert to the Trade and Agriculture Commission because it will already have been wound up by then.
In summary, we must not have a credibility gap. I am enthusiastic about the launch of the Trade and Agriculture Commission today, but it must be allowed to do its duty. It must be a permanent body and accountable to the relevant bodies, particularly Select Committees of both Houses. It should have comprehensive terms of reference, which include current and future trade talks. Its recommendations should be mandatory, in the same way as those of the Migration Advisory Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester
If there is one strong theme running through many of the amendments, it is that of standards. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have raised concerns, whether on animal health and welfare, on husbandry methods in agriculture and horticulture, on environmental and climate aspects, on food, nutrition and labelling the final product, or on intra-UK relationships and international aspects at the WTO. They are all important, because they all matter.
This country has decided. The answer is that the UK wants to bring back control, so that decisions are made at UK level. This group of amendments determines how our standards will be set, at the outset of our EU exit, and how they will be maintained.
I shall speak to Amendment 271, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Bakewell, for adding their names in support. This amendment is needed, as the Agriculture Bill is a domestic measure setting a new approach to food production support by setting new domestic standards in law. That includes all present laws and regulations that pertain in the UK. All food, wherever it comes from, must adhere to this basic threshold. It is important that domestic agricultural production is on a level playing field with all production of food available and sold to UK consumers. Let us be clear: these are food production standards, not just food safety standards. British consumers have constantly demanded high production standards even, at times, in excess of standards within the EU.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, here we are on day seven of four—Douglas Adams would be proud of us. But seven days in Committee, for a Bill of this importance and relevance, with the huge impact it will have, is not particularly long.
My Amendment 273, which is supported by the noble Lords, Lord Randall, Lord Greaves and Lord Addington, for which I thank them, is relatively simple. It would simply ensure that UK standards regarding food safety, the environment and animal welfare cannot be undermined by imports produced to lower standards. That seems self-evident to me. In fact, this group of amendments is one of the most significant in the whole Bill, because it is the one area that is strongly supported by the public. It is a fact that the Government have managed to ensure that there is an opposition of green groups, farmers, NGOs, producers, supermarkets—a whole mix of people who would not usually share a particular view. If the Government tried to ignore this issue, I hope there would be a Back-Bench revolt, because it is incredibly important.
There is huge recognition out there that trade deals are a threat to standards. We need protections in law to ensure that these standards are not undermined. The US Secretary of Agriculture has described our environmental and animal welfare standards as protectionism which should be removed in a trade deal. Well, I am with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on this: I want to protect. That is a very good word and we should all be proud of and want to use it on issues that the majority of Britons really care about. I am terrified that our Government, desperate for the political victory of securing a US trade deal, will give in to the Americans on this issue. It is not just the United States, of course. What about future dealings with, for example, Brazil, which burns huge swathes of the Amazon rainforest to make way for cattle pastures? Trade policy is a huge tool for international diplomacy. Your Lordships must be able to trust the Government to make the right decisions when they make these deals.
The merits of these amendments aside, we will have to have this same fight again on the Trade Bill. The Minister might even say that the Trade Bill is the proper place to discuss these issues. But one has only to read Hansard on the Trade Bill in the other place from last week to see that Ministers told MPs that the Agriculture Bill had dealt with all these issues and that MPs had nothing more to worry about. It is normally considered out of order to refer to proceedings in the other place, but it is very important when the Government simultaneously tell each House the opposite thing. That is exceptional and needs drawing to your Lordships’ attention.
I hope the Minister will commit to working constructively to bring forward an amendment on these issues on Report. I am certain that we will pass one of these amendments, and it might as well be one that the Government can accept. We will pull together on this, along with the British public, to make sure we protect our farmers, our farming regimes, our standards on animal welfare and the way our food is produced.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said about public interest in this particular issue. I also follow my noble friend Lord Foulkes in thanking the Minister, the public Bill staff, the Government Whips and the broadcast facility staff for their marathon effort and courtesy.
My Amendment 276 would require new international treaties on the import of agricultural and food products to comply with World Trade Organization safety rules and the UK’s own standards. It was first proposed by the chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, the Conservative MP Neil Parish, and is backed by the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers’ Union, the RSPCA, the Wildlife Trusts, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Soil Association and the World Wide Fund for Nature. It reflects a lack of trust that we can rely on the Conservative Party manifesto, which promised:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
Sadly, the amendment was voted down by government loyalists in the other place. We note that whenever Ministers have been challenged in debates on the Bill to back up this pledge with legal protections, all that has been offered have been vague aspirational murmurings. I hope I do not give any offence to the Minister, who is diligent on these matters, but that is the truth.
The legal protections that European Union membership provided in these and many other areas, including agricultural workers’ rights and targets for reaching net-zero emissions for the agriculture industry, are nowhere to be found in the Bill. It has become clear that the Government regard such protections for our farmers and the environment as a barrier to a trade deal with the United States. So desperate are the Brexiteers to declare UDI from the EU that they are prepared to prostrate themselves at the door of Donald Trump’s “America first” trade and sell out our farmers, while turning a blind eye to environmental degradation and poor animal welfare standards abroad.
Now we are no longer part of a major trading bloc —the biggest trading bloc in the world—the Brexiteers’ sacred cow of sovereignty will not prevent Washington using its superior economic weight to set the terms of any deal with an isolated United Kingdom. British farmers and our food processors would be undercut by imports of food whose production is banned here. Of course, cheap, poorer-quality US food imports will remain cheap only as long as our domestic production proves viable enough to provide a meaningful competitive market. Farmers would face a choice between lowering standards and seeing their livelihoods destroyed. Minette Batters of the National Farmers’ Union has said:
“Farmers are going to feel betrayed … I don’t recall anyone selling a vision of post-Brexit Britain as one involving lower-standard food filling shop shelves while British farmers … go out of business.”
If UK agriculture cannot survive, prices of imports will rise, leaving the country dependent on imported food of dubious quality.
Lowering UK standards will, in turn, create barriers to agreeing a trade deal with the European Union, which is needed to preserve farmers’ important EU export markets, since US food standards are incompatible with those of the EU. Europe is not only the most significant destination by far for our agricultural exports; in addition, the EU has negotiated international trade agreements on our behalf with our most important non-EU trading partners, so replacement deals will also have to be negotiated to ensure continued agricultural access to those markets. The EU is also our largest source of food imports, providing fully 30% of our food supplies, so more empty shelves could be in store.
Even before the Brexit decision was made, UK farming already faced major challenges, including increasing globalisation, international competition, changing consumer expectations and preferences, accelerating technological innovation, and longer-term pressures brought about by climate change. As everyone knows, farmers are subject to price volatility and market pressures that continue to put their livelihoods at risk. The added uncertainty of future trade deals with the EU puts their future export markets at risk. The EU provides a vital destination for UK food exports, with the Irish Republic, France, Germany and the Netherlands being the principal markets.
A trade deal with the US would also threaten the National Health Service and would be imposed without consent. The Trade Bill, which had its First Reading in your Lordships’ House last week, makes no provision for parliamentary scrutiny of future trade deals and will grant the Government Henry VIII powers to change the law on trade agreements without parliamentary approval. The devolved Administrations do not have any role in negotiating or approving international trade treaties.
Rather than taking back control, the UK could even become a satellite state of Donald Trump’s US in a race to the bottom. That is the reality of these harmful plans for a hard Brexit, which threatens not just our food producers but animal welfare and the environment. The pandemic has shown the importance of food security, a healthy diet and a harmonious relationship with nature. These plans need to be opposed before it is too late.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and other noble Lords for their perseverance. The Minister has been granted the patience of Job. I fear that his patience may be frayed when we reach Report, but we thank him, the Public Bill Office and others for their enormous work in this marathon.
I will speak to Amendment 278 in my name, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for lending his name to it. It is clear from this group of amendments that an underlying fear exists. I want to see trade deals with third-party countries, but on the basis of helping the United Kingdom grow its economy and be more efficient, not of undermining significant parts of our industry. Over the last 40-odd years, the Government, consumer bodies, processors, retailers and farmers have expended an enormous amount of time, energy and money ensuring that UK food is produced to the highest standards possible. Why we would suddenly allow very inferior food products produced to a much lesser quality and standard into the United Kingdom to compete against our own superior goods I do not know, but it is possible.
I thank the Minister for arranging a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and others, so that we can at least hear his point of view, and that of the Department for International Trade, but there are too many straws in the wind that concern me. We hear talk of tariffs being applied to imported products, whether from the US or elsewhere, to level the pitch, but what is introduced one day can be taken away the next. The Minister must understand that not all parts of the United Kingdom are playing on the same level pitch. My part of the country is still in the EU and, pertaining to the previous group of amendments, we are still subject to state aid rules. Who will negotiate and implement those, and who will deal with any infringement of those? It is unclear. From our point of view—this has resonance for other parts of the UK—the standards we will be required to adhere to will be the standards of the European Union. There is nothing wrong with having different standards, provided there is an equivalence, and that can apply also to finance and other things, but who is to determine the equivalence?
This goes back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, when she introduced this debate. A flash-in-the-pan commission will certainly not be able to do it. With no disrespect to the Minister and his colleagues, last October, when the withdrawal agreement was being made, promises were made about the arrangements not only to people in Northern Ireland but to the whole country. Those promises were not kept. Many of our representatives ended up endorsing a proposal that produced a border in the Irish Sea, and yet there continues to be a denial of this. Lest someone from the Box sends the Minister a note telling him that Northern Ireland will have unfettered access to the UK market, I point out that this is not guaranteed, because it is subject to negotiation with the European Union, which at present could require us to make export declarations if we are sending products to Great Britain. The Minister needs to bear that in mind.
We do not want to make life difficult for our international trade negotiators, but if a situation arose whereby our farmers were confronted with different and lower standards in Great Britain, then because Great Britain is our biggest single market, automatically our farmers would be uncompetitive, and that would apply also to those operating in less favoured areas, such as the Scottish and the Welsh. This is a very serious business that we are discussing. I know that the Minister will be anxious to reassure us, and I have absolutely no doubt that he is sincere in that undertaking, but between 2 October and 17 October last year, I saw black become white. Therefore, he cannot allow an undertaking to be sufficient. It must have a basis in law, and this Bill, since we are discussing agriculture, seems a logical place to put it.
Someone who has been in the system for a long time knows that when an amendment comes, it can be argued that “Now is not the right time, we are in the middle of negotiations” or “This is not the right vehicle because we have another vehicle coming down the track which would be a more suitable location for it.” We can deal only with the vehicle that is in front of us at any point in time. What might come around the corner is fine, but if there is a sincere commitment to maintaining current or equivalent standards, it should have no difficulty being written on to the face of the Bill. Consumers and producers throughout the United Kingdom are basically supportive of that. Were it our tradition in this House to vote on amendments in Committee, I would pursue that today, but another opportunity will arise on Report in the autumn. I urge the Minister to ensure that there is a positive response then.
Some of us find ourselves left in the EU and required by an international treaty, supported by the UK Government, to adhere to EU regulations, even though we will have no input on them, which is another matter. There is so much at stake here, and we believe that maintaining our standards is good for the health of our nation, our producers and our food security and supply, and for allowing the sector to reinvest and be efficient. However, if we decide, for whatever political reason, to cut and run, which could happen, and since decisions can be made overnight, as we have seen in recent months, we need some legal assurances that we are not going to be left in such a position in the future.
I appeal to my noble friend the Minister to ensure that when we come to Report, he and his colleagues consider the widespread views in this House and ensure that our agriculture sector, food processing and all the welfare issues that have been addressed are not forgotten about, and accept that a nod and a wink will simply not be sufficient.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. It is a huge privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I appreciate the comments of all the previous speakers on this group of amendments.
I will speak to Amendment 279 in my name, and thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his support. I apologise in advance for taking slightly longer in introducing this amendment. It is impossible and would be quite wrong to run groupings of amendments in order of importance, but this group is among the most important we have debated over the seven days that we have spent on the Bill this month.
While having my long-awaited haircut last week, the hairdresser asked, “Are you involved in this chlorinated chicken issue?”, as it has become known, such is the level of public awareness. I am slightly concerned about being accused of jingoism in this wide-ranging debate about our production standards. Having farmed all my life, I know that our production standards are not always perfect. However, over the past 35 years that I have been involved at national level, we have striven to respond to consumer concerns, and even anticipate changes, and react accordingly. This is a dynamic space, and the standards of crop and livestock husbandry, including animal welfare, food safety and care for the environment, that we have in place today have been hard-won and are being delivered every day on our farms.
Standards are reviewed every year to make sure that they are relevant and appropriate. We absolutely must not undermine consumer confidence in our food. I experienced the consequences of that in the 1990s with BSE in beef when I chaired the MLC: beef sales dropped by 30% overnight. Scaremongering over hormones in imported beef could have a similar impact.
It is important to state that I had been working on this amendment and had it ready to table before the Secretary of State for International Trade, Liz Truss, announced the establishment of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which has been launched today. Subsequently, the membership was also disclosed. I then found myself in a slight quandary. Do I table the amendment or not in view of the announcement? After careful consideration, I decided to proceed with the amendment for reasons that I will outline in a moment.
I was delighted by the announcement that the Government plan to establish the commission and I commend the Government for taking action. It was a pragmatic and sensible response to the rising tide of public concern about this issue. The appointment of Tim Smith as chair of the commission is an inspired choice. I know him well, as I do many other members of the commission. I am absolutely confident that, under Tim’s leadership, the commission will be thorough, will carry out its task with diligence and integrity and will seek additional expertise and advice if needed, which it will be, to ensure a good understanding not only of the issues at stake but the global marketplace that we are trading in and stakeholder views, in particular those of the environmental NGOs and consumer organisations. So I welcome this commission.
I have three fundamental concerns, hence my reason for deciding to proceed with this amendment. The first is the authority and influence of the commission. The second, linked to the first, is the role of Parliament and the obligation on the Government to respond to the commission’s initial report. My final concern is the longevity of the commission. There is no question that when the Secretary of State announced the establishment of this commission, it was an attempt to head off pressure to include a standards clause in the Bill. Much public comment since the announcement has described this as a sop and described the commission as toothless. This must not be a sop. The role of the commission is hugely important. It has a critical role, not only in defending our existing domestic standards but, importantly, in influencing future global standards of international trade. The current terms of reference understate the importance of the role and the influence of the commission.
Under the current terms, the commission will set up for six months and will submit an advisory report to the Secretary of State, which will be presented to Parliament. It will then be disbanded and disappear into the mist. There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to take its recommendations seriously or respond positively, and no clear indication that Parliament will be given dedicated time to scrutinise and debate the recommendations of the commission. The amendment addresses that weakness.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, my Amendment 280 is in this group, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for his support. It is slightly different from the groups of amendments that we have already heard about, although I support most of the comments made in support of those amendments.
The specifics of this amendment relate to the lamb and beef sectors, which potentially face an existential threat in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The amendment therefore calls on the Government in that event to produce a report for Parliament to deliver their analysis of the impact on the lamb and beef sectors within three months of no deal having happened.
The situation for cattle and sheep farmers in the event of no deal, or indeed a hard Brexit, is unclear and complicated. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board has produced a series of reports outlining the challenges facing these key livestock sectors, which are crucial to the uplands of England and pretty well the whole of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
According to ADHB, around 82% of beef exports and possibly more, amounting to £400 million to £500 million a year, goes to the EU, while 89% of lamb exports, worth more than £400 million a year, also goes to the EU. That is not only crucial to the profitability of UK livestock farms, but disruption could dramatically upset the supply and demand balance in the domestic market. There is also a significant export market in live calves and lambs for finishing, which contributes to the viability of many farms.
In the weeks after the referendum result, I was informed that in some livestock markets, lamb sales for export fell by 80%. Although demand recovered, because by definition there was no alternative source to be found at short notice, it gives an indication of how things will change. Of course, in the meantime, EU importers have had a chance to plan.
In the event of no deal, tariffs will be imposed at levels which could make the trade uneconomic. The tariff on a beef carcass is 92% and on a lamb carcass it is 45%. Not only that, there are additional tariffs on cuts which can add up to over 100%—more than the cost of the cut itself. In addition, even if we secure a tariff-free agreement, all meat products entering the EU from third countries, which will be us, have to be veterinary approved to EU standards and inspected at the point of entry. Without such approval, we will be banned from exporting lamb and beef to the EU altogether. Will the UK be able to secure EU-approved health certificates by 31 December? How will the need for border inspection affect costs? Despite assurances to the contrary, we know there will be a massive increase in bureaucracy even with a deal. The government website is advising people to prepare for this by hiring a customs agent or taking on extra staff.
The European Affairs Committee of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, of which I am a member, looked at the Brexit arrangements being put in place by the Port of Dublin at a cost of more than €30 million. They involved substantial changes to the port layout to provide time and space for inspection plus back-up lorry parks off-site to manage the flow through the port. At the moment, a beef sandwich for sale in Marks & Spencer Dublin is shipped in from Liverpool. How will that have to change in the event of a hard Brexit? How will cross-border movements be managed? It will surely depend on trust, and the refusal of the UK Government to allow the European Commission to have an office in Belfast does not bode well. The unique arrangement of the Irish protocol, and the need for cross-border movement of beef and lamb, can work only if the origins of the products are clear and transparent.
Prices of beef and lamb may fall, which may seem to be to the benefit of the British consumer in the short run. However, if there is a large-scale welfare cull by farmers unable to feed the animals with no market in prospect, much of the stock may never reach the shelves. In any case, in that situation the UK lacks the cold storage to absorb a mass cull on this unprecedented scale. At the same time, if it sees the rearing of sheep and cattle undermined and bankrupt farmers—some of them will be bankrupt in these circumstances—leaving the sector, it could lead to future shortages and a radical change in the landscape, especially of our uplands. To prevent that happening will require rapid and substantial government intervention.
It is argued that we can find new markets, but in a fiercely competitive international marketplace we will not be able to replace the volume and value of the EU market any time soon. On day one, we lose the trade deals in place for the EU, with in most cases no successor deal in play or in short or even medium-term prospect. In any case, what is the cost and environmental logic of shipping meat across the world instead of to our neighbours? I know New Zealand does it, but on a radically different agricultural regime which we cannot match. For UK farmers, it may not even be profitable. If we leave the transition without a deal, the disruption will be immediate and catastrophic. We will not have significant alternative trade deal markets. The likelihood of any deal with the USA by then is nil. If a deal is ever negotiated, it will be on “America first” terms, and if we end up importing products that do not meet our own or EU standards the EU will insist on rigorous measures to prevent them reaching its markets.
Obviously, this is a probing amendment, but it has serious intent. No deal would plunge the sector into immediate, and for many farmers existential, crisis. A report within three months will not be enough without immediate action, but at least farmers will know that there will be a quick assessment. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment or to propose a similar government alternative. We are facing not just the prospect of millions of lambs for premature slaughter but the decimation of a sector which dwarfs the fishing industry in its importance in terms of jobs, value, heritage and landscape, yet is largely ignored by Government and the media. I hope the Government and the House will recognise that no deal will be so disruptive in this sector that it will transform British farming for a generation and change the landscape of much of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Henig (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie. At the outset, I join others in thanking the Minister for his patience, tolerance and good humour throughout the seven days of this Committee. It is much appreciated across the House.
I shall speak to Amendment 270, to which I was happy to put my name, and I am very pleased to support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who moved it so ably. We have already heard this afternoon that the Government have set up their own Trade and Agriculture Commission. Unlike the ones envisaged in these amendments, it is a bit of a makeshift. It will sit for only six months in the first instance, draw up an advisory report for the Government and then disperse. However, many of the issues it has been charged with advising on are extremely relevant to the Bill. For example, one of the tasks is to look at what sort of
“Trade policies the Government should adopt to secure opportunities for UK farmers, while ensuring the sector remains competitive and that animal welfare and environmental standards in food production are not undermined.”
Another of its tasks is:
“How the UK engages the WTO to build a coalition that helps advance higher animal welfare standards across the world.”
These are important issues and show that the Government agree with many of the sentiments expressed in this amendment, but, unfortunately, at the moment the Government’s commission is to help them to navigate the next six months only. The Government’s commission has no parliamentary oversight, as we have heard, and the RSPCA commented that it will not protect in any effective way United Kingdom animal welfare standards, so I think we must try to push the Government further along this road.
At the moment, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, there will be little chance to scrutinise the trade agreements which will have such a major impact on United Kingdom farming and agriculture and there is no parliamentary oversight of such agreements. Taking control of agricultural policy from the EU should not mean the Government taking more control with no oversight and no role for Parliament or any of the other agencies. There has to be the opportunity for more scrutiny and debate than is at present being proposed.
On Thursday, I spoke about strong public support for existing standards of food production and animal hygiene and welfare, and that has been supported this afternoon by other speakers. We heard, very importantly, from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that Northern Ireland will retain its existing high standards in these areas, and I have no doubt that Scotland and Wales will wish to do so as well. That seems to be a very strong argument for a body such as is being proposed in Amendment 270 to uphold and oversee the standards regime. We have heard that other countries have such bodies. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, told us about Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States of America. It is found to be extremely useful in those countries. We in the UK at the moment have no such machinery. I think we need to find a way of establishing a standards regime with regard to food, animal welfare and hygiene—a regime that then becomes part of our governmental and parliamentary machinery.
I recognise that these are relevant to the Trade Bill as well as to this Bill, but because they will have such a profound effect on all the issues discussed in this Bill, I think we have to discuss them in the context of the Agriculture Bell as well as the Trade Bill. We may well hear the argument that the Government have a set of powers in negotiating trade treaties and that they must not be undermined. We have heard that argument before and I am readying myself to hear it again at the end of this group of amendments, but we have to find a way of promoting consensus on standards across not just England but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have to do it in a non-partisan way. That is why a commission along the lines set out in Amendments 270 and 279 could play such an important role and why I put my name to Amendment 270 and hope that the Minister and the Government give it their most urgent support.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 271 with a degree of sadness, just as, I am sure, the current Defra Secretary of State did when he was temporarily out of office last year. He put down his own, similar amendment to the Bill as it was last year and wrote an article in the Guardian supporting his views.
As others have said, the problem lies with the Government’s manifesto commitment, saying:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards”,
and then trying to reconcile that with achieving a trade deal with America and, inevitably, other countries. To make the situation more complicated, at the same time we are trying to prove to the EU negotiators that, if anything, the standard of products available in the UK, and thus possibly available for re-export to the EU, will go up and not down—that there will be no regression on what has become known as the level playing field. A further factor of course is that the British public are adamant that we should support our farmers against cheap imports. There is absolutely no wish, out there, for a race to the bottom. Having had numerous assurances from numerous Ministers that there is nothing to worry about, it seems odd to me that we cannot have something on the face of the Bill.
As far as I am concerned, this is not a food safety issue. The Food Standards Agency and Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs have all the powers they need to audit and control the quality and safety of the food being sold in this country, so there is no need to worry, for instance, about chlorinated chicken as such. It is the production methods, not the product, that matters. If the President of the United States and his regulators think that disinfectant is the cure for all ills—including, apparently, Covid 19—then that is up to them.
However, if certain states—and it is only certain states—allow their farmers to breed their chickens with a higher density than is legally allowed in the UK and they do not have to clear out the litter between batches, and we are then forced to accept their product as imports, that is something that we should get hot under the collar about. Under their sub-standard regulations, production costs are much cheaper. Capital costs per head, for instance, are some 13% cheaper. Therefore, if our farmers are to compete on an equal footing, they have to risk going to prison for breaking our laws or we have to change our laws in a race to the bottom—or, best of all, we should just insist on some form of certification indicating that the US farms supplying us with chickens are breeding to our standards. It is not a very difficult thing to do. Every farmer in this country supplying a supermarket has to have every aspect of their farming processes supervised and certified by that supermarket.
Similarly, hormones in beef are not really a problem in the human diet—although they might undermine consumer confidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has just said—but many would argue that their use is an unnatural way of rearing meat. Again, the main point is: do we lower our standards, which have been in place in this country for some 35 years, or do we just say no? Ractopamine in pigs is another matter altogether, of course. It is an additive used to manipulate growth and is known to cause lameness, trembling and shortness of breath. It should not be used to produce pork eaten in this country. If we were to import such pork—not that I think we will—it would be tantamount to exporting animal cruelty.
This is not a party-political issue. The Government are aware that farmers have the people on their side. More than a million people signed the NFU petition, and voters will not forgive the Government if they sell our farmers down the river. I think their gut feeling is that, if it were the other way round and the US was insisting that we raised our standards before we could export to it, there would be absolutely no doubt that we would jump to it without a murmur. That is what happened in the 1980s when New Zealand wanted to sell its lamb to China. New Zealand had to produce an entirely different product. That is the way these things work. Who on earth wants to market their goods on the basis that they are cheap and dodgy?
Turning to the letter from the DIT on the Trade and Agriculture Commission, I have to say that I am not overly impressed. Both the commission’s terms of reference and its output would be at the beck and call of the DIT, its short life would hardly allow its members to get their feet under the table, and its recommendations would be only advisory. In other words, it would have no teeth and a very short-term say. I fear that it is more of a PR sop than a genuine effort to provide a solution to this problem.
Personally, I am not fussed which solution we as a House support: this detailed amendment—Amendment 271, to which I have put my name—the rerun of the Neil Parish amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, or Amendment 279 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. However, on the latter, like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I would have to insist that his commission was given, on the face of the Bill and not just at the whim of a Secretary of State, an extended life to continue its work on trade deals into the longer-term future. Anyone who thinks that all trade deals will be wrapped up in a year or two is fooling themselves. I suspect that the key period will be from three to 10 years from now, so it is vital that this commission can still do its work during that time.
Let us think what a difference we could make. As the current Secretary of State at Defra said in his Guardian article last year:
“In the US, legislation on animal welfare is woefully deficient”.
Maybe we can help with that. We should note, for instance, that in the EU free trade agreement with Chile, the EU insisted on animal welfare provisions in the agreement, and Chile’s animal husbandry and slaughter standards have indeed gone up since. We should remember that we in the UK are the third biggest market for food imports in the world, and countries will remain very keen to sell their products to us, even if we stick to our guns—maybe especially if we stick to our guns. Being able to sell into a quality market is no bad advertisement for your goods, so perhaps we can make a difference to the way livestock is reared in all parts of the world. Let us be ambitious about this.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, if the Government are not too keen to listen to the voices from Opposition Benches or even from expert Back-Benchers on their own side, they really ought to listen to someone like the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who speaks in this House as the voice of the countryside and of farming communities.
This group of amendments is very important. Even though we are now on the seventh day in Committee on the Bill, it is one of the most important groups of amendments that we will discuss. That is why I was very happy to put my name to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, which between them cover food standards on the one hand and animal welfare, plant health and the environment on the other.
I repeat those four things because they sum up just why politically this is such an important issue for the Government. This is an extremely unusual issue, in that it unites a whole series of people in the country who would not normally march down the street together. I know that this Government are rumoured to take daily opinion polls and have a focus group every 10 minutes to work out what people think about things, so they must know that what I am saying is true and that somehow they have to draw the line and put it into legislation, otherwise people will never be satisfied.
This is also an issue that unites the media, and not just the farming media or the liberal-left minority media who normally get involved in this matter. It also includes the right-wing tabloids—the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the rest of them—and the Daily Telegraph. We have seen what happens when they get behind a campaign such as this: the Government cannot win unless they are able to satisfy them that everything is okay.
I ought not to be giving political advice to the Government; I ought to be telling them to do hopeless things that allow me to go out on to the streets to campaign and say what rotten folk they are. However, this is too important for that. I know that Ministers in this House are not the final decision-makers on what they can and cannot do; they are working for their bosses in other places. Nevertheless, we have here a Minister who has influence and authority in the department, and we are relying on him to come back with something that will satisfy us and the country. I say that in all honesty, although perhaps he does not want to hear it.
On issue after issue, we now have a country where a large number of people are very frightened about their health, because of Covid and everything that has happened. A lot of people are scared to go out of their house, and if they are willing to do so they will want to wear a mask for the next 10 years. A lot of other people are on the side there, but a lot of the people who matter are very frightened. We also have a Prime Minister who has just launched a campaign to make sure that we are all a bit less fat. I can appreciate that and I will join his campaign, but these issues are all linked: good health, good food, relying on good farming and good production processes, and all within a good environment that allows people to go out and enjoy themselves and get exercise.
It seems a long time since we started this Committee. When we were discussing access, perhaps on the first day, and people were worried about the speed at which we were going, I said, “Well, you ain’t seen nothing yet”. For good or for bad, I have been in your Lordships’ House now for over 20 years, and I have to say that seven days in Committee for a Bill of this complexity, importance and size is not unusual; it is normal. I do not think it is because we have had to operate within this hybrid system. I join everyone who compliments the staff, the leadership and everybody else who found a way for us to have something that approximates to a Committee. Even though I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said earlier in the House about the need to get back to a new normality—if that is not a contradiction—because we have to make more progress, nevertheless we have had something approximating a Committee and everybody needs to be congratulated on that. However, I do not believe that this Committee a year ago it would have taken less than seven days; in fact, it might even have taken a bit longer.
To go back to the amendment, I am not an expert on a lot of the things in this group, although I know about the environment, but they are so important to people. Everybody cares about food. Increasingly they care about good food, increasingly they care about the environment and increasingly they are realising that the future of farming is in jeopardy unless we get it right.
I beg the Government to listen to what is being said here today by voices across the House, by voices from the rural parts of Yorkshire and Northern Ireland, by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, from the countryside—people who know what they are talking about. Unless something comes back, I think the Government will suffer serious defeats on Report. Another old tradition of the House is that ping-pong goes on for longer than two days, and this may be a sufficiently important issue that we might even get back to proper ping-pong.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, said that the tradition in this House is that we do not vote in Committee. That is absolute rubbish. It is a modern invention by Governments trying to have an easy time. There are traditions and traditions in this House. I do not know whether Lord Palmerston would recognise our House today as the one that he presided over, but I do know that for the first 10 or more years that I was a Member here we always voted in Committee. I am not suggesting that we should in hybrid, because that is a bit different, but voting in Committee is a very good way of getting shot of some issues early, one way or the other, and allowing the major issues to go to Report. So when people tell you that what happened last year or the year before are the traditions of this House, it is bunkum. The traditions of this House go back longer than any of us—even those of us who have been here rather longer than we ever thought we would be.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start with an apology to your Lordships, and particularly to the Minister. On Thursday evening I implied that my contributions to this Committee would be at an end. My excitement at seeing the light at the end of the tunnel made me forget that there was this group of amendments—so I apologise for that.
I do not think I need to add to what has already been said. I have been listening to lots of speeches, some of which are rather like those pieces of classical music that you think are going to end; they carry on a bit and carry on, and only eventually do they come to an end. I do not want to do one of those. I just want to say to my noble friend and to Ministers generally that I understand where the problem is: there is perhaps a conflict between two departments, the department that the Minister represents and that of trade.
I would also say, with the experience of having been a Whip in the other place for a long time, that sometimes you have to read the Room, and I would say that there are things the Government could be looking at. If they thought the establishment of the commission was a good compromise, it was a good start, but I am afraid its composition leaves many people a little wary and, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh said, the short period for which it is going to be in existence is also a concern.
I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that I was always taught in business that if you are having a problem with cash flow, it is rather like a car that is heading towards a brick wall: it is better to either slow down and then go round that brick wall or to stop. It is not a good idea to go rushing at full speed, hoping that you can brake at the last minute and avoid a crash. I would say that a little more has to be offered.
This is important. I understand the arguments and I support Amendment 273. Things have moved on a bit, but we need to see a little more, otherwise I am afraid that things will not be all that easy for the Government in this regard.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I note his constructive comments on brick walls and the dangers of driving at them at speed, and I am sure the Government too will have noted them. I again draw attention to my entry on farming matters in the register of interests.
My name stands on Amendment 276 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, Amendment 278 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and Amendment 280 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I am delighted to support all three noble Lords who have spoken and I will not repeat the comments that they have made, save to pick up the very important thread that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has introduced previously and repeated today: namely, the real dangers in the present climate for hill farmers. I am concerned about them in Wales, but of course that is an equal concern in other parts of the United Kingdom. I certainly am not prepared to see them sold down the river in order to secure a trade deal with Trump’s America. That is where I come from on this bank of amendments.
I very much endorse the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in introducing Amendment 270 and her comments on the need to avoid unfair competition from subsidised imports and the need for there to be a level playing field. I agree with the comments made earlier regarding the vital importance of this amendment made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and repeated by Lord Greaves; this may be the most important bank of amendments in Committee.
I pick up the point concerning the commission that has been announced today. It may last for only six months and it may not have real teeth, but it gives an indication of the direction in which we should be moving. Perhaps it may be a main thread for us, when we return to these matters on Report, to take up the weaknesses in the commission suggested by the Government, put it on a permanent basis and give it real teeth. If we are able to do that, we might be able to introduce some safeguards, which undoubtedly people the length and breadth of these islands want with regard to the security of the food that comes on to the market and that they will be consuming.
I also endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, about the range and width of the bodies which support the aims of these amendments. With such a cross-section of bodies, the Government would clearly be very ill advised to ignore their comments.
All these varied amendments underline the real concern in all parts of these islands, but also all parts of the Committee, with regard to the significant dangers of food being imported whose standard is below that required of UK-produced food. I accept that Ministers in both Houses have given assurances on these matters but, to my mind, there have to be safeguards in the Bill—in legislation—to underpin any assurances of this sort. They have to be on a statutory basis if they are to have some meaning. That is why I hope very much that we may have some indication from the Minister today that the Government will still consider further steps, over and above the commission announced today, in trying to meet the real fears described by so many noble colleagues in this debate. Finally, I join others in thanking both the Ministers for their diligence during Committee. I look forward to returning to many of these issues on Report.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and to support Amendment 270 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I have added my name. I also support the other amendments in this group.
This debate on food and trade standards is one of the major issues in the Bill. It directly correlates with the debates we had last week on food security and insecurity. If we have strong food standards, as we do, and which we do not want undermined or undercut in any way, it therefore relates back to the issue of food security. The major issue then was that, as a result of Covid, many people were experiencing insecurity and an inability to access that sound food supply.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I welcome the establishment today of the Trade and Agriculture Commission. I welcome its official launch as it contains representatives from the farming unions and the hospitality sector throughout the UK, including the devolved regions. Where I am disappointed is that it does not have a statutory base, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is time-limited and will simply report after six months. Like him, I see it as a staging post for the Government. It should be a means for the Minister, who has been very gracious in all his responses to us during the seven days of debate in Committee, to have talks within the usual channels and with ministerial colleagues in Defra on how they can put this commission into the Bill and give it the required statutory basis.
None of us, particularly our farmers and those involved in food production and the food supply chain, wants to be undermined by cheap imports of lower standards from other countries. Coming from Northern Ireland, I definitely do not want to see that. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has referred to the peculiar and different situation of Northern Ireland, which for agricultural purposes will still be subject to the state aid rules of the EU. In that respect, because there has been little movement on the development of the protocol, will the Minister have conversations with ministerial colleagues to find out what discussions have taken place between the Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, particularly the executive office, about not only the implementation of the protocol but what efforts are being made on a no-deal Brexit? What discussions have been taking place generally about Brexit? It is my understanding that, because of divisions within the executive office on policy and stances, such discussions have not yet taken place.
However, there is the facility of the Joint Ministerial Committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and I, along with former Ministers from the Northern Ireland Executive would be fully aware of. That would be a very good mechanism for ironing out difficulties because, at the end of the day, we want to see proper trade and agricultural standards right throughout the UK, and with our neighbours as well. But we do not want to see unfair competition or any undercutting of our farmers; we want to see good husbandry and the very best agricultural standards.
I want to see the commission become permanent, like it is in the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Any advice that comes from the commission should not be advisory; it should be binding on the Government, as is the case with the Migration Advisory Committee; and the commission should be independent of government. There is such a wide range of people already on it that it has the ability and capacity to do that.
In supporting Amendment 270 I thank the Ministers, the Front-Bench teams for the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, and the Cross-Benchers, for all their work during these seven days. I thank them for their advice and support. I support the general thrust of the amendments on underpinning good agricultural standards. That is what we all want to see. I urge the Minister either to accept the amendment today, subject to the name change, or to come back with a revised amendment on Report, indicating that the Government are prepared to put this commission into the Bill and give it the statutory basis that is required.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who has eloquently articulated the concerns that are the theme of this group of amendments and referred to the ways in which they might be effectively addressed.
I speak in support of Amendment 279, which contains a proposed new clause on a trade, food and farming standards commission. The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, tabled this amendment and has comprehensively described it. He also indicated the flexibility in it, to address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. But I take on board the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, about why it might be better to have any extension of that commission in the Bill, rather than it being in the hands of the Secretary of State. That can be considered before we reach the next stage.
As explained in the Marshalled List, the purpose of this new clause is to give real substance to underpinning the Government’s manifesto commitment
“not to compromise on the UK’s high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards through its international trade policy”.
I note that my noble friend Lord Greaves speculated that this might be the kind of issue which would go to more than one or two rounds of ping-pong in subsequent stages, later in the year. It might be pertinent that what we seek to do in some of these amendments is actually to give substance to the Government’s manifesto commitment.
In a letter last month to MPs the president of NFU Scotland, Andrew McCornick, urged support for the kind of trade, food and farming standards commission set out in this new clause. He argued that as the UK embarks on negotiating future trade deals,
“it is vital that future trade deals do not curtail our ability to grow our reputation as a nation of provenance and quality by undercutting domestic production with imported produce with which we cannot compete on price and production method.”
Subsequent to that letter, the Secretary of State for International Trade announced a Trade and Agriculture Commission and, on 10 July, she announced its membership together with those issues on which the commission must directly report to her. As we have heard, it has been formally launched today; indeed, I believe that it met last Friday.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
I am pleased to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and will speak to Amendment 271 in my name, ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and also in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. We represent many sides of the House.
However, before doing so, I add my voice to those thanking my noble friend the Minister for his courtesy and patience through this long marathon of a Committee stage. I also thank the Public Bill Office and Government Whips’ Office for all their hard work. I know they have spent many hours making sure that we could debate this.
As others have stated, the Bill gives us the chance to ensure that we support our farmers by not allowing products into this country that have not been raised to the same standards that we insist on here. It is blatantly wrong to insist on standards for our farmers and then to let in food not raised in that way that undercuts our domestic production.
At Second Reading, I was struck by my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have enormous respect, talking as though all is in order now. The fact is that, at the moment, we are letting in food not raised to the same standards. As others have observed, the Conservative Party 2019 manifesto contains an important commitment:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
This is particularly important in the case of meat, where we not only undercut our own farmers but at times encourage poor welfare standards in other countries by buying their products. If we believe in good welfare standards—and there is a real moral case for this—we should not be turning a blind eye to what is going on in other parts of the world.
There has been a lot of publicity about chlorinated chicken, but the more concerning issues are the stocking densities and the amount of antibiotics pumped into them to keep them healthy. Of course, it is not just chickens from the US but those from other parts of the world, where we know even less about the quality of the production systems.
I gather that some of the Government’s opposition to this proposed new clause hinges on the UK’s lack of ability to produce enough to answer demand. In the case of chicken, this mainly revolves around the fact that British people like to eat breast meat rather than the dark meat. If more dark meat was eaten, we could probably more or less answer our domestic needs.
However, surely we need to tell those countries that want to export to us that we require a certain standard of welfare in their food production. During this time of Covid, we have realised how important it is to produce our own food, and our farmers have continued to work throughout. Surely, we should be looking after our farmers and encouraging more production in this country?
Others have commented on the new Trade and Agriculture Commission and I do not propose to do so too. All I will say is that sometimes commissions can be a way of kicking issues into the long grass. This issue really needs addressing because, as others have stated, it has such enormous public support. In a recent poll, over four-fifths of people—81%—said that they think the Government should block food imports that do not meet the UK’s environmental and animal welfare standards, even if this could mean that consumers miss out on lower food prices. Please let us take this opportunity, not only to support our farmers but to ensure that, if we believe in welfare standards, we stop importing food that does not meet them.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in support of Amendment 270 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which I have also signed. I also support other amendments in this group with a similar intent.
In their joint letter to MPs and Peers dated 5 June 2020, the Secretary of State for International Trade, the right honourable Elizabeth Truss, and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right honourable George Eustice, stated that, in all their trade negotiations, the Government
“will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards”.
However, when asked in a House of Lords debate about trade deals that could allow imports farmed to less rigorous standards, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew of Oulton, Minister of State at the Cabinet Office and Treasury, stated that
“there has to be a balance between keeping food affordable for people ... to ensure that they are able to eat healthily, while not undermining in any way the quality of the food we eat.”—[Official Report, 6/5/20; col. 520.]
This second statement seems to leave wiggle room, so what is the Government’s position?
As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and other noble Lords, said, the Government are unwilling to make a legally binding commitment to not dilute standards of imported food. As my noble friends Lord Curry of Kirkharle and Lord Cameron of Dillington, and many other noble Lords, said, the Trade and Agriculture Commission will not have enough teeth or last long enough to do the job that is needed. I also note that it has no consumer representative among its members.
My concern is this: assuming that the Government do allow food produced to lower standards to be imported—which I think is inevitable—who will end up eating it? The boss of Waitrose has already said that his stores will not sell food produced to lower standards, such as chlorinated chicken. It is very likely that other supermarkets will follow Waitrose’s lead. The same will be true of the major restaurant chains, which will wish to protect their brands. So where is the lower-standard food most likely to end up? It will probably be in the small, low-end independent restaurants and in fast-food takeaways such as fried chicken shops. It will primarily be eaten by less well-off consumers. I therefore ask the Minister to unequivocally state that the Government will not allow a two-tier food system to develop in this country in which poor people eat poorer quality food produced to lower standards.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, as I have listened to this debate my speech has got shorter and shorter. If ever there was a person ringing a bell and saying: “Press officer beware”, it is my noble friend Lord Greaves. I find myself strongly agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who said that the Government are getting into trouble here. Will they please do as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said and honour their own manifesto? That is all we are really asking for, and any of these amendments would take steps towards making sure that we know the standards are there.
It is an old cliché that we trust this Minister implicitly but the one who follows him could be the devil incarnate. However, the closest we get to binding anybody to anything is to put it in to law, even though, ultimately, it can be changed. If we do not get something on the face of the Bill—and I cannot see any other bit of legislation it could go into—there is no other way of at least making the Government stand up and say: “Yes, we are changing it because …” That is what this is about.
I hope that the Minister is taking this on board. As my noble friend Lord Greaves also said, there will be ping-pong; a backhand, a forehand and the odd smash might be involved in this one. The House could get involved in a long discussion, asking the Government to honour their own manifesto commitment. I would not have thought any Government would want that.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]
My Lords, I share the concerns about how standards will be maintained when negotiating new trade agreements and therefore, in principle, support what many of the amendments in this group are trying to achieve. In that context, I welcome the establishment by the DIT and Defra of the new Trade and Agriculture Commission. However, at the same time, I strongly support the important point made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Lords, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Krebs, and others. A trade standards commission needs to be more than a temporary body with a six-month lifespan. It should be a permanent body with a continuing and influential role in any and all future trade negotiations, as is the United States International Trade Commission, among other examples.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support the spirit of these amendments, all of which seek to enshrine the Government’s manifesto commitment in the Bill. Recent polling shows that over 75% of the public think that it would be unacceptable to import food from the USA produced to lower standards. There would be pressure on our farmers to compete by lowering standards in this country. I am sure that the Minister will offer a number of assurances. He will say that the Government have repeatedly guaranteed, in statements, that the manifesto commitment will be observed. I would prefer something on the face of the Bill. As other noble Lords have said, Ministers and Governments come and go. The Minister may also say that the Trade Bill is the place for any statutory requirement on standards. However, that Bill is silent on this issue so far and I am sure that, when it comes to this House, noble Lords will be told that it is out of scope. Here and now are the place and time for statutory assurances on standards.
I will focus on environmental standards. Compared to the UK, substantially more highly hazardous pesticides are allowed in several of the major countries that we are seeking to do trade deals with—India, the USA and Australia. These pesticides are highly poisonous to pollinators, aquatic ecosystems and apex predators. Stocking densities can have a huge impact on air quality and habitats. It is worth while safeguarding our environmental standards as well as food safety and animal welfare.
The third thing the Minister may say is that import standards are against WTO rules, although I think I heard him reassure us earlier that he would not say that. I am sure that sensibly designed and properly justified import restrictions can be made compatible with WTO rules, and the UK should be taking the lead on this. However, we get a clue from the US and Indian negotiating mandates, both of which reveal that they see harmonising UK import standards as a threat. For “harmonising”, we should read “lowering”.
The Minister may also say that the same effect in protecting standards can be achieved by differential tariffs for products produced to a lower standard than our domestic one. The noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, has talked about this as well. Differential tariffs would need to be prohibitively high—that would be the whole point of them—to influence behaviour, so they would almost certainly be rejected by negotiating partners. We also hear that Secretary of State Truss is inclined to phase out such differential tariffs in general.
The Minister might also say that we could take a labelling solution: food labelling could safeguard standards and the public could then choose whether they wanted higher standards at higher costs. This would not work, because much of this food will go into ingredients for the out-of-home catering sector, where ingredients standards are rarely visible.
As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, outlined, it would be pretty invidious if the better-off could choose to buy food produced to higher standards while those on a lower income would have to buy what they could afford, regardless of standards. This is not even Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake”; it is worse—it is “Let them eat crap”. Apart from that, the US trade vote is against unjustifiable labelling. So we need provisions on standards on the face of the Bill, not just a labelling solution.
I turn briefly to the Trade and Agriculture Commission; I agree with much of what has already been said. The Government have already shown how little their commission would consider environmental standards by announcing a membership primarily about food and farming, with a tiny, last-minute concession of one person with an environmental background. Those representing human health and animal welfare standards do not get much of a look-in either. As has been noted, the Government’s commission is also flawed in having a limited term of six months, being purely advisory and reporting solely to the Secretary of State for International Trade. It is a fig leaf and we should not trust it.
I support the alternative commission promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, in his Amendment 279. It would persist beyond six months to scrutinise future trade deals and would be additional, not an alternative, to having the maintenance of import standards in the Bill. Most importantly, the commission proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, would report not to the Secretary of State for International Trade but to Parliament, and there would be a requirement that its recommendations on the vital issue of trade standards would be fully debated in Parliament.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Mouslecoomb, that the Government have driven pretty much all interest groups on to the same side of this issue. No one thinks that the Government’s commission is anything other than a fig leaf. I hope the Minister will concede that he has a losing hand and can bring a decent amendment forward on Report.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too thank the Minister and all his colleagues for their stamina and good temper all the way through this mammoth Committee. I must declare an interest as a member of the NFU. My younger son is a free-range farmer in Lincolnshire, and he is extremely concerned—along with many of his colleagues in the free-range egg-producing world—about foreign imports produced to lesser standards.
The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I was going to speak to Amendments 270 and 271. But, having listened to the debate, I support virtually all the other amendments and I agree entirely with all that was said by the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Curry, and by my noble friend Lady Hodgson. The Minister will be very aware of the groundswell of opinion throughout the country: well over 1 million people signed the food standards petition, run very well by the NFU, with huge media coverage.
I welcome the establishment of the international Trade and Agriculture Commission, but it must have real teeth and I too would prefer it to be permanent—we must keep it in the future. I do not want it to be giving advice to the Secretary of State of which they can take not a blind bit of notice. It must be there to guide the Secretary of State and Parliament on the standards that we need to keep and enhance in the future. We are a world -class act in the standards we produce in our agricultural industry; we must keep that up and go even further.
In my view, nearly all the arguments have already been stated on numerous occasions, so I will not repeat them. Suffice it to say that my brief words are simply to keep up the pressure and to hold Her Majesty’s Government to their pledges on food standards and to ensure that they do not compromise them in any ongoing or future trade deals.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I join others in thanking the Minister for the superb way he has replied to so many of our debates in this marathon Committee.
I want to speak to Amendment 271, in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, and Amendment 280, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Amendment 271 goes to the heart of our anxieties about the future of agriculture and, indeed, the food we eat. Having heard a great deal of the arguments in the course of the Bill’s passage, there is little I can add, so I will be comparatively brief. As my noble friend Lord Grantchester put it so succinctly, this amendment is of vital importance and should be enshrined in law. I welcome an assurance given in the past, but this is so crucial that it should be put on the face of the Bill, as so many other noble Lords have indicated.
I am a member of the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee of this House, and we are examining future trading agreements in detail; it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage. I am particularly concerned with proposed new subsection (2)(b) in Amendment 271. It would be intolerable if we lowered our standards of agricultural food imports so that we imported at a lower standard than our existing domestic standards in animal health and welfare, food safety and hygiene and liability in general. I would be firmly opposed to any lowering of our standards.
I also support Amendment 280, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Wigley. As I said at Second Reading, many of my family have been, and are, sheep breeders—my family has been doing this for centuries. Some of them may regard me, given my occupation as a lawyer and not a sheep breeder, as the black sheep of the family.
As agriculture was among my responsibilities as Welsh Secretary—indeed, I got responsibility for this transferred to the office—I attended most, if not all, of the meetings of the EU Council of Ministers whenever sheep were discussed. I did so because sheep and livestock farming were so important to Wales.
The price of lamb is heavily influenced by how much we can get from exporting, and the price of exports reflects back on the domestic market. A tariff would put many sheep farmers out of business: the economy and their viability are fragile enough as it is. Many of them have no alternative, hence the need for a report in the terms of the amendment if no agreement is reached, so that this House can give proper consideration to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has rightly put the case of a catastrophe if no deal is reached. Specifically, I would like to hear the Minister’s views, and if, and to what extent, he dissents to the case put so admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I agree with those noble Lords who have called this probably the most important group of amendments we have discussed on the Bill; I concur with that. I say to my noble friend Lord Trenchard that, just because we support these amendments, it does not mean that we are anti-American, any more than he is anti-British because he does not like our side of the argument. That does not add to the value of our discussions.
I would like to congratulate the Government on creating the commission today, but I ask the Minister to clarify what it is called. The government press release today refers to the “Trade and Agriculture Commission”, and also to the better-named “Agriculture and Trade Commission”. Which is it? If the Government cannot make up their mind, perhaps the Minister could clarify this for them.
I was pleased to see that the chairman, Tim Smith, said that its report will give evidence-based advice. That is hugely important, but it begs the question that so many noble Lords have raised: what is going to happen to that advice, and what will happen when it has given that advice? The launch of the commission today is just the first stage, which is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle—indeed, my noble friend Lady McIntosh has another amendment—which would prolong the life of the commission. It needs to be there, it needs to report to Parliament and it needs to have its advice acted upon by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have heard my county of North Yorkshire mentioned a number of times in Committee and I want to speak particularly to Amendment 271, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, because of the fear I have of our having to accept WTO rules as a result of crashing out of the EU without a decent trade deal. Our farmers in North Yorkshire, as elsewhere, will bear a great deal of pain if that happens. The Government made clear manifesto commitments, as we have heard repeatedly throughout the passage of the Bill, not to compromise, inter alia, animal welfare or food standards in any future trade deals, yet they offered no amendments to the Trade Bill, which we will have to rigorously scrutinise when we return to Parliament in September. This Bill is a foretaste of what may well yet happen unless we make sure that this legislation is absolutely watertight.
Our food must maintain the very high standards we have come to expect, ensuring that animal welfare and environmental protection remain at the very heart of our food production. The director of policy for NFU Scotland, Jonnie Hall, said:
“The UK Agriculture Bill is a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation and it must safeguard the sustainability of domestic food production and the integrity of domestic food consumption.”
As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others, Waitrose, Aldi, Sainsbury’s, M&S and the Co-op have all now said that they will never sell chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef from the US—where, incidentally, 50 million Americans get sick each year from the food they eat. As Sue Davies, head of consumer protection and food policy at Which? said:
“We do not want to import these unacceptably high rates of foodborne illness into our health system”.
Chlorine-washed chicken is barred from the EU because it is used to disguise farming practices that increase the risk of such infections as salmonella and campylobacter. There is also ractopamine, a horrible drug fed to pigs to make them grow fatter, which is banned in the EU and in 160 other countries, including China and Russia; 17-beta estradiol, another growth-promoting hormone, which EU scientists believe is a complete carcinogen; and bovine somatatropine, given to cows in the US to increase milk yields—again, banned in the EU, Canada and Japan on animal welfare grounds as it is associated with increased lameness and mastitis in cattle, which leads, of course, to greater use of antibiotics, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, and others, but is used and approved in the US. All these drugs have been banned in the UK, thanks to EU regulations, but they are quite legal on the US factory farms.
More than 1 million people have already signed the NFU petition to promote sustainable models of production and consumption across the world and I end with its concluding sentence, which calls on the UK Government
“to put into law rules that prevent food being imported to the UK which is produced in ways that would be illegal here.”
We must not sell our farmers out to the United States or other countries whose animal welfare and food production standards are so far below our own.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interests as stated in the register. Since the Government announced the establishment of the Trade and Agriculture Commission on 10 July, under the chairmanship of Tim Smith, formerly chief executive of the Food Standards Agency, I believe that Amendment 270, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, and Amendment 279, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, are redundant. Besides, there are other problems with both the proposed commissions. My noble friend’s commission would be required to maintain standards at levels
“as high as or higher than”
those which apply now. The rather more detailed Amendment 279 is surely similarly redundant and would undoubtedly shackle UK producers to the restrictive EU regime, although it does contain two important concessions: new subsection (4)(e) recognises that,
“different production systems and regulatory approaches”
may produce equivalence of outcomes; and new subsection (4)(g) acknowledges that import restrictions may be detrimental both to consumer interests and to developing countries.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh just said, in her eloquent speech, that she wishes to retain the level playing field between EU and UK farmers. If she believes that such a level playing field exists, I fear she is mistaken. As I pointed out on Thursday, French livestock farmers benefit from €1 billion in voluntary coupled support every year. This compares with the mere €39 million available to Scottish crofters. I agree with my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was right to confirm that we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards in all our trade negotiations. However, rules that enforce precise standards may be unnecessary or disproportionate. Standards are not two-dimensional: low or high. Outcomes may be similar but reached by very different rule books.
Among the problems with our EU standards is that some introduce distortions to the market without bringing any benefit. In the words of the Prime Minister in his Greenwich speech in February:
“There is no need for a free trade agreement to involve accepting EU rules on competition policy, subsidies, social protection, the environment, or anything similar, any more than the EU should be obliged to accept UK rules”.
The Prime Minister also said:
“But I must say to the America bashers in this country, if there are any, that in doing free trade deals we will be governed by science and not by mumbo-jumbo because the potential is enormous.”
I have heard quite a number of America bashers, including several of my noble friends, express their views during our debates on the Bill. I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm categorically that we will diverge from EU rules and standards, at least in order to be able to adopt an SPS regime which does not violate the WTO’s rules. The EU is in violation of WTO rules on GMOs and hormone-treated beef. The UK will also be in violation of WTO rules in these and other areas, such as those where we do not have a sector which EU rules protect, such as olive oil.
Amendment 271 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, rightly requires the UK to ensure that any new trade agreements will conform to the WTO’s SPS agreement. This allows countries to maintain standards that are stricter than international standards if those standards are justified by science or by a non-discriminatory lower level of acceptable risk that does not selectively target imports. I worry that proposed new subsection 2(b) may conflict with proposed new subsection 2(a) because it would appear to target imports selectively in cases where the exporter’s rules or standards violate the WTO’s SPS rules.
Similarly, Amendment 273 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Amendment 276 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and Amendment 278 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, all require, in effect, the Government to import food only from countries which apply hygiene, animal welfare or environmental standards which are equivalent to or exceed those currently allowed in the EU or UK. However, if we were to insist that our trading partners meet our welfare standards, many currently available imported goods would be prohibited from sale in the UK. If we try to restrict our trade negotiators in the ways these amendments would require, we will fail to make good trade agreements with other countries and we will not be able to secure the great benefits that our independent trade policy can deliver in many other areas, such as financial services, digital and data. We would lose the opportunity to improve our domestic regulatory environment and we would render Brexit largely meaningless.
As for Amendment 280 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, I understand that the Government remain confident that they will successfully negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU prior to the end of the year. This amendment is not appropriate for inclusion in a Bill which sets out new, long-term future arrangements for agriculture.
Lord Trees (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak particularly to Amendment 271 but I broadly support most of the amendments in this group, which are all about maintaining standards. There has been quite a lot of repetition. I am afraid I will also be guilty of that to some extent, although I will try to be brief, and there will be repetition in the future as the debate continues. I add my thanks to those of other noble Lords to the Ministers —the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield—who have maintained great courtesy throughout and have given us detailed answers to our many questions in Committee.
In negotiating a free trade agreement, the Government have repeatedly stated, as has been said, that they will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. But Ministers and Governments come and go, and as long as there is no statutory commitment to this goal, there is bound to be uncertainty. The commitment to create a Trade and Agriculture Commission is a step in the right direction but as currently proposed it is advisory and ephemeral.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in a small agricultural holding in France and, more seriously, in the WTO, in whose creation I played a part when I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
As many noble Lords have mentioned, the Government have pledged not to reduce health, animal welfare or environmental standards in this country. I am sure they will honour that pledge, not least because no other country is asking us to reduce our standards.
The issue confronting us with the amendments is on what terms we will trade with other countries which may have different standards from ours. Amendments 270 and 271, among others, would prevent any trade deal which does not exclude all imports of agricultural products which have not been produced and processed according to standards which are equivalent to or exceed EU standards.
It is quite reasonable for farmers to seek a degree of protection or financial support if it is necessary to enable them to compete with foreign producers who face lower welfare costs or who enjoy subsidies, but the amendments do not seek a proportionate level of protection or support—they propose a total ban on imports produced to different standards from our own. That is despite the fact that, in practice, our farmers, through greater efficiency and higher quality, compete successfully within the EU without tariffs or subsidies with French beef farmers who, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, receive £1 billion of subsidy, and with Polish farmers who produce poultry to higher densities than ours. Both the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron said that only a minority of American states have welfare standards lower than ours, but that does not seem to prevent farmers in other American states competing with them successfully.
However, the arguments used in favour of the amendments often claim to be based on concern for animal welfare and human health rather than protection of farmers, and do not address the practical consequences of banning all relevant imports from countries with lower animal welfare standards than our own.
I want to raise a few questions with both my noble friend the Minister and the proponents of the amendments. First, can my noble friend confirm that restrictions of the kind implied by Amendments 270 and 271 would be against WTO rules? The WTO has never allowed import bans based on so-called ROMP rules—rules on methods of production. That may be right, it may be wrong; but we have to accept the rules or face retaliatory tariffs.
Secondly, can my noble friend confirm that if we adopted the amendments, it would make it impossible to reach a free trade deal not just with America but with the EU, for the simple reason that some EU member states do not impose as stringent animal welfare rules as we do, and they certainly would not allow us to police their rules domestically? We have happily traded with some member states despite their lower standards for decades, so it is a bit odd that we should raise this obstacle now.
Thirdly, can my noble friend confirm that WTO rules allow countries to ban products that are a threat to human health, as long as the ban is based on objective scientific and medical evidence? Consequently, there is not the slightest likelihood that the UK Government or Parliament will alter our laws to allow sale of food which is contaminated with substances dangerous to human health.
Fourthly, I ask the authors of the amendments to clarify whether their desire to ban American chicken treated with pathogen-reduction agents or hormone-treated beef is based on concern for the welfare of the animals in America or concern for health of humans in Britain? If the latter, do they also want to outlaw the use of dilute chlorine washes of salads, which are permitted at present, and to ban the use of chlorine in swimming pools and to make water potable? If the former—i.e., if they are really basing this on animal welfare—do they accept that they will simply be acting against WTO rules? The EU realised it could not base its ban on chlorine and other washed chickens on the ground of concern about the cost of production in America or the welfare of American chickens. It had to base it on fears of a supposed threat to health of humans, but that was found by a WTO panel to lack scientific evidence.
Fifthly, what is the logic, I ask the authors of the amendments, of continuing to import agricultural products which have not been produced or processed under standards as rigorous as the UK’s from countries such as Thailand, Argentina, Brazil et cetera, while seeking to ban them under deals which we may do in future with the EU, the USA and so on?
Finally, I ask the authors of the amendments why these bans would apply only to future trade deals, including those where we still have to ratify continuity deals? Are they aware that this might put at risk continued preferential access for UK exports to more than 22 other markets—for example, putting at risk over half a billion pounds of Scotch whisky exports? If they are really concerned about the health of British industry, and the agricultural industry in particular, they should think very carefully about the amendments.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest in a small farm holding, which is in the register of interests. I also pay tribute to the courteous and patient manner with which the Minister has dealt with a very wide range of amendments debated since the Bill has been in Committee.
I appreciate that the Bill deals primarily with the needs of England, but it contains powers which are relevant to Northern Ireland and provides certainty for the distribution of direct support to local farmers for the forthcoming year. The continuity provided by the Bill will afford the devolved Minister time and space to bring forward new proposals for longer-term farm support in Northern Ireland.
It is, however, of great regret that the other place rejected the inclusion of measures which would have upheld standards of imports in a number of areas, including food, welfare and environmental standards. The amendment tabled in the other place would have been a welcome addition, and this House must right that wrong and give protection to consumers and farmers. It is vital that we do not outsource our food production to countries which do not have the same high standards as our farmers have to comply with. The Bill should be sent back to the other House reflecting this. That is why I support Amendment 271, which places an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that the standards to which any agricultural or food product imported into the United Kingdom under a trade agreement are processed and produced are equivalent to or exceed the relevant domestic standards and regulations relating to animal health and welfare, protection of the environment, food safety, hygiene, traceability and plant health. The standards that British farmers adhere to, with significant cost implication for them, leaves them at a price disadvantage compared to cheaper imports.
It is also worth noting that producers and agri-food businesses stand to be doubly hit if the threat from barriers within the UK internal market stemming from the Prime Minister’s disastrous agreement on the Northern Ireland protocol are not mitigated. Therefore, I also strongly support Amendment 270 on the creation of an international food standards commission with legal standing to scrutinise import standards for food. This would help to ensure a level playing field for our farmers and no future dilution of standards.
While the establishment of the UK Trade and Agriculture Commission and the inclusion of the UFU representation is a welcome step in ensuring that the interests of local producers are represented, it must be more than a talking shop. There must be legislative protection. Advisory reports are not legally binding, and although Ministers Eustice and Truss in the other place have indicated they wish to act in good faith, agriculture needs firm guarantees.
The recent pandemic has demonstrated the importance of food security in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is evident that there is growing support for British produce. The Government’s approach to trade talks and funding must reflect the desire of any local farmer to maintain exemplary standards, to produce safe food and to ensure that our environment is safeguarded for future generations.
In the current climate farmers need certainty and continuity. Agriculture is the cornerstone of job creation and growth in the Northern Ireland economy, sustaining approximately 100,000 jobs and adding value in the region of £1.5 billion to that economy. That contribution must be sustained for the future. We welcome the Government’s commitment to retain the same level of direct support to farmers until the end of this Parliament. However, we must have the same commitment around replacement funding for rural development funding. I trust the Government will listen to the views clearly expressed by numerous Members of your Lordships’ House and will make the necessary changes to this Bill.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
These amendments collectively require us to impose our own standards on others. That is a perfectly legitimate objective, but none of this Bill is about lowering standards; that is a fiction. What we are confronted with here is a raft of amendments that will throw our food security into doubt by making trade negotiations far more difficult. We need new trade deals; we want new trade deals—not any deals but fair, equitable deals. But why would any trading partner agree to sign trade deals with us that imposed our standards on them without any chance of negotiation or discussion?
Of course, we care about animal welfare and plant welfare and the environment. These are hugely important causes. We also care very much about the future prosperity of our farms. But will these amendments guarantee all these things? Of course not. The provisions of any Bill have to be more than a collection of good intentions; they have to be practicable. We could get all sorts of certification put in place and paperwork about standards signed, but paperwork itself and on its own is not the answer. We cannot root out sweatshops in the centre of Leicester so how can we realistically promise to set standards in chicken coops on the outskirts of Hanoi?
There is a balance to be struck between the operation of the market and the support of sensible regulation. We have a tremendous interest in the production standards of our trading partners, but are we, for instance, going to refuse to buy foodstuffs from desperately poor third- world countries, those most in need, because they find it impossible to meet all our standards of production or environmental requirements even though they satisfy all our food safety and hygiene requirements? That would seem an extraordinary unintended consequence.
Maintaining and improving production standards in many of our trading partners is a process of evolution, wholeheartedly embraced and backed by well-informed consumers in this country. I think the questions from my noble friend Lord Caithness about sensible labelling were very well put. Better-informed consumers will do much more to raise standards in the long term than the undeliverable demands of these amendments. Nothing in the Bill requires us to buy or to eat anything we do not want, and if my noble friend Lord Lilley had not made his excellent speech, I would have been happy to do it for him.
The Bill is not an attempt to lower standards, to force cheap and dodgy food down the throats of unsuspecting consumers, and least of all to sell out to cruel foreigners. These amendments, as high-minded as they sound, will not achieve their stated objectives. What they are likely to do is undermine the market system that has steadily and hugely effectively delivered food of a higher quality, of a wider choice and at a lower price to our consumers over many, many years. These amendments will not even help our own farmers in the long term because their logical conclusion will be to cut off future export opportunities by making trade deals very much more difficult to negotiate; they might even make them impossible. I would suggest that the desire to make a post-EU future difficult or impossible may well be the hidden agenda behind so much of what we have heard.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I, too, to acknowledge the tolerance, patience and courtesy that the Minister has shown throughout this debate. It has been long and, I suspect, quite tiresome for him at times, but it is appreciated. I speak in general support of Amendments 270 and 271, which call for the establishment of an international-UK food trade and farming standards commission. I say at the outset that I think it is regrettable that the Prime Minister agreed to the calamitous Northern Ireland protocol which will disadvantage and have a negative effect on the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland and on trading in general. It is most unfortunate and will require close scrutiny in the days ahead.
The strengthening of the Bill is essential so that the frequency of reporting on food security is increased to an annual requirement. The establishment of a food and farming standards commission would go some distance towards achieving that. I cannot overemphasise the importance of the agricultural industry to Northern Ireland. It sustains some 100,000 jobs, with a value of approximately £1.5 billion to the local economy. The Government’s commitment to retain the same level of support to farmers until the end of the Parliament is to be welcomed but we all have a duty to look beyond this. A long-term strategy is vital. Any future trade deals must ensure that agricultural imports meet our environmental, animal welfare and food standards. The Government need to clearly define how they intend to achieve this. The Bill will shape our agricultural industry for years to come and must ensure that food imported into the UK is produced to standards that are at least equivalent to those required of producers in the UK. I trust the Government will see the merits of a trade and standards commission, which will add transparency.
I have little doubt that many in your Lordships’ House are in receipt of representation from across the UK urging support for the inclusion in the Bill of vital safeguards for food safety, environmental protection, and the welfare of animals. It cannot be ignored; public interest in this issue is immense. The UK is less than 60% self-sufficient in food. We have learned something from the current pandemic, not least how vulnerable our ability to import food is and how the food chain can be severely strained and tested if we are too reliant on imported goods. Protecting local food production is therefore vital.
I trust the Government will recognise the importance of standing with our agriculture industry at this time. We must not miss the opportunity to ensure that the Bill secures vital safeguards for the high standards of food safety, animal welfare and environmental protection that are so highly valued by all the people of the United Kingdom. This has been a very interesting debate right from day one and I look forward to Report.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have heard many arguments put forward in this debate. I can say only that the fears that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, has expressed are slightly greater than those in Scotland, but there are fears there, nonetheless. I declare an interest as a livestock producer in Scotland, with a particular involvement in sheep. Like the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and many other Peers, my conviction is that this group of amendments deals with the most vital element of the Bill. In particular, I support the noble Lord’s Amendment 279, and in the same spirit I support Amendment 270 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh.
My noble friend the Minister will be very aware that Scotland has particularly strong feelings on market standards. There are good reasons for this. Scottish land and business, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, told us, have laid down their concerns. Some 80% of Scottish land was classified under the common agricultural policy as areas of natural constraint. Noble Lords will know that these areas are where there is limited or no cropping capability and livestock is the main product keeping some form of resident economic activity on the ground. Agriculture might produce only 1% of Scottish GDP, but that same ground is the background for the Scottish tourism industry, which constitutes a large part of the service sector. Overall, that sector contributes 75% of the Scottish economy. Tourism is a major component of it.
Another vital component for Scots is the nature and quality of our food and drink. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, drew to your Lordships’ attention, this agricultural sector is also highly reliant on exports. These exports are built on the same high-quality production. In particular, the trade of sheep with France has been the benchmark for prices of sheep production for the past 40 years in this country, so the introduction of any tariffs or deviation from our present common production standards carries an immense risk to that trade.
As we have heard, the Government have today launched the Trade and Agriculture Commission to address our concerns. This appears to have aroused considerable interest from the various devolved authorities and trade bodies, which have been asked to join in the setting up of such a body. I think we can all welcome that. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, was very clear in pointing out the shortcomings of the current proposals when he spoke to his amendment. Perhaps the Minister will correct me, but I think the Government will be unlikely to give us much of an idea of the effect the body will finally exercise in time for anything meaningful to be included in the Bill, hence the need for your Lordships to propose what are likely to be workable criteria and make it plain to the Government what we would find acceptable.
As my noble friend Lady McIntosh explained, her Amendment 270 proposes a body not unlike what the Government have initiated, but which also points to the main areas that must be addressed. One of its features is that it would not try to limit the negotiating power of government, but, from having heard my noble friend, I like to think that she will watch to see whether the Government will introduce some of the stipulations she mentioned in the next stage of the Bill. If she does not find them there, I hope she will table them in the form of amendments on Report.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie. I sympathise with the sentiment behind Amendment 280, but I feel it will report only after the main event. Amendment 279 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, also looks for a supervisory body, but does not demand the same powers envisaged in some of the other amendments. It goes into considerable detail, which is critical for the industry. If the noble Lord’s proposal was followed, it would mean that the Government would have the issues presented in a public forum in which they would have to justify their proposed outcomes. It gives much more detail than the current proposals. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that we will have to see what shape things take as Report comes along, but I hope there will be something to give us a greater sense of security.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend on the Front Bench and his team. My goodness he has shown patience beyond belief and reminds me of the problems I had when I was Deputy Speaker in the other place. I am essentially a practical man. I hope my noble friend will listen carefully to the speeches made by my noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lord Lilley, who raised some very relevant issues that we as a Government have to face.
I will only really address Amendment 270. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady McIntosh for tabling it before she knew whether there would be a Trade and Agriculture Commission. As has been pointed out, the commission and her proposals are not identical, but they are not dissimilar. I welcome what the Government have done so far.
Should the commission’s recommendations always be binding? I think not. I have listened to all sorts of advisory boards over many years across two Houses. I thank them, but they never were all binding. They certainly ought to be listened to very carefully, but they must be challenged on occasion.
Should the commission be a permanent body? I think it should, but every time we have a permanent body it is absolutely vital that we review its performance. I have noticed that the traditional review period is about five years. A bit of a drift has been going on to move beyond five years. Five years is about the right length.
I am not a farmer, but the quandary for me is that people say that farmers are being undercut by substandard producers. That raises the question: what happens if the producers are not substandard?
I always take an interest in what I suppose in the farming world are minority areas. I have long been involved with trees. I declare an interest in that I have a very modest 40 acres of woodland, approved by the Forestry Commission on a 10-year plan. We currently have problems with ash importation and with oak, partly from importation and partly from indigenous problems. There is a continuing need in that area, which I think is covered by the Bill, to ensure that we support research and development, and control of imports to ensure that they are of a proper quality for our saplings.
Where is the incentive for our farmers to improve their products so as to reduce the trade deficit? That seems a vital area. I have not noticed a lot of discussion about that in the many hours we have listened to these debates.
I take an interest in two other areas. There is a huge opportunity in horticulture. It is a small industry in the UK compared with what it was 40 or 50 years ago, but we must have joined-up government. We have a situation where one of the key restrictions on development in horticulture is the cost of power. If you have glass, you need cheap energy. We are producing good, environmentally friendly energy and more green energy as a percentage of supply than we have ever done. Lo and behold, along comes Ofgem with a proposal to reduce the profit percentage of energy suppliers—to halve it, in fact. Where will the investment come from in green energy and in the pricing of the product to help the horticulture industry? Someone must have a close look at Ofgem and ask it to stop meddling.
Finally, as I have mentioned before, viticulture is a tiny embryonic industry, but I hope it warrants at least somebody in the relevant department keeping a watch on it. It is growing fast and is well disciplined, but is competing across the world against the continent, the US, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa, to mention a few places. It is a good industry, which employs people and uses land that was not particularly well used in the past. It is a very exciting opportunity.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
I remind noble Lords of my Devon farming interests and note my American links. I join other noble Lords in thanking both Ministers and the many House and departmental staff for their efforts. I congratulate Minette Batters of the NFU and many others for their tireless work on these issues. Jamie Oliver has been a leading voice for high standards in our national diet; I thank him and his audience as well. But I remain unconvinced that protection of our national food standards is necessarily the right course. I invite the Committee to consider the unashamed promotion of our national food standards as an alternative.
It is now day seven of this Committee stage, and I am embarrassed to note that, in this wide-ranging agricultural debate, the Devon cream tea has yet to be mentioned. It is my ancestral duty to correct that and to remind your Lordships that it was my Saxon predecessor Ordwulf, alderman of Devon, who first recorded serving scones, cream and jam to the builders of Tavistock Abbey in 997 AD. As an aside, could the Minister confirm whether the Duchy of Cornwall is answerable to Parliament? If it is, Devon would be most grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Duke of Cornwall has any more ancient records of serving the cream tea. If he does not, it might settle an important local debate, once and for all.
Why is this particular piece of peninsula politics relevant? When I left California with my family, seven years ago, we served cream tea to our friends using Devon clotted cream, which was abundantly stocked in the local Santa Monica deli. When we left London for Devon some two years later, we tried the same, but could not find Devon cream in London; it was all from Cornwall. I came to realise then that the brand value of Devon cream is stronger in America than in England.
Along similar lines, we recently saw Her Majesty’s grandson Peter Phillips gamely promoting Jersey milk to the Chinese, whose appetite for meat and dairy is set to rise exponentially over the coming decades. Consider also our traditional French nickname, les rosbifs, and recall the celebration of English beef by William Hogarth and Henry Fielding, who famously wrote:
“When mighty Roast Beef was the Englishman’s food,
It ennobled our veins and enriched our blood.
Our soldiers were brave and our courtiers were good
Oh! the Roast Beef of old England”.
We can combine this ancient heritage and global brand recognition with modern environmental science. Studies increasingly identify grass-fed meat and dairy, typical of our western counties, as offering a lower carbon footprint and higher environmental benefit than alternative confinement systems, which house livestock indoors, feeding them intensive arable crops, hormones and antibiotics. Nations around the world are beginning to set net-zero targets, following the UK’s bold lead. I note that Joe Biden recently targeted net zero for the United States by 2050, which will include carbon-neutral food and farming.
Rather than protecting our farmers from high-carbon low-welfare imports, as these amendments seek to, might we not consider placing all our efforts on promoting our low-carbon high-welfare exports and re-establishing British farming as a world leader? It is for this reason that I am concerned that the trade, food and farming standards commission could be a regressive step. I do not believe that the commission that has been agreed by the Government and launched today has nearly the mandate it needs to achieve what the industry and consumers want. The commission will report in six months with a series of recommendations, but it will have no real impact on the Government’s negotiating strategy and no binding say. It is transparently a way of kicking the agricultural standards issue into that very same long green grass on which we West Country farmers pride ourselves.
Finally, I note that the Government are conducting dual negotiations with both the EU and the US, whose experienced trade delegations have long been driven directly by their farming interests. In contrast, our trade negotiators are mere debutantes due to be ravaged by their weathered counterparts, without a farming chaperone to protect them. We are all aware of the strength of the agricultural lobby in the US. This fall, the midwestern farming states are due to reprise their enormously influential role in US national politics. Similarly, none can forget the scenes of French farmers shutting down Paris with manure, in defence of their interests. Farmers have a radical sway over politics across Europe. Here, conversely, farming interests are conservative and convivial, as is graphically illustrated by the genteel hereditary voices—included mine—that have been so vocal in this debate.
I worry that this Government are not fearful enough of our farmers. They may need to become so, if our rural interests are to be fully realised in the ongoing trade negotiations.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I originally put my name down to speak to Amendment 271, in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester. I am glad this is a cross-party amendment; that is very significant.
I make this observation as an old-timer: this has been a particularly significant debate. It has been powerful for revealing the great wealth of experience and wisdom available in this House—noble Lords speaking with real authority because they are absolutely involved in the issues we are discussing. That needs to be recognised. It is epitomised by the Minister and my noble friend Lord Grantchester, both of whom are rooted in farming communities.
I say to the Minister, again as an old-timer, that it is not often you see a Minister have such great respect and understanding across the House. This is enhanced by the way he listens and responds, and because of his authority, speaking from his background. It is one thing to have generated good will and respect in the House—that is to be treasured—but the real test of the Minister will be what he delivers in response to this debate. We may say that the quality of everything he has said is significant but then find that it had no effect whatever on the legislation that is put forward. The test will be the clout he brings to bear within the department and, significantly, with his fellow Ministers, who I am certain will not all be sympathetic.
In speaking to Amendment 271, it is important to recognise that it is not only by our arrangements on international relations and trade that we will be able to ensure the high standards and quality of our agriculture—and that is vital—but we have to look to our own laurels. Not everything is perfect in our own country; think of foot and mouth and factory farming. Both for animal welfare and, more importantly in some ways, for human health, these are experiences about which we must be very vigilant. In taking a tough line in our relationships with the outside world, which I am sure is right, we must redouble our efforts all the time in the standards we achieve in our own agriculture.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have been on this set of amendments for over three hours now. We need to finish Committee tonight, so I ask noble Lords whether they can be a little quicker with their comments in future, then we might get done.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who—it may not have been apparent to your Lordships—was speaking from just over the hill from me in Cumbria. I put my name down to speak to Amendment 270 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, but my thoughts cover the entirety of the amendments we are considering at this point.
I am a farmer; I farm. My business and I face serious challenges, but I dare say I speak for many other farmers when I say that we are up for it—and anyway, we do not have much choice, do we?
Earlier in Committee, I said—slightly oversimplifying and slightly tongue in cheek—that since the end of the Second World War, Governments have paid public money to farmers because they wanted them to produce food and farm. In the brave new world into which we are now going, it has all changed and been turned on its head: farmers are paid public money to do everything and anything on land except produce food, while the food they might produce will be paid for by the market. While there is clearly a change entailed here, it is important to see that there is also a continuity: the central place of farming in the rural economy. It is merely the context in which it operates that is changing.
I do not believe this change of direction can work if food suppliers to this country from elsewhere in the world do not have to meet the same or equivalent standards demanded of domestic producers. The reason for that is that, regardless of any immediate direct impacts on either consumers or the environment, UK producers will not be able to compete and then the whole construct of the future of rural Britain will be put under threat and may well collapse. Were that to happen, not to provide a degree of protection would be a form of state aid given by the UK Government to foreign farmers. I do not believe that is an acceptable political response to taking back control. In short, it is not on.
In my view, unless the Government properly kitemark their intentions and policies with legally watertight guarantees—which, we understand and have heard this afternoon, is exactly what the British public want—under the proper control and in accordance with the procedures well established in the British constitution by Parliament, why should the rest of us place reliance on what we are told? I would like to hope that this matter can be clarified and resolved before Report.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
I am afraid that we cannot hear the noble Lord. Can he get closer to his microphone?
Lord Flight [V]
I think that it would be a tragedy if British agriculture suffered rather than benefited from Brexit. It appears to be—[Inaudible.]
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
I am really sorry, but the sound has gone again. Perhaps we can move on to the next speaker and try to get the noble Lord back later.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as this is the last time that I expect to speak in this Committee stage, I add my thanks to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. I also thank Front-Bench spokespersons for all their work in scrutinising and speaking to all the aspects of this very wide-ranging Bill. I express my thanks, too, to all the staff of the House who have been involved in organising and arranging these marathon proceedings.
The issues raised in these amendments are of huge public and parliamentary concern. They focus on the importance of having high standards in our food and agricultural production, and of ensuring that our producers are not forced to compete on unfair terms. Indeed, many have spoken in favour of a level playing field for our producers, and I agree with those comments. However, it seems highly ironic that we are having this discussion when the Government seem intent on ignoring the political declaration which they signed with the European Union as part of the withdrawal agreement and reneging on the commitment in that declaration to have a future relationship with the EU containing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field.
In that respect, I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Hain, who expressed concerns about the state of the current negotiations with the EU, which are so vital not only for our agricultural sector but for our economy as a whole. I welcome the establishment of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, but I share the concerns and views expressed about it by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle.
Finally, I add my strong support for Amendment 280, so powerfully spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Wigley. I had intended to add my name to this amendment, and I apologise to both noble Lords for not having done so before the available time had expired. As someone who lives close to an upland sheep-farming area in the north of England, I associate myself fully with their remarks.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the prospect of either no deal with the EU or a poor deal that would not allow a continuation of the current frictionless trade is causing great fear and alarm among farmers in the rural areas that I know best. Indeed, their work and way of life are seen as being under threat as a result. Therefore, in conclusion, I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government are determined to safeguard European Union access for these important sectors, particularly as the negotiations with the EU enter a crucial stage.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friends the Minister and Lady Bloomfield on their fortitude, stamina and good humour throughout all six—getting on for six and a half—days of Committee on this Bill. I thank all the House staff and all those in the broadcasting unit who have done such an excellent job in keeping our Committee stage covered.
If the Minister is tempted to move in this area, he has an embarrassment of riches. The majority of amendments in this group are really variations on a theme and push the same points. Is he tempted to bring forward a government amendment on these issues on Report, or does he believe that the Bill as currently drafted, and indeed wider government policy, take the issues set out in the amendment into account? If he were minded to move an amendment on Report, he could probably do no better than move the one tabled by our right honourable friend—his boss—the Secretary of State. Perhaps akin to when on the golf course always letting the boss have the winning putt, if he were to go back to the department and suggest an amendment to that effect, that would be quite a neat piece of parliamentary business, in that the Secretary of State could oversee a Bill on which he brought forward an amendment that he had tabled as a Back-Bench Member.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I know that the Minister will be relieved that I am in the last chunk of speakers on this group. The degree of consensus across the Chamber in support of Amendments 270 and 271, in particular, has been quite remarkable, and those are the amendments that I wish to address.
With regard to Amendment 270, much of what I was going to say has been said, so, perhaps untraditionally in the House of Lords, I will not say it. However, I have two questions which I do not think have been raised. First, when I helped to scrutinise the Trade Bill, with great fanfare the Government announced the UK strategic trade advisory group. It was designed to be permanent, have regular meetings and support the consideration of standards. I would be interested to know how that will interact with the Trade and Agriculture Commission. There is a standing group. Is the expectation that the commission will be absorbed into that group?
Secondly, we have a network—again, launched with great fanfare—of international trade commissioners around the world, but I am still unsure what their role will be when other trade commissioners are appointed by the Secretary of State. Will they have any interaction with this issue? I suspect not, but if that can be clarified, I will be grateful.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and others have mentioned, these issues were raised in our debates on the Trade Bill. However, when they were, the Minister said that that Bill was not the appropriate place for them. As we have heard, when they have been raised in debates on the Agriculture Bill, it has been said that this Bill is not the appropriate place for them either. At some stage, we will have to find an appropriate place for these issues, as has been made clear in the Committee. I suspect that this Bill is that place.
This House expressed its opinion and passed an amendment on standards during discussions on the Trade Bill. I wrote to the Trade Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, when he was appointed, asking why the Government had reintroduced the Trade Bill stripping out the amendments that the Lords had made to it. He said in his reply to me that the amendments that the Lords had passed were “otiose”. After looking up that word—I confess to the Committee—I was disappointed to hear what the Minister had said, but this is now the time and place, and I do not think that this issue is otiose.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who is not in his place, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who is, for their contributions. I suspect they are more in tune with the feelings of Conservative Back-Benchers in the other place than here. It is worth listening to what they say because I suspect that they speak for the authentic view of the Conservative Party this year in many respects when it comes to trade. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering; I wish that hers was the authentic voice but, because we cannot guarantee that, we must have some protections in place in this legislation.
What struck me was that both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord tried to say, in the false narrative that they perpetuate, that there are now clear distinctions and indeed contradictions between producer interest, consumer interest, environmental interest and animal welfare interest. They are all now combined and cannot be easily separated, as in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, reminded us of the establishment of the WTO in 1990. He did not mention another piece of pioneering development in 1990, when he was Trade and Industry Secretary: the Food Safety Act. He felt no contradiction at the time between putting enhanced standards for food safety for our consumers on the statute book and being the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Perhaps he has forgotten about that—but he is not here to intervene, even if that was allowed under the rules. We now need a system where we have strict enforcement of high standards for our market, we stop illegal activity and avoid those illegitimate goods coming in and we do not diminish and devalue market access, which is a cherished commercial benefit for our country.
There is still the narrative of differential—you can buy premium products for food if you pay extra because they have that extra bit of safety added to them—but we should have got rid of that concept a long time ago. If you go to Tesco and buy any good egg there—and surely they should all be good—the chances are that it was laid in my former constituency in the Scottish Borders just outside Peebles. If you visit the website of the farm company that produces most of Tesco’s eggs across the whole of the United Kingdom, the very first thing that comes up on the home page is that it adheres to the British Lion quality standard, the award assured by the British Retail Consortium and the RSPCA. They are not necessarily statutory but they are industry standards that add reassurance for the consumer.
There has been a lot of reference to the United States and I want to say a couple of things about the relationship with the United States. In the US, as we have seen, many states have lower labour rights, and therefore cheaper labour costs, than we have. That may be regretted by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and others, but it is the case. Feed is cheaper, they can reuse their litter and they use massively cross-subsidised soy and grain production for feed, so they have cheaper inputs and they would already be uncompetitive for us for those reasons. However, the US, in its negotiating mandate with its UK, seeks
“comprehensive market access for U.S. agricultural goods in the UK”,
including by eliminating
“Non-tariff barriers that discriminate against U.S. agricultural goods”.
What are these areas? Not all of them are statutory. Yes, we have inherited elements from the EU, such as the EU broiler welfare directive on stock density, and we monitor welfare and environmental outcomes such as CO2 levels. There is no equivalent of those in any part of the United States. We have non-legislative standards that have no US equivalent, which they see as barriers but we see as something to be protected—and, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, promoted—such as on the welfare of farmed animals and on the condition of animals. We have salmonella control for food safety; we have antibiotic stewardship, where we collect data for good practice not required by law; and we have a farm assurance scheme that 90% of our chickens, turkeys and ducks are reared to.
Finally, I will turn to an element that still puzzles me greatly about negotiations with the EU. This is where I think we get to the nub of some of the concerns. The US is asking of us what it is asking of the EU, which effectively is to remove some of these barriers, which are protections for standards, thus enabling American producers to be more competitive with us—in effect, making their products cheaper. However, in our negotiations with the EU, the draft text that the Government published states that they are not seeking mutual recognition for testing and certification for foodstuffs. In practice, that means a great burden for our food exporters, who will have to provide prior approval with the supplier along with compliant testing certificates, which are linked to the comments of my noble friend Lord Bruce. We do not seek mutual recognition of this testing and compliance regime. Could it possibly be that Dominic Cummings thinks that if we did do this, it would reduce our scope to agree a trade deal with China or with America, where our standards framework, our testing and our certification are seen as less of a barrier? I hope the Minister will state that that is not the case.
Simply repeating that we would not see legislative reductions is not sufficient. We have to have the protections that the amendments would put in the Bill. This is not an otiose issue. The time is now and the time is right under this Bill to amend it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committee (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The House will be pleased to know that we are returning to the noble Lord, Lord Flight.
Lord Flight [V]
My Lords, I apologise for my computer not working properly.
It will be a tragedy if British agriculture suffers rather than benefits from Brexit. It appears that aspects of the Bill are not helpful to British agriculture, although it gives us the ability to restructure in our best interests. I was concerned to see Country Life, of all magazines, with headlines like
“British farming sold down the river”
and comments such as
“What a way to repay our farmers, by importing lower-standard products that steal their market”.
Is the Bill, with its many amendments, good or bad for our farmers? That seems to be the fundamental question. Defra Secretary George Eustice has insisted on upholding high welfare and safety standards and insists on the same welfare and food safety rules for imports as there are for our own farmers’ products. We need to put into law what Michael Gove promised when he was at Defra: namely, that Britain would lead the world in animal welfare and food safety.
But it now appears that we are going into trade negotiations having told other countries that we will not insist on either proper agricultural standards or environmental rules, so British farmers will be required to meet higher standards than pertain in other countries and will compete with food and goods exported by those who carry none of the same costs. Liz Truss is rightly pushing for free trade deals with the US and Brazil, knowing that the easiest way to achieve them is to signal her surrender on food exports. If that occurs, though, what a way to repay our farmers if we are importing goods or foods that steal our markets through lower standards and subsidies.
But are we misunderstanding the Bill? Is it not a trade Bill but rather a domestic Bill? It establishes a legalistic framework by which we can create a new system for supporting our farming industry post Brexit. The Bill also sets out a list of activities that could be supported by the Secretary of State. There are prescriptions for reforming our agricultural markets in line with farmers’ objectives. The key issue is to ensure that cheap goods and food imported to the UK do not undercut UK food production costs and standards. Arguably there should be a ban on food imports that do not meet UK standards. What is needed is for the Government to set out how and where this legislation is a friend to our farmers and how we can prevent unfair competition.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this has been a long and important debate, with a great deal of agreement across the House. I do not intend to speak at length, repeating points already made. But I add my voice in support of the intentions behind Amendment 270, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and Amendment 271 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester.
A major concern for the future is that trade agreements with other international partners will be at the cost of lower standards in food safety, environmental protections and animal welfare. The Trade and Agriculture Commission set up by the Government and launched today is welcome but, as many noble Lords have noted, it is advisory and therefore cannot enforce import standards. It has no teeth, it is not representative, it does not report to Parliament and it will end in six months’ time.
The UK has a chance, with these amendments, to have a world-leading trade commission ensuring that food standards are upheld for British consumers and farmers alike. It should not be up to the supermarkets and food chains to decide the policy of the standards for the food we eat. Their commitment not to sell or serve chlorinated chicken is of course welcome and the right thing to do, but not everyone everywhere will follow their lead. It is the Government’s job to protect our food, animal welfare and farming standards in any future trade deal. We need to bar imports from producers that produce to lower environmental or animal welfare standards. If we do not, it will spell disaster for our farmers. They must not be undercut by cheaper quality produce. With the proper, stronger, regulatory framework suggested by Amendments 270 and 271, we can maintain high standards in our food and farming and protect public health.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I have had quite a long wait as I am the 40th speaker, but I have heard all the other 39. We have had varied contributions, but there has been a remarkable degree of consensus supporting the amendments in general and in particular Amendment 270, so ably moved by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, and Amendment 279, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness.
As I listened, it seemed to me that, as this is the longest and most important Agriculture Bill in my parliamentary lifetime of 50 years, we should ask: what is and should be its prime purpose. It should be twofold. It should be to protect British farming and agriculture. There have been debates on other days, some of which I have taken part in, where there has been talk of public benefit and public good, rather avoiding the central purpose of farming, which is to produce food for our people. It is therefore to protect farming. But I was also much taken by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, when he talked about the need to promote farming.
As I listened to the noble Earl and others, it seemed to me that we could produce a fairly good group of people from your Lordships’ House to protect and promote British farming. I thought of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who made a notable speech, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who always speaks with a quiet and almost magisterial authority on these things, and the ever-wise noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, now a non-aligned Peer, so he can indulge in being semi-detached, which I am frequently accused of being myself.
I was taken, too, by the speech of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who talked powerfully about the importance of Scottish lamb and its French market. He echoed what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said a few days ago in a slightly different context when he talked about 90% of Welsh lamb going to the European Union. We must face up to the fact that, as we have left the European Union and the transition period will come to an end on 31 December, we must do all that we can to protect that market for our agricultural goods. It is absolutely incumbent on the Government to do everything they can to negotiate a deal that achieves that purpose.
I am not suggesting—no one should—that British farming practices are perfect. There were disturbing pictures a few weeks back of the River Wye, perhaps the loveliest river in England, polluted by the effluent from intensive chicken farming. It is nowhere near as intensive as what goes on in America, which is why the birds have to be washed in chlorine before we can eat them. Just this week we had a graphic reminder from the Prime Minister’s personal campaign, which he launched yesterday, against junk food, much of which is either produced here or has some British ingredients. So we are not perfect, but we have high standards. I do not always take a lot of notice of manifestos, but the Conservative Party manifesto in December made a total commitment to ensure that our standards would be enhanced rather than diminished. If the Bill does not create a situation whereby that can happen, it is, in the immortal words of the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, not fit for purpose.
The Government have themselves acknowledged the value of a commission, but a commission whose recommendations can easily be set aside and whose life is very limited will not really deliver for British farming and the British people. That is why I believe that my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, indicated the right way to go: the establishment of a permanent body that we can all respect, whose judgments and pronouncements will carry weight and which will itself fulfil something of the purpose I referred to a moment ago of both protecting and promoting British farming.
I end by echoing the tributes to my noble friends Lord Gardiner and Lady Bloomfield, because they have certainly borne the burden of the heat of the day. But seven days is not too long to devote to the preliminary scrutiny of the most important Bill of its kind in half a century. The Government will have to show enormous flexibility if they regard our powers of scrutiny as real and important when we come to Report. The seven days will certainly be equalled, or even exceeded, and there could be quite a lot of contact with another place as a result of Report. But my noble friend has great talents of diplomacy. He has a quiet, persuasive ability and I hope he will bring the Bill back on Report incorporating much of what has been proposed in Committee. It would therefore have a speedy and triumphant progress through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Burnett (LD) [V]
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 271 and declare my interests as set out in the register.
At Second Reading, I stated that for various reasons, which I gave in my speech, if we crash out of the EU at the end of the year without an agreement, there will be overwhelming pressure on the Government to compete a trade agreement with the United States as soon as possible. I also gave reasons why this might take more time than has been anticipated. However, from recent press reports, it appears that the Government are leaning towards negotiating what Matthew Parris, in his excellent article in the Times on Saturday 25 July, described as “a new status with the EU as an economic satellite but excluded from its decision-making.” Other reports support this opinion. The EU will make some concessions and such a free trade agreement would, according to Mr Parris, leave us still able to enjoy relatively frictionless trade with our former EU partners as long as we essentially copy the EU’s level playing field rules, but do so voluntarily as a sovereign nation.
However, this is still speculation. We must protect the British people and ensure that they have safe and high-quality food to eat, produced in accordance with high animal welfare and environmental standards. These are the standards we currently follow or exceed. We must retain our vital EU markets and, as emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie, in their compelling speeches, Amendment 271 largely follows the wording of another amendment put down in the other place by the honourable member for Tiverton and Honiton, Mr Neil Parish, chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and a highly respected Member of the other place. He put his amendment to the vote and although it was lost, a number of Government members and MPs voted with him, as did the opposition parties.
Over the past few months, a number of Ministers have stated that whatever the pressures, the Government will adhere to the high food safety, environmental and animal welfare standards that we have achieved within the European Union. This should be reason enough to enshrine these standards in our own primary legislation. Ministers come and Ministers go, as I said at Second Reading. If it is not in primary legislation, there are real problems.
I commend to the House an article dated 12 September 2019, written by Chloe Anthony, a lecturer in law at the University of Sussex, and Dr Emily Lydgate, a fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory—a partnership between the University of Sussex and Chatham House—entitled UK food safety Statutory Instruments: A problem for US-UK negotiations? Referring to the statutory instruments created under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, these authors argue that some provide extensive scope for Ministers to make future changes to food and safety legislation without the parliamentary oversight that primary legislation would provide. We in this House and the other place are aware of the problems of overseeing secondary legislation and the power it gives to Governments. Much of the existing legislation on food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards can be altered by statutory instrument. One statutory instrument can deal with a number of different matters and, save in exceptional circumstances, it is not amendable by either House. The only exception to that rule is when the parent Act provides otherwise. This is not the case in the legislation we are debating. Matthew Parris reminds us in his article that our largest trading partner is the EU, at 47% of our trade, and our second largest is the United States of America at 15%.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I echo the thanks for the Ministers’ patience and the brilliance of the technicians who have helped so much in these last weeks. I will speak in support of Amendment 276 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and Amendment 279 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry.
On Amendment 276, I add only that any treaty or trade agreement that we enter into obviously must take into account our goal of net zero. It seems ridiculous that we should countenance anything else. On Amendment 279, I am very pleased to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Curry, says about the new Trade and Agriculture Committee. I have read it described as a fig leaf and a trojan horse. The RSPCA said:
“We fear this industry-heavy commission will not have animal welfare at its heart”.
I urge the Government to support this amendment, which seeks to beef up the role, status and longevity of the new commission.
After listening to this debate and realising how much agreement there is and that everyone knows that we cannot let our food standards slide, I want to bring into play one other factor. A report from the Nature Friendly Farming Network survey last week said that 96% of people want higher environmental standards to be a key requirement of all future trade deals, to combat the threat of cheap imports. What thought have the Government given to the court of public opinion? There can be little doubt that the majority of this House and many in the other place who supported Neil Parish believe that we should retain our current standards in all our trade deals. However, we are not the only people who matter.
For the record, when I was editor of the Daily Express and Monsanto was poised to move into Britain, having done secret deals with many of our seed companies, I joined forces with Malcolm Walker, the founder and owner of Iceland. We ran a huge public campaign that defeated Monsanto’s endeavour. I am not against genetic modification across the board, but we were against Monsanto’s bullying tactics, which seemed to threaten the stability and independence of our Parliament. This campaign gathered force across the left, the right and the centre and in the end, Monsanto was stopped.
Our Government gave a manifesto commitment to uphold our standards and I believe that they will be taken aback by the level of public anger towards the end of this year. There are very few people—pretty much no one, as far as I can see—who actually want to do anything to jeopardise our food standards. It seems an extraordinary irony that our Prime Minister should yesterday have launched an anti-obesity strategy and an encouragement to get us all to eat healthier, better and fresher food, and tomorrow Henry Dimbleby launches the first draft of his food report, also commissioned by the Government, yet the Government are suggesting that we might adopt lower food standards which will harm not just our farmers but our health, our planet, the animals who live on it and the environmental standards for which so many people have fought for so long. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, where will this cheaper food end up? He is right that it will be in cheaper stores and chicken shops, which will only add to the health inequalities which have such an impact on Covid survival rates. This is not joined-up government thinking—quite the contrary.
We should never be a country that, in the words of my noble friend Lord Curry, exports its cruelty to others. We should not be the buyers of products that have necessitated cutting down rainforest, sentencing pigs to live in farrowing crates or chicken to lie in their own excrement for their whole miserable little life. If we fail on these amendments, we should be ashamed, but your Lordships should rest assured that nothing short of a legally binding agreement will satisfy the British public.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Like her, I thank the Minister, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield and the Bill team for their patience and productivity. We need to complete Committee today, so I will be brief and confine myself to expressing doubts about Amendment 270. I am looking forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister, but I think that this amendment and some of the others in this group would in practice lead to problems in trade negotiations in a way that would cause insurmountable problems of compliance with the World Trade Organization. I cannot see a way around this. Noble Lords do not pay enough attention to the importance of trade, wherever it takes place, at a time when we face recessionary shock. We must tread a careful path.
Since the Bill was first presented in the other place, the Government have gone a long way. They have established the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which was launched publicly today, and as Red Tractor is involved in its work, I should again register my interest as its chair. It is a victory for the farming unions which fought for it. It is a well-judged move by the Secretary of State for Trade to get it off the ground quickly in time to provide a sounding board and have an impact on current trade negotiations. In these circumstances, I really cannot see the value in the proposal before us today.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, and it has been a pleasure to take part, albeit a very minor part, in these early stages of the Bill. I have been full of admiration for the passion and knowledge about agriculture shown by so many noble Lords. My family’s connection with farming ended when my great-great-grandfather’s farm in north Wales was taken over as a result of the rent increases imposed during the agrarian revolution of the late 1800s, which precipitated the social change his son described so graphically in his autobiography.
It seems to me that as we discuss the importance of agricultural and food standards in relation to Amendment 271, we could be standing at the cusp of another type of agrarian revolution, one which could again lead to changes in the viability of farms, not just in Wales, but in the whole of the UK. The threat of cheap, poor-quality imports leading to the lowering of domestic standards and a reduction in farm income is very real.
I was conscious, as I listened to some earlier debates, that most of the speakers spoke from experience of large farms in England, and it was a pleasure to hear the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Hain, speak earlier about small family farms, which are so prevalent in Wales. As a young female farmer, Beca Glyn, said in her blog, these farms make,
“valuable contributions … to animal welfare, landscape management and culture; especially the Welsh language”.
Wales is, of course, hilly and mountainous and our climate is mild and wet. This means that only a small proportion of our land is suitable for arable cropping, but grass for the grazing of livestock is in abundance. Our upland and hill farms therefore provide grazing for hardy breeds of cattle such as Welsh Blacks and for hardy Welsh Mountain sheep. Our farmers, who work hard in sometimes very difficult conditions, are proud of their produce and the standards they achieve in animal welfare, and none more so than farmers around the Conwy Valley, where I live. I cannot imagine that there has ever been a time when the quality of our farmers’ produce has been appreciated and valued by customers in the UK and in France as much as it has been in recent years. I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, about future access to the French market for our sheep.
For our local butchers, mart operators and abattoirs, quality is key, a quality that comes from adhering to high standards. Search their websites and Facebook pages, and the words “pride”, “high standards”, “quality” and “traceability” appear in abundance, so it is hardly surprising that farmers and consumers across Wales have been justifiably appalled and angered by the refusal of the Government to agree to an amendment which would guarantee a commitment to equivalent standards on imported agricultural or food products in this Bill. For them, there is no logic that an Agriculture Bill says nothing about protecting the standards which they have strived for and to which they have adhered. They cannot understand why a Government who committed in their manifesto, just seven short months ago, not to compromise on British farming’s high standards, found it so difficult to accept the amendment introduced at Third Reading in the other place.
Sadly, even the commission announced by the Government today, with its temporary nature and inability to give binding advice, will be seen by farmers and consumers alike as an ineffective sop. Unfortunately, and I dislike having to say this, this has now become a matter of trust. Farmers and consumers alike question why the Government are so reluctant to enshrine their manifesto commitment in law. They ask: could it be that a manifesto commitment is easier to renege on? The Minister is held in the highest regard in your Lordships’ House. He is courteous at all times, even at midnight on Day 6 in Committee, and I know he is a man of his word, but Amendment 271 is on the Marshalled List because farmers’ leaders and consumers have asked for it to be there. They know that in reality we are not dealing with a Minister we know and trust but with a Government who increasingly talk in doublespeak and cannot always be guaranteed to stand by their word. That is why their word has to be on a statutory basis in the Bill.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys. When she was describing the difficulties of farmers in the north of Wales she could have been describing my county of Cumbria. The similarities are uncanny, but we knew that, even down to the weather. This seven-day Committee stage has been one of the finest debates that I have been involved in in almost 50 years in the Houses of Parliament. I think a lot of it is due to the way in which we have been led by the two Ministers. I am speaking as a member of the Opposition and am proud to be a Labour Peer, but the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, has been an admirable Minister. He deals with us all, from whatever side, equally and in a tolerant way and tries to answer the questions, and he is ably assisted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, who shows the same tolerance. I thank them both very much.
My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, speaks with a great deal of sense and independence. He said that this was the most important agricultural Bill he had ever been involved in since he and I came into Parliament in 1970. He is absolutely right, but it is more challenging this time because, finally, we have realised that agriculture is not completely about farming. It is about forestry. It is about horticulture. It is about land use. It is about food standards and quality. It is about the environment. It is about what can be done through agriculture to cope with climate change. Today, this group of amendments brings home to us the result of Brexit and, accompanying that, trade deals.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, I confess that I have some sympathy with the Minister. He is universally admired and respected in this House but he faces a weight of opinion that I have rarely seen in my 20 years in the House of Lords. Members from all Benches and from right across the UK, including some of the country’s leading experts in their field—backed by the NFU, a coalition of more than 20 environmental and animal welfare groups, the British press and more than a million signatories to a petition—have major concerns about standards going forward after Brexit.
However, I have no sympathy at all with the Government, who profess to have an absolute, unwavering commitment to standards but refuse to put them in the Bill. If they thought that the creation and announcement of the Trade and Agriculture Commission was going to be a sop to noble Lords, today should have disabused them of that idea. As the noble Lord, Lord Curry, highlighted, this body is advisory only. If ever there were a time when we should have the lessons of advisory bodies foremost in our minds, it is now, when we have the recent experience of SAGE.
A number of noble Lords asked why the commission has been set for only six months. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, we are likely still to be negotiating trade deals in three to 10 years’ time.
Among many others, the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised issues such as good husbandry and the way in which poor husbandry elsewhere can be used to undercut British farmers. They highlighted important issues, such as stock density and the overuse of antibiotics.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Boycott, highlighted the question of where this cheap food is likely to end up and suggested that it will be with the poorest in our society. I think that they are right. No one should have to choose between their health and conscience on one hand and their budget on the other. These standards should be guaranteed for everyone.
Many noble Lords commented that this is the most important sets of amendments that we face. I agree: they are important in their own right but they are also important when it comes to thinking about parliamentary sovereignty. It is of course correct that Parliament did not approve, or even properly scrutinise, trade deals negotiated on our behalf when we were members of the EU, but that was entirely our decision; other member states chose to do it differently. Now, having apparently taken back control, the Government still see no role for Parliament in negotiating future trade deals, including on the important issues that we have debated today and despite the enormous public interest in relation to not just food but health, environmental and safety standards.
In recent weeks, we have heard a lot about how these commitments are enshrined in the Conservative manifesto. Manifestoes are meant to be an indicator of the Government’s legislative programme—they are not an end in themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, commented that this is a question of trust in government. I absolutely agree. The Government have a problem here because they are telling business that, post Brexit, there will be a deregulatory bonanza and the creation of Singapore-on-Thames, yet in this regard, we are supposed to believe that these protections and such regulation are absolutely guaranteed. For many people, that is not credible, which is why we need something guaranteeing these standards in the Bill. My party has consistently called for the retention of high standards for food, the environment, safety and animal welfare after Brexit. We seek to ensure that this Bill and others will protect UK consumers and UK farmers.
The Minister has quite a job ahead of him on Report.
Lord Grantchester
This has been another very good debate on a key issue in the Bill. I thank all noble Lords who spoke on these amendments, which cover the key variances in opinion on approaches to food standards.
Amendment 276 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain, which other noble Lords have signed, is essentially the amendment proposed in the other place by Neil Parish and others. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated. I spoke on this in regard to my Amendment 271, which answers various deficiencies that that amendment encountered. However, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his remarks on the amendment, as he underlined the huge support that it secured with so many of the industry’s representative bodies, including the National Farmers’ Union.
If I may, I will group together Amendment 273 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which other noble Lords signed, and Amendment 278 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, signed. Both approach the issue of food standards from the position that, after IP completion day, existing UK standards must not be undermined. Amendment 273 underlines the importance of equivalence of standards protecting food safety, the environment and animal welfare. It is clear in its objectives but, unfortunately, it does not provide for how this process will be conducted or implemented, including how the ratification—or denial of ratification—of any international trade deal will be endorsed or refused.
Amendment 278 specifies that the Secretary of State must produce a register of UK production standards, against which agricultural goods must be assessed, which must be updated annually. I do not know whether this is necessary when there is a statute book, or how this process will be judged. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Wigley, for Amendment 280, which is focused on the situation should the UK Government not conclude a satisfactory agreement with the EU in time. It requires that the Secretary of State report to Parliament on the impact of this on the beef and lamb sectors. There have been many debates on the no-deal Brexit situation and its impacts. Even after the Government’s announcements on the temporary tariffs that would apply in that situation, I share the amendment’s concerns. However, I remain confident that there will be an agreement between the UK and the EU in time.
A food and trade commission has been proposed by the National Farmers Union for some time. While we can support such a commission, it does not replace our Amendment 271. Depending on its terms of reference, membership and powers, it could become a welcome means to monitor ongoing improvement in food standards and production standards equivalence in all future trade deals, but only as a second step, having secured the importance of the provisions enshrined in Amendment 271. There was always an apprehension that any food and trade commission would just continue anxiety about whether it will be effective in maintaining the UK’s production standards.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who led on Amendment 270, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, who spoke in support of the NFU’s Amendment 279. I have great regard for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, coming as they do from a former chair of the important Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee in the other place. I also greatly appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has achieved over many years. I have attended many conferences where he has spoken and have sought his advice on one or two issues in the past. However, both speakers struggled to reconcile their amendments’ proposals with what has now been set up. It was rather confusing: were they really promoting their amendments? On this side of the House, we would not be able to support the present proposals, or able to welcome the version of a food and trade commission launched today. That is a very disappointing position to be in.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry, spelled it out himself: it is not permanent and it does not follow any legislative step to enshrine UK standards. It is not independent; it is merely advisory. It has no formal powers and does not envisage any role for Parliament. His amendment makes no provision regarding wide representation of the many interests that need to be included on any commission. The obvious omissions of consumer interests, animal welfare and environmental organisations and others, have resulted in a crescendo of objections following the announcements. The British Veterinary Association, the RSPCA, Greener UK and Which? have all issued statements of disappointment.
This puts the National Farmers Union and proponents of the commission in a difficult position. Do they withdraw their amendments? They will feel embarrassed in farming circles. We do not need another talking shop for the NFU and its sister organisations in the devolved Administrations to debate for a few months. How does this differ from the trade advisory group that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis asked about? We need decisive and independent scrutiny, after having secured provision for our position. The co-operation between the commission proponents and the Government is interesting. Will the Minister confirm whether Amendment 279, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, was drawn up with his department’s help before it was agreed with the NFU? I understand that his department was taken aback when the Department for International Trade seized it as a method to buy off Back-Bench Conservative dismay at the Government’s position, so that Neil Parish expressed anxiety at the department’s approach to food production standards.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this debate has taken four and a quarter hours. I have taken careful note of the range of views, but I well understand that there is a considered view across the Committee about certain points. My noble friend Lady Bloomfield and I are touched by the generous comments made by so many noble Lords. If we sit late tonight, we will have had about 54 hours in Committee, compared with 16 hours in the other place. Before any noble Lord starts to say that that shows what important work we do, when I referred this to my honourable friend the Minister for Farming, she said, “We gave it very thorough consideration; perhaps some noble Lords might have taken it to extreme levels.” I pass on that one, however.
Given the time, I want to spend a little time setting out the legislative context in which all these matters should be considered. As I said at Second Reading, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 retains our standards on environmental protections, animal welfare, animal and plant health, and food safety at the end of the transition. This provides a firm basis for maintaining the same high level of protection for both domestic and imported products. I feel like repeating that. Because of the time, I will not, but I emphasise those points.
We already have the rules and robust processes in place to protect UK standards. The independent work of our food regulators, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, and rigorous processes will continue to ensure that all food imports into the UK are safe and meet the relevant UK product rules and regulations. This will include imports under new free trade agreements. For example, regulated food products need to pass the FSA’s risk analysis process before being placed on the UK market. This process is rigorous, independent and based on robust scientific evidence. The process will bring a substantial weight of expertise to bear. The FSA has doubled the number of risk assessors since 2017. It can draw on the expertise of 100 scientific experts and support staff and has recruited 35 additional members to its advisory committees. It has also taken wider consumer interest into account, such as the impact on the environment, animal welfare and food security, drawing on appropriate expertise and stakeholders to do so. Moreover, the expertise of other government departments and agencies will be brought to bear in the risk assessment process, as required, including the Animal and Plant Health Agency and Defra officials.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked about equivalence and who will determine it. Equivalence will be considered by experts in the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Food Standards Agency. The expert advice and evidence on regulated products will then be presented to Ministers in the UK and devolved Administrations for a decision on whether these products should be placed on the UK market. Secondary legislation would need to be laid before Parliament to authorise new regulated products to be placed on the market and the usual scrutiny processes would apply.
We will repatriate the functions of audit and inspection, currently carried out by the European Commission, to ensure that trading partners continue to meet our import conditions for food and feed safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare. This will include UK officials auditing the food production systems and rules of other countries and carrying out inspection visits to facilities in the countries themselves. I did not hear any of that during the debate. We will also verify that requirements are carried out as stipulated through checks at the border. This will provide a robust system to maintain our high standards going forward. Our audits will ensure that trading partners have the necessary infrastructure and regulation in place to export safe food and animal products to the UK, which either meet or exceed UK import conditions, and will then ensure that these standards are maintained. Again, I did not hear much about any of that during the debate.
Given the protections outlined, the Government believe that sufficient measures are already in place. We are committed to ensuring that trade agreements do not compromise our high standards and will continue to take into consideration the views of relevant stakeholders across the food supply chain on the impact of trade deals. A range of established stakeholder groups is already in place to advise the development of government policy on trade. These include the Strategic Trade Advisory Group and the agri-food chain business group, as well as various supply chain advisory groups such as the arable group, the livestock group and the food and drink panel. These groups already provide valuable expert advice to help government develop trade policy.
The Government listened closely to valuable feedback from Parliament and stakeholders and, to strengthen these existing arrangements, recently established a Trade and Agriculture Commission—I say this to my noble friend Lord Caithness. It will operate under the auspices of the Department for International Trade. Defra is closely involved in its work. It will deal with policy areas that my department leads on and Defra officials are members of the commission secretariat. Earlier today, the Defra Secretary of State delivered a message alongside his counterpart in DIT at the official launch of the commission. If anyone studies the composition of this commission, they will see a wealth of authoritative expertise from across the four countries of the UK. The chair of the group, Tim Smith, has over 30 years’ experience in the sector and is a former chief executive of the FSA. I also worked closely with Nigel Gibbens during his time as Defra’s Chief Veterinary Officer; his expertise on animal health and welfare will be invaluable. These individuals, and the rest of the membership, will drive a strong and independent piece of work, which I am sure will stand up to scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked about consumer and other bodies. Beyond the membership itself, there will be many ways to engage the commission’s members and other structures that will feed into the group to inform its advisory role. The exact shape and frequency of these will be formalised soon, subject to the chair. Members were approached to join the commission following a process of consultation. We believe that we have ensured that there is an appropriate range of views and expertise on the commission.
With reference to Amendment 279, the remit of the newly formed Trade and Agriculture Commission will cover many of the principles set out by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. It will bring together stakeholders across the industry and the four UK nations, using their expertise to advise on how best the UK can seize new export opportunities that our trade policy can deliver, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises. The aim is to promote our high-quality agri-food produce internationally, while ensuring that animal welfare and environmental standards in food production are not undermined.
The Trade and Agriculture Commission will help to shape the future of trade and agricultural policy in our current negotiations and in those to come. It will also provide advice to help promote our agenda at the WTO and other international fora, including on international standards for animal welfare and environmental protections, and to advance and protect consumer interests and those of developing countries. This inclusive approach, along with the weighty expertise of members, ensures that the advice the commission produces at the end of its six-month term will be representative and robust. The commission’s report will also come before noble Lords, who will debate it when the Department for International Trade presents it to Parliament.
The Trade and Agriculture Commission’s recent establishment could not have come at a more opportune time, as our trade negotiations with the United States, Australia and New Zealand are live. While measures under the Bill will not come into effect until Royal Assent, the new commission has already started work and will have the opportunity to make recommendations at this crucial time. The Government are committed to building a transparent and inclusive trade policy. Parliament already has a role in scrutinising a finalised trade agreement before it is ratified, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
My noble friends Lord Lilley and Lady Neville-Rolfe asked about WTO rules in relation to Amendments 270 and 271. I am advised that both these amendments would raise issues under WTO rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked about food. High standards and high quality are what our domestic and global customers demand, and that is what we should provide. Our standards should and will ensure that consumers are able to have confidence in choosing products that conform to UK values, whatever their budgets.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard asked about the UK and EU standards. The UK Government will take a science-based approach to SPS measures and take their own sovereign decisions on standards and regulations, in line with the principles of the WTO SPS agreement and other relevant internationally recognised guidance. We will ensure that our high standards of food safety and animal welfare are not compromised.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked about environmental protections. WTO rules allow for the adoption of measures on public policy grounds, such as protecting human, animal and plant life or health. This is subject to discipline in the relevant agreements, including that these measures do not arbitrarily discriminate between WTO members and are not disguised restrictions on international trade.
My noble friend Lord Caithness asked about labelling requirements on imported food. Food labelling rules apply to all food intended for supply to final consumers or to caterers. Imported food needs to be fully compliant before it is placed on the market in the UK. Furthermore, the name and address of a food business in, or importer into, the UK after the transition period will be required on the label. There are no exceptions to food labelling rules for imported food. My noble friend also asked about tariffs and the US deal. The third round of negotiations is taking place this week. We will always ensure that the UK FTAs are fair and reciprocal, and that any opening up does not cause an unwanted downturn for domestic producers.
On enforcing FTAs and offshore tribunals, the Government are clear that when negotiating FTAs we will continue to protect our right to regulate in the public interest, including in such areas as environmental standards. This right to regulate is recognised in international law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, asked important questions about Northern Ireland. The withdrawal agreement joint committee met again on 16 July and the Northern Ireland Executive representative again attended, in line with the New Decade, New Approach deal. They exchanged updates on implementation of the protocol and discussed preparatory work for future decisions.
My noble friend Lord Dobbs rightly emphasised that exports and the promotion of trade are important elements in this. I thought that we had a very good discussion on these with so many noble Lords referring to, and being rightly proud of, many products from all parts of the kingdom. If I had longer, I would name-check not only the noble Lords but their produce. However, we can all be proud of the great products that our farmers create and produce with their great husbandry across the nation.
I turn to the final amendment in this group, Amendment 280. The political declaration sets an aim for tariff-free and quota-free trade between the UK and the EU. The Government are working hard to achieve that. There are currently no tariffs and no quotas for trade between the UK and EU. Talks with the EU suggest that we will maintain tariff and quota-free access; the best way to achieve this is through a free trade agreement. Reducing the cost pressures and processes associated with trade is in the interests of people and businesses across the UK, including the beef and lamb sectors.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, speaking in this particular spot I feel I have to echo the thanks and compliments to the Minister from many noble Lords in this debate for his usual detailed answers that fully engaged with the issues, as we have seen throughout this debate and particularly in this marathon session.
I note what the Minister said about food standards and attempts to guarantee those in the UK, which—if we think back the horsemeat scandal—have not always been successful. In establishing the Trade and Agriculture Commission, the Government have acknowledged that there are issues here to be addressed, which the amendments in this group are seeking to get to grips with on perhaps a deeper and longer level.
I am sure the Minister knows that, just this month, the first shipment of Chinese-cooked chicken went into the United States market—unlabelled—and, were chicken to be shipped from the US to here, it could equally make its way here. It is planned that, by the end of the year, uncooked chicken will be going from China to the US, despite the issues of food adulteration that have occurred in that country, and also the issues of avian influenza, for example.
My question is not specifically about the Chinese chicken in the US potentially coming here; it is a broader question. How can the Trade and Agriculture Commission, operating for six months, deal with the situation of the continually changing global trade in food and issues that will keep arising after its six-month term?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that question. As I say, that is precisely why we have established stakeholder groups as well. I think the commission is going to be invaluable to the Government; it will set the parameters and the issues at large with an expert group, but we will always continue to work with stakeholders because we want to have successful trading partnerships around the world, particularly—as I say—promoting great British food and drink.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]
My Lords, I do not feel in the least embarrassed by my amendment, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. It is precisely because of concerns about the limited authority of the commission that was launched today that I have tabled Amendment 279. I reassure him that I did not collude with Defra in constructing the amendment; however, I did it with the full support of the NFU.
I will respond to the Minister’s usual very comprehensive response. I am very, very positive indeed about the future of agriculture after we leave the European Union. I have said a number of times that this is one of the most exciting points in history—in my lifetime—and we have a great opportunity to promote British agriculture, food and standards around the world. It is a really interesting and exciting opportunity.
However, I am disappointed that the Minister has not been willing to recognise the weight of opinion in the debate this afternoon. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, will reinforce this. I ask the Minister to reflect on the comments made today before we return in September for Report. The importance of this issue will not diminish over the summer and it would be really helpful if the department were willing to table its own amendment on this subject on Report.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has answered the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, because I was mightily confused at the idea that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, had had a discussion with me or any Defra official.
I said I had made a very careful note of the points that were made. I do not think I can say any more than that at this stage, but I will certainly be ensuring that my ministerial colleagues know the strength of feeling across much of the House. However, it is also incumbent upon me to say to your Lordships that we are a revising and scrutinising House, and the other place—the elected House—also has a very strong constitutional function to fulfil.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie [V]
The Minister recognised the importance of having a deal; without one, it will be a disaster, especially for producers of cattle and for the whole of the lamb sector. However, even with a deal, there will be a requirement for veterinary health certificates and there will obviously be inspections. Is the Minister mindful of the fact that this in itself will create some friction and cost? Would the department be willing to look at that situation and determine whether support is required to maintain that flow of export, even in the circumstance that we have a deal, while acknowledging that with no deal there is very little we can do other than face disaster?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am most grateful to the noble Lord; that is an important point. The department is working on all those matters, because we recognise that we need a successful trading agreement, and we are mindful of the importance of the speedy passage of products, particularly in the food sector. The department is fully seized of and is working on these matters so that we have the resources and personnel in order to effect what the noble Lord is seeking.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for taking us to this point. I do not think he has satisfied the Committee; I will return to that. However, I thank him most fulsomely for his approachability, patience and ability to cover such a wide range of subjects, not just this evening but throughout the proceedings.
I add my thanks to the clerks, the Public Bill Office, the Government Whips’ Office, the broadcasting and digital services—without whom we would have struggled to even begin to discuss this—and, especially, the Bill team, who have been here at all hours of the day and night as we have discussed this.
I was delighted when I heard that a commission was being set up, having first secured a Question for Short Debate on 25 February this year asking what steps the Government were taking
“to establish a trade standards commission in advance of negotiating trade deals.”—[Official Report, 25/2/20; col. GC 67.]
I have found, both in the other place and in this House, that I have been advised to follow the advice of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I urge my noble friend the Minister—as he regroups and as we leave once proceedings have concluded this evening—to consider that the best possible solution would be for him to use his very good offices and come forward with a compromise amendment, pulling out some of the key themes on which there has been a huge consensus. However, there have been one or two noble Lords we have not been able to persuade at this stage.
I would like to meet the Minister’s lawyers in the department to discuss whether or not this will be compatible with the World Trade Organization. My information is that, according to the WTO, exemptions are allowed for countries to set their own standards, based on the science, in limited circumstances, applying measures
“only to the extent necessary to protect animal, plant and human life or health”,
which we also discussed in the context of Amendment 256.
I regret that my noble friend the Minister missed the opportunity to put my mind, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and others, to rest. Noble Lords asked what the relationship will be with the existing expert trading and agriculture commission—it has various titles. We did not get a reply to that, which was unfortunate. I believe that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is the body best suited to set out the detail and to consider what the criteria will be on reaching each of the trade agreements that come before the House.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on everything, but we did have—as he reminded the House this evening—major success on the Trade Bill, with a number of amendments adopted which I now consider to be government policy. It is absolutely essential, whether we are discussing the Agriculture Bill, the Trade Bill, the immigration Bill or the Environment Bill, that we say the same thing on each Bill.
I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister has recognised the remit of the commission, but I am disappointed that it is going to last for only six months. I think the mood of the Committee this evening is that this is not long enough; it should be permanent and should look at the text of each individual agreement and give its views on those.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, said that the time has to be now. I believe that this is the Bill and this is the occasion and, if not this evening, I beg leave to return to this group of amendments and to the themes that we have discussed. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 270.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
My Lords, we still have quite a lot of business to do tonight and it is getting late already. I suggest that noble Lords are concise and to the point, so that we can get this important Bill through in a timely manner.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 275. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 275
“Agricultural research
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations modify the definitions contained in Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to products of breeding techniques for agricultural purposes where nucleic acid changes could have occurred naturally or through traditional breeding methods.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may only be made after the Secretary of State has held a public consultation on any proposed modifications to the definitions.(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may only be made in relation to England.(4) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
To enable the Secretary of State to make changes to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as it applies in England, in relation to breeding techniques after the UK leaves the EU. This would allow for regulation of new precision breeding techniques compatible with international definitions.
Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]
My Lords, in introducing this amendment I declare an interest as chair of the advisory board of the Government’s Global Food Security programme. On this board we look at all UK research relating to food. We cover not plough to plate but one stage further at either end—soils to stomach—thus tracing a chain from the billions of bacteria in soil that convert sunlight and water into crops, all the way through to the billions of bacteria in our stomachs that convert those crops into human energy.
The first thing to say about crop research in the UK is that the days when it was all about yield per hectare are long gone. If there is a primary target in present research objectives it is nutrition per hectare but, most importantly, without any degradation of ecosystems and natural resources. This has been the case in the research community for the last five to 10 years. Actually, there are many objectives in crop and animal research these days, and there could be many more as the world changes. Crops that have resilience are often better than crops that have high yields.
The questions being asked include: how do you breed plants that can resist the many different diseases and pests present in every country without having to put chemicals into the environment? We have already debated the problem of agricultural sprays in this country, but it is even more important in the developing world, where literacy is a problem among farmers and chemicals therefore tend to get used far too liberally, often to the detriment of the farmer’s health. The other thing about gene resistance to pests is that it is better for biodiversity. Why? Because, unlike sprays, it does not kill the pest; it just protects the crop from the pest.
Next, how do you breed a plant that can resist droughts brought about by climate change? Irrigation schemes are expensive and use valuable water. Seeds are much cheaper, so you can breed either a plant that requires less water or, more often, one that comes to fruition—that is, to harvest—two or three weeks earlier, during which time its older counterpart might have shrivelled and died.
How do you breed a plant that resists flooding—either one that can stay alive underwater for several days or one that, when threatened, spurts upwards to keep its head above the floodwaters? How do you breed plants that are salt-tolerant or that produce crops less susceptible to the dreadful post-harvest losses you get in Africa, or plants that have a longer shelf life for our supermarkets and thus reduce the need for plastic?
How do you breed a wheat that minimises its gluten content to help coeliacs? How do you reduce the major allergy features of peanuts? That would surely save a few lives. How do you produce plants, such as tomatoes, that can be grown in an urban context—small plants that are covered with fruit but can grow on walls or in window boxes—or a cassava plant that does not have to be dried and processed within 24 hours, or a cocoa plant resistant to mildew or phytophthora? Finally, turning to yield, can you breed a wheat or rice that produces a much larger grain?
The answer is that all of the above are part of gene-editing research programmes at different stages of development in different parts of the world. We are not talking only about wheat, maize and rice here but sweet potatoes, cassava, cowpea, sorghum, millet, coffee, cocoa, fruits and vegetables, et cetera. Let us face it: we are too dependent on wheat, rice and maize, from the point of view of both resilience and, above all, nutrition. More work needs to be done urgently on these so-called orphan crops.
My point is that the opportunities and urgent needs are there in their thousands. If we are to meet our sustainable development goals and keep up with our exploding world population, speed is of the essence. Speed is the essence of what this amendment is all about —but not reckless speed. I want to make this absolutely clear: we are not asking or wishing for any reduction in the stringent regulatory requirements or supervision of all forms of breeding techniques of plants or animals. Defra’s Animal and Plant Health Agency insists that all new varieties must undergo at least two years of official tests and trials. Furthermore, the Home Office animal experiment regulations also license and test every stage of gene editing, over many years, so we already have a well-functioning UK regulatory system, with an impeccable track record of food safety, animal husbandry and environmental protection. This will continue and can easily embrace these new breeding techniques. But, as with traditional breeding, once the crops have passed all the tests and we know they are safe to grow, farmers should be allowed to grow them for sale.
The speed that is necessary comes from the scientific precision of breeding plants and animals using gene editing. Let me explain. Genetic changes used by traditional plant breeders are mutations that arise randomly in crop plants. Normally, a breeder will select for a handful of beneficial changes, in a background of thousands of other mutations that are either neutral or sometimes even negative. At a plant-breeding station, the greenhouses are full of hundreds of hybrids, of which probably only one or two are desirable. The removal of undesirable off-target characteristics, by back-crossing and selection, is what breeders have been doing for thousands of years since the domestication of crops and livestock.
In gene editing, the genetic changes are the same as those used by traditional breeders, but targeted more precisely. There is only a small or non-existent background of trial and error, so the precision of the breeding technique is the clue to its safety for the environment and the world around it.
One of the problems with a recent EU court ruling on this, which is raising concerns even among the most conservative member states, is how you can tell a gene-edited plant from a naturally bred one. There is no way of telling unless you were present at its conception. Some members of the German Green Party have also questioned the ruling. Their point is that, if the technique is regularly used in human health—to genetically manipulate antibiotic clusters, for instance—why should it not also be used to benefit the wider world? I agree with them. With the strong backing of more than 100 EU scientific organisations, the Commission is now looking carefully at the rules on precision breeding, with a view to reporting next April. I strongly suspect that the EU rules will change.
So we seek both precision and speed. Instead of taking 10 to 12 years or longer to develop a new seed, we are talking about two to three years. This allows the development to be driven by a wider range of research organisations, mostly led by small businesses and public research organisations, not just large multinationals. It allows some of the world’s best agricultural research stations, which we have in this country—places such as Rothamsted, John Innes and James Hutton—to team up with smaller research stations in developing countries, which have special crops, often with special local problems. By working with these poorer countries, as well as with UK agriculture, we can help farmers everywhere produce the food that their local population requires.
Another important point is that this proposed amendment would not affect, in any way, the control or current status of genetically modified crops, in which entire genes or even groups of genes can be transferred between species. This would remain strictly outside this law, with even their controlled experimentation, in government research stations, having to be licensed in exceptional circumstances. This amendment, however, would bring our rules into line with most other countries, apart from the EU, where precise improvements are made within the same species—improvements that could have occurred naturally or through traditional breeding methods.
Another final issue I will touch on quickly is the possibility of unintended consequences of gene editing. I have already commented on the greater likelihood of risks from traditional breeding techniques, both in plants and animals, but the main point to emphasise—and this applies to all scientists, whatever techniques they are using—is that modern scientists are always wrestling with the effects of their work on the wider environment. How will this affect the soil, the air, the local flora and fauna, including humans, and even the landscape? The idea is that their work should benefit the world in all its aspects. If they do not think like that, in this country at any rate, their regulators certainly do.
As we emerge from this Covid disaster, it is vital that our scientists are able to employ the precision and speed needed to breed the best and most useful crops with safety. I urge the Government to accept this amendment, which empowers them to consult and act on the possibility of making changes to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I beg to move.
Lord Krebs [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington, who has so beautifully set out the basis for this amendment. I am sorry that, on this occasion, I part company with a number of Peers whose views I hugely respect and with Greener UK, whose support, on this and other Bills, I have much appreciated. I speak as a career academic scientist whose specialism is ecology and the environment.
I will make three points. First, I will reiterate the scientific difference between gene editing and genetic modification. Gene editing is like traditional breeding, but more targeted. It involves tweaking the genes that are already there in the organism. It is roughly analogous to adjusting one of the ingredients in a recipe to improve the flavour of the dish. On the other hand, traditional genetic modification involves inserting new genes from a different organism. It is a bit like the introduction of a new ingredient into the recipe to change the nature of the dish. For example, one of the major GM crops is Bt maize, with a toxin gene from the bacterium bacillus thuringiensis that confers resistance to corn borer. Gene-edited crops, with their ingredients adjusted, could be safer, more nutritious, more productive and more resistant to climate change, as my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington so eloquently explained.
But—this is my second point—the difference between genetic modification and gene editing is not relevant to those who object to gene editing. The objection is not about science but something else. Opposition to modern genetic technology, whether gene editing or GMOs, is often presented as three worries: the food made from GM crops is not safe to eat; the crops are not safe for the environment, for instance because genes could jump into wild plants or because it is part of the intensification of agriculture, which destroys habitats and biodiversity; and genetic technologies favour big agritech companies at the expense of small farmers.
The worriers also invoke the precautionary principle, saying that we should never adopt new technologies until we are 100% sure they are risk free. Ironically, the same individuals often invoke the precautionary principle as a call for new technologies to be used, even when the science is incomplete, for example on reducing pollution levels in the environment. In reality, these arguments are all code for a different vision of the future of agriculture, one that returns to traditional low-intensity methods, such as organic farming. In fact, organic farming and gene editing should not be in opposition. Organic farmers have as much to gain as conventional farmers, if not more, from the genetic improvement of their crops to make them more disease resistant without pesticides, more nutritious, more productive and so on.
My third point is that the amendment calls for public consultation, which is key if we are to avoid the mistakes of the 1990s. Noble Lords will recall that the first GM food on sale in the UK was tomato paste made with Flavr Savr tomatoes. These tomatoes do not go squidgy on ripening, so they produce a sweeter product. The GM tomato paste tasted better, was slightly cheaper and was clearly labelled. It sold well, until the campaigning groups launched their highly successful “Frankenstein foods” campaign. Before long, the supermarket shelves were cleared of all products involving GM.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I should apologise to the Committee for making my first contribution on the Agriculture Bill at what I think is the seventh hour of the seventh day. I hope the Committee will give me a few minutes to speak to the amendment to which I have added my name, and which has been so ably described by my noble friends Lord Cameron and Lord Krebs. Their comprehensive and lucid explanations mean that I need not delay the Committee long.
I served two decades ago as a Minister at MAFF with responsibility for GM issues. As my noble friend Lord Krebs said, it was not a happy time. There was a highly polarised and often bitter debate to which I have no desire to return, certainly not in the form it took then. I very much hope that any future discussions on GMOs will be much more nuanced, seek to find common ground and be focused on the outcomes we are trying to achieve, rather than on very divisive attitudes. The term “culture wars” was not in such common usage then, but it was an early example of that.
That debate brought me into contact with many plant scientists who inspired me with their vision of the potentially beneficial effects of crops that could be transformative, particularly in the developing world; that could withstand drought and thrive in high salinity and soils that needed fewer pesticides and herbicides; that could improve the nutrition and yield of very basic crops on which people’s lives depended; and that could improve the environment and build resilience to climate change.
Gene editing techniques offer these potential benefits, providing specific, targeted changes that conventional breeding could achieve but which might take 10 or 12 years, in one-quarter of that time. These are not just dreams for the future: as my noble friend Lord Cameron made clear, these are actual pieces of research that plant scientists are working on. They are relevant to this country as well as to the developing world. Work is going on to produce elite varieties of sugar beet that are resistant to beet yellows virus, which threatens to reduce the yield of sugar beet in this country by 50% and is of such concern to my farmer neighbours in Norfolk. Meanwhile, the possible development of salt-tolerant strains of rice, maize that can withstand drought, and many more applications, could mean the difference between famine and survival for many families in some of the most deprived areas of the world.
In that context, I argue that it is our responsibility to provide the appropriate regulatory framework for these advances, after what has been widely seen as the flawed ECJ judgment of 2018. We do not have to create something de novo, because we have regulatory frameworks in place for assessing varieties that are bred conventionally to have new qualities, but which, with gene editing, would simply be produced quicker and with more precision. We have the rules available, and this amendment would allow us to consult and see whether this is publicly acceptable when the difference between gene editing and introducing new DNA into a product—transgenic work—is actually explained. I believe it is possible to do that in a responsible way. I feel that very strongly because after I left MAFF, I became, for a time, a regulator. I chaired the Human Tissue Authority and served as a member of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. We faced similar issues to those that underlie the debate today: exciting scientific possibilities and new technologies, the risks and acceptability of which needed to be assessed. An appropriate level of regulation that commanded public support was essential.
These are never simple issues but if we approach them openly, they can maximise the benefit of scientific advance within the framework of public safety and confidence. We have set that framework in this country in other areas, such as human fertility and embryology, and those frameworks have been admired and followed in many other parts of the world. I believe we need now to do the same in the field of gene editing. I hope that the Government, who have on many occasions accepted the logic behind this amendment, will respond positively when the Minister speaks at the end of this debate.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I was privileged to be able to put my name to the amendment. It is the only time my name appears on any amendment, because I was not sworn in to your Lordships’ House until late June and I missed part of the early debate. I do not want to repeat points, but my experience is worth sharing with the House.
First, I want to make a topical point, which is that I was not impressed on Sunday by the BBC “Countryfile” programme, which dealt with this subject, nor by “Farming Today” yesterday. I will not go over the details, but they were not impressive examples of how to explain the technique to the public. It is a simple change to allow faster methods of plant breeding by access to novel gene-editing procedures. Such changes that take place would be the same as, but faster than, traditional plant breeding methods. Plant breeding is not politically sexy; it does not get a high profile in journals and on TV, and most members of the public would not have a clue about what goes on with the plant breeding technology we use.
As has been said, gene editing has nothing to do with genetic modification, because no foreign DNA is used. The European Union currently makes no distinction between gene editing and GMO technology, and that is the purpose of the amendment, although that might change. The EU regulations have emptied some UK laboratories, because people and companies left to work outside the EU. Companies abandoned first-class labs, one of which I visited in the Home Counties after I left the Government in October 2008, and it was tragic to see the empty space and the lost scientific opportunities.
Of course, new methods need handling with care for plants and consumers. I have got scars from 1997 to 1999, when I dealt with genetic modification. Going back to the previous debates, I was taken by what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said about Monsanto. During that time, I met the man from Monsanto, and I explained to him that lectures to me and other Ministers about how we should grow our food from the company that gave us Agent Orange did not go down very well. Monsanto, of course, does not exist now; it is subsumed into the companies.
When I arrived at the Food Standards Agency, when I was at Defra the second time, from 2006 to 2008, it did not really figure. When I got to the Food Standards Agency in 2009 as chair, we had been charged by the Government with running an information campaign. In fact, we had started the process, we had appointed Professor John Curtice to chair some of the public meetings and deliberations. But it was ended. There was a reluctance from some groups to embrace any idea of new technology. The anti-science groups are still vocal and are clearly deliberately linking Amendment 275 to GMO technology. I have had hundreds of emails and notices, like everyone else, and I have actually read the standard line. It is more difficult to describe products in a single plant species as Frankenstein food, so they do not do it. But the idea is to link the two together using the letter G, which is alleged to be the one that frightens people. It is precision breeding, nothing more nor less.
We need better productivity in agriculture and better resistance to disease and climate change. We cannot stand still while our competitors—the United States, Brazil, Australia, Japan—are able to use gene-editing technologies. It does not make sense. The EU, over the years, in my personal experience as a Minister and as a regulator, has moved away from the science as a result of lobbying by pressure groups, which are almost at a religious zealotry in terms of opposition to the technology. Unlike with GMOs, there is no reliable test to distinguish between gene editing and conventional plant breeding. Why should there be? It is the same plant. Nothing extra is added from another species, so I am not surprised there is no test.
The Earl of Lindsay [V]
My Lords, as vice-chair of the APPG on Science and Technology in Agriculture, I believe that the Bill is a timely opportunity for the Government to consult on and thereafter create the option in future to oversee and regulate precision-breeding tools such as new gene-editing technologies. I therefore fully support the amendment and agree with everything said so far in its support. I also note the wide support that the amendment has attracted from reputable institutions across the UK, in mainland Europe and elsewhere in the world.
It is universally accepted that agriculture and food production must become more sustainable in a world that faces considerable challenges from climate change, environmental degradation and an increasing and more affluent global population. Most would accept that we need to be more innovative if we are to reduce the dependency on pesticides and fertilisers and tackle biodiversity loss while at the same time providing food that is sufficient, nutritious, sustainable and affordable.
The new generation of precision-breeding tools, properly regulated, would make a major contribution to delivering these vital objectives. It would be a step change in our ability to deliver a more sustainable, productive and climate-resistant agriculture. Finally, it would also align with the regulatory stance of other countries around the world whose scientists, breeders, farmers and consumers already benefit from access to these valuable precision-breeding technologies.
Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]
My Lords, I have rather drawn the short straw in being the first speaker to disagree with the rather stellar line-up promoting Amendment 275. I have huge trepidation in doing that because all noble Lords who have spoken so far are people whose views I hugely respect and who have the best possible motives.
I have listened very carefully to what they have said and remain pretty concerned about any loosening of the regulation of gene-edited crops. I shall not talk about health issues and the health impact, but will focus on the environmental issues associated with gene-edited crops. I was chairman of English Nature at the time that this was giving the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, scars in the late 1990s and I was on the opposite side from him then, but I hope that the noble Lords who have spoken so far will not dismiss my arguments as emotional. I am talking about science as much as they are, and I would be disappointed if that were dismissed as Luddism. One of the failures of this debate to date, as it was 20 years ago, is that it immediately starts polarising, opposing voices are demonised and there is a sense of battle lines being drawn up. That is something that we should not repeat.
There is no doubt that there may be benefits from gene-edited crops that would be hugely valuable in the face of growing world populations and climate change. Some have already been talked about, including high yields, increased nutritional content, greater proof against drought, pests and extreme weather, less use of land and less application of fertilisers, but there are undoubtedly well-evidenced down sides as well. Let me go through those that bear weight with me. First, there is the undeniable issue that once gene-edited species have been released, that is irreversible and if there are any consequential ill effects, they cannot then be put back in the bottle. So this is important and tricky stuff. Secondly, there is the possibility of gene flows taking place between crops and close wild relatives. The impacts of that, which may be unforeseen, need to be carefully taken into account. Thirdly, and I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on this one, producing insect-resistant crops is not just stopping the insects eating the crops; it will have an impact on the biomass of insects in just as dramatic a way as killing insects with pesticides. We have to think about what is happening to our insect populations if many of our crops are to be developed with insect resistance. That is their food source. Fourthly, although gene-editing tools are coming on by leaps and bounds, even CRISPR and the like are not yet as precise as is claimed and there is substantial research evidence of unforeseen changes in other parts of the genome.
At the moment these crops are regulated as GMOs and there is a full assessment of the environmental impact before they can be released. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, responding to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, on 4 March this year, said that the Government would take a “science-based approach” to gene editing and there would be “strict controls” to safeguard the environment with
“a robust case-by-case safety assessment taking full account of the scientific evidence.”—[Official Report, 4/3/20; col. 609.]
How does the Minister see such assessments taking place if there is a change from the regulatory framework for gene editing, and where will scientific advice on the impacts on the environment come from? I made some inquiries with the chairman of Natural England a couple of weeks ago, which formally advised the Government on the impact of genetically modified crops on the natural environment, and he has revealed that Natural England, English Nature’s successor, can no longer afford a specialist team in this area so it has disbanded any expertise that it had.
Of course, a perfectly good EU review of the whole issue of gene editing of crops and animals is under way and due to be published next April, so why are we rushing to make an amendment to the Bill that would jump the gun? Can we not wait to see what that review reveals? Rushing to deregulate gene editing, as some wish to do, to bring us into alignment with the US risks us pursuing the US market, which will always be a smaller, specialist market for UK food products, and risk our not being able to continue to do business with our major existing EU markets, depending on what they decide.
Therefore, why not wait to see what the EU decides to do after April 2021? In the meantime, the Minister would have the opportunity to lay out more clearly how his assurances on controls to safeguard the environment would work and it would enable a much broader public debate on acceptability. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, talked about open and transparent consultation, but changing the entire regulatory regime for gene editing under cover of darkness in the Agriculture Bill without any prior public consultation does not seem the right way to start off in an open and transparent way with the general public, who, for good reason or bad, are sensitised to this issue.
This artificial need for haste feels very like going back to the bad old days of the late 1990s, which the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, recalled during a debate on previous amendments. Monsanto tried to ride roughshod over British public opinion and the British political process. It got a very bloody nose and set any case for responsible genetic modification back by 20 years.
The signs are there again. One side has terrific zeal that this technology will solve all problems; the other side is denigrated as an unscientific bunch of woolly- pully tree-huggers. Public concerns are reduced to an equation that says, “Well, if we explain it more carefully to the public, of course they’ll accept it”, but that is the worst possible way of approaching a public consultation exercise that involves something very near and dear to the hearts of all people in this country—what they put in their mouths and what happens to the environment.
Let us not fall into the trap of 20 years ago. Let us take this steadily and have a properly scientific, open and transparent debate, and let us not set off on the wrong foot by accepting this amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of a family farming and growing business, as listed in the register. Perhaps I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, that that is exactly what the amendment is about. It is about a consultation—it is about talking about the issue and trying to get some sense around it. I usually like to hear what the noble Baroness has to say but I found what she said today terribly negative and almost backward-looking.
At the heart of this is a consultation on a future regulatory status for new precision breeding techniques such as gene editing. I think we all agree that there is no foreign DNA involved in gene editing. It offers an enormous step change in the speed and precision of breeding crops and livestock. Therefore, it opens up significant opportunities for scientists, breeders, farmers and growers to keep pace with demands for more productive and sustainable production systems, with improved resource-use efficiency, more durable pest and disease resistance, improved nutrition and resilience to climate change. That is all to the good, I say.
The amendment has attracted widespread support, and not just the support of science. It will also ensure that our small and medium-sized breeding companies have the same access to these promising new techniques as the very large multinational companies, which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned. For example, down the road from me in Spalding is Elsoms Seeds, an independent, family-owned business that recently celebrated its 175th anniversary. The company wrote to me to express its support. Why? Elsoms works with a wide range of different crops, including small-scale vegetable crops and speciality crops. Having access to these techniques in a proportionate and enabling regulatory environment would be a game-changer for the company and the growers it supplies, not least in helping the fresh food sector to cope with the challenges of pests and diseases when so many chemical products are, probably rightly, being withdrawn from the market.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for leading the way for those of us speaking in opposition to the amendment. As a relatively new Member of your Lordships’ House, I am very glad that such a respected Member went first.
I begin by reflecting on the scope of this debate. I think it was the Minister who said that it had taken 54 hours a couple of hours ago. There has been a great deal of dissatisfaction with this Bill. That is very obvious. We have just spent a long time on the trade issues. There is also the lack of agroecology at its centre, where it should be; the lack of duties on the Government, only access to powers; food not being a public good; and the lack of regular reporting.
I refer to all of that, not to try to use this speech as a round-up but to make a specific point about the amendment. In a discussion before Committee started, the Minister said that the Government were minded to consider this amendment outside the Bill’s scope at this time. I find myself in a slightly odd situation, since I am often in the Bill office arguing for things to be in Bills that I am told are outside scope. However, I put it to the Government that they need to ask themselves whether they want to engage in this debate in this Bill when so many other issues will be hugely contentious when we get to Report. Indeed, a noble Lord who has been in the House for many years suggested earlier that Report might be as long as Committee.
I will pick up on a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, made. Some people, primarily advocates for this technology blazing ahead, try to turn this into a culture war. They try to label those who say, “Hang on, slow down, what are you doing?” as anti-science. I regret that, because my first training was as a scientist. I very much embrace and am fascinated by agroecology. I share the interest in soil science of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I am very much interested in the science of nutrition. All these sciences take a holistic approach to our interaction with the natural world and with our food system. They are fundamentally different kinds of science and approaches from the silver bullet, single-step approach that GM technology represents.
In the past, we have seen that kind of approach and technology dominate for decades. It is the approach that produced the green revolution. We have seen quite a few reports coming out of India reflecting on the huge damage that taking that approach has caused, including enormous problems with water, pests, pesticides and a lack of variety in diet.
I refer to some of the issues that noble Lords have already raised. In an earlier debate, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talked about rapeseed and the difficulty of growing it here without neonicotinoids. Of course, that crop was only introduced to Britain in the 1970s. There has been quite a bit of discussion about sugar beet, a crop that is responsible for 10% of the entire soil loss of some of the richest soils, certainly in England. This crop also produces sugar, which we already have far too much of.
We need to think about what crops we grow and whether we grow them in the right places. I often discuss with farmers the growing of wheat in Scotland. There is a reason why Scotland is famous for oatcakes. Wheat is a crop that is fundamentally unsuited to the Scottish climate. We need to look at these things holistically, rather than essentially trying to ram square pegs into round holes, often for the convenience of large multinational companies that want a small number of certain crops and their food to taste the same all around the world.
I referred to the issue of time. I do not think that this is the place to engage fully with the issue of technology and its potential dangers, but I want to pick the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, up on a phrase he used, which I think another noble Lord repeated. He said that GM technology is producing precise changes. I refer noble Lords to a report in Nature on 25 June. The headline read: “CRISPR gene editing in human embryos wreaks chromosomal mayhem.” This actually refers to a series of pre-print reports that have not yet been peer reviewed, which, in the age of Covid, is very much the way a lot of medicine is going. If noble Lords want to wait and see on that one, I refer them to a debate in your Lordships’ House on gene editing, when the House considered a Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I quote from that debate the noble Lord, Lord Winston, whom I am sure noble Lords would wish to listen to on these issues. He said:
“CRISPR is not an accurate technique.”—[Official Report, 30/1/20; col. 1530.]
So, there are far more issues and questions about these technologies than has been suggested in the debate thus far.
I want to come back to the practical arguments that those who do not really want to engage with the scientific debate might be interested in listening to. I want to make a point about subsection (3) of the new clause proposed by the amendment. It states:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may only be made in relation to England.”
If you were to bring an amendment such as this at the next stage of the Bill—whether a government amendment or otherwise—certainly, it should refer to widespread consultation and discussion with the other nations of the United Kingdom. Seeds and pollen and other such crops will not be stopped by Hadrian’s Wall—even less so by Offa’s Dyke. This issue has to be considered on a scale across the United Kingdom; then, of course, Ireland may raise some pretty interesting concerns about and issues with the land border.
That brings me to a final point and gives me a chance to engage with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who talked about the wonders of Devon cream teas. I am going to indulge in Yorkshire parkin and the wonderful products of the rhubarb triangle. Many noble Lords at many stages in this debate have spoken about the reputation of food from the UK, its potential in export markets and how that reputation is founded on images of cleanness, wholesomeness and quality. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, reflected on international views of the use of GM technology in crops and how that affects people’s views. If noble Lords are concerned about promoting in that area of export markets—it is not my personal focus, which is on producing local food for local consumption—some of which can be small volumes of high-value products that are valuable and useful ambassadors for Britain around the world, they want to look very carefully at this amendment and consider what its impact would be.
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, this is my first contribution on this Bill since Second Reading, but I will be brief and I declare my farming interests. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, is one that the Government and the House should embrace with enthusiasm. Noble Lords will recognise that I have been raising precisely this issue of gene editing in plants in Oral Questions for some years. I have become something of a cracked record on the subject. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the amendment would not change British policy on biotechnology; it would merely require the Government to consider doing so after consultation. Who can be against debate? If we then decide to go ahead, we would be in a position to rescue the British plant breeding industry, as my noble friend Lord Taylor said, which has a perfect safety record but is being left behind in the rush to make crops that need fewer pesticides and less fertiliser, are more nutritious and more drought-tolerant and can be grown with fewer emissions. If we fail to act today, British farming will be using more chemicals and generating more emissions than it would otherwise.
I was therefore surprised at Second Reading to hear the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, argue against this proposal. I genuinely do not understand why Liberal Democrats or Greens would argue effectively in favour of more chemicals and more emissions in agriculture. Indeed, harking back to the very lengthy debate on previous amendments today, I suggest that if we do not take steps in this direction we may find that other countries reject our agricultural exports because of the low environmental standards of this country. That is where we are headed. We will be hoist by our own petard.
Many modern varieties are produced by scrambling the genes of seeds with gamma rays or chemical mutagens and then selecting from the resulting hopeful monsters. That is an extremely imprecise technology, but it is the one, I am afraid, that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is recommending because that is the method by which much-loved organic varieties, such as Golden Promise, the barley variety used in brewing, were generated. To quote the noble Baroness, Lady Young, once these varieties are released, it is irreversible. They cannot come back. Is that not a worse technology? However, that method is not subject to strict regulation, despite the fact that it produces lots of unintended changes to DNA. It is specifically exempted from the GMO rules in the European Union.
In July 2018, as we have heard, the European Court of Justice decided, against the advice of its Advocate-General and virtually all European scientists, not to give gene editing the same exemption as that mutagenesis method. This puts the EU and the UK at odds with the rest of the world. Japan, Australia, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Israel, Canada and the US all say that if no foreign DNA is introduced, the plant is not a GMO, which is what the Cartagena protocol gathered by the United Nations also says. India, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, Kenya, Paraguay, Uruguay and Norway are all moving towards enshrining the same position in law. Only New Zealand is still in the same camp as the European Union.
I refer to one other point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young: if we use gene editing or genetic modification to make crops resistant to insects we will reduce the biomass of insects. That is not the case because, as the example of sugar beet, raised by my noble friend Lord Taylor shows, the alternative is not no resistance against insects but using pesticides—insecticides, in the case of sugar beet. We have had to give up on neonicotinoids, so it is worse pesticides. They kill not just the aphids you are aiming at but innocent bystanders—other insects that happen to be about—so the effect on the biomass of insects of introducing insect-resistant crops has been shown to be positive, not negative.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]
I support this amendment as tabled and ably presented by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington and supported very convincingly by other contributors this evening. I support it for two reasons: first, it is in line with the stance that has been quite rightly taken by the Government when debating these issues in Brussels, so why would they not support it?
Secondly, this is an important test case in that our ability as an industry to explore new science is at risk if we are denied the opportunity to consult on this technology. We have world-leading science institutions and we need to re-establish our reputation as a place where sound science is welcome, trialled and tested. Scaremongering by comparing gene editing to genetic modification is unhelpful and the difference has been explained very convincingly by my noble friend Lord Krebs. I hope the Minister will support this amendment.
Finally, I endorse all the compliments that have been paid to the two Ministers—the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield—for their endless patience and gracious responses during the seven days we have spent on this Bill, and to the staff who have enabled these debates to take place with remarkable efficiency in difficult circumstances.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Curry. On this occasion, however, I believe this amendment is a Trojan horse seeking to end the classification of gene editing as genetic modification and replacing the EU regulatory framework with the Americans’ proof of harm.
Good regulation is about managing the risks and the benefits of a process, and while we have heard about the potential benefits of gene editing from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and other Peers, there are risks too. Although the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, may not wish to acknowledge these, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for articulating some of them. For brevity’s sake, I am not going to repeat them now.
I accept that the amendment sets out some undertakings before the Secretary of State could uproot regulations governing the food on our plate, but this Bill is not the place to do it and the amendment is, at the very least, pre-emptive. The Government must do two important things: first, they must lay before Parliament the policy statement on environmental principles as committed to in the Environment Bill, which will explain how environmental principles, including the precautionary principle, will be interpreted now we are outside the EU.
The Government have said that they remain committed to the precautionary principle. We are signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which invites governments to take a precautionary approach with regard to synthetic biology. The Americans, with their proof-of-harm regulatory framework, uphold neither the convention nor the precautionary principle. Until Parliament has fully debated how environmental principles will be interpreted now we are outside the EU, there should be no consideration of changes to gene-editing regulations.
Secondly, the Government must introduce new laws on animal sentience, as they promised to do in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. These laws should place a duty to pay all due regard to the welfare needs of animals as sentient beings and, given that gene editing allows animals to be altered for food, would inform policy in this area. In America they sell AquAdvantage salmon, gene-edited to grow to size in half the normal time of three years. Animals are sentient creatures with intrinsic worth and should not suffer to obtain more productivity and profit. These invasive procedures can be painful, and animals that do not deliver the required traits are euphemistically “wasted”. It is not just me who is concerned. The Royal Society conducted research on gene editing in 2017 which found that the public were very concerned at its use on animals, particularly to increase the productivity and profitability of meat production.
The Bill rightly commits to the highest animal welfare standards and working within environmental constraints to enhance biodiversity and provide the food that we need. Into it has been smuggled this Trojan horse, studiously avoiding the words “genetic modification” or “gene editing”, at a parliamentary stage that limits wider debate. I cannot support this pre-emptive approach to remove a regulatory framework that takes a precautionary approach and requires mandatory food labelling. The welfare of our farmed animals, our biodiversity and public trust in our food are too important for that.
Lord Trees [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 275, proposed by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington. Under strict regulatory processes, and after consultation—I emphasise that that is in the amendment, as referred to by other noble Lords—it is about applying exciting new technologies, supporting our superb UK biotechnology industry to continue as a global leader and an economic success. Above all, it is about strengthening global food resilience and security while potentially reducing chemical or drug use.
The amendment has particular relevance to plants but I want to support it with respect to animals and their diseases. I draw a contrast with the opinions of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who I respect immensely. The priority of disease control in animals increasingly lies in prevention, and key tools in prevention are management and husbandry, vaccines, and genetic resistance. Genetic resistance has of course occurred spontaneously by natural evolutionary processes in wild animals.
Apart from knowing what the R number is, many noble Lords will now be aware from the Covid-19 pandemic of the remarkable innate resistance of, for example, bats to viral disease. They carry infections that are lethal to humans, such as rabies and the Covid-19 virus, without apparent clinical disease. By definition, the process of natural selection occurs over many years, so conventional breeding methods to create disease resistance in domesticated animal species are extremely slow and raise real ethical problems.
Now we have the amazing potential ability to very precisely identify the parts of an animal’s DNA that permit specific pathogen invasion and then, in a very targeted way, adapt them by gene editing so as to be non-permissive to infection. This mimics changes to an animal’s DNA that might occur spontaneously but very rarely in nature, and does it in a fraction of the time. It is distinct from the wider techniques involving genetic modification yet is currently included within them and prohibited in current EU legislation, as many other noble Lords have said.
In relation to animal disease, there is already promising research to breed pigs with resistance to African swine fever, a highly infectious pathogen in pigs, distributed worldwide, that in recent years has killed millions of pigs in China, is now killing pigs and infecting wild boar, which are symptomless carriers, in continental Europe, and presents a real and present danger to our own domestic pig population in the UK.
The Roslin Institute at the University of Edinburgh has recently created, using gene editing, pigs with resistance to the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, a disease endemic in the UK pig herd and a welfare concern as a cause of severe disease and high mortality, as well as having a substantial economic impact.
Finally, I stress that unlike processes involved in gene cloning, for example, using gene editing to establish a founder stock which breeds normally involves relatively few animals and no more intrusive processes for the animals initially than are used in normal veterinary practice. I very much support this progressive, forward-looking amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. We are having problems, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his sterling work over the last seven days in Committee, for his incredible stamina, and for his courtesy and politeness when replying to debates. I will be very brief, since the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has set out very clearly and convincingly the essential case for permitting gene editing as soon as we are free of the EU, very ably supported by my noble friend Lord Ridley, who also made a thoroughly learned speech.
Did we not hear passionate speeches last week on controlling the use of pesticides? Gene editing will give us crops which will not need pesticides because they will be pest-resistant. I passionately believe in growing more of our horticultural crops and a lot more under glass. That is expensive, but what if we could double the yield of tomatoes grown under glass? That has been achieved by Professor Lippman in the United States with just one type of tomato. We can do that with all crops, vegetables and fruits, increasing yields, making them more pest- and drought-resistant. We might be able to make them more water-resistant so that we do not lose so many thousands of tonnes of potatoes, as we did in the wet autumn of last year.
Imagine the health potential of crops which are more nutritious, sweeter but with less sugar or gluten, crops which ripen with less heat or sunshine or mature in a shorter period. The potential, as described by my noble friend Lord Ridley, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and other noble Lords, is enormous. This will be the next agricultural revolution and the UK can be in the lead in Europe and the world once again. Our crop geneticists will also overtake America once we are freed from the dead hand of the EU. Those who argue that we still need the EU court controlling our affairs should remember that it was the EU court which ruled that gene editing should be governed by the same controls as genetic modification, a decision that made no sense in science, morality or logic.
I hope that the Government will look favourably on this amendment, and, if the wording is not perfect, that they will bring forward a government amendment on Report.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I too rise with some trepidation after the contributions from luminaries with such vast experience, for whom I have tremendous respect.
In his first speech on the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister set out his priorities for government. He outlined the role that genetically modified crops could play in our future:
“Let’s start now to liberate the UK’s extraordinary bioscience sector from anti-genetic modification rules, and let’s develop the blight-resistant crops that will feed the world.”
Given that statement, it is surprising that this amendment was not introduced in the other place when the Bill was debated there. Did the Prime Minister not trust his fellow MPs and colleagues to pass the amendment?
In November 2017 the Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, ruled out allowing more GM foods in the UK. However, negotiations for a free trade deal with the US are expected to include a push for loosening restrictions on GM foods in the UK to create a market for US GM crops. The cultivation of GM crops is currently banned in both Northern Ireland and Scotland.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I now call Lord Taverne, with whom I think a connection has now been made.
Lord Taverne
Then that is all right.
I have two apologies to make. First, I was listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, having followed the great debate with enormous interest—and admiration, to a large extent. Then suddenly the link with Zoom was broken and it has only just been restored, so I have heard no speeches since then. That is my first apology.
Secondly, I have not taken part in the debate before on the Bill, either in Committee or at Second Reading. The fact is that I was really concerned only to make some sort of contribution on Amendment 275. To declare an interest, I have been interested in this subject ever since I founded the organisation Sense about Science in 2002. I was its chairman for the first 10 years—so that is the background against which I now declare some interest.
I listened with enormous admiration to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. There is no point whatever in my attempting to rival him by saying what the merits of this amendment are, but I will say just one thing. I am very worried about the fact that the Lib Dems, who will debate this in future, have shown some signs—as I think the previous speaker seemed to indicate—that they are against the amendment. The overwhelming evidence, and an overwhelming amount of support from the science community, has come in favour of this amendment. It is not just from the Royal Society and SAGE but from all the agriscience businesses. They have all been very keen that it should be passed. Of course, we will see about this on Report; there will be a debate then and we will find out what the Government’s reaction is.
The Committee should also look at the people who sponsored this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, gave a wonderful description of his knowledge and experience in this field. He advanced arguments which it will be very hard for the opposition to answer effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is a very eminent member of the Royal Society and a former chairman of the Food Standards Agency—again, a person of great scientific credentials. Then there is the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, our former Speaker, who also had a very good reputation as a Science Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who was another excellent chairman of the Food Standards Agency. Unfortunately I was unable to hear whether the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, spoke, but I think he would vouch for the fact that Sense about Science, the organisation I am associated with, is very reputable. He too was a very eminent Science Minister.
If somebody says, “We are not anti-science”, in light of the arguments advanced and the overwhelming support from not only the scientific community but the National Farmers’ Union and the British Society of Plant Breeders—people with practical experience of agriculture—how could they possibly say that the evidence is against them?
I hope that the Liberal Democrats will prove that they are a pro-science party, as I believe they are. How can anyone say that they are pro-science when they completely ignore the overwhelming weight of evidence and support for this amendment? That is really rather like Messrs Gove and Cummings saying, “Don’t take any notice of the experts”.
I hope that the Government will give a favourable response. After all, the amendment proposes a democratic procedure of open discussion and consultation. I hope that, when they come to debate this, the Lib Dems will not take the path of proving—to their great disadvantage —that they are an anti-science party.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as the chair of Rothamsted Enterprises, which is part of the Rothamsted agricultural research institute, and as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, throughout my career I have been inspired by many scientists, and certainly by those I have met in those capacities.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, introduced his amendment with his signature expertise. We have had a very good debate today, with a range of well-informed and passionate contributions. Not everybody was in agreement, but we heard some serious arguments why, when we leave the EU, we should revisit the European Court of Justice ruling that gene editing should be subject to the EU GMO directive. We recognise that some countries within Europe are already calling for that review.
I think we can all agree that, in the right context, advances in science and technology can make a huge contribution to our food production efficiency, environmental targets and climate change obligations. During the passage of the Bill, we have debated the great advantages of, for example, precision farming, robotics and satellite technology. Science can also help at a microbiological level by, for example, giving better analysis of soil health, crop variety resistance to disease and microbes in water quality, as we have heard.
The world of farming is changing, and we need to be alive to the opportunities that this brings for the sector. I am very excited about many of the developments occurring at research institutes around the UK. However, that does not come without risks, and we need to be alive to these as well. Therefore, we argued strongly for the retention of the precautionary principle in UK law when we were dealing with the EU withdrawal Act.
When dealing with food production and the widespread use of pesticides and herbicides, the public need to have absolute confidence that the system of checks in place is robust and secure. The EU provided that security; some might say that it was overly bureaucratic and gold-plated, but it was based on the best scientific evidence and had the interests of consumers at heart. Therefore, when we leave the EU, we need to ensure that any alternative regulatory regime is equally robust. This was a point very well made by a number of noble Lords this evening.
A number of noble Lords have explained in detail the difference between gene editing and genetic modification; of course, I accept that there is a difference. Clearly, gene editing is more akin to the use of classical plant breeding techniques, or even natural variation, whereas genetic modification introduces DNA from another organism. We are therefore talking about two separate techniques. However, I think it fair to say that most members of the public do not make this distinction. They remain suspicious, and they have the right to be heard and to have their concerns addressed. I will not relive the history of our experiment of trying to introduce GM technology back in the 1980s, but much of that concern was fuelled by suspicion of the motivations of the seed and fertiliser companies, so any modern debate has to address those issues head-on as well.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this has been another thought-provoking debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for tabling an amendment that seeks to address an issue with current regulations affecting the use of gene editing and other precision breeding techniques in agriculture. Until 2018, there was uncertainty within the EU as to whether the living products of this technology should be subject to the same regulatory framework as genetically modified organisms, because the legal definition of a GMO was open to interpretation.
In 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled very clearly that these products must be treated in the same way as GMOs, even if the changes to their genetic material could have been produced by traditional methods, such as crossing varieties of the same species and selecting only the improved individuals. The UK Government intervened in the case to argue for a more scientific outcome. Our position was, and is still, that if the products of gene editing could have been produced naturally or by using traditional breeding methods, they should not be regulated as GMOs.
The Government are committed to taking a more scientific approach to regulation. Many scientific institutes, along with the breeding industry and some EU member states, such as Sweden, share our view that the current rules are unscientific and a solution is needed soon if we are to reap the economic and environmental benefits these technologies have to offer, such as more resilient crop varieties, reduced use of synthetic pesticides and more disease-resistant animals. The Government are committed to this task and to following due process, so that any necessary changes are properly informed and there is confidence in them.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for his examples of gene-editing research from around the world. The UK is at the forefront of genetic research and the Government are keen to build on this excellence. We want farmers to have access to crop varieties that are more resilient and require fewer synthetic pesticides.
I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said. He is one of the most respected veterinary surgeons in the country and, of course, our veterinary surgeon in this House. I was struck by the potential and the opportunities he outlined for breeding disease-resistant farmed animals. Again, I cannot believe that he would promote something that in any way compromised the welfare or interests of animals. I have to be careful, because two members of my family are in the veterinary profession, but I think it is one of the remaining very well-respected professions. Eminent scientific bodies in the EU and UK have advised that it is the characteristics of an organism and how it is used that determines whether it is a risk to human health and environment, not how it was produced.
It is important to highlight that gene-edited organisms resulting from changes to genetic material that would not arise naturally or from traditional breeding methods will need to be regulated as genetically modified organisms. They should not come under the gene-editing exception. It is important that the Government address this matter, both by making any necessary legislative changes and by ensuring public confidence and trust. It is important that these issues are heard and addressed transparently. To this end, I place on record that the Government will consult publicly on this issue. Defra is working on the details so that a consultation can be launched in the autumn. I have given firm assurances that the Government will consult on the issues raised by this amendment and I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, will feel able to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister.
Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly my fellow sponsors of the amendment. I also thank the Minister for his very full reply, which I shall read carefully and reflect on. It is clear that people on both sides of the fence feel strongly on the subject. I think we can all agree that the most important thing is to feed our grandchildren with the least possible damage to the environment and the future of the planet. Those in favour of the amendment believe that using precision techniques is the best and safest way to do this, while those against think that the tried and tested random mutation is better, albeit slower. I want to respond to one or two of the points raised.
One cannot put traditionally bred plants back in the bottle; nor can one stop any cross-fertilisation in the wild, but properly regulated precision breeding is just less likely to do so, in my view. However, I agree that the wider consultation is a really good idea, which is why this amendment specifically recommends it and why it seems that the Minister has picked up on it. As a Scotsman, I picked up the remarks about wheat in Scotland. I should tell the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that in the 1990s, a field in Aberdeenshire held the world record for winter wheat yields for several years. It is the long summer days there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also made a comparison with human medicine, with reference to an article in Nature. However, it is very misleading in this discussion about which is the best between precision breeding and traditional breeding. The removal of undesirable off-target characteristics is what traditional breeders have been doing for millennia. This back-crossing, as it is known, has never been possible with human medicine for obvious reasons, so the arguments and comparisons do not apply. Of course, scientists are cautious about the use of gene editing in humans. Meanwhile, compared with precision breeding, traditional animal and crop breeding is much more likely to produce off-target characteristics to be removed. Precision breeding is, as I said, much safer and more accurate.
I repeat what I said in my opening speech to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter: this amendment in no way affects the legislation on GMOs and is not the thin end of any wedge. Several noble Lords mentioned or hinted at this, but I am not sure how we are pre-empting parliamentary debate with this amendment. If that is so with this amendment, presumably all amendments over the past seven days are pre-empting debate. Surely it is the opposite: we are promoting debate. If the Bill is about only rewarding new ways of land management, presumably the debate that we have just had on trading standards is also trying to slide an amendment through by the back door. I will say no more, but we all know that the Bill will go back to the Commons, which can have its say over all or any of our changes.
On animal cruelty, also mentioned by the Minister, I strongly refute that gene editing could be considered more cruel than traditional breeding methods. Think of the results of traditional breeding from the wolf over the years, which include dogs with noses that are so squashed they can hardly breathe and Pekingeses whose eyes drop out. Meanwhile, the process of taking an egg from a chicken or fish and editing its genetic make-up is not in any way cruel. If, for instance with the salmon egg, you can increase its resilience to sea lice, as they are doing at Roslin, you would be doing both the salmon and its surrounding environment a heap of good as there would be no need for environmentally damaging treatment to remove the lice, which also harms the salmon.
With mammals, you also take an egg, treat it and re-insert it into the mother—a process no crueller than IVF in humans to help a mother have a much-wanted child. If, for instance, you thus increase resistance to PRRS in pigs, as again they are doing at Roslin, you are reducing the enormous suffering and deaths from that appalling respiratory disease. Of course, if you alter the genes of one animal, you should get hundreds or even thousands of their progeny with the same characteristics without touching them in any way. Breeding resistance to disease into future generations is so much more sensible than the ongoing use of antibiotics or medicines as the best way of helping animals live pain-free and disease-free lives.
I will stop there. But as this is the last time that I will speak in Committee, I want to thank the Minister for his extreme patience and professionalism, expertise in the subject and fluency at the Dispatch Box. I am full of admiration for the skill and extraordinary tolerance with which he has handled us troublesome Members, and I thank him for the conscientious way that he has dealt with the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 295. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Lord Carrington
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove the power for statutory instruments to be used to amend primary legislation
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a farmer and landowner as set out in the register. I have tabled Amendment 295 with the kind support of the noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and Amendment 298 with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, after discussion, of course, with the National Farmers Union. Both amendments relate to general and financial provisions in the Bill.
The purpose of these probing amendments is to understand from the Government how they intend to use the power of modifying primary legislation. Such an action highlights the relative lack of parliamentary scrutiny involved with statutory instruments. Many of us have a general discomfort with statutory instruments being used to amend primary legislation for non-specific purposes. I would be most grateful if the Minister could indicate how this power would be used in a fully accountable manner.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, I have stayed up until what is for me a very late hour in order to do two things at the time of these amendments being moved. The first is to join in the accolades for the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and I would like to spread that out to the digital team, all the staff, the Bill team and everyone who has helped to keep the House of Lords going. I felt personally that the noble Lord’s patience began to fray once or twice during some of these late debates, but he held it together and has been amazing, and of course I thank his deputy, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield.
The second reason why I have stayed up so late is to support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I signed these amendments yesterday because, over the past few months, I have been infuriated by the actions of this Government, who seem to think that now they have a majority of 80-odd in the other place they can behave as they like. Many of us do not think that is true. I had thought about not contributing to this debate and just asking Hansard to cut and paste the other speeches that I have made about the Government’s use of Henry VIII powers, but I felt it was perhaps more responsible to repeat the points myself. I just do not understand why the Government keep coming to Parliament asking for permission to rewrite primary legislation without needing to go through the full process of amending it. That is rule by diktat; it is anti-democratic and dictatorial. I shall always be opposed to it unless the Government can give some overwhelmingly important reason for it. I do not expect the Minister to answer that question, but I think this Government are taking too much power into their own hands and it is time they accepted that they are vulnerable to scrutiny. The British public will not like the fact that they are so overbearing.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the indignation expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Sir Edward Leigh summed up the Government’s attitude to a Henry VIII clause admirably when he said in the other place, when speaking on the then current European Union (Withdrawal) Bill:
“We have heard a lot about Henry VIII. When I was a rebel I used to care about these things. Now I am a loyalist I let the Government get away with it … Henry VIII is a bastard, but he is my kind of bastard.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/9/17; col. 466.]
The Proclamation by the Crown Act 1539 was the work of Thomas Cromwell, Henry VIII’s Secretary of State—very well delineated in Hilary Mantel’s trilogy. He sometimes had trouble getting his Bills past Parliament. The Act said:
“The King for the time being, with the advice of his council, or the more part of them, may set forth proclamations under such penalties and pains as to him and them shall seem necessary, which shall be observed as though they were made by act of parliament”.
Importantly, even Henry’s proclamations could not interfere with existing legislation and rights. It did not give power, as this Bill does, to repeal existing legislation, so Clause 47 is a Henry VIII-plus provision. Under King Henry’s Act, an offender could be subject to forfeitures or imprisonment for not obeying an article of a proclamation and, what is more,
“if any offending will depart the realm, to the intent he will not answer his said offence, he shall be adjudged a traitor.”
That meant hanging, drawing and quartering in those days. I recall that it was part of the Conservative Party’s manifesto in 2019, as part of its push to modernise itself, to reintroduce treason into our courts as an active criminal offence.
Back to Henry VIII: his Statute of Proclamations was one of the first statutes to be repealed in its entirety following his death in 1547. “Rightly so”, noble Lords may think. It lasted only 12 years before it was immediately repealed. Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England vol. 1 chapter 7, published in 1765, said that Henry’s Act was
“a statute which was calculated to introduce the most despotic tyranny, and which must have proved fatal to the liberties of this kingdom, had it not been luckily repealed”.
In case noble Lords think I am lost in history, I move from Henry VIII and Sir William Blackstone to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Speaking in a debate on a report of the Constitution Committee, he said caustically,
“we are giving these powers to the Prime Ministers of our day which the men of the 1539 Parliament were not prepared to give to the dictating ogre who ran the country in theirs. We give powers that Parliament would not give to the great king.”—[Official Report, 12/6/19; col. 460.]
With that background, let us look at the current Bill and its amendments. Clause 47(3) states:
“Any power to make regulations under this Act includes power … (d) to make supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision.”
Subsection (4) says:
“The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (3)(d) includes provision modifying primary legislation, retained direct EU legislation or subordinate legislation.”
“Modify” is a weasel word against which the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I was a member up to last year, has inveighed on many occasions. It dare not speak its name in its place in the Bill. Noble Lords have to turn to Clause 48—the definitions clause—to discover what it really means. That clause says that
“‘modify’ includes amend, revoke and repeal (and related expressions are to be construed accordingly)”.
Noble Lords may think there is not much more you can do to existing legislation, although the definition, by use of the word “includes”, leaves it open for further interpretation.
That, of course, is not the end of it since Clause 50 permits the Secretary of State or the appropriate authority—the Welsh Government or whoever—to modify the Agriculture Bill itself when it becomes an Act, so there is the power to modify this Act by a simple statutory instrument, hence Amendment 298.
At Second Reading, I said:
“At some unknown future time, the Minister will slot a package of policies into this frame as and when he has worked them out. He will introduce a series of unamendable SIs for minimum scrutiny and, save for one issue only, with no consultation.”—[Official Report, 10/6/20; col. 1811.]
I suspect Sir Edward’s “my kind of bastard” will do just that. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is entirely right to inquire how the power in this Bill will be used.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
First, I declare my interest in Suffolk farming, as in the register. I also echo so many others in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble for the brilliant way in which he has shouldered the very heavy burden of a seven-day Committee stage of this Bill. We owe him a deep debt of gratitude and he is one of the finest Ministers I have known in this House.
I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, because I take a rather similar view of Henry VIII clauses, but I recognise that complicated legislation sometimes needs to be reinforced at short notice by statutory instruments. There is one particular point I want briefly to mention at this late hour: the frequent inclusion in statutory instruments of powers of access to premises without a warrant. This has been an abominable abuse of our democracy. The police and the other forces of law and order always require a warrant if they are entering premises, unless they are in hot pursuit, for example. But all too often, particularly in the field of agriculture and food, numerous inspectors, who are not even required to have the courtesy of asking for an appointment to come in, can pounce. I am not saying it is never necessary to pounce, but I am saying that a warrant from a magistrate is absolutely essential before they behave in that manner.
I have been campaigning on this issue for many years, along with my noble friend Lord Selsdon, and we have succeeded in greatly reducing the number of statutory instruments which include powers of entry without a warrant. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, in the days when it was run by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, kept a very strict eye on this issue and would challenge when it found statutory instruments slipped in for powers of entry without a warrant. I think that is now less common, but given the taking into the Government’s hands of the whole of agricultural and food policy, previously delegated to Europe, I want to fire a warning shot. I ask the Minister to be quite sure that officials in all these departments are warned that they should not reintroduce the habit of scattering like confetti into statutory instruments unlimited powers of entry with no need for a warrant. It is undemocratic and intolerable, and it must not start again.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, like others, I begin by expressing my admiration for the stamina, professionalism and tolerance which the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, has displayed throughout these extensive proceedings. I am similarly appreciative of the efforts of the staff of all kinds who have ensured that this marathon Committee has, at last—but not quite—come to an end. I would also like to adopt —as the lawyers say, brevitatis causa—the most erudite analysis pronounced by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on the history of Henry VIII powers, getting up to date with a reference from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who I shall say a word or two about in a moment.
Henry VIII powers, when they are made, are almost always in the interests of the Government, not the public. With a framework Bill, together with the authority to use Henry VIII powers for repealing certain statutory provisions, this Government could easily create for themselves a blank canvas upon which to make detailed provision, which to a large extent would be sidestepping Parliament. That surely cannot be right.
Let me finish by issuing a recommendation to noble Lords. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in a lecture in April 2016, conducted an analysis rather similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. He finished by saying
“what was once a small stream of delegated legislation … has become an inundation.”
Amendment 295 will not necessarily stem the tide, but it may slow down the flow to a certain extent.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
Clearly, there are major risks with Henry VIII clauses, and we have more of them in this Bill. My noble friend Lord Thomas reminded us of the roots of the term, and that the tools were once weaker than those used by the Government today. Statutory instruments are unamendable and almost never voted down. These clauses use secondary legislation to amend primary legislation. We are getting more and more instances of their use.
The House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution has been very critical of this. As the committee put it:
“A distinguishing feature of the Brexit bills was the extent of the delegated powers they contained. Many were skeleton bills, providing broad powers to ministers to create new policy regimes and public bodies for the UK after Brexit with little or no detail as to what policy would be implemented or the nature of institutions which would be created.”
The University of Bristol Law School has noted:
“It seems that the desire to ‘take back control’ from the EU has morphed into an altogether more sinister desire on the part of the Government to minimise scrutiny of its policy choices.”
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, to whom other noble Lords have referred, has called for such clauses to be
“confined to the dustbin of history”.
He is surely right.
There was huge concern about this when the predecessor Bill was published in 2018. There have been improvements, but they are insufficient. It is still not clear what the policy will be in the coming years, with so many “may”s and so few “must”s in this Bill. All noble Lords who have lasted this long in the proceedings on the Bill to contribute to this group have expressed concern. The Minister is probably relieved that some stood aside, but I expect they would have said similar things. However, even that would not have tested the patience of the Minister, who richly deserves a summer holiday back in the English countryside. But he will have much to think about.
Despite the changes from the 2018 Agriculture Bill, the Delegated Powers Committee remains concerned, and these amendments reflect that. These amendments also reflect the NFU’s concern. Nothing is certain for British agriculture at the moment, and these powers need to be clarified and curtailed. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Grantchester
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Greaves, and others for tabling Amendment 295 to Clause 47, “Regulations”, under Part 8, “General and Final Provisions”, and Amendment 298 to Clause 50, “Power to make consequential etc provision”. They are correct to look at every opportunity the Government may feel they need to extend their powers on what is essentially a framework Bill without a lot of detail.
The amendments made me check the 13th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House. The committee’s oversight of each piece of primary legislation is always cogent and thoughtful. In consequence, any criticism is always considered and answered carefully by the Government. On rereading the report, I am slightly surprised that the Delegated Powers Committee did not flag up these clauses’ ability to make amendments to primary legislation by secondary orders. The House has usually argued that unless there are very good reasons for doing so, changes to primary legislation should come only from a new Bill.
I have now reread the clauses very carefully and wonder whether this provision was not flagged because the relevant subsections do not actually confer a delegated power to modify primary legislation but contain a provision that already modifies primary legislation, retained EU legislation or subordinate legislation; that is, something that is already delegated and clarifies how other powers may be used. I would welcome the Minister’s explanation.
I do not wish to prolong proceedings but, together with my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I echo the remarks of other noble Lords in appreciating the uniformly consistent and fulsome answers that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and the whole Bill team have provided to all our inquiries. All responses have been comprehensive and expressed constructively in all our deliberations. The praise given by your Lordships is well deserved for the patience shown towards us. I have always found the ministerial answers most helpful.
After a very long Committee stage, I just add that I have not found the Committee essentially negative towards the Bill; rather, my impression is that as the Committee has proceeded with its inquiries, the ambitions contained in the Bill have become better appreciated.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this has been a very helpful debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his amendments and for the opportunity to explain why the Government are seeking the delegated powers in Clauses 47(3) and 50(1) for themselves and, I should add, the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Government’s request for delegated powers in this area is reasonable and proportionate. I am reminded of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the discussions I have had with him on other Bills, so I understand—not only as a Minister but as someone who believes in proper scrutiny—the points that have been made. But here we are seeking provision to make technical changes for which securing further primary legislation would be cumbersome and far too slow. There would be paralysis if every change to primary legislation had to be made by further primary legislation, particularly during this period of change.
As Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 demonstrate, delegated powers to amend primary legislation are an indispensable tool in ensuring that the law is updated in a timely and efficient manner.
It is certainly not our intention to compromise or circumvent appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. That is why Clause 47(5) ensures that any use of these powers to amend primary legislation would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The flexibility provided by these delegated powers is needed, as it is not possible to anticipate every consequential, supplemental, transitional, transitory and saving provision that may be required at the end of the transition period.
At the moment, we do not know what the UK’s future relationship with the EU will look like. As soon as this becomes clear, the UK and devolved Governments will have to make quick operability amendments to ensure the body of legislation that governs the agricultural sector is updated where necessary. As I have said, we are also taking these powers on behalf of the Welsh Government and DAERA so that they can make appropriate operability changes as necessary.
I should perhaps declare my membership of the NFU—it is always interesting to hear “the NFU says this and the NFU says that”. I am a member of the NFU, and the inability to amend legislation where needed could cause considerable uncertainty; we believe it could disadvantage farmers, the agricultural sector and consumers.
I emphasise that the powers to amend primary legislation could be used only where the legislation relates to a specific provision of this Bill. One example of their use is to make savings provisions for the agri-promotion scheme to ensure that existing programmes are able to continue to their conclusion after CAP regulations cease to apply. We are unable to put the savings provisions on the face of the Bill as we do not currently know which schemes will be live at the end of the transition period and therefore which savings provisions would be required.
To my noble friend Lord Marlesford, I say that I absolutely understand the point he has championed about powers of entry without a warrant. Indeed, I have had discussions in the past with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, about this as well. The Government have limited the powers of entry to make a distinction between the property that is occupied as a house—“dwelling”—and the property as a whole. I absolutely understand and appreciate that it is intrinsic to our arrangements that there is respect for a private dwelling place.
I emphasise that this is a measure that we think is proportionate and necessary given the circumstances. I understand what noble Lords have said about Henry VIII powers and, of course, the reason behind the nervousness or dislike, shall we say, of this sort of provision. However, I hope I have demonstrated adequately that this is no ruse or some back way of abusing Parliament; it is actually to serve those we serve better by enabling us to deal with such matters as I have outlined in an appropriate manner. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carrington [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Marlesford and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem for their invaluable participation in this most concerning penultimate debate on the Agriculture Bill.
At the end of the seventh day—which should, in biblical terms, be the day of rest but certainly was not—my noble friend the Minister overwhelmingly deserves a well-earned rest after this marathon Committee stage, during which he has demonstrated his complete mastery of the subject. We may not always agree with him or be satisfied by his responses, but his patience, courtesy and knowledge have shone brightly, and I think we all thank and admire him.
In respect of my two amendments, I have listened with care to the explanation and reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the Minister. I will study these further but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 299. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make this clear in the debate.
Clause 53: Commencement
Amendment 299
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(1) The following provisions come into force on the day on which this Act is passed— (a) any provision of Parts 1 to 7 which—(i) confers a power to make regulations, or(ii) modifies legislation so as to confer a power to make regulations or a power to make an order by statutory instrument; (b) any other provision of those Parts so far as it, or a modification of legislation it makes, affects the exercise of such a power (for example by defining an expression used in the provision conferring it);(c) this Part, apart from section 49 and Schedule 7.”Member’s explanatory statement
The Amendment enables legislative powers created by the Bill to be exercised on or after the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, in moving Amendment 299 I shall also speak to Amendments 300 to 311 in my name. Amendments 299 to 311 enable legislative powers created by the Bill to be exercised on or after the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. The consequences of coronavirus have placed great pressure on parliamentary timetables. The Bill has therefore not progressed at the pace we originally anticipated, creating a need to act quickly after the Bill receives Royal Assent. These amendments will allow the Government to introduce the Bill’s provisions smoothly and, in particular, to ensure there is no gap in powers to continue to operate our existing schemes and provide financial assistance to farmers and land managers.
For example, we will need to lay and bring into force a statutory instrument under Clause 10, before the end of this year, to enable the basic payment scheme to continue in 2021. Similarly, we also need a statutory instrument to be in place for the 2021 scheme year to simplify the scheme and cross-compliance rules in 2021. We will need further regulations in place in early 2021, under Clauses 2 and 3, to launch the ELM, tree health pilot and new productivity grant schemes, and to run Countryside Stewardship 2022. There are also vital provisions, under Clauses 40 to 42, for compliance with WTO rules, for which the UK Government become directly responsible from day one following the end of the transition period.
Further important provisions are made by Clause 32 of the Agriculture Bill, which inserts new Section 89A into the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, providing an ability to trace livestock and so control disease outbreaks. It is currently scheduled for laying later in 2020 and, ideally, could come into force before the end of the year. The regulations will be made using the affirmative procedure and your Lordships will need appropriate time to scrutinise them before the end of the transition period, so that they may be made ahead of 2021. In our view, farmers and land managers deserve the certainty that they will get the financial assistance they need next year. These amendments will give them that, as well as allowing the agricultural sector to move forward.
I say to all your Lordships who have participated and listened to the Agriculture Bill in Committee that perhaps it has been more extensive than was imagined at the beginning, but I am grateful to all noble Lords. The passion on many of the subjects on which they have spoken comes through a deep-rooted love of the land and all that it represents, the produce of this country and a desire for high standards. I identify with and share all of that. I am embarrassed by some of the generous comments; I rather felt as if I were reading my obituary. All I can say is that it has been a privilege to work with your Lordships. I know that there will be some battles ahead on Report. It is an honest adventure, and we all seek to do our right and best. On this occasion, I wish all noble Lords that rest from which I suspect we will all benefit. These proceedings would not be possible without the Bill team, the people who work with me at Defra and particularly all those in your Lordships’ House, who have worked tirelessly to enable us all to perform to the best of our abilities. I beg to move.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
The Agriculture Bill establishes a legislative framework and will create a new system to support farmers in the farming industry. As we transition in our departure from the EU, the WTO and the wider world, I hope that we will be able to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, which is our biggest market. The food chain of the farming industry is long and important, supporting tens of thousands of workers. The most important aspect of the Bill is how to maintain financial support for farmers. They provide food security for the nation and, at the same time, ensure the quality standards of farm providers.
The farming industry provides vegetables, grains, wheat and meat products for the nation and for exports. It maintains very high standards of quality for food products, which is well known in this country and across the world. It is important that we do not compromise on quality in our imports from any nation. I suggest that we support some of the third-world and Commonwealth countries in their exports to the UK, while at the same time ensuring that imports from those countries maintain the quality of our standards. As we exit the EU, we have to find ways of reaching the EU, which is our biggest market. That is the biggest challenge for our farmers.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, this is the last group of amendments this evening—indeed, in Committee on the Bill. It seems like an age since we started on 7 July. I realised that the process would be slow and laborious, but never envisaged that it would be quite this long.
The Minister set out the Government’s amendments clearly. I commend him and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, on their patience. I share in the comments of other noble Lords congratulating the Minister on his part in steering this Bill through the House. During the whole process, he has been extremely calm, collected and diligent.
The amendments relate to minor changes in the text to ensure that the commencements listed under Clause 53 will be operational on the day the Act is passed and to provide the reassurance that farmers need. I am pleased that this group is so straightforward at the end of the Bill. Like other noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and I have been with it all the way and are looking forward to a break. I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, will be able to get away and have a proper rest and a break—and not take with them their laptops, iPads or iPhones. I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Northover for taking some of the weight.
I would normally say at this stage that I look forward to our debates on Report in September, but I think that would be stretching the truth beyond what is acceptable in your Lordships’ Chamber, so I will just wish everybody a restful August.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this group of amendments relating to changes in the commencement provisions are, as noble Lords have indicated in the debate, about switching when various clauses and delegated powers come into force. Some stakeholders appear to have expressed concern that Amendment 299, which brings certain powers into force as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, means that there will be less scrutiny of the regulations and policy changes that will be brought forward. This should not be the case in your Lordships’ House, as they should still be subject to the standard parliamentary processes.
However, I have the following questions for the Minister to help to clear up any uncertainties and to ensure that this is on the record, should future ambiguities arise. How many regulations do the Government expect to be brought forward? How quickly will this happen? Can the Minister confirm that any regulations will be regular SIs, rather than made SIs, which come into force immediately and get formally green-lighted only later in the process? I would be grateful for verbal answers or answers in written form if the details need to be checked further.
That brings the scrutiny and amendments to the Bill in Committee to a close before the Minister speaks again. What an extraordinary introduction this first Bill that I have taken through the House in my role as Opposition Whip has been. I must note the superb support I have received from my noble friends Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Grantchester and the guidance that our staff team has given me during this process. I thank all noble Lords for demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the issues in such detail throughout the seven days of debate on this significant Bill, and for clearly representing the value and importance of the forensic scrutiny evident in your Lordships’ House to the wider public realm. I must also add my thanks to the Minister and his Front-Bench team for the detailed and thoughtful answers given throughout the debates. I look forward to picking up on Report on the Bill with the Opposition Front-Bench team in September. I send every good wish.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for speaking on this, the last of the group of amendments, which is an important group because it will enable the Government to provide the opportunity that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, hit on. We are absolutely doing this to ensure that there is proper scrutiny and so that we can bring forward those regulations, which will be via the affirmative route, so that noble Lords—I am looking particularly at the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—will be meeting again in the latter part of this year. My intelligence on these matters is that we there will be two before December 2020 that we will need to attend to in particular, but I put on the record that the whole purpose of doing this and of my amendments is to ensure that the regulations have the proper scrutiny they deserve and so that we can ensure that the farmers who are at the root of the Bill have certainty about what we intend for 2021. We will deal with that before the end of the year so that we can begin these schemes and the payment will come forward in 2021. I wish everyone a most enjoyable August.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The Minister and all noble Lords will be pleased to know that no one has expressed a wish to speak after the Minister.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment excludes from the commencement power under subsection (2) any provision mentioned in Clause 53(2)(a) to (f) to the extent it is brought into force by the new subsection (1) substituted by Lord Gardiner’s first amendment to Clause 53.
Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 20 has effect from Royal Assent under Lord Gardiner’s first amendment to Clause 53, so it should not be mentioned in subsection (2)(a).
Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 30 will have effect from Royal Assent under Lord Gardiner’s first amendment to Clause 53, so it should not be mentioned in subsection (2)(b).
Member’s explanatory statement
Paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 has effect from Royal Assent under Lord Gardiner’s first amendment to Clause 53, so should not be mentioned in subsection (2)(c).
Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 35 and Schedule 4 and clauses 38 and 39 and Schedule 4 have effect from Royal Assent under Lord Gardiner’s first amendment to Clause 53, so they should not be mentioned in subsection (2).
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment excludes from the commencement power under subsection (3) any provision mentioned in Clause 53(3)(a) to (c) to the extent it is brought into force by the new subsection (1) substituted by Lord Gardiner’s first amendment to Clause 53.
Member’s explanatory statement
Paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 has effect in relation to Wales from Royal Assent under Lord Gardiner’s first amendment to Clause 53, so it should not be mentioned in subsection (3)(a).
Member’s explanatory statement
Part 4 of Schedule 5 will have effect from Royal Assent under Lord Gardiner’s first amendment to Clause 53, so it should not be mentioned in subsection (3)(b).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Gardiner’s earlier amendment to line 13 on page 44.
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment excludes from the commencement power under subsection (4) any provision mentioned in Clause 53(4)(a) or (b) to the extent it is brought into force by the new subsection (1) substituted by Lord Gardiner’s first amendment to Clause 53.
Member’s explanatory statement
Part 4 of Schedule 6 will have effect from Royal Assent under Lord Gardiner’s first amendment to Clause 53, so it should not be mentioned in subsection (4)(a).
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is consequential on Lord Gardiner’s earlier amendment to line 20 on page 44.
Agriculture Bill
Tuesday 15th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 130-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Report - (15 Sep 2020)
16:50 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 12 - Ayes: 130 / Noes: 225 - Amendment 12 disagreed.
21:06 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 31 - Ayes: 258 / Noes: 208 - Amendment 31 agreed.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 1 and speak to the amendments in the first group. We come to Report and therefore I repeat my interests, as set out in the register, as vice-president of the Open Spaces Society and my historical involvement with the British Mountaineering Council.
This is the Agriculture Bill, so it is fundamentally about agriculture, farming and farmers. It cannot avoid being about many other things too because agriculture takes up some 70% of the land area of this country. Therefore, the Bill inevitably is also about everything else that happens on that land. We had a thorough discussion in Committee of Part 1, which is all about the permissive powers the Secretary of State will have in future to provide funding for a range of things, starting with farming and farming-related activities, but also those ancillary to or related to rural land.
Like much of Part 1, the small provision allowing funding for the provision of finance and access is permissive and general. The fundamental difficulty we all had with this Bill in Committee is that it is all about what the Government might do, rather than what they will do. We do not know what they are going to do, and they do not know either. We will have to wait to see how the Bill will be put into operation. Then, it will be far too late to discuss it as primary legislation.
All the amendments in this group are about access. Thinking back, huge progress has been made on access in the last 20 years in different parts of the UK. The CROW Act 2000 created access land, rights of way improvement plans, access forums and a great deal more. By and large, despite the horror stories that some people told us at the time, it has been successful. Scotland had the Land Reform Act 2003, which resulted in my political colleague Ross Finnie, who was the Minister in charge of it, being described as,
“Mugabe in a tartan outfit,
by the Scottish Daily Mail, and lots of other things like that. That Act created the right of responsible access to land in Scotland—and it was all land—so long as the access was carried out responsibly. Again, people thought it would be horrific but, in practice, that part of the Act has been pretty successful. However, I emphasise the word “responsible”. It is absolutely true that some people go to the countryside and do not act responsibly, and that matter should be dealt with.
Under CROW, we had English coastal access, which was started by the Labour Government before 2010. In 2010 there was an attempt by some Conservative Ministers, which I can bear witness to, to put a stop to it, but that was one of the things that the Liberal Democrats in the coalition made sure happened. In 2015, Nick Clegg announced that it would be completed in 2020. It has not quite happened, for various reasons, but it is going to be finished—so things have been moving forward.
What is happening now is dangerous in several respects. There is the problem of the potential loss of the ability, under cross-compliance and the environmental requirements on basic farm payments, for access authorities to make sure that farmers do not block access. In Committee, I asked what was happening about that under the new system, but I have not had an answer yet. Will the new ELM tier 1 payments require that farmers and land managers adhere to the law and allow access where it is legal? Will tier 2 take into account rights of way improvement plans, for example? Will they have to do it? Many tier 3 landscape-scale payments will, if I understand them correctly, be made on access land, so they are a wonderful opportunity to develop and improve current access for both people undertaking the access and land managers.
Other issues are being dealt with by amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Addington, to which I have added my name. However, Amendment 1 puts in a specific requirement for consideration to be given to funding for access improvements as well as maintaining and supporting existing access. This is a really good opportunity to do this. Improvements would be voluntary, so it does not force anything on anybody, but it does put into the Bill the possibility of providing money to strengthen existing access. In some areas, access on farmland is very good; in others, it is pretty poor. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and my noble friend Lord Addington for adding their support to this amendment.
We want to see enhancements to the path network and, importantly, improved maintenance of existing public access. This is very important. If the existing facilities—the gates, stiles and paths—are clear and well signposted, that is a route to good management and is in the interests of everybody. It is not to anybody’s advantage if they are all falling down and you have to climb over walls and barge your way through to get access, or if you cannot find where you are going and get lost. Maintaining access is, therefore, in everybody’s interest, whether you are managing the land or going there for recreational purposes.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I agree with much of what he said about public access and the health and well-being benefits thereof. I will speak specifically to my Amendment 2, which changes the ELMS targets in Clause 1(1)(b) from “enjoyment of” to “health and well-being benefits from” the countryside. This goes to the heart of the Bill and what the countryside is for. Is it for our enjoyment or for our benefit?
I apologise for not being present in person, particularly on a day when I have tabled a number of amendments. I am currently in quarantine following a fortnight in California, where it was 116 degrees last week. California is parched by drought. It is ravaged by wildfire and overrun by Covid, exacerbated by a food production system that maximises profit and productivity. There is no doubt that the Californians “enjoy” that remarkable land, but that enjoyment patently does not inure to the benefit of their health, well-being or environment.
This amendment was debated in Committee and many noble Lords supported the inclusion of health and well-being benefits, so I will not repeat myself, but I note that this provision remains unchanged from the original 2018 version of the Bill. This is despite the onset of the worst public health crisis in a century, during which the public health and well-being benefits of our natural environment, and our domestic food supply, have never been more important. It is disappointing that the Government have not seen fit to put the crucial goals of health and well-being on the face of the Bill. However, I am equally concerned at the use of the word “enjoyment”. This is either a wholly subjective term that is inappropriate for legislation, or it has a specific meaning as a property right—the right to quiet enjoyment—which simply cannot be a public good.
I declare my interest, now and for the rest of this Report stage, as a Devon farmer and the holder of certain long-standing feudal rights. I originally trained as a property law barrister and I am very aware that enjoyment of land is a basic freehold right that may be granted to tenants or exercised by bringing a tort claim in nuisance. Is the granting of public property rights what the Government intend to reference in Clause 1(1)(b)? If so, I would not be wholly opposed to that, but it needs to be stated explicitly and would deserve considerably more debate than is available today. I would also question whether that amounts to a public good, given that there is an all-too-vibrant property market at work in this country at the moment.
Equally, if this is merely the dictionary definition of enjoyment—“the taking of pleasure in something”—it is overbroad. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referenced, we have heard much in the news lately of public access and enjoyment, including raves taking place in contravention of lockdown guidance. The participants at those events are undoubtedly gaining public access to, and considerable enjoyment from, the land in question—but it may not be to the good of their health or well-being.
As I stated in Committee, I am a champion of responsible public access to the countryside, but not to the detriment of the environment, the well-being of the public or the private rights of property owners. This provision, as drafted, potentially damages all three. I hope the Minister can provide much-needed clarification on this important issue.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister and all those in Defra who have worked so hard between Committee and now to provide us with letters and briefings. The time they have given it is very much appreciated and will hopefully speed up this process.
I will speak primarily to Amendment 5 standing in my name, which seeks to ensure that public access is “granted voluntarily” in the ELM scheme
“by the recipient of that assistance.”
The Minister confirmed this during a virtual session we had the other day, and it is important that he puts it on the record, because there has been some confusion as to whether Defra would be able to impose any of the conditions in Clause 1(1)(a) to (j) as part of giving a grant. If the Minister could assure me that each and every one of them is voluntary, that would be a help.
I support what the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has just said. His wording in Amendment 2 is better than that in the Bill. I also support what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said about irresponsible behaviour. It is important to remember that irresponsible behaviour is both ways—both by those who come to the countryside to take exercise and walk along a footpath, and also by the farmer who prevents that for various reasons.
Your Lordships will recall that, in Committee, I went on at some length about litter, which is the blight of Covid-19. I got an email from somebody who said, “You’re absolutely right but don’t forget the farmers, who leave an awful lot of litter around, from their black plastic sacks and other things”—and that is absolutely right. I wrote back to him and said I totally agreed with him. The responsibility has to act both ways, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that it does when the Bill becomes an Act.
I would also like to ask my noble friend about the status of access. If it is a voluntary agreement as part of an ELM scheme, what is the status when that part of the ELM scheme comes to an end? If it is a five-year agreement and there is voluntary access at the end of five years, does that access become statutory or just fade away?
A final thought: when we are talking about access, one of the great things that Covid has shown is that if you give animals and birds a bit of peace, they will come out and show themselves and they will prosper more than when they have humans around. There are certain times of year when the use of footpaths is not helpful to breeding animals and birds, and I hope that there will be a bit of flexibility on both sides to ensure that these rights benefit animals and birds as well as human beings.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which encourage public access and improved accessibility. Equally, I am in favour of Amendment 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness. Public access should not be forced on farmers just because they have been given financial help. That would be inconsistent with the purposes of the Bill. What should happen instead, as proposed by my noble friend, is that, where relevant, access would be
“granted voluntarily by the recipient of … assistance.”
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have a suspicion that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, had not quite finished, but we will return to him if he indicates he had not completed his remarks.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Would the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, please finish his remarks?
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
I confirm that I have finished my remarks already.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I beg your pardon: they were worth waiting for. The next speaker will therefore be the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the access part of the Bill immediately caught my eye in terms of improving people’s health and enjoyment of the countryside. “Enjoyment” may be a term that is challenged, but it surely includes healthy exercise in the country, in a controlled environment with support. The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is not necessary, because I was assuming it was a voluntary interaction to get support; you get some funding to do support in a constructive, sensible way. I understand why he tabled it, because it is a useful piece of clarification, and we probe in Committee but clarify on Report. Hopefully, it will remove some of the, shall we say, more lurid stories we had over the summer—a quiet summer with the press.
I discovered on certain occasions that I was in favour of an unlimited right to roam over everybody’s gardens. It started with the BBC and carried on. I have to give praise to the Telegraph, which did not put anything like this out, possibly because it spoke to me first.
Anyway, as we go through this, the amendments I have down in my name are all about clarifying and, when they make reference to existing Acts of Parliament, trying to put this in context. I refer to the 2000 Act and the 1980 Act: we have something solid, so let us pin it down and find out what we are trying to do.
In the current environment, one thing we have discovered is that if your heart and cardiovascular system are in good condition, you are less likely to be a vulnerable person who is collapsing the NHS. Exercise is the wonder drug, and the best introduction to exercise if you are away from it is walking, after which you may start running or anything else. Taking exercise easily in a pleasant way is the thinking behind most of my approach. It is a pleasant experience to be outside walking.
My amendments also make it possible that the Government will fund those people who have entered into this to make sure or attempt to make sure there are paths that are useful for just about anybody, not just the convinced rambler who, armed with the right clothing and heavy boots, marches across a muddy field. They are for the person in a wheelchair or pushing a wheelchair or pushing a buggy. Can they get support to make sure that they have a hard surface that does not turn to mud at the first drop of rain? That was some of the thinking behind linking this to other Acts.
Farmers should get to it. This is very important for the simple reason that people stick to a hard path, by and large, but not to many other paths, including great paths such as the Pennine Way and the Ridgeway that get muddy. People avoid the mud and expand the path. Any biodiversity around that path is immediately destroyed by people’s size 6 and up shoes. It ruins the ground and the diversity. So the aim of my amendments that refer to other Acts is to try and make sure you can maintain a path that is usable under most circumstances.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. I have added my name to those of my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Dundee on Amendment 5, because, as has been said, it is important that we get clarification. We must also ensure that farmers and other land managers realise that the access provisions are voluntary and will not be imposed. We need to take everybody along with the new framework, and the new way of looking at how we finance our agricultural system. If land managers fear that this will be compulsory they may not take part in it. Obviously, there is a good reason why we want more access—but it must be voluntary.
I echo the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about making paths, if possible, accessible to all, not just to what he called the hardened rambler. I also concur that there are occasions when paths and access must be curbed, for various reasons. Even nature reserves have to close paths because a bird—or some other creature, but it is normally a bird—has decided to nest right by them, and the last thing it needs is a lot of people walking past. I hope that the Minister can give us the clarification that we desire.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I offer the Green group’s support for Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb will speak on other amendments, so I shall confine myself to this one. Amendment 2 has multiple benefits. As the noble Earl explained, it would improve the clarity of the Bill, with “health and wellbeing” being measurable and quantifiable terms rather than the—if I may say so—rather woolly drafting of “enjoyment”.
This also helps us to come to terms with the rest of the debate and to set out clearly what the Bill is trying to achieve. We need our countryside to provide multiple services for us. In terms of our health and well-being, we need a great improvement from our present diet, to one packed with fruit and vegetables. We also need widespread broadly available leisure opportunities, and we need to look after the health and well-being of the natural world so that it can maintain biodiversity and bio-abundance, store carbon, prevent flooding, provide clean water, et cetera.
The economy is a complete sub-set of the environment, and ours is in a parlous state, as the RSPB reminded us this week with its reflections on our “lost decade for nature”. There is a context to the Bill involving contesting views, summed up as “sparing versus sharing”. The idea behind sparing is that we trash much of the land—the soils, the biodiversity and the waters—but we leave some of it, in its still surviving or restored state, as pristine as possible. Spare some, and the devil—or the agrochemical companies—take the rest.
Sharing involves looking after all our land—the soils, the wildlife, the air and the water. Those are things that everybody needs around them all the time for health and well-being—rural and town residents, visitors, and those who eat the food that comes from them. That is, as the noble Earl’s amendment says, for their health and well-being. An occasional visit to a specially protected treasured area will not deliver health and well-being if the rest of our countryside is trashed.
When we reach Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and consider the damage done by pesticide application, this will all come into acute focus. Amendment 2 gives us a chance, in the early stages of the Bill, at the start of today’s debates, to set out a crucial understanding of how our health and well-being, and our future, depend on looking after every inch of our environment. If we live in a healthy land, we will have a healthy society.
Lord Naseby (Con)
I too thank the Minister for the timeliness and succinctness of the brief we have received. As we will be on this subject for a while, I had better declare an interest, in that I own woodland, which is managed by a professional and with the agreement of the Forestry Commission. And if anything comes up about horticulture, Bedfordshire is part of the heart of the horticultural world, so I will be interested in that.
We should pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I too worried about “enjoyment” for a while and wrestled with it but could not think of anything better at the time. Then I found that he had produced something very helpful, which gives precision. In law, precision is very important, so I hope the Minister will consider it.
I say that particularly because I happen to have some footpaths close to where I live and, as my noble friend will be aware, there is a new hobby of flying drones, which is not necessarily for the enjoyment of anybody other than the person flying the drone. Certainly, if people are walking along a footpath and find somebody else in the middle of the path flying a drone—which is allegedly, but not actually, flying within sight—that is not to the enjoyment of anyone at all.
On Amendment 4, which is the other one that caught my eye, there is no doubt that “accessibility” is vital. There cannot be a Member of your Lordships’ House who has not taken a walk along a footpath and found either a stile broken, something overgrown or another hazard that has appeared, so it is vital. I am slightly worried, though, in that some years ago I experienced that a section of the “rambling community” had gone back to the original maps showing where the closed footpaths were. Those had been closed whenever it was, legally et cetera, but there was then a move to open them up again. There may be a case for opening some of them, but it seems to me that that campaign does not fit with what we require today. However, I come back to the point that accessibility is vital. New public access is much more difficult in today’s world, and I think one has to tread very carefully in that area.
Lord Carrington (CB)
I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner as set out in the register. Briefly, I support Amendment 5, in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, if the intention is to make public access a precondition of eligibility to obtain financial assistance for the purposes set out in Clause 1. Many farmers welcome public access and understand that, in many instances, it is most helpful to their businesses, leaving aside any altruistic intent. However, there will always be circumstances in which, for one reason or another, it is inappropriate. Reasons may range from it being environmentally detrimental to safety concerns and privacy reasons. While encouraging public access, surely it should be granted voluntarily by a willing and perhaps enthusiastic farmer, rather than being imposed. Public access may well devalue the farmer’s property and might lead to a reluctance by the farmer or landowner, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has said, to make an application to the relevant ELMS.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be back discussing the Bill on Report. I declare my interests in the register, particularly that I sit on the rural affairs group of the Church of England and that I am an associate fellow, I think, of the British Veterinary Association. I have one comment and a question for the Minister. I do not think that these amendments are necessary, as we discussed in Committee. It would be most helpful if the Minister in summing up could refer to the figures on current public access and rights of way, both in numbers and in miles, that are currently available but not being used and may lapse as a result, before we go on to create any new ones.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 27. The consultation with the dairy industry highlighted a need to define how the codes of conduct will be enforced and how that enforcement will be financed. The dairy industry must be given a chance to provide views about enforcement. A range of options are possible. Arbitration or an ombudsman model are suggested. In either of these models, the cost must be considered. Legal advice and litigation costs will have to be considered. All such costs will ultimately fall on consumers. In this pandemic era, consumers must be considered. Families of lower income and those facing homelessness must be protected. Does the Minister agree that all such extra legal costs must not fall on consumers?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to two amendments: Amendment 2, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 5, in the name of my noble friends Lord Caithness, Lord Dundee and Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I agree entirely about the beneficial effects of being able to enjoy the beauties of our countryside; that should go without saying. But I also very much agree with my noble friend Lord Caithness and, indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about the position of the landowners and farmers in question.
As we begin what I hope will not be quite such a marathon stage of the Bill, I very much hope that we will never, at any stage of our deliberations, lose sight of the fact that this is the Agriculture Bill, and its prime purpose is to protect and enhance British farming and those who earn their living from it. It is to underline their duties to be custodians of the countryside; it is to underline their responsibility to enable people to enjoy the countryside.
But we have only to reflect briefly on some of the ghastly things that have happened since Committee to realise how important it is that not only are farmers and landowners responsible but that those who enjoy the countryside are responsible. We have witnessed some, frankly, despicable scenes over the last two or three months—people going into the countryside and not enjoying it but pillaging it, defacing it, neglecting what it truly is and creating horror and squalor where there is, and always should be, beauty. I hope we can bear all those things in mind as we go through Report.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who has been exceptionally kind to me in previous debates. It deeply saddens me that I do not quite agree with him: I think there will always be a tension between town and country, and some of that comes down simply to a lack of information available to those who despoil the countryside, and that is something we should think about.
It gives me great pleasure, even joy, to be speaking on Report on this Bill, with such a broad consensus on shaping a greener future for British farming and land management. The sheer volume of amendments on the Marshalled List is testament to the scale of ambition shared by noble Lords across the House, and it is unfortunate that your Lordships may not be able to divide on as many amendments as we might have liked.
I was going to speak only to Amendment 4, because I thought it was the most radical, in terms of opening up new paths and new opportunities for people to walk, but now that my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle has given me the opportunity to range wider, I shall speak to some of the others.
I am pleased by the cross-party, non-partisan way in which the House has come together to focus on some of the most important issues, so that the Bill addresses some of the most pressing issues facing the health of our people and our planet. I felt that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, was very brave in going to California. I have watched with horror the pictures and the testimonies from a California that is clearly suffering and will clearly have a problem feeding and nurturing its own residents in the near future.
The amendments in this first group can be broadly categorised as improving public access to the benefits and beauty of British land, and anything that can be done to expand the public’s access and use of the land is a positive step. The Bill already makes broad overtures in that regard. Despite having a great respect and liking for the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I am not quite sure about the word “voluntarily”. On a path that I regularly walk, the farmer puts all sorts of impediments in the way, and that footpath has been there for many centuries. For example, one often finds wire fencing, flocks of geese or cows that are about to be milked—it makes it quite difficult for the average walker.
Some of the other amendments are simply common sense. It would be perfectly logical for the Minister to go back to the Government, and when the shadow, the spectre, of Dominic Cummings looms over him, I think he should say “Dom, you know nothing about this—go away, and let us improve the Bill”.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to contribute to this Bill, and I declare my interests as a farmer in Scotland and a member of NFU Scotland. Even so, Part 1, to which most of these amendments apply, only affects England and Wales.
I add my support for Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. This is one of a number of amendments noble Lords have referred to which are aimed at bringing the benefits of agriculture to health and well-being. It will be important if this Bill gives official recognition to this element.
I have been listening with much interest to the proposals surrounding Amendments 3 and 24, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, particularly his extensive list of what constitutes “water”. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked that financial assistance be sought for access—it is a bit of a longer shot to diagnose what assistance is actually needed for the water itself. It might be necessary to define the context in which the words listed should be taken, as they are likely to have different meanings in different parts of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, drew your Lordships’ attention to the legislation in Scotland, which gives unlimited right of access to land and water, but allows access only by foot, horseback or bicycle. Motor-driven transport can go only where there is an appropriate right of way, unless the occupant is disabled. We have yet to learn if this distinction will apply to water, but this needs to be thought about. This helps to ensure that the countryside is accessed in a way that provides the most benefit. Even so, there are already examples of the approach of different users conflicting, in spite of the fact that, with one-tenth of the population of England, one might expect there should be less of a risk.
Something which deserves consideration when talking of extending access is that historically, Scotland had a more general right of access before our current legislation was introduced, whereas in the majority of England any access is limited to defined rights of way. During the Bill’s passage, it has been only proper that we give these proposals some consideration. However, the extent and location of acceptable access has not been discussed.
The changes envisaged in these amendments are a complete departure from the current situation. My noble friend Lord Caithness pointed out the way in which they extend the present position. The subject should be introduced with more care than we can readily give in the context of this Bill. I would not be prepared to support the amendments at this time.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate. A number of noble Lords have made the point that this an agriculture Bill—of course it is—but we cannot get away from the fact that the principle which underpins it is public money for public goods, and the Government are quite right to make that the principle. The link between citizens as taxpayers and the farming industry is now going to be clearer and more direct than at any time in the last half-century. Therefore, anything which helps public understanding of farming and agriculture is actually in the best interests of farmers and landowners.
Many noble Lords have highlighted the importance of public access and recreation in the fresh air and countryside as part of a broad strategy for improved health, well-being and mental well-being, and I agree absolutely with that. I have observed in this debate and in Committee some conflation of the public rights of way network—which is often historic and enshrined in law—and public access more generally. I am not going to give a lecture on that, your Lordships will be pleased to hear. However, it is important that we understand that these are two separate things.
This comes across very clearly in the Bill, in understanding the extent to which compliance with the law on the part of landowners will be taken into account in assessing eligibility. The other issue is public access: opening up not new public rights of way but new voluntary access. My view—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—is that nothing in the Bill or in any of the amendments would create a new public good or in any way force landowners to do something they do not want to do.
A number of noble Lords have talked about the problems of vandalism, fly-tipping and so on. I understand that: I live in a small village, and the lane out of here is often full of litter. Nobody suggests banning cars, even though people are chucking McDonald’s boxes out of car windows; we do not do that. We try to educate, to enforce, and that is the approach we should be taking with public access, not trying to ban the many for the misdeeds of the few.
I would really like the Minister to make it clear whether financial assistance will be available where landowners voluntarily decide to provide new access opportunities or to improve existing ones. I would also appreciate the Minister’s saying whether any of the ELM tests and trials have been related to water and public access to waterways.
Finally, there is the question of what used to be called cross-compliance, to which my noble friend Lord Greaves referred: whether a landowner who blocks a footpath or a public right of way will still be eligible for grants, or whether that will be taken into account. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. As we are talking about access, I should declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority.
I do not intend to speak at length as we have a great deal to get through today. We had a good debate on these issues in Committee, and I think we all acknowledged the important health benefits from being in the open air and walking in the countryside. Noble Lords have raised many of these important issues again today and, of course, we concur with many of the arguments that have been put forward.
There is clearly a great deal more that can be done to open up the countryside and provide safe and secure footpaths, particularly for those with disabilities. We also recognise the importance of enhancing public understanding of farming and nature. As we know, the Bill already spells out a commitment to provide financial assistance for public access to the countryside and for greater public understanding.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, again raised the issue of access to water—to canals, lakes and the other things listed in his amendment. As I said in Committee, this Bill is about farming and the environment; extending its remit to the recreational enjoyment of waterways is perhaps pushing its boundaries too far.
On reflection, since Committee, I have had a more fundamental issue with these amendments. We believe that the purposes set out in Clause 1(1) have the right balance of interests between the farming community and the environment. It is a delicate balance, which is nevertheless broadly accepted by those whose livelihoods depend on it. This is why we have refrained from putting amendments to this clause, and it is why, even now, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
All of the amendments in this group are worthy in their own way. The issues that they raise are important and we will happily work with noble Lords to pursue them elsewhere—but not in this Bill or at this time, when there is so much else at stake and the future funding of farming is so fragile.
I hope that, despite the good debate that we have had, the noble Lord will reflect on this and feel able to withdraw his amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to what has been a thoughtful debate. I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. I very much look forward to these days spent on Report, building on our consideration in Committee.
In addressing Amendment 1, I will also address Amendments 25, 3, 4 and 24. I am a great advocate of the benefits that access to the countryside and the natural world can bring. Clause 1(1)(b) will allow financial assistance to be given to support public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland and woodland.
The Government are supporting and enhancing access to the countryside in a number of different ways. We are working to complete the England Coast Path and to support our network of national trails, and we intend to create a new national trail across the north of England. We are ensuring that rights of way are recorded and protected, as well as developing ways to support access through the ELM scheme. I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that it is estimated that there is around 140,000 miles of rights of way in England and Wales. The ELM scheme will reward land managers for the public goods that they deliver, including beauty, heritage and engagement with the environment. Public access is a key way that people can engage with the environment. Supporting access is therefore an important aspect of achieving this goal.
In her point about balance, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, reminded us of the clear essence of this—in fact, it is the way in which the countryside is generally successful. How do we balance the many demands on the countryside? Her point was made well and succinctly.
We are looking at how the ELM scheme could fund the creation of new paths, such as footpaths and bridleways, which provide access for cyclists, riders and pedestrians where appropriate. This will be in addition to current local authorities’ rights of way arrangements. The scheme could also support wider access opportunities to, and on, water and waterways, such as lakes and rivers, for canoeists, anglers and swimmers where appropriate. Again, this is about balance. We all know—this is so often the case, in my view—that when this is done through interested parties meeting together, some of the hostility evaporates: they all get round what is perhaps in these times the proverbial table and work through the issues to everyone’s mutual interest.
We will determine in more detail what ELM will pay for as we develop further the scheme; importantly, we are engaging with stakeholders to inform this. The current wording of the Bill allows us to develop, in close collaboration with stakeholders, the best ways of making further enhancements to our exceptional access network, including waterways.
Turning to Amendment 2, I am absolutely seized of the health and well-being benefits that access can bring. All of us have experienced them—many of us throughout our lives—but I think that the nation has particularly found this during the current circumstances. I assure the noble Earl that these benefits can be supported by public access to the countryside. Access provides a huge range of benefits, including improving physical and mental health, but also supports local communities and economies.
I thank the noble Earl for highlighting the importance of access as a public good, which this scheme can support. As drafted, Clause 1(1)(b) will allow for a more permissive approach to meeting the aims of providing greater and more varied access. A broad range of access improvements will be aimed at promoting the benefits of enhancing health and well-being through enjoyment—in the fullest sense of the word, rather than that pertaining to property rights—and understanding of the countryside. I should say that the noble Earl and I discussed this issue with lawyers. The current scope of Clause 1(1)(b) is broader than that proposed by the noble Earl and provides options to develop the best ways of making further enhancements to our impressive access network, including waterways.
Turning to Amendments 19 and 27, rights of way are managed by local authorities and the rights of way improvement plans set out the needs at local levels. When developing schemes such as the ELM scheme, understanding and addressing local needs will be of paramount importance. This is why the Government have proposed that the design of tiers 2 and 3 of the ELM scheme may require spatial prioritisation; in other words, a targeting process to ensure that priority environmental outcomes are delivered in the right places. The Government are exploring the best approach to spatial prioritisation for ELM, including how to ensure that local stakeholders can be involved in determining local priorities. Rights of way improvement plans will already be considered as part of this process.
Clear arrangements are already in place through the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to allow for the establishment, recording and appeal of rights of way to agreed standards, and local authorities hold responsibility for their maintenance. Indeed, a national stakeholder group is being reconvened, enabling historic claims to be negotiated and resolved while the consideration of other initiatives, such as a coast-to-coast national trail, is also progressing. The ELM scheme is separate from these aspects of rights of way and thus may offer new and different opportunities, such as the creation of new access, easier physical access and clearer information to enable greater public access.
A number of noble Lords mentioned access. Having have had the privilege of seeing some of the new coastal paths and the opportunities for those of varying abilities and disabilities, I am absolutely seized of the importance of access. As we seek to enhance greater opportunities, wherever possible we should be in a position to help those who do not have the ability that noble Lords here have to enjoy access to the countryside.
Turning to Amendment 5, I again stress to all noble Lords that ELM is a voluntary scheme; I put that on record. Therefore, no farmer will be forced to sign up to the scheme, although they will of course be required to meet their obligations under the law. Ultimately, ELM is a policy delivered by land managers on the ground who know best what their land is capable of delivering. I agree with my noble friend Lord Caithness and the many noble Lords who raised this issue, but again, balance comes into it. There must be balance between food production, the environment, conservation, and the well-being and health of people who want access to the countryside; all these things are the essence of balance.
I understand that, at times, providing such public access can bring about some extra costs or risks for land managers. We will therefore work closely with stakeholders on the full costs of providing access, to make sure that the system works for and is attractive to land managers. My noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made that point. We want this scheme to work because it is a positive for those who are custodians of the land. It will not work if it is an imposition. Permissive routes—that is, routes agreed for a certain period of time—cannot be claimed as permanent rights of way. Again, this is important in the climate in which we are seeking to do something of strong public benefit by seeking this element of financial assistance for land managers.
I will look at Hansard to see whether there are any further issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, referred to tests and trials. All this—whether it is access or the range of financial assistance—is going to work only if we have the tests and trials with interested parties, so that there is confidence that when all of these financial assistance schemes are applied for, they will be attractive.
I hope I have answered noble Lords’ questions and concerns with the references I have made, through consideration of these matters between Committee and Report and by taking the advice of lawyers as to the drafting. I hope that this will sufficiently reassure the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in particular, and I ask him whether he would feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what he said. He elucidated the point on which I wanted to question him but, by that stage, I had already sent in my request to speak. He also mentioned consultation on the ELMS. How many farmers are involved in this? Is he convinced that it covers enough respondents to give an overall picture for the country? It is crucial that we get this right.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I can confirm that the tests and trials will be across all sorts of land tenure in all parts of the country. This is a venture between Government with responsibility to the taxpayer and land managers who are doing—and will continue to do—a considerable amount of work for which, currently, they are not rewarded. I can confirm to my noble friend that we will be working very strongly across the country on access and other matters, so that when the design of the scheme is rolled out, we know that it will be attractive to land managers.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, on the Minister’s last point, I am not in touch with a huge number of tests and trials. There are complaints that the ones with which I am in touch—which deal with things in which I am interested—are not getting on fast enough. We understand that there are problems with Covid et cetera. The people I talk to have no complaints at all about how they are being conducted; they are being involved. In terms of new rights of way, the tests and trials in parts of Somerset—I think they are in the Quantocks—in which the Trails Trust is heavily involved are certainly finding a lot of lost bridleways which are likely to be turned, in modern terms, into new access. The people there are quite pleased with what is happening.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion. I am also grateful for the considerable discussions and consultations which the Minister and his department have taken part in during the summer. I believe that the words “health” and “being” in the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, belong in Part 1 of the Bill. They ought to be there somewhere. I would have hoped that this was something the Government might accept, if not necessarily in the exact form in which the noble Earl put it forward. I know that this is a Government in the early gung-ho stages of “We know everything, everything we do is right and we are not going to change anything”. It will change as the years go by; it always does. This is something to which the Minister should and could give further consideration. I would like the words “outdoor recreation” to be there, but I am not going to press this.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 6. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once. Short questions for elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division should make this clear in debate.
Amendment 6
“( ) protecting or improving the food security of citizens and access to food that promotes good health and wellbeing.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I will listen with great interest to what the authors of the other amendments say in relation to theirs.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for their support. Despite what has changed since Committee—which I have now lost—I am persisting with this amendment because of part 1 of the report on the National Food Strategy in the name of Henry Dimbleby. I will refer to this in later amendments as well. His conclusion in Chapter 5 is very telling. Although we “got away with it” in relation to the Covid crisis, we came perilously close to food security issues, particularly food shortages in shops during the early stages. Obviously that is something we wish to prevent going forward.
I believe that this is a genuine omission on the part of the Government. I am sure it is purely an oversight, rather than anything mischievous, but if we refer to the later Clause 17, it is extremely important to have a reference in Clause 1. The new subsection we are proposing would insert
“protecting or improving the food security of citizens and access to food that promotes good health and wellbeing”
and that is extremely important. As the National Food Strategy: Part One so rightly identifies, there are many reasons why we may be presented with such shortages and shocks to food security in the future. That is why it is important to write this into the Bill as a recognised public good, and therefore qualifying for public assistance.
I mentioned the reference to Covid; it seemed that we got away with it this time. However, Clause 17 refers to
“global food availability … supply sources for food … the resilience of the supply chain for food … household expenditure on food … food safety and consumer confidence in food”.
Climate change is obviously a key theme running through a number of amendments which follow later, while future pandemics could give greater cause for concern. I know that other amendments seek to address national food shortages, caused potentially by not growing enough of our own—the level of self-sufficiency is low, as we have discussed previously—and potential household shortages. My main concern is a potential major shock flowing from the lack of a deal and the difficulties of trying to negotiate under World Trade Organization terms of reference, which could lead to major trading deficiencies. That is why I believe that Amendment 6 needs to be written into the clause.
I will listen carefully to what my noble friend the Minister says in summing up, but, without a shadow of a doubt, food security should qualify as a public good and thereby be eligible for financial assistance. If he is able to point us in the direction of how, in other circumstances, financial assistance would kick in, that may go some distance in allaying my concerns. This goes further than a probing amendment, but I do not necessarily wish to test the will of the House on it. I hope that my noble friend will take seriously what we propose in this amendment and what his own adviser, Henry Dimbleby, has said.
The House owes the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, a great debt for bringing forward Amendment 48, and I congratulate him on doing so. There is major cause for concern about how common land will be administered under the terms of the Bill. The danger is that if we leave the discussions at this stage, we will rely on the regulations that will follow, which I know will be manifold. I thank my noble friend for his rather lengthy telephone call. I do not think he realised it would be quite such a long call, but I am so grateful to him and his team in this regard. However, I support the sentiments that lie behind Amendment 48 and, in this regard, would like to know exactly how the regulations which flow from the Bill will apply. I know that, in other circumstances, departments have been willing to give advance notice of how the regulations will apply. That would be most helpful indeed.
I know the reason why common land is so vexatious. I may no longer be MP for Thirsk and Malton but, having stood there, I know that common land is generally not widely understood because it exists only in certain parts of the country. However, there are multiple interests at play there, so I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take this opportunity to put our minds at rest. Graziers and others may be few in number, but the current financial assistance they enjoy can make the difference between them putting bread on the table or otherwise. That will be of great interest to the House this afternoon.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I was pleased to add my name to her Amendment 6 because, for me, food security is very much about the public good. Putting this amendment into the Bill, as we would like to see, would try to ensure that the Secretary of State is given powers to give financial assistance to underpin food security, health and well-being. This is a laudable objective, which should be placed in statute and recognised by government as such. It should therefore be placed in the Bill. Particularly at the time of this pandemic, people should be able to access not only cheap food but the food that they need to stay healthy, with the food system acting in relation to policy areas such as health, welfare and food production.
During Committee, many of us referred to the report published by our Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment. The report, Hungry for Change, was particularly comprehensive and found barriers at all levels of the food system that make it harder for people, particularly those living in poverty, to access a healthy and sustainable diet. The lack of a unifying government ambition and strategy on food has prevented interrelated issues such as hunger, health and sustainability being considered in parallel, meaning that opportunities have been missed to develop coherent policies that could bring about widespread change. Everyone should have access to a healthy and sustainable diet, hence the need to ensure that financial assistance will be given for adhering to this objective as a public good, and therefore get public money for public goods.
It is interesting what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said about the National Food Strategy: Part One by Henry Dimbleby. He gave evidence to our committee some months ago. Basically, I suppose he is saying that we were lucky that we did not face further challenges in relation to the pandemic. However, there is no doubt that we have all seen the problems and challenges in food supply chains over the past months. It is important that food security—and, yes, food insecurity—should be recognised as a qualification for future funding in the Bill. I am happy to support this amendment.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition. I speak in support of Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I have added our names. Incidentally, I also support Amendments 12, 13 and 17 in this group, but do not intend to speak to them. Let me be brief, as a number of the main points that I had planned to raise have already been made by my colleagues. This amendment touches on two areas: food security and the food which brings good health and well-being. Both areas are about public goods.
I am planning to say something more about food security when we reach a later amendment, so I will confine myself to just one thing about good health and well-being. The results of poor diets are well documented. We know that poor diets lead to worse health outcomes, early onset of diseases and indeed, in the case of Covid, a greater likelihood of a slower recovery or death. At a time when the NHS is under considerable pressure, we need to do all we can to join up our legislation so that we can revolutionise diet in this country and make access to good food the best we possibly can.
The reason I am happy to support this modest amendment is that it strengthens this Bill to keep before us the need to improve the quality of food and diet and good access.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I hope that even at this late stage in our proceedings, the Minister and Government will be able to take this group of amendments seriously and give them serious consideration, with a view to making necessary adjustments to what they finally bring forward. In supporting this interesting group, I emphasise my support for Amendments 7, 16 and 48.
On Amendment 7, I simply say this as a former president of Friends of the Lake District and a vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks. I cannot speak for those organisations, but all my experience with them and with my own family and friends is that, in many parts of our national parks and beautiful parts of the country, livestock are an important part of the scenic setting. I and my family—I speak subjectively—always feel a sense of contentment when we see cattle grazing, but one big condition of all that is that I cannot allow my enjoyment to mask my anxiety lest the farming is not of the highest quality. From that standpoint, this amendment is very valuable indeed.
What is put forward in Amendment 16 is just straightforward sense. I hope that my colleagues agree and that the Government can take it on board. We constantly talk about the relationships between landscape and climate change, countryside and climate change and agriculture and climate change, but this enables the Minister to take practical action to provide support in that context.
We also worry very much about what is happening to the condition of our soil; this is dealt with in the amendment. I have just spoken about landscapes. To encourage members of the farming community to see their role as trustees of our national inheritance in this sense is very important indeed.
How can I—living in Cumbria, five miles from Cockermouth—possibly overlook the importance of flood protection measures? What happened at the time of the great floods in Cockermouth was that the valley up where I live was filling up with water. I was stuck in London at the House and was ringing my neighbours, asking, “What’s happening? How’s it going?” A very great friend of mine, a hill farmer, said to me on the phone: “Well, Frank, all I can say is that I have never seen the valley fuller of water, and it’s got to go somewhere.” That is quite a dramatic illustration of what happened. It went somewhere. The bridge broke at the bottom of our section of the valley and the water poured through and down, out of control, towards Cockermouth.
Wildlife and the environment are concerns we frequently speak about, but we must not just sentimentalise. Here we are giving power—authority—to the Minister to take appropriate action, but it must be appropriate action. I hope the Government will feel able to make some adjustments to meet those points.
On Amendment 48, I have become deeply concerned about the neglect of common land. We may sentimentalise about it and some people may find it controversial, but for any of us who have an ongoing and lasting relationship with and deep commitment to the countryside, common land and the encouragement of a community approach to agriculture are tremendously important. Again, what is envisaged here is underlining the authority of the Minister to take necessary supporting action.
This is a thoughtful group of amendments and I hope the Government will take them seriously.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, for those of us who have spent decades advocating for human society to work with instead of against nature, the specific references to agroecology in these amendments represent a great success. These amendments would each expand the principles of agroecology and ensure that ecological outcomes were delivered.
In particular, I have attached my name to Amendment 7 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which would specifically support pasture-fed livestock systems and the improvement of landscapes and biodiversity linked to pastureland. This is all about a farming and ecosystem format that can help to move us towards some sort of food security.
Food security will be an absolutely huge challenge. Anybody who watched David Attenborough’s programme on Sunday will be aware that he mentioned several times that biodiversity is falling. We need biodiversity drastically. If we do not have it, growing food will become harder and harder. We are at a point in the world where some of it is burning, some is melting and neither of those things is good for the human race.
In addition, the world has not even fully met any of the 20 biodiversity targets set a decade ago by Governments globally. Nature protection efforts have been ineffective. We already have 1 degree of warming and are heading towards 3 degrees of warming. It will be a world that we simply will not recognise.
I am delighted to support Amendment 16 from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and Amendment 11 from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. Amendment 16 would ensure that agroecology was truly nature friendly. Amendment 11 would support farming opportunities for new entrants and young farmers, ensuring a healthy supply of innovative and motivated farmers ready to take on the challenges and opportunities of greening our farming and land management.
I hope that in his response the Minister will set out specific and deliverable plans for each of these issues.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 8, 21 and 23. I say again that I am very pleased that the Government have added a definition of the word “agroecology” to the Bill. That is a great step forward. I not only thank the Government but congratulate them on recognising this type of agriculture as something that is not just from the past—although it looks to the past for many of its methods and ethics—but is an important way to move forward. The motive of the amendments I have put forward—and I thank the noble Earls, Lord Dundee and Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support—is to reinforce that message within the Bill.
The area that is not mentioned is agroforestry, which is equivalent. This is not the forestry that the Forestry Commission is into—not that I have anything against that generally—but is around integrating forestry into whole-farm management. Benefits from water management include biodiversity, crops from those trees, silviculture and even energy. So the motive of these amendments is to up a style of whole-farm management that looks to the future and entirely fulfils the reason for having ELMS and this new funding structure. I very much hope that the Government, having taken this one step forward, will be able to take it further forward as well.
My Amendment 21 adds to the word “agroecology” at the top of page 3 of the Bill, which states that
“‘better understanding of the environment’ includes better understanding of agroecology”.
I am just suggesting that we add “and agroforestry” to the Bill. I am sure that that is something the Government would wish to promote in the new financing structures and I can see no reason why it would change the meaning of the Bill in any way. If the Minister could do that, I would be hugely grateful to him, knowing of his commitment to the future of farming and ways of farming that promote biodiversity.
That biodiversity and quantum of nature, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just mentioned, are crucial to how ELMS rolls out. I will be talking about this later, so I will not say more about it now, but biodiversity is something that agroecology and agroforestry can promote to achieve what the Government want.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support a number of themes and their corresponding amendments in this group. They suggest that more should be done in the Bill to promote them. The first is consistency between encouragement of production and of ancillary activities. However, Clause 1(2) almost implies a division between them, because the Bill implies that, although the Secretary of State might support both, equally he might choose to give a great deal of help to one and nothing much to the other. To that extent, Amendment 10 in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbrook usefully deals with this anomaly. It is also addressed by my Amendment 20, which also seeks backing for primary production and ancillary activities on peri-urban farms supplying food.
Secondly, as indicated by my Amendment 13, the allocation of rural development funding to local food infrastructures would enable the Secretary of State to continue and enhance rural development funding, previously available from the European Union, to invest in local food infrastructures. Clearly, investment in local food will improve the financial viability of all farm businesses, create many jobs, strengthen our domestic food system and decrease carbon emissions by reducing food miles, while facilitating access to fresh and nutritious food, to the advantage of all.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Dundee. I thank him for introducing my Amendment 16 so eloquently. He has done a brilliant job and it reduces much of what I have to say.
It is quite clear that when nature suffers, we all suffer. That is why I believe that nature-friendly farming should be front and centre of the Bill. When anybody coming into farming picks up such a Bill and reads it—as I did when I started way back in the late 1960s, when I read the 1947 Act—it should say that nature-friendly farming is the route forward. It is the only way that agriculture will survive in the long term.
I hope all your Lordships have read the recent Living Planet Report, which is pretty horrific reading. It says that the populations of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles have declined by an alarming 68% since 1970. That is not all farming’s fault, but farming has been a contributor to that decline. For that reason I welcome subsections (a) to (j), but nature-friendly farming should also be in the Bill. I chose to insert it at this point because of its importance. In Committee it was an amendment after (j), but I thought it deserved a paragraph of its own.
I will correct one myth that seems to perpetuate in some quarters: that you cannot farm successfully and profitably if you also farm for nature. Many farmers have signed up to the Nature Friendly Farming Network, but I also draw the House’s attention to the amazing work of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust’s Allerton Project, which I know my noble friend the Minister knows about. It has done years of research on this subject and proved time and again that farmers can improve yields, output and productivity at the same time as improving biodiversity and wildlife on farms.
I will take one example in conclusion: the grey partridge, which is mentioned in the Living Planet Report. There has been a huge decline in this country, of some 85%, in the grey partridge population since 1970. The work of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust has proven that farmers can get the grey partridge back in large numbers, as well as being successful and profitable. I commend that template to all farmers and to the House. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister implements ELMS, he will bear that very much in mind.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has already addressed the Green group’s support for a number of amendments in this group. I will not repeat that, but I will address a number to which I have attached my name, starting with Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which focuses on the whole-farm agroecological and agroforestry systems. I thank him for tabling it, and the noble Earls, Lord Dundee and Lord Caithness, for supporting it.
It is clear that the age of industrial monoculture has given us the dreadful condition of our countryside that the noble Earl addressed in his speech. Its waters are polluted and its soil degraded, and biodiversity is in collapse. Yet, at the same time, we have a public with an awful diet and poor health. We need a whole new approach. Actually, agroecological farming is the only kind of farming we should see, with whole-farm systems. Agroforestry is a crucial part of that: trees sheltering animals, holding water, storing carbon, supporting biodiversity, and producing healthier food, including fruits and nuts, and healthier and more varied fodder for livestock. We need the Government to support this transformation, although ultimately that needs to be how all our land is managed.
We have already seen a significant move across most of the farming sector in its approach to soils. It has been a rediscovery of the understanding that the natural facility of soils depends on a flourishing ecosystem of microscopic animals, plants and fungi. I hope the Minister will think about this: I continue to hope that the Government will sort out the Bill’s description of fungi to make it scientifically literate—it currently is not—following the issues I raised in Committee, which are in no way political. They merely seek to ensure technical accuracy. When we focus on agroecology and, indeed, agroforestry, we need to move towards crop diversity. That is part of whole-farm varied systems. It means a system that works with nature, rather than trying to cosh it into submission.
I move to Amendment 9, to which I have also attached my name, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and backed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We have almost lost track of the fact that this is the Agriculture Bill. We are talking about environmental elements, but agriculture is also about food. We need joined-up thinking and systems thinking. There is really no point in producing more sugar, which the world has and consumes far too much of and does massive damage to rich and valuable soils. By contrast, growing fruit and vegetables is a super-policy—the kind of thing the Government should support and which they will have to, if they are to have regard to health and well-being policies.
Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, focuses on peri-urban land. I have probably done this myself: in the Bill we talk about the countryside, but fringe areas and patches of land in cities, towns and villages that might be quite small are crucial for environmental benefits and healthy food production. I am sure the Minister is aware of an excellent article from 2019 published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, which found that allotments and gardens often had 10 times more bees and other pollinators than even the rich environments, as we regard them, of parks, cemeteries and urban nature reserves. Increasing allotment use and food growing can be a positive sign for nature and, of course, for people.
I also express support for Amendment 6 on food security, to which Amendment 20 relates. Relying on the market to supply us with food has given us a dreadfully unhealthy diet, as the impact of Covid-19 has sadly demonstrated—one more weakness the pandemic has exposed rather than caused. However, it is also an insecure approach to rely on the market to supply food. Hundreds of millions of people in the world go hungry now not because there is a lack of food, but because of a lack of access to it. There is enormous waste in the system, particularly factory farming, feeding what could be perfectly good human food to animals.
However, we are in the age of shocks. We have just seen harvests in the US in particular be hit hard by extreme weather. Sadly, a lot more like that is on the way. The state of soils is parlous. To assume we can just buy what we need is dangerously uncertain. There is also a moral question: why should we take food out of the mouths of people in other countries when we could and should be growing our own? Those are two powerful reasons for the Government to provide direct, clear support for food security. There can be few more foundational roles for a Government then ensuring that people do not starve.
Finally, I support Amendment 48. I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and I agree with them.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who put their names to Amendment 9. I have a little confession: the original intention was to discuss it in the context of the part of the Bill dealing with access, because of the idea of tying health and well-being into public legislation. It is clear, as I have already said—and nobody has argued otherwise—that if you are fit and active, you tend to have better health. However, does the amendment fit in its allocated group? Having thought about it, those organising the Bill have got it right. It fits because it ties in with the general thrust of what we are saying.
What are we doing to try to improve life for the whole planet and for ourselves together? I am afraid it sounds rather meaningless when I put it like that. The idea is that it is a whole, so we are taking something on board and relating it to other activities. If one thing is done under this Bill, it should be to ensure that we look at the whole of what we are doing. The amendment sits better in this group because we have to consider people’s health and well-being and the public good when we are putting money in. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will not totally dismiss the idea that we should have better access to public spaces in order to undertake physical activity. However, that does not fit in with some of the other concerns being raised here about better diet and so on, because it is part of that whole.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a landowner, arable farmer and NFU member. I am speaking to and, subject to the Minister’s response, planning to move Amendment 12, as well as speaking to Amendment 17. These amendments support domestic agriculture to ensure that food security and the stability of food supply are included in the purposes to which financial assistance can be directed under Clause 1.
According to the NFU, 21 August was the notional day on the calendar that would see the UK run out of food if it relied solely on UK produce. It states:
“The nation is only 18% self-sufficient in fruit, 55% in fresh vegetables and 71% in potatoes. For both veg and potatoes, this has fallen by 16% in the past 20 years.”
As I understand the figures, 30% of our food comes from the EU. Supermarkets are fine at the moment, but just imagine a scenario if the UK fails to get a trade deal with the EU so that nothing is agreed on fishing rights, and then French fishermen decide to blockade Calais. That could leave the UK really struggling in obtaining particular food items.
The coronavirus crisis has shown how important it is to have a domestic supply of food. The view of farmers as food producers has never resonated more with the public than at this time, with the need to keep our shelves stocked the highest of priorities. I welcome the fact that the Government recognised that food production role by granting farmers key worker status during the countrywide lockdown. However, I believe that, unless the Government change their post-Brexit immigration policy, there may not be enough workers to gather UK fruit and vegetables in particular, already in short supply, as mentioned.
Given the increased significance of food security in the UK, Amendment 12 in particular would enable the Government to give financial assistance for the explicit purpose of supporting the domestic production of food. After the original Bill barely mentioned food, there is a considerable improvement in this new one. In Clause 1 at present, in developing new forms of financial assistance, the Bill states that the Government
“must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and its production by them in an environmentally sustainable way.”
However, in my view that wording needs strengthening, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said, hence particularly my Amendment 12.
In reply to Amendment 12 in Committee, the Minister stated, if I understood him correctly, that food production does not need financial support because that comes to the farmer by way of profit from the sale of his produce. While that will be the case in some areas, that argument does not cover the situations where dairy farmers have been selling their milk at a loss; where hill and lowland farmers could suffer hugely from the loss of their BPS and a delay in introducing ELMS; or where farmers would like financial support to develop new crops or new processes for growing crops, particularly when these take some years to come into profit.
On Amendment 17, the Minister stated in her reply that
“Clause 4 already places a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider in as much detail as considered appropriate each financial assistance scheme that is in or will be in operation during the plan period. If deemed appropriate, this could include how the scheme is to give regard to the production of food in an environmentally sustainable way.”—[Official Report, 16/7/20; col. 1848.]
I accept that explanation and will not be moving Amendment 17.
Some Peers have said that this amendment is trying to do the same thing as Amendment 58. Amendment 58, while totally valid in its own right, is about a national food strategy, which is a perfectly valid plan, but my Amendment 12 is about the provision of financial assistance in order to promote the domestic production of food. It would give the Secretary of State total flexibility on how that was done; it could be through the findings of the food security report in Clause 17.
In summary, I do not think this is a particularly controversial amendment; it is non-party-political, it is supported by the NFU and it need not affect support for environmental measures. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply to Amendment 12, but I am strongly minded to move it to a vote.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to be part of the debate on this group. I agree with almost all the sentiments that have been expressed, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as well as by the Green Party.
I am speaking today particularly to support the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. One thing that has not been talked about enough is the role of farmers. If the Bill is to do what I think everyone sitting in the Chamber and who is part of this debate at the moment wants to do, which is to ensure that healthy, affordable food is grown on our land and that our land becomes environmentally sustainable and healthy again, then we need a new generation of farmers, but the facts are pointing in a different direction.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, mentioned briefly that in 2017 one-third of all UK farmers were over 65. Almost more worrying than that is that, since 2005, those in the 35 to 44 age group have decreased. However, evidence from surveys points to people wanting to farm and to be involved in growing at a local level, on a big level and on a small level. But how are they going to do it? Land is too expensive and they struggle to scale finance and cover the high start-up costs. Responses to the Landworkers’ Alliance survey indicated that 61% of people responding to surveys wanted to access land, 46% needed finance and 54% struggled to access training. All believed that an average grant of around £20,000, which is not a fortune, would really set them on the road.
Another route for the young farmer is also being closed because of poor funding to local councils. Recent investigations have shown that county farms in England have halved in the last 40 years. This is a crisis. If we do not have farmers, particularly young farmers, then everything that we are talking about is not going to happen. When Michael Gove was Secretary of State for the Environment, he talked lavishly about equipping a new generation of farmers, but I am afraid the facts are now pointing in the other direction. You cannot be a farmer if you have nowhere to farm. If we value our farmers then we have to make some changes. With the right kind of investment and the right help, a lot of people could join our cause.
The other big issue is food security and local food. I mention briefly that for 10 years I ran the London Food Board. We instigated a scheme called Capital Growth, which enabled up to 100,000 people to have access to community gardens. In the process, we turned over 200 acres of London into small community farms where people could join in. We are now looking to take that scheme countrywide, but we need grants for that and land needs to be made available.
My final point is covered by the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and concerns training. In my years in London, I spent a lot of time in schools. It strikes me that, unless you are at a public school and the idea of a farm, as something possible, is somehow in your blood, you do not even think about it. I spent seven days, as many of us did, watching the debates on the first stages of the Agriculture Bill. I am absolutely guilty of this myself, but it was quite noticeable that the people who feel invested in the Agriculture Bill tend to be white and middle-aged, and an awful lot of us own land and are quite well off. It seems to me that we are missing a great trick in terms of diversity.
This Agriculture Bill belongs to all of us. It is about our land, our food, our health and our environment. Unless we take some steps to try to change the lack of diversity, we will head towards a greater separation between town and countryside. People have talked about litter being dropped, and there will be more of that because people do not feel that the countryside is theirs and that it belongs to all of us. Schemes that enable people in inner cities to grow vegetables on rooftops, under pylons and in sneaky little corners can really start to change attitudes. It is fantastically cost-effective, and I urge the Minister to look at this as the Government move forward.
In the meantime, I am very pleased to be part of this debate and to see agroecology and food security registering so high up among people’s concerns.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, once again, I declare my interests, as set out in the register, as a farmer and landowner. I am very pleased to follow my noble friend Lady Boycott, as many of the points that I will make are complementary to hers.
My support for Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is wholehearted. It involves the whole essence of the Bill, the aim of which is to take an important and profitable industry into a new era of post-CAP farming in this country on a sustainable and environmentally friendly basis.
The encouragement and support for commercial farming through productivity grants and the funding of ancillary activities are clearly stated, alongside the development of attractive environmental land management schemes—although I fear that the details are still unavailable, so we must put our trust in the Government delivering this. However, what is largely missing is support for new entrants into the industry, other than through encouraging some perhaps more elderly farmers to retire by offering them the balance of their basic payments. Although this will free up some land for new entrants, it is in itself not wholly positive, in that the land so freed up will go to the next farmer with no basic payment to cover the transition period. I fear that the most likely home for this land will be with neighbouring farmers or investors who enter farm contracting arrangements with large farm operations. The small farmer and the new entrant is likely to be squeezed, particularly as he is unlikely to have the financial backing that is available to established farmers and the outside investor.
That is why this amendment is so important. It enables the Bill to provide finance for young farmers and new entrants, who are very important to the industry if it is to grow and develop. These people will, unless extraordinarily fortunate, not have easy access to finance, as they will not have the assets and other security to offer banks and other lenders. Buildings, machinery, equipment and livestock are all expensive. As the land may well be held through a tenancy or other time-limited arrangement, obtaining a loan on acceptable terms will be difficult—hence the need to make it attractive for landowners to let land to such new entrants.
In addition, access to training is key if we are to encourage and help develop new entrants into the industry. The addition of this small paragraph in the purposes for providing financial assistance will help the industry to offer an attractive farming business proposition to those aspiring to a career in it, independent of established farm businesses that might not be able to offer them the same prospects. It also has substantial application to the tech-savvy who see a future in small, capital-intensive farming but who lack land and buildings.
I also support Amendment 12, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, as it clearly sets out the very purpose and essence of the Bill.
Finally, I support Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, as it recognises that with changing circumstances, such as limits on movement caused by disease and of course new technology, peri-urban land becomes increasingly relevant to agriculture, horticulture and sometimes trees.
Lord Greaves (LD)
I shall speak specifically to my Amendment 48, which concerns commons. I am not sure how it ended up in this group, but it does not matter. In Committee, we had a longer discussion and I put it in a group on its own, so as to talk about quite a lot of the issues connected with commons. On this occasion, in order to save time, I did not mind in which group it ended up, as I can talk about it in any event.
Again, I am grateful for the help and advice that I have had from the Foundation for Common Land and the Open Spaces Society. It is interesting that they come from different angles. One comes from a management of the commons angle and the other starts from an access angle, but they come together and work together because it is necessary to do so.
I need to go through again briefly what common land is. It is land registered as common land in a register kept under Part 1 of the Commons Act 2006 or the Commons Registration Act 1965. It is land owned by one person or a number of people which is subject to the rights of other people—the commoners—to use and take some product from it. Nowadays, typically that is the grazing of animals.
Common land is only 3% of the total land area in England but it is 37% of the land above the moorland line. It is therefore used by hill farmers, who depend on the rough grazing, natural grasslands and other sorts of moorland. It accounts for a fifth of the area of the SSSIs in England—not a fifth of the number of SSSIs but a fifth of the SSSI land, as a lot of the moorland SSSIs are quite large. It delivers many public benefits and includes two-fifths of the access land in England. It is often designated in different ways for nature, and, not surprisingly, over 90% of common land was under an environmental stewardship scheme under the CAP. Importantly, these sorts of schemes can continue on the upland commons. However, there are also lots of small, local commons, such as the ones referred to by my noble friend Lord Addington, many of them vital for informal local recreation, such as the village common where people play rounders or whatever. They are also often environmentally important for the reasons given by noble friend.
The problem is the management of the commons under the ELMS. How does a system designed to provide financial support for all these different purposes to traditional owners cope with a number of different interests—owners, commoners and perhaps others? They may be competing interests, and individual commoners may have different views on what should happen. In Committee, I asked the Minister whether the Government had already turned their mind to the administration of agreements in relation to commons, with the particular difficulties that can arise in negotiating, administering and delivering them. The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, said among other things that the Government were working in the trials to create commons-specific land management plans and systems. There are two tests and trials which I understand include substantial amounts of common, one in Cumbria and one in Dartmoor.
Since then, I was very grateful to have a meeting with civil servants and lawyers, and I was astonished how many people in and around Defra had an interest in commons. It was an extremely interesting meeting, and I was very grateful indeed. I am sorry that the Minister could not come, but I understand. I asked about the two specific local tests and what the Government were doing in relation to small, lowland commons, to find systems for them. I understand that there will be some small, lowland commons in the tests and trials once the national system is brought in next year. I was told—this is where it got interesting—that they were developing toolkits to understand the issues; everybody develops toolkits nowadays. These are toolkits not for what should happen but to understand the issues. One very interesting comment by one of the people in the meeting was that we need to focus on what we need to learn. This all gave me to understand—and it was extremely useful for this, if nothing else—that, as had been suggested to me by some of the people from the Cumbria test and trial, working out what to do with commons is really in the early days. In particular, I asked about disputes and was told that they were still working out a way forward. This was all very honest, and I was grateful to be given that time.
It really comes back to what I said before about the Bill—that we really have to treat the Government as though they are on trust on these matters; we have to trust them to do it properly and do it right. As far as commons are concerned, as the months go by following the passage of this Bill, I shall certainly be on the Government’s back. Indeed, I got some promises in relation to the tests and trials taking place and so on, that people would keep in touch with me—and I shall keep in touch with other noble Lords, such as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who are interested in this issue. I hope that together we can form a little group and follow it through with the Government.
It was confirmed that the details of the ELMS with regard to commons would, along with lots of others, be outside legislation. I tabled this amendment saying that that should not be the case simply because it was the amendment that I had tabled in Committee, and I had not had time to think of a new one, but I am not going to push it to a vote when we get to it in order. A lot of work is taking place, but it is at a very early stage, and it will be very important that a lot more work takes place much more quickly. This whole thing is going to come rushing up on people, and we really do not want the commons missed out.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and his very interesting thoughts on commons. That is a very useful debate to have and one we must take seriously. I echo the words of those who have been talking about the need to get new entrants into agriculture and develop diversity.
I have added my name to Amendment 16 in the name of my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Dundee, who have already spoken about it adequately. I am delighted to see that climate change mitigation is in the list, because we have to take it seriously. I know that the NFU has set an ambitious target with regard to being net zero, so that is something that the agriculture sector is taking very seriously.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on his myth busting around the fact that farming can be eminently profitable and nature friendly. As we have all been hearing, nature-friendly farming is the way forward. I also send my congratulations on his words about the Allerton project of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust. I visited it a few years ago and was incredibly impressed by the work there. He mentioned the grey partridge. In conjunction with the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, National England and others, there is also the Peppering Partridge Project, which shows that not only can farming be very beneficial to wildlife but game shooting can be very beneficial to wildlife. That might seem slightly counterintuitive, and I speak not as a shooter myself, but it shows how all those different aspects can work together.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, talked about trust. I have immense trust in the entire ministerial Defra team. We are very fortunate in this House to have my noble friends Lord Gardiner and Lord Goldsmith, and in the other place we have other very committed people who take the environment and farming interests very seriously. There is always the case of not knowing what is going to happen later but, at the moment, I have immense trust in them and wait to hear what they have to say.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating and thoughtful debate, and I would like to make a few remarks about three amendments. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering set us off to a good start. However, I want to talk not about Amendment 6 but rather about Amendment 7, and really for the reasons mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who referred to those very important words “pasture fed.”
The only thing that really terrifies me about farming is the increasing move in certain places, particularly across the Atlantic, towards what can only be called factory farming, with vast sheds occupied by living creatures who never see the light of day. The glory of farming is, in many ways, pasture farming. Anything that we can do we should do to encourage our farmers to pasture their cattle, have their sheep on the hills and, indeed, to have their pigs eating their mast in the woods —and, of course, to make sure that we move away from that ghastly poultry farming which so polluted one of the loveliest stretches of the Wye earlier this year, when it seeped out from massive chicken battery farms. Anything we can do to emphasise the importance of pasture farming should be done.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support many of the worthy aims of this group of amendments, but my focus is on Amendment 22 in my name, which once more focuses on the clarity and implications of the language used.
Are uplands more important than wetlands? A wise parliamentarian recently told me, when we were discussing the addition of an individual word to this Bill, that considerable care must be taken. The addition of a single word will suggest the exclusion of others. In this clause, the inclusion of “uplands” could well suggest the exclusion of other types of land. The clause seeks to remedy this by including the catch-all language “and all other landscapes”, but this begs the question of why uplands deserve special mention. At the least, it will ensure that all future readers of this legislation will consider the promotion of uplands as more important than the promotion of those other landscapes. Consider the public servant tasked with committing funds to the protection of cultural heritage who is faced with the choice of two projects, one for uplands, one for wetlands. He or she will read this provision and undoubtedly choose the former, which would be a mistake.
Undoubtedly uplands are important, and the cultural and natural heritage therein is vital, but uplands can be no more important than wetlands; indeed, stating my interests as an estuary dweller, I argue that wetlands are considerably more important than uplands. Wetlands harbour considerably greater biodiversity than typically monocultured uplands, and 90% of wetlands have been lost since 1700. Being often near to urban centres and easily accessible, wetlands offer ready public access. Being found on or near the coast, wetlands are much more susceptible to the ravages of climate change and are at the forefront of our battle with rising sea levels. Wetland farmers, often pasture farmers, are as marginal as upland farmers and will struggle with a loss of BPS and export markets due to Brexit, and wetlands are often created and maintained by a remarkable physical heritage in the form of levees, embankments and drains.
I note by way of example the Exminster marshes. Created by Dutch engineers in medieval times, they are the site of a civil war battlefield, England’s oldest lock canal, Brunel’s amazing atmospheric railway—the great western railway—and the M5. They host the university’s playing fields, a major RSPB nature reserve and many small farms that traditionally raise England’s earliest spring lamb; this is ancient pasture-fed farming of the most carbon-neutral variety. To their west is Marsh Barton, with Europe’s largest collection of car showrooms, all of which they protect from the ever-rising sea levels. No area of landscape can be more important yet, without this amendment, they may lose out on ELMS funding to possibly less-deserving grouse moors in Yorkshire.
I trust that the Minister will clarify this issue. I am highly supportive of many of the other amendments, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, with its focus on common land. This is such an important element of ancient land tenure in Devon on uplands and wetlands. It is undoubtedly deserving of special protection.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for tabling this amendment. When I first read it, I thought the key words were
“protecting… the food security of citizens”.
I am of the generation who went through the war. We had extensive food rationing, even after the war ended in 1945; it was nearly 10 years before we got rid of all food rationing. Did we not have a reminder in the first few days of the coronavirus lockdown of just how important food supply is? I pay tribute to our supermarkets and the supply chain, particularly those suddenly putting on extra production and extra harvesting in a magnificent way.
I very much support Amendment 12, tabled by my noble friend Lord Northbrook, and Amendment 11, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the very wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. The Minister has told us in his briefing notes that he is aware that agriculture is going through a major transition stage. As we move to this new subsidy arrangement, I am confident that the Minister is aware of the challenges and is alert to them. At the end of the day, food security is vital and absolutely fundamental to this country.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I repeat what I said in Committee about this part of the Bill. It is a bit like a Christmas tree that everybody wants to hang their favourite bauble on. Indeed, many of these baubles are very admirable, but we risk getting to the point where the list of the purposes for which the Government can give support becomes so long and detailed that the Bill threatens to collapse under its own weight, and, as noble Lords have said, give undue prominence to those elements that just happen to have had a handy pair willing to put them on to the list.
However, I must give myself a moment of indulgence on this one—while I am ticking everybody else off—and say that, if I was asked which one candidate bauble I would favour, it would certainly be the agroecology- and agroforestry-related Amendments 8, 21 and 23, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which he very eloquently introduced. However, to be honest, the environmentally sound practices included in several of the amendments in this group, including my favourite bauble, can already—and hopefully will be—supported by the new ELM scheme and the list of purposes already listed in Clause 1(1), and I am sure that is what the Minister will say.
I am afraid I cannot support Amendment 12, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. Food security is important, but an amendment here is not the way to secure it. Even in the interests of food security, food production is already supported by markets, as the Minister said in Committee, and we must not erode the already skinny funding needed for the environmental and other public goods that are already supported by public funding and would simply be diminished if funding for food security were to be added to that list.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
First of all, I declare my interests as a farmer in Suffolk. The lesson I draw from the seven days we had in Committee on this Bill is that we—and the Government—need to widen our attitude and approach to this whole subject. With the final departure from the EU, we have a tremendous opportunity in being able to redesign the CAP, which had become very narrow and bureaucratic, into something that covers a much wider aspect—I am talking about the rural economy. This is a crucial part of the British economy and, therefore, it is crucial to the national interest. We have heard from a number of noble Lords about the importance of food security.
I am really trying to say that, in this group of amendments, we have had many examples of the way we can expand and change the uses of the money that previously went through the CAP, which was really based on that original trade deal between Germany and France—the French were going to import from German manufacturers, and the Germans would look after French farmers. Now, we can look much more widely, and one of the things that all these amendments do is encourage different forms of support, endeavour and action within agriculture.
I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack when he says that we do not want to focus on the mega factory-farming approach. It must be much more about smaller and more intensive farms. For example, the Dutch produce an enormous amount of food on their very much more limited land but in a very sustainable and environmentally friendly way. There are many lessons to learn, and I hope very much that our further discussion on this Bill will enable the Government to widen the final output of this Agriculture Bill. Thank you.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I begin by saying how pleased I am to be following my noble friend Lord Marlesford who, while his experience of farming is at the opposite end of England to mine, shares many of my concerns, interests and priorities. I also declare my own interests as a farmer and landowner in Cumbria.
I approach these amendments from the perspective that the scope of the financial powers in the Bill should, so long as they are discretionary, be drawn as widely as possible. I understand the strictures of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, but at this stage, when we really do not know how the future is going to evolve, we must keep our options open.
I spent some of the summer looking at farm accounts, and one of the things that struck me is that most of the money that comes into farming in rural Britain comes from the food sector. If this is to change rapidly and significantly, some huge bills are going to have to be picked up by somebody somewhere and, certainly, in the middle of the current financial predicament in which the nation finds itself, we have not got unlimited resources to do that even if we wanted to. In the short term, I cannot see that this form of income into the agricultural sector can be found either by cutting costs or by another form of payments if there is a dramatic reduction in income from food production. Therefore, it seems to me that this has got to be at the core of rural land use businesses, and policies for them, in the immediate future.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
The reason that I put my name to this group was a single amendment—so I will resist pontificating on the others—and that was Amendment 11. Looking down the notes of the points I was going to raise, every single one can be ticked off in the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, so I do not propose to repeat them. What I will do is give them my 100% support.
One point I will raise concerns the point of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about younger people being tech savvy. I remember that, in my last session at Defra from 2006 to 2008, the noble Lord, Lord Curry, organised a seminar for young farmers. There were about a dozen or 15, as I recall. I remember being absolutely gobsmacked and overwhelmed by the technical language they were using, which was way above my pay grade. That gave me considerable confidence that the future was in good hands because technology was going to be used, and that reinforces the point the noble Lord made about the change in attitude and culture.
The fact of the matter is that those two speeches encapsulate all the points I want to make, and I say to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that, if you push this, I will vote for it.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. This is an extremely important group of amendments. The House spent a long time debating financial assistance in Committee and there was a thorough airing of all the issues, some of which have come back in this group.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has raised the issue of food security, a subject which concerns us all. Access to healthy, affordable food is the right of every child and promotes good health and well-being. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans raised the issue of food poverty, which is also extremely important. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised biodiversity and the role that pasture-fed grazing stock can play in promoting it. It was clear from watching David Attenborough’s programme “Extinction” on Sunday that biodiversity has come into sharp prominence —a point also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I shall be listening to the Minister’s response on this amendment.
My noble friend Lord Teverson raised whole-farm agroecology and agroforestry systems—a subject he is, quite rightly, passionate about. Trees are the green lungs of any country and we destroy them at our peril. It is therefore vital that we encourage agroforestry and tree planting, and that the financial rewards match the level of investment and management required. My noble friends Lord Addington and Lord Greaves are pressing the case for joint health and well-being strategies to be included in the financial assistance provision. Given the current health situation of the nation, I would hope that they are pushing at an open door.
Domestic production of food and agricultural products to ensure sufficient food security is a key element of the Bill. Nearly every sitting day we have a question about the impact of Covid-19 on the population, both elderly and young. The longer the pandemic goes on, the more the scientists learn about its impact, how to treat it and who are the most vulnerable of our residents. We know that exercise and a healthy weight and diet, while not a total fail-safe protection against infection, make a tremendous difference to our ability to survive and make a full recovery. As we enter a possible second peak, it is therefore paramount that the Secretary of State should have available to them sufficient information to ensure that food supply is stable and sufficient, and that food is produced in an environmentally friendly way. The whole thrust of ELMS is to move agriculture on to a more environmental footing. However, ELMS is not exactly just around the corner, and it is necessary to act now to protect both food supply and the environment. Can the Minister give the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and the Chamber the reassurance that we are seeking?
I have added my name to Amendment 11 from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on new entrants. Many of our long-standing farmers are considering whether now is the time for them to retire—as the noble Earl said, a third of our farmers are over 65 years of age. As we move from CAP to ELMS, it is vital that everything possible is done to encourage new entrants and young farmers to take up the reins. Entering farming is a very expensive venture; buying land is likely to be well beyond the reach of many young entrants, even if there is land available. Encouraging existing landowners to make land available will be vital to allow new entrants. Start-up capital will be needed to make a success of the new venture, alongside training and qualifications. Just talking of the list is intimidating and could put off some would-be hopefuls. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, set out the case eloquently and was well supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Like the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, I am looking for answers from the Minister as to how the Government intend to deliver on this vital element of continuing successful land management on behalf of the rest of the country.
The Minister made it clear in Committee that he was keen to limit the list of activities attracting financial assistance, and he is supported in this by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. However, I fully support the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his quest to gain support for nature-friendly farming. The activities listed in his amendment are all vital and inextricably linked. We cannot have biodiversity if we do not have good soil health and good water and air quality. We cannot protect species if we do not have sufficient flood-protection measures and climate change mitigation. If the Minister is not minded to accept this amendment, can he tell us just how the Government intend the activities in the list to be achieved and protected?
Similarly, I support the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in including wetlands as well as uplands. The different types of species that can be raised on the various types of farmlands all add to the rich cultural and natural heritage of our countryside. Not all farmers will be blessed with grade 1 agricultural land, but all types add to the variety of produce and the rich diversity of our land. I thank the noble Earl for raising the issue of the wetlands in Somerset.
Lastly, my noble friend Lord Greaves has made a thorough case for the inclusion of common land, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on this important element of land management, as well as on the rest of the amendments.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, at the start of my remarks on Report on amendments to the Agriculture Bill, I declare my interests as recorded on the register, including as being in receipt of funds from the CAP under the present system. As with the first group of amendments, I thank noble Lords for tabling their further thoughts after Committee with these amendments today. Once again, they highlight the very broad nature of agriculture, which, in many ways, interacts with economic activity from many sectors and interests in the rural economy. This in turn has a bearing on many government departments.
Several of the amendments focus on matters related to food security and, indeed, insecurity. We agree that these are important matters that we will come to later in the Bill. In relation to the Minister’s concessions—which are very much welcomed—and to Amendment 58 on the national food strategy commissioned by the Government, I can add that I too was very impressed with the initial report recently published by Henry Dimbleby.
We consider that the Government have a very clear focus on the issue without requiring the specific Amendment 12 so eloquently spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, which we are unable to support from the Labour Benches. However, we have regard to Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and others, which overlaps with Amendment 70 in the name of my colleague and noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch on the Front Bench. Ensuring opportunities for young farmers and new entrants is incredibly important and underlines the future prosperity of the sector.
In outlining the purposes for which financial assistance can be given, we consider that Clause 1 gives a fair balance and appreciation of the many options that may be developed over time. It provides a good way forward, rewarding the production of food while protecting the environment. I am sure that the Minister will be able to provide the extra information and assurances that we are all looking for, and that he has taken due note of all the important points raised for sustainable agriculture into the future.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for contributing to what I think has been an extensive and very interesting debate. I turn to Amendment 6, which I shall address along with Amendments 9, 10, 12, 17,13 and 20. I will say—particularly to my noble friend Lord Northbrook and as a fellow member of the NFU, but to all noble Lords—that the Government agree absolutely that the production of food is of critical importance and that this will not be overlooked in the designing of our future schemes. Indeed, this is precisely why the Bill includes a duty for the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to encourage food production and for food to be produced in an environmentally sustainable way. So I say, in particular to my noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Northbrook, that Clause 1(4) as drafted recognises the strong interdependence of farming and the environment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this debate and the support for Amendments 6, 7 and 48. I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister has met me half way, but he has not gone quite as far as I would have liked. I am concerned about Clause 17, which sets out what the specific circumstances of food security might be. There would fall within Clause 1, but I would like confirmation. For example, if there is a shock to the trade system, would that be considered? I am sure there will be opportunities to discuss those later.
I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke in support of Amendment 7, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. For the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Cormack, it is important that we have the opportunity for what my noble friend Lord Northbrook would call nature-friendly farming: the pasture-fed grazing livestock systems and the more extensive, less intensive form of farming that this country has come to know and love, particularly in the north of England. I am delighted that there has been such a good, positive discussion on common land. I will leave the Minister with one question; I do not expect him to reply today. Will the registration of common land be complete before the pilots are finished and the new ELM schemes come into effect? Perhaps that can be banked for later.
I fulsomely thank all those who have contributed to the debate on all the amendments in this group. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.
Lord Northbrook
“(c) supporting the domestic production of food and other agricultural products to the extent the Secretary of State considers necessary to ensure a sufficient level of food security in the United Kingdom, having regard to the outcomes in the most recent report produced under section 17.”
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s winding-up speech. He has been doing a magnificent job so far in navigating this Bill. I much appreciated his detailed arguments justifying no change and pointing out other supporting clauses of the Bill. However, after a lot of consideration, I still find too vague the phrase that the Government
“must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and its production by them in an environmentally sustainable way.”
As my noble friend Lord Dundee said, this may result in food production support being ignored completely. I also prefer the wording on food security in my amendment. This is too important an issue to pass by. It is not a party-political amendment, or particularly controversial, but I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 14. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 14
“( ) The Secretary of State may only give financial assistance under this section for or in connection with environmental land management if all those standards for good agricultural and environmental condition set out in paragraphs 3 to 6 of Schedule 2 to the Common Agricultural Policy (Control and Enforcement, Cross-Compliance, Scrutiny of Transactions and Appeals) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/3263) as are applicable are met for the relevant land.”
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 14, in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I am very grateful for their support. Currently, all farmers in receipt of common agricultural policy payments have to deliver, under the cross-compliance regime, a range of standards described as “good agricultural and environmental conditions”—a snappy little title. Some of the standards have now been enshrined in UK law but some have not, and would disappear when the good agricultural and environmental conditions provision disappears with the end of direct payments to farmers and the end of the cross-compliance regime.
The standards that would be lost are primarily those covering the management of hedgerows, the protection of soils and the provision of watercourse buffer strips. My amendment is aimed at ensuring the delivery of all the standards for good agricultural and environmental conditions, which were previously assured by cross-compliance and which all farmers receiving subsidy had to respect, and to make sure that they will continue to be a condition of receiving public money under the new system.
The Minister very kindly organised a meeting with himself and Defra officials, and they acknowledged that the holes that I have identified, which would be left by the cessation of the cross-compliance regime, were indeed holes, and that something would have to be done to plug them. The Minister has indicated that the Government plan
“an intensive consultation on standards in the autumn, laying out what standards should be achieved by all farmers receiving public subsidy, but there is not yet any agreement on the mechanism for enforcing such standards and the design principles and regulatory strategy are still being worked up.”
As noble Lords know, direct payments are due to start to taper shortly, though the date will be a subject of debate in this House later on Report. It is not entirely clear when cross-compliance requirements may disappear. Can the Minister clarify that date? Whenever it is, we could well end up with a gap in hedgerow, watercourse and soil protection during the transitional phase, and possibly beyond, depending on the results of the intensive consultation on standards. I suggest that the holes that the Minister acknowledges in environmental protection would be very easily and, if I may say so, elegantly plugged by this amendment, so I hope that he will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, taking my cue from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on the previous group of amendments, I do not want to pontificate about this. The amendment has been eloquently proposed, and I am delighted to have added my name to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. She has previous talked about baubles on Christmas trees, and now she has provided us with an eminently suitable plug. I am concerned that if we are not careful, these things will, although maybe not on purpose, be allowed to slip down the plughole, so I urge the Minister to ensure that we have an ample plug, to stop this happening.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to have put my name to Amendment 14, and particularly to emphasise the importance of cross-compliance GAEC regulations on the preservation and management of soils. I spoke to my own soils amendment in Committee, and I appreciate the Minister’s subsequent letter identifying the various ways in which soils may be protected going forwards.
However, the variety of potential soil protection measures and regulations on its own reveals the weakness of the post-Brexit system, as none of the methods identified has the broad and clear application of the cross-compliance regulations with which farmers are so familiar. As the Minister has already accepted in responding to the second group of amendments, sustainable soil management, including the maintenance of organic matter within our soils, is undoubtedly the most important element of environmental land management. Farming is soil management. Healthy organic soils are an essential carbon sink, and provide an astoundingly diverse ecosystem for microscopic life beyond our comprehension. They also minimise run-off and erosion, decrease the need for artificial fertiliser and ensure better productivity. The loss of the regulations, and the gaps that the noble Baroness referenced, will cause terrible damage to our net-zero targets.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has set a wonderful precedent here. Anything I would have said on this has been said by those who have already spoken, so I shall leave it by saying that I support the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, since Committee I have reflected on two aspects of the broader farming area that we did not really look at in any particular depth at that stage. So I would like to place on record that, in my judgment, horticulture will play an ever-increasing role in the broader farming area. It is land, but of course it may be under glass or may use some of the new techniques for intensive production, particularly of certain vegetables.
Secondly, there is the small but ever-growing viticulture industry. I have done a bit of an inquiry and I declare an interest as a mini-grower, with 100 vines. There are now some major players in the UK who are producing in volume and looking for opportunities to export, which is a very important dimension as we set off on our journey on our own. There are also a lot of micro-growers who are looking for opportunities to develop. So I do hope that land and farming will remember that there is horticulture and, particularly now, viniculture.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, one of the issues that has persisted in this Bill, and in others, is the lack of regulatory underpinning, particularly here with regard to the ambitions of Clause 1. This could be characterised as an ideological obsession that the market can save us and an attempt to squash agricultural policy into that market mindset.
The truth is that without minimum standards some areas of land will fall into very poor condition. It is unfortunate that the Government have not engaged with your Lordships’ House to address this fact. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, presents a sensible off-the-shelf solution, which she explained extremely well. I think the Minister would be hard-pressed to justify the Government’s opposition to her amendment. I support it very strongly.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, on bringing forward this amendment. It shows what a sense of humour she has: having torn to shreds all the amendments in a previous group as being “little baubles”, she now comes forward with a bauble of her own.
I would like to put on the record that I am quite content with Clause 1(1)(j), which calls for
“protecting or improving the quality of soil.”
I can understand the basis behind the amendment, but for all of us who are concerned about the content of the soil and about good agricultural and environmental condition, I think that it is actually all contained in Clause 1 as it stands.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, on moving this amendment so eloquently, and the other speakers in this group for their contributions—albeit that they have been very brief. I regret that mine is not going to be brief.
I have added my name to this amendment, along with the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, because I feel it is really important. There is undoubtedly an approaching gap in the legislation. The current Covid-19 pandemic should be a wake-up call to the fact that disease stemming from both wild and domestic animals is attributable in some countries to modern agricultural practices that are unsustainable and increase the risk of zoonotic disease. This is very serious in some countries. In the UK we have high standards of animal welfare, but our practices on land management and soil protection need closer monitoring.
The Minister has, on many occasions, reiterated that the Bill is a framework Bill only. This has led to it being silent on the role of regulation, which is extremely unwise as there is a regulatory gap which it is vital to plug. Without regulation, important environmental protections currently provided through the EU CAP, such as preventing hedgerows from being cut during the bird-breeding season and protecting watercourses and soils, will be absent after Brexit.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Young for moving this amendment and making the case so persuasively. She is raising an important point about what will happen when the environmental standards, which are currently required through cross-compliance, no longer apply when we leave the EU and the existing payments regime is phased out. We agree that it is vital that the standards that apply, such as to hedgerows and buffer strips to watercourses, should not be lost by accident or intent.
It all forms part of the promise made when we left the EU that our environmental standards should be at least on a par with what went before. It is also part of the bigger promise of the Government that they will leave the environment in better shape than when they inherited it. So we cannot afford to go backwards on this issue.
As my noble friend has made clear, these issues are part of a bigger project to review standards and develop a new regulatory regime. This is fine as far as it goes, but the clock is ticking and we know that these reviews take time. The review will be taking place against intense activity to get the new ELMS regime up and running, with all the supportive secondary legislation that will be required to make that happen.
So there is a real danger that the provision of new regulations will be delayed, and a regulatory gap will occur. My noble friend’s amendment provides a neat solution to ensure that those standards not yet required by UK law will be safely assured for the future.
To be honest, as other noble Lords have said, we do not understand why the Government have not put something similar in the Bill, and there is still an opportunity for them to accept this amendment today. But if the Minister is not so minded, I would be grateful if she could provide sufficient reassurance that the review and its outcomes are on a fixed timetable. Can she also guarantee that our environmental standards achieved by cross-compliance will not be compromised in the meantime? I look forward to her response.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The primary effect of this amendment would be to provide a new lever to oblige recipients of financial assistance under Clause 1 to meet cross-compliance requirements. This includes parts of the cross-compliance regime where there is no backing in domestic legislation.
A large proportion of the rules currently contained in the cross-compliance regime are replicated in domestic legislation. Rules such as those in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the Control of Pesticides Regulations and the Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations will continue to provide protection for our valuable wildlife, soils and watercourses. It will remain mandatory for individuals to continue to comply with all domestic regulation, irrespective of whether they qualify for financial assistance.
We understand the important role that regulatory standards play in trade, in protecting our environment and in protecting the health and welfare of animals. That is why the Government will take a proactive approach to engaging with industry. Responses to our landmark Health and Harmony consultation, our wide-reaching review led by Dame Glenys Stacey, and our discussion document on the ELM scheme have informed, and will continue to inform, our regulatory framework. This autumn, we intend to launch an engagement package—the intensive consultation to which the noble Baroness referred—which will provide an update on the thinking around the future regulatory system. We want to use this to start a co-design process with industry, opening the conversation with stakeholders on the best approaches to designing a future regulatory system.
The Government are exploring other possible levers that we could use to encourage more effectively industry compliance, which would deliver improved environmental outcomes. The ELM scheme will cover a range of environmental outcomes to ensure that farmers and land managers improve their practices and are rewarded for doing so. We are considering a range of measures to ensure that we deliver these outcomes, including, for example, requiring individuals to meet certain requirements as a condition of entry within the scheme itself.
Finally, I assure noble Lords and emphasise that we should take the time to get this right—and we have the opportunity to do so. Individuals will be expected to continue to comply with all current cross-compliance regulations until we delink payments from the land or direct payments end, and until not before 2022. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, worried about the regulatory gap, but we are striving hard to ensure that this does not occur. Through our engagement process and the development of our ELM policy, we will ensure that our high environmental and animal health and welfare standards continue to remain world-leading.
I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance on this important matter, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no requests from noble Lords to ask a short question, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
I thank those noble Lords who contributed to this debate. The majority recognised that there was a real hole to be plugged and that something needed to be done.
I thank the Minister for her remarks, but before I talk about them in a little detail, I want to address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. This is not just about soils, and paragraph (j) alone does not provide the required protection. To give a couple of examples—one of which has been raised already—one of the provisions in the GAECs concerns cutting hedgerows in the breeding season. Alas, I see that happen too often these days. If there were no requirement for that to be prevented, other than the Wildlife and Countryside Act, I am not sure that farmers would recognise that issue in all cases. The other example is even more germane, because it can impact on the economic profile of a farm business. At the moment, farmers are required to provide two metres of green cover in each direction from the centre of a hedge. If that provision disappeared, we could see the wholesale ripping-up of farm headlands, which would not be protected by any existing legislation.
I very much welcome the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, after Committee on the good agricultural and environmental conditions, but many of the schemes that he outlined in the letter are not statutory requirements but voluntary or guidance schemes—that is, schemes that people need to sign up to. They do not have the statutory and regulatory clout of the GAECs and cross-compliance.
I take the Minister’s point on taking the time needed to get the new regulatory system right, but 2022 is not very far away for the delinking of payments and the abolition of the good agricultural and environmental conditions requirements, so I hope that she means getting it right in terms of both timing and content. Personally, I would welcome the entry requirement for ELM being a statutory provision—as the Minister mentioned—with the maintenance of standards and adherence to a basic range of standards being a requirement for ELM. Of course, the big problem is that ELM is a voluntary scheme and bears down only on those farmers who take up that provision.
There is a lot to be done to get a good regulatory framework. The one thing that we do not want to do is pay for measures that farmers have come to know and love—they have got used to them; they have built them into their farm businesses; they see them as giving them legitimacy in the eyes of public and showing that they are looking after the farmed environment; and they are proud of the fact that they have wildlife and habitats on their farms. We cannot then go back in time and see them as something that farmers must be paid for, rather than the minimal social contract with the nation on how farmers will deliver basic environmental conditions.
I will restrain myself and wait for the consultation in the autumn. I hope that it happens quickly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 15. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover of an amendment and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 15
The Earl of Devon
“(2A) Financial assistance under subsections (1) and (2) may only be given to—(a) persons who are involved in the production of products deriving from an agricultural or horticultural or forestry activity, including recognised producer organisations, associations of recognised producer organisations and recognised interbranch organisations as established in Part 6 or as recognised under the CMO Regulation on the day this section comes into force; or (b) those with an interest in agricultural land, where the financial assistance relates directly to that land.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that financial assistance under the Bill is provided only in relation to farmers, including those operating through POs, APOs and IBOs, agricultural/horticultural/forestry activity and/or agricultural land.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, this is the Agriculture Bill. As I have said before, it is not the environmental land management Bill—although listening to today’s debates and reading Clause 1, it would be easy to forget this. This is the first piece of agriculture legislation since the 1940s, yet it appears that agriculture and food security are secondary, even tertiary, considerations behind the provision of our environmental outcomes and the enjoyment of the general public.
I have donned the NFU wheat-sheaf to show my backing for British farming. The NFU is particularly concerned about this issue. It strongly supports the amendment and has urged that it be pressed to a Division. This is a key issue for farmers.
Undoubtedly, 2020 has been a terrible year for many, but please spare a thought for the farmers. Despite being lionised for their heroic contribution to feeding the nation through lockdown, they have faced a horrendous harvest. Torrential rain throughout last autumn made the sowing season a washout. Pestilence, such as the flea beetle, killed much of what germinated and the growing season saw a drought before torrential summer rain washed out the harvest. It has been a biblically bad farming year—and what do they have to look forward to? The loss of their basic payment and their European markets.
I discussed my amendment with the Minister and have sought views from far and wide. It has been suggested that, given that agricultural use covers 60% of the UK’s land mass, the lack of direct reference to agricultural support does not unduly matter. This is the exact issue about which farmers are so concerned: not only are they looking at a decrease in direct payments year on year during the transition period but they can expect that the decreased funding will be spread over 40% more of the UK’s land mass, to areas that are not agricultural. I note that those areas of land mass that are not currently farmed may well be more in need of environmental land management support than our farmland, which has been so well husbanded by farmers over the past decades. The result would be an even greater drop-off in agricultural funding just as our largest export market closes and lower-standard competition from overseas increases.
Farmers deserve much better. This amendment will ensure that they at least remain the focus of this, the Agriculture Bill. I am minded to test the opinion of the House on this issue, but I will listen with interest to the debate and await the Minister’s response before deciding. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Earl said in moving his amendment. For a number of reasons I will set out, I will argue that his amendment does not go far enough and is inherently flawed. Were he minded to withdraw it, I would be happy to step into the breach. Subject to what the Minister has to say, I may be minded to move my amendment in that regard.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I start by begging the forgiveness of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I feel a slight rat in that, having had his support of my immediately previous Amendment 14, I am going to speak against his Amendment 15, as well as Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Farm businesses and farmers will be the primary recipients of payments for public goods, but the environmental land management scheme will be one of the main ways of delivering the objectives of the 25-year environment plan and should not be limited in scope to agricultural land and farmers. It must support wider land management and multi-objective uses of land, since we now have land needs in excess of the land we have. We will have to get land to work several times over for its living if we are to meet all these land use needs.
Farmers need to think of themselves as land managers in the future, delivering multiple objectives—food, obviously, but also carbon sequestration and storage, biodiversity management, water quality management, soil management, flood risk management and a whole bundle of access, recreation and human health benefits. We need to see that farmers of the future are not just going to be about farming for food but delivering those multiple objectives.
I will give a couple of examples of the sorts of thing that would be prevented if the payment restrictions were only to farmers. One is non-agricultural habitats like blanket bogs, which often occur in farm holdings but may not. They are pretty crucial to combating climate change, and they are cost-effective ways of improving water quality. I should declare an interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust: a second example is support for owners of non-commercial woodlands, such as community woodlands, to plant more trees in the interests of biodiversity, climate change and all sorts of other benefits that trees deliver, which ought to be embraced within the scope of these schemes. I cannot support Amendments 15 and 26.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, because they are on to a good point. I also take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has just mentioned. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister to clarify exactly how many extra people or units will be able to claim out of the same pot of money. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, made the good point that the current budget—the current amount that comes out of CAP in its two forms—goes to a set number of people. How many more people are likely to be eligible to get their hands on that pot of money? What will the effect therefore be on current farmers, who rely primarily on the basic farm payments system to exist and continue to farm their land? Of course times have to change, and farmers have to become more diverse, but it is important to know exactly what we are talking about, and I hope my noble friend can help us on that before a decision is made on whether to put this to the House or not.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Lord Rooker?
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am now unmuted; the order seemed to have changed.
As in Committee, I support the thrust of the amendments. I may have misread the technicalities of Amendment 15, compared with Amendment 26, but I do not see how Amendment 15 would ignore tenant farmers. It may be that I have misunderstood the effects of Part 6 of the Bill.
I remember farm visits as a Minister, at both MAFF and Defra, when on more than one occasion tenant farmers had a chat with me, out of earshot of others, to say that they were doing things with the land that encouraged other activities; maybe they had done something that encouraged its use as a set for a film or an advert. The landlord would then come chugging down the lane—on one occasion in the form of the National Trust, I remember—demanding a big slice of the extra money, which they had done nothing whatever to create the environment for. This is an important point.
As I say, I am not sure about the difference between the two amendments in that respect, but the Minister has to have a very good case for putting the view that those who take the risk—a point made quite strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—in farming the land and producing the produce should not be the recipients. I obviously agree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that this covers producer organisations and others, but it does not cover external landlords who might own the land and receive money from tenants.
This is more or less exactly the same point I made in Committee, and I am glad this has come back. I am not sure whether there will be a Division—I know we are under instructions about various things—but there has to be a point at which, unless the Minister has a really good case, one or both of these amendments should be forced into the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I did not inform him that the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Greaves, had withdrawn.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, on one of the first amendments we discussed in Committee, I said that for all the other things—the environmental benefits, et cetera—farmers are “the delivery system”, and so you have to maintain farmers. This means that you have to define who the farmer is, in a way that has not happened in the Bill, so that we can go forward.
My question to the Minister is this: do we have a definition of what sort of activity is covered by government subsidy here? That is really what needs to come out. For example, forestry would almost certainly come into the same view as agriculture. It may be that I have missed it, so I am trying to get that clarification down; it might make everybody feel slightly more comfortable about this. Who are the people who are supposed to do the other interesting stuff—the access things we have already talked about and the environmental things that are coming to the fore? Who is the delivery system? I cannot see it being anyone other than the farmer and I cannot see any way of it happening other than if they are paid. There simply is not another delivery system for this. There may be a slightly different version of this, but the farmer or land manager seems to require assurance that they are the focus of the activity.
As for supporting the two amendments, I am afraid the Minister has his fate in his own hands on that one, as ever. The fact of the matter is that if we can get out of it only who the groups are, and the definition of why you are going to support them in this changed regime, that would be a useful thing to come out of this, if nothing else.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is not here, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, we already know that our economy will be under pressure in the coming years from the effects and costs of coronavirus and the drop in GDP expected by almost all economists after Brexit, whatever form Brexit takes. The Bill does not spell out exactly how levels of funding will be sustained. As my noble friend Lord Greaves said at the beginning of our consideration of this Report stage, the Bill is permissive, allowing the Government to take action—which does not mean they will take action.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we welcome the tabling of these amendments, which will allow Ministers to go into more detail on the balance between direct support for agriculture, and other related purposes, and the emphasis that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, puts on the word “agriculture”. We understand that the National Farmers’ Union supports this amendment as a means of ensuring that the Agriculture Bill is truly agricultural in nature.
Following the first two groups, where there were amendments focusing on areas such as countryside access and public health, we understand the concerns of some that, with a limited pot available to Defra, it is important to ensure that the lion’s share delivers for farmers. We certainly want farmers to get the support they need, and to ensure the Government follow through with the many promises they have made to rural communities in recent years. However, as my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone so clearly noted, there will have to be a wider purpose for land, as it will have to work several times over to deliver its multiple objectives.
However, as we have all said during the Bill’s progress, our departure from the CAP is an opportunity to do things differently. Two of the biggest criticisms of the CAP are about its rigidity and the fact that it has not kept pace with real-world developments. Many concerns stem from the lack of detail and certainty regarding the new schemes that are due to come on stream in 2021. In this respect, my noble friend Lord Grantchester’s Amendment 41, which would require the Government to demonstrate the readiness of year 1 schemes before commencing the seven-year transition, may be of interest.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Wearing my farming hat, as I have declared my interests, I very much hope in promoting this Agriculture Bill that its essence is how we work with farmers and land managers on the quests that we have for food production and enhancing the environment. I repeat that it is about enhancing the environment and providing the ingredients for future agricultural production.
I take this opportunity to reiterate that this Government are committed to supporting the agricultural sector, not only with the promise that the budget for agriculture will remain the same during this Parliament but in supporting that sector through Clause 1 and many other elements of the Bill, which I started to outline in earlier debates today. Interestingly, my figures are that 69% of land in the United Kingdom is farmed and 10% of land is in woodland. As such, we will be relying on our farmers and land managers for the public goods which, in our view, they are so well placed to deliver.
As currently drafted, Clause 1 enables the Government to provide financial assistance to land managers—and I encourage noble Lords to look at the way it is crafted—in return for their delivery of public goods. Indeed, the new ELM scheme is a vehicle to provide such funding to those who manage land and water to deliver these environmental goods. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of participants in ELM will be farmers. It is proposed that tier 1 of the scheme will be aimed specifically at farmers and will pay for actions that the majority of farmers can take across their land, such as nutrient, pest and soil management.
However, the Government recognise that environmental benefits can be provided across a large variety of land or water types, including farms, rural properties and estates, woodland and other open or green spaces. Many landholdings and farms will embrace not only land that is farmed but wetlands and woodlands—all of which the farmer will, in the contribution of their own ELM scheme, bring forward in terms of land, woodland and water.
For the ELM scheme to be successful, it needs to work for a wide range of farmers, foresters and other land managers, as it will help us to maximise the environmental benefits that can be delivered. This will ensure that the ELM scheme acts as a powerful vehicle for the delivery of the 25-year environment plan goals and the Government’s commitment to net zero. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, mentioned that specific point.
It is also the case that the challenges we face will require landscape-scale change. That is why we have proposed that tier 3 of the ELM scheme could fund projects such as woodland creation, peatland restoration and flood mitigation. My view is that it will be overwhelmingly on land which is farmed by owners or tenants, and be a vital part of that landscape change that we all very much need. These are all examples of large collaborative projects which would allow us to improve the health of our environment, as set out in the 25-year environment plan, while helping us to deliver our commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that existing agri-environment schemes—such as special areas of conservation, sites of special scientific interest and land that supports priority species—are open to those not involved in agricultural production. We feel that accepting this amendment would significantly narrow the scope of future schemes and the benefits they deliver. I emphasise that I have no doubt that the catchment areas and landscape ranges in tier 3 will embrace many farmers. It may be that, as part of that, there is a woodland owner or land managers other than farmers. It is important that we look particularly at those in tier 3, which is why I emphasise it. I raised this specific point in discussion with the noble Earl, again emphasising my farming interests and understanding of the concerns that farmers have about change. In my view, we should not narrowly restrict the ability for financial assistance to go to those other than farmers, although obviously the overwhelming majority of the funding from the Bill will go to farmers and land managers.
On Amendment 26, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, it is intended that the ELM scheme will provide funding to those who carry out the management of the land or water to deliver environmental public goods being funded. This might be the tenant or landowner, depending on the specific activity carried out and the arrangements in place. I emphasise this important point to my noble friend: engagement is ongoing with a wide range of farmers and land managers, including landowners and tenants, to ensure that ELM is designed in a way that works for all to maximise the delivery of environmental outcomes, while ensuring effective use of public money.
Representatives of landowners and tenants sit on our core stakeholder group on ELM design. We recently ran a number of sessions looking at ELM for different sectors, including those with tenancy arrangements, common land and uplands. We have six tests and trials that are working with farmers to assess how ELM can work best on tenanted land. In the national pilot, we also plan to have participants from a range of tenancies to ensure that we test the scheme from different land tenure perspectives.
We will discuss this on other amendments, but we clearly see a very strong future for the tenancy sector of agriculture. We think it is often a way in which land can be successfully farmed, sometimes by new entrants. I emphasise the importance that the Government place, through the tests and trials, on finding the right way to have an ELM which is successful for tenants and landowners. That is how we will have more and more land coming forward for contemporary and modern tenancy arrangements.
The Government would find it very difficult to restrict the eligibility for financial assistance in the way that the noble Earl has outlined. This is specifically not because I am suggesting that the funding is going to move from farmers to many other resources but because, by tier 3, we are going to need to work with people beyond farmers: for instance, woodland owners. There needs to be that ability to work with those beyond what I would call “the farming community”, who are four-square at the core of this.
The construction of the Bill, in Clause 1(2), is also designed absolutely to ensure that those starting and improving agricultural, forestry and horticultural activity are supported. I have looked through the Bill, and at every turn its clauses are about how we best look after and improve the situation for farmers. Yes, it is in a period of change, and that is why there is a seven-year transition.
But with those points in mind—I am mindful that I have to work quite hard, as there is a suggestion that this may be a matter for consideration by the House—I hope that the noble Earl and my noble friend will understand why the Government wish to have that flexibility, being mindful of the importance of the farmers of this country. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, thank you for a fascinating and very conscious debate on this important topic. I heard what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I do not prefer her Amendment 26 because I think it is more limiting than Amendment 15. It requires only active farmers who take entrepreneurial risk to be recipients, which would unduly restrict applicants and fails to recognise that there are multiple different interests in farmland. Tenant farmers are not excluded from Amendment 15; it is crafted to cover the broad range of interests in land, which include tenant interests. It also recognises that often there are contractors, licensees and short-term tenants, who may have an interest in short-term profit, while landlords and those with a longer tenure may have an interest in the longer-term benefits to the land and the returns therefrom. Amendment 15 leaves it, quite rightly, to the marketplace to determine who gains the funding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, need not be embarrassed at all; my support is never contingent and I understand her points regarding the multiple objectives that she lists. This just goes to show that this is not an agriculture Bill; it is an environmental land management Bill. I appreciate the support of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. His question on the dilution of farming support was entirely pertinent. It is disappointing that the Minister was unwilling to answer it. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is right: Amendment 15 does not exclude tenants, for the reasons I have discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, greatly assisted in revealing the inconsistencies in the Bill and the need to provide farmers with some proper assurances. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for re-emphasising the proper direction of funding, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who reinforced the concerns that funding may go to a wider purpose than agriculture.
The Minister made clear that ELMS is designed to work with farmers and land managers. It is land managers who are the concern. The Minister accepted that there are land managers other than farmers, but he did not offer a definition. Are golf course owners included? Are airport owners? Is Network Rail a land manager that will get ELMS funding? The Minister did not exclude those as recipients of ELMS. He says that the budget for agriculture will remain the same. Is that the budget for farmers or for farmers and land managers? Will it therefore be diluted?
I appreciate the point about tier 3. I am excited about the landscape-scale ambitions of ELMS, but it is clear that such funding will definitely go to farming members of a tier 3 collaboration. As I do not wish to be responsible for narrowing the excellent environmental goals of ELMS and I trust that those designing it will be mindful of the very real concerns that your House has voiced today, I hope I do not regret this, but I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
We now come to Amendment 18. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. She is not responding.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
I apologise—it is always bound to go wrong if I am on the Woolsack—but I have already said that Amendment 18 is not moved.
“(8) The Secretary of State must by regulations require specified information to be published about financial assistance under this Act.(9) Information which must be specified includes—(a) the full legal name of the recipient of financial assistance;(b) the amounts of payment corresponding to each measure financed by the funds received by each beneficiary in the financial year concerned;(c) the purposes of the payment corresponding to section 1(1);(d) the geographical boundaries of the land corresponding to the amounts and purposes under paragraphs (b) and (c);(e) any other information that in the view of the Secretary of State is appropriate to enable the public to evaluate whether the purposes in section 1(1) are met.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the public may evaluate whether the Act’s purposes in providing public goods are in fact being fulfilled.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I shall speak to Amendment 18, which has not been moved, and to my own Amendment 28. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, for signing it as well.
The common agricultural policy is a huge item in the EU’s budget, making up around one-third of all EU expenditure. The system of payments established under the Bill will be similarly huge, with large sums of public money being paid to private individuals and businesses in exchange for providing public goods. With such huge expenditure, it is, frankly, outrageous that the Bill is so lacking in measures for public scrutiny and accountability for that money. My Amendment 28 seeks to redress this huge accountability deficit by requiring the Secretary of State to publish information about expenditure under the Bill. That does not seem unreasonable to me. Probably every Peer in this House would expect that if they spend money then generally, they will understand where it goes.
That publication would include basic information such as who is receiving how much money and for what. Without that information, I do not see how taxpayers can be expected to trust that public money is being put to good use in fair and proper ways. In particular, I worry that the whole system of public money for public goods will be undermined, resulting in a rolling back of the progress that the Bill represents.
If the Conservative Party were in opposition, they would expect such information to be provided and would want it in the Bill—they would insist that basic accountability be included—so I am horribly disappointed that there is nothing to that effect. I eagerly await the Minister’s explanation as to why a prudent and fiscally responsible Government would avoid publishing such basic information, which would enable the public to ensure that their taxes are being spent properly and effectively.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their forbearance—I was sitting in a bus that had been slowed down due to the requirements of Transport for London. Amendment 18 concerns the lack of an impact assessment for the Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, for their support. Both are distinguished experts in the field. I also thank the Minister for a very useful meeting and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for the support of the Opposition in Committee. Other amendments in this group look at various aspects of evaluation and financial assistance, including a welcome government amendment of plans relating to the latter.
Impact assessments are a vital vehicle for evaluation and scrutiny of government actions on a coherent, structured and quantitative basis. They provide good guides to how different groups and businesses will be affected by a Bill or a proposal. They are, rightly, a firmly established part of the landscape, with that on the Immigration Bill being the most recent useful example in our House. This Bill represents a huge change in farming and countryside management in the UK, as we have heard. This needs to be quantified. We need to look at the economic costs, benefits and risks that the new agricultural policies entail. That observation applies to the whole Bill but is most important in respect of Clause 1.
Impact assessments could have been invented with such a Bill in mind—I know because I headed the Cabinet Office deregulation unit that pioneered them. Yet on 20 February, the Regulatory Policy Committee, which independently assesses impact assessments, was forced to publish a little slap in the face to Defra. Having considered the matter, it came to the following stern conclusion:
“The RPC has considered the proposals in the Bills and believe that in both cases”
—they were also referring to another Bill—
“these could have significant impacts on business when they come into effect (as set out in the annex to this statement) and that therefore IAs should have been produced by the Department, submitted to the RPC for independent scrutiny, seen by ministers and presented to Parliament. We expect that, in future, government departments will submit IAs to the RPC before the relevant bill is laid before Parliament. We remain open to DEFRA submitting IAs for both of these bills to the RPC, in order to allow us to provide an opinion on whether or not each IA is fit for purpose.”
Matters have moved on a lot. Will the Minister consider making available the draft that was prepared for ministerial discussion? I suspect that much of the material was an updated version of the economic material he published and referred me to in Committee, but of course, in a much more useful and structured format. I would also welcome details of Defra’s plans for secondary legislation made under different parts of the Bill. We agree on the need for collaboration with the farming sector and others in developing the regulations, and I know that IAs can be useful in bringing out risks and opportunities for the wider economy—for example, businesses supplying the rural economy. This leads to better feedback. I always remember persuading the then DTI not to require the minimum wage to be shown on payslips, because of the cost to businesses of reprogramming all their IT systems to make this happen.
This is not a sexy amendment. It is one devoted to the cause of responsible and coherent government, and I suggest that it is none the worse for that. Allied to proper, timely consultation, impact assessments can identify important factors that have been overlooked in policy formation. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool)
It may help the House to understand what is going on if I clarify that the debate is now on Amendment 28. We will continue with the speakers’ list, as written down, for this group. At the end, after the Minister has spoken, I will call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to respond to Amendment 28.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support everything that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has said in moving Amendment 18, so I shall be brief. I added my name to this amendment for reasons I outlined at Second Reading. It is irregular for a Bill—even for a framework enabling Bill—to be sent to Parliament without any sort of formal impact assessment. It is yet more irregular for a Bill of this consequence not to be accompanied by a primary stage impact assessment at the very least.
For well over a decade, successive Governments of different political hues, have for good reason seen the requirement for departments to produce impact assessments alongside proposals for new legislation as central to their commitment to better regulation. Accompanying impact assessments enable parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny of proposed new legislation to be better informed. Parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny further benefits from impact assessments because of the role of the RPC, which my noble friend mentioned. The RPC is the government-appointed Regulatory Policy Committee which independently assesses the quality of a departmental impact assessment of the costs, benefits, risks and opportunities of a proposed new measure. It then publishes an opinion, which is available to Parliament and others, on whether the evidence and analysis contained in the impact assessment are sufficient to support whatever is being proposed. As my noble friend said, it is an essential and valuable discipline. It helps Parliament, Ministers and the departments themselves.
I am glad to say that it is rare nowadays for a department to produce legislation without an accompanying impact assessment, but it has happened in the case of the Agriculture Bill. This omission is especially regrettable, given the varying impacts of the wide-ranging measures that this Bill proposes to enable. That is why I have put my name to this amendment.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as listed in the register. I should add in relation to Amendment 18, to which I wish to speak, that I am a former chair of the Better Regulation Executive and worked closely with the Regulatory Policy Committee which has been referred to already. I also worked closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who has tabled this amendment, and with the noble Earl, Lord Lindsey, who has supported it. I fully endorse their comments. I am particularly disappointed in Defra’s poor performance with regard to the impact assessment of this Bill or, more accurately, the lack of an adequate impact assessment. When I chaired the BRE, Defra was one of the better performing departments and regularly produced satisfactory IAs. As the Minister knows well, I fully support this Bill and the policy changes it will introduce. As has been stated numerous times, this is the most serious change in agricultural policy in a lifetime. We need fully to understand the implications of this fundamental change.
Of course, this amendment is a process issue. For many, it is rather tedious and not “sexy”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, stated. However, it is a crucial part of understanding how new policies or changes in regulation will impact on those affected by it. As one well-known system is demolished and another unknown system is introduced, we have a huge void by not having an impact assessment better to understand of the economic costs and benefits of this change. I hope that the Minister will explore this further with his department and be able to reassure the House that this issue will be addressed as the Bill progresses on its journey through both Houses and into legislation.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD) [V]
My Lords, I was happy to add my name to Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, as I feel it is important that we debate the question of what information will be published under the new farm payments scheme during the passage of this Bill. The provisions in the Bill currently lack detail and firm commitments, and that raises legitimate concerns that we might in fact go backwards from the status quo in terms of transparency around the common agricultural policy.
In supporting the amendment, I want to talk briefly about the value of publishing comprehensive data, as described in the list set out in the amendment. There are two core arguments for this. The first is the accountability that we want for any significant public expenditure, and this Bill will certainly usher in a great deal of such expenditure. The more insight that we have into how our money is being spent, the more effectively we can hold our Government to account for it. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, certainly made that point very forcefully, and it was echoed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who in his recent lecture at Ditchley Park talked very much about opening up government data precisely in the interests of other people being able to hold the Government to account.
There is a second benefit that might be even more significant: the innovation that can happen around public datasets. The Government do their best to devise good solutions for the farming community, and I would not for a second question their good faith in doing so, but nobody has a monopoly of good ideas, and there will be people outside of government who have ideas that could be of real benefit to the UK agricultural sector. The dataset described in this amendment would provide a foundation on which those ideas and innovative solutions could be built. I draw attention in particular to making associated geospatial data available—that is, data around the parcels of land that are being funded—as this is especially useful for developers who work in this area. I understand that Defra already collects much of this data. For example, it publishes geospatial data in respect of environmental stewardship payments. Therefore, my starting point is that I do not believe that the list of data described in the amendment would add to the burdens for the farming community as it is data that it produces for Defra, but we are asking that Defra releases it to the wider world.
I hope that in his response the Minister is able to put some more flesh on to the very bare bones of the text of the Bill and that, in particular, he can do two things. First, it would be helpful if he could describe the dataset that the Government are currently thinking of publishing. I understand that they have been engaged in a consultation exercise over the summer, so I hope that they have some idea of what they intend to publish under the secondary legislation that the Bill envisages. Secondly, it would be extremely helpful if they could indicate whether they have concerns about any of the items listed in Amendment 28, so that we can focus on them and discuss them further. With that, I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords and, in particular, the response from the Minister.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate all those who have tabled amendments in this group. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and her co-signatories to Amendment 18 which calls for an impact assessment. It would add a great deal to the Bill. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on moving her amendment.
I shall focus my remarks on Amendment 30 and, in particular, government Amendment 35. The latter amendment, in the name of my noble friend Lord Gardiner, concedes in new paragraph (a) that we need to know
“as soon as practicable before the beginning of the plan”
what the purpose of the plan will be. He sets out very neatly in new paragraph (b) that the plan should be published
“at least 12 months before the beginning of the plan period for the plan.”
I welcome the fact that my noble friend has conceded that we need 12 months’ notice. I do not know quite why my Amendment 36 is not included in this group. When we come on to discuss dates other noble Lords will press their favourite dates, whether it is five months, three months, seven years or five years.
My noble friend has conceded the principle that we need 12 months’ notice. I do not quite understand why we are not then agreeing to delay the start of the transition period in that regard, because we need greater clarification of what the plan will be. I am very uneasy that we do not have the results of the trials of the ELM schemes, which are still ongoing. So what I have set out here is very specifically that we have levels of expected expenditure set out and, equally, we can identify the outcomes for that expenditure as part of this multiannual financial planning. I shall not make the arguments in full, because we debated them quite fully in Committee, but I am deeply concerned that the role of the Office for Environmental Protection is still unclear in this regard. Can my noble friend come forward with a date for when we will be able to look in some detail at the environment Bill? I hope that it will be before the end of this year and of the transition period. It would be most helpful if my noble friend could give us a date.
What is lacking in the current provisions, and why Amendment 30 is required, is a framework that requires the Government to be clear about what they are planning to spend and what they will spend that money on. In Amendment 35, I think my noble friend concedes can and do change over time, but we need a clear direction of travel from the Government so we can judge how well the Government and Defra are doing in achieving these objectives and in targeting these public resources. We need to give farmers and land managers the clearest possible indication and assurance about the certainty of funding, if they are going to be able to enter into long-term relationships to deliver the outcomes for the public benefit and the improvement of productivity. So, in identifying specific levels of budgetary expenditure, we will also need to enhance the ability of Parliament to scrutinise government plans and policies in advance of them being implemented and by way of evaluating their performance. Both provisions would be an important part of good governance.
In summing up, can my noble friend say when he will bring forward a business plan that will impact and be effective for the first year after the transition period, which is next year?
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which seeks, as she explained, to increase the levels of accountability and ensure that Parliament can understand Her Majesty’s Government’s strategic priorities and the extent to which they are being met. We discussed this issue in Committee.
Many Members of your Lordships’ House have already expressed concerns about levels of financial accountability in this Bill, and we have a number of amendments that seek to address that. On page 4, line 15, the Bill specifies that the Secretary of State will be,
“monitoring the extent to which the purpose of financial assistance has been achieved.”
The amendment, dealing with the multiannual financial assistance plans, specifies that the Secretary of State will produce annual budgets for each strategic priority. There is a powerful argument that we need this so that the public can have confidence in the spending of public money. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s and indeed other noble Lords’ reflections and responses on the extent to which this amendment can strengthen transparency and accountability.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend prelate the Bishop of St Albans. I particularly praise his work as president of the Rural Coalition. I know that he does really good work there. I declare my own interest as co-chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership.
I will speak to Amendment 32, which was not all that popular in Committee, in that it suggested and states that the transition period from the old funding system to the new should be not seven years but five. I will go through why that is so important and why I have bothered to bring it back and take up the House’s time—although I will not be putting it to a vote at this Report stage.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
In this grouping, I support various amendments on monitoring and analysis. First, Amendment 18, from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, advises that impact assessments be published and that public responses to them be taken into account before financial schemes are themselves launched.
Secondly, and correspondingly, my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering’s Amendment 30 would have the Government set out expenditure levels and their predicted outcomes as part of their multiannual financial plans. I am also in favour of Amendment 34, from noble Earl, Lord Devon, which would improve parliamentary scrutiny by insisting that multiannual financial assistance plans be considered for at least two months before coming into effect.
I also support Amendment 32, from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. We have just heard him eloquently express the reasons why he advocates this. The five-year period, rather than seven, more accurately reflects how long developments arising from the Bill are likely to take. Thus, the amendment prevents an unnecessary delay or transition from the old payment system to the new one.
Finally, I support Amendment 47, from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which correctly points out that financial assistance to United Kingdom farmers should take into account how they are operating and competing within the international economy.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, is this weekend—Shanah Tovah.
The seven-year period cited in Amendment 33 is not accidental. We all know of the seven fat and seven thin cows of the pharaoh’s dream in Exodus. Jewish law prescribes a seven-year agricultural cycle, with a fallow year—the Shmita—every seventh year. What was good for Moses should be good for us, and we should set our agricultural policy in seven-year cycles.
The transition period is seven years and the period between multiannual financial assistance plans should be the same. This will allow farmers longer to plan and to commit resources to the published policy. It will permit farmers time to recover from any poor harvest, avoid the politicising of multiannual financial assistance plans and remove their coincidence with the five-year political cycle.
As to Amendment 34, along with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I note that the Government have published their own Amendment 35, under which they agree to publish the multiannual financial assistance plan at least 12 months before it comes into effect for all instances other than the first one. However, the first plan is by far the most important. It will make by far the greatest impact on farming and take by far the greatest effort to distribute within the farming community. My amendment seeks at least two months’ notice before January’s plan comes into effect, but even this will not be permitted, it appears. We are told the plan will be available this autumn, but I note that the autumn ends on 21 December.
Just this morning, I spoke with representatives of the Dartmoor hill farmers, who are hugely concerned. These small farmers see the Dartmoor National Park, the Duchy of Cornwall and other large commercial bodies secretly trialling ELM schemes about which these small farmers are wholly ignorant. They are really scared that the rules are changing for large wealthy land managers, who can afford professional assistance, while they—the actual farmers—remain wholly in the dark as to what is coming, as do we.
As to the compelling arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I fear that five years will only increase the negative impacts of what may be a chaotic transition. The noble Lord listed many species that he sees fewer of now. I would ask him to consider whether he sees more crows, magpies, buzzards, badgers and foxes than he used to. Their impacts on nesting farmland birds are well established.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Curry; I am sure that the Minister will take good note of them. I wish to speak to Amendment 47, which stands in my name; it has been grouped with these amendments but does not sit all that comfortably with them. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for his support for the amendment. I again draw the attention of noble Lords to my declaration of interests as a member of the Farmers’ Union of Wales, as well as owning a few acres of land in Wales.
This amendment addresses one of the issues that, I contend, any Minister exercising the powers in this Bill would have uppermost in his or her mind: the need to ensure a level playing field for farmers in the context of the financial support they may receive.
Yesterday, in the other place, the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill was given its Second Reading. When the White Paper that preceded the Bill was published in the spring, it referred to the dangers of diverging regulatory standards in each of the four home nations of the UK. From time to time, there will clearly be different approaches within the four nations, and there may well be policies to try to ensure that agricultural producers in one area receive different levels of assistance to compensate them for the negative effects of certain factors—in other words, to bring them up to a place where they can compete fairly, not secure unfair advantages over their competitors within these isles.
However, there is also a danger of which we have to be aware—especially those of us who advocate the freedom of our devolved Governments to pursue policies that help farmers within their territories, particularly hill farmers, as has been mentioned by several noble Lords during the passage of this Bill. There is all the difference in the world between securing a level playing field with common standards and securing unfair trading advantages. My party, Plaid Cymru, recognises the need for common standards but believes strongly that these should not be imposed by the centre regardless of the policies and aspirations of devolved Governments. These standards need to be developed and applied in an even-handed way that recognises the aspirations of all four nations and the policies they support.
The UK Government-led discussion on developing the internal market has largely revolved around the potential of regulatory divergence within the UK, but the reality within farming communities is surely a far greater concern about the dangers of unfair competition arising from the movement of agricultural produce across international borders into the UK, undermining farmers in all four home nations. There is widespread support for amending this Bill to safeguard agriculture throughout these islands against the importation of substandard produce from other parts of the world. Unfair competition does not arise solely from regulatory differences but also from differences in the level and type of state aid. That is reflected in the intense negotiations currently being held between the UK and the European Union in an attempt to define a level playing field.
There is of course an overwhelming wish across all parties in Parliament for a trade deal with the EU that maintains our access to European markets for agricultural producers, and that any deals with third countries or blocs of countries do not compromise our access to the massively important European market on our doorstep. There are two sides to the regulatory coin. One is the need to maintain standards and not have our farming industry undermined by a flood of substandard products from other parts of the world that undercut our own producers. The other is that our own farmers should not be unfairly penalised by the system of financial support operated in countries with which we compete, or the level at which such support is pitched. Such factors should not give farmers in other countries who compete in the UK market an advantage over producers in the countries of Britain.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, I reiterate my interest in our family farming and horticulture business. Although I no longer have an active managerial role, I retain a residual interest in it.
This group of amendments addresses a number of items which were discussed in Committee. Many noble Lords then, and again today, expressed their anxiety at the relatively short time that farmers, foresters and land managers would have to prepare their businesses for an incoming multiannual financial assistance plan, or, for that matter, where an existing plan is in place, to make any changes to it. The speeches thus far on this group of amendments share this common theme.
Noble Lords will remember the suggestions made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Lucas of a two-year readiness period, and by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, of a delay period of two months. I am sure noble Lords will welcome the Government’s amendment. This is an intelligent compromise which takes note of noble Lords’ concerns on the matter. I thank my noble friend the Minister for listening to the concerns of the House, as he has been exhorted to by a number of noble Lords this evening. I support the amendment he proposes.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has withdrawn from this group of amendments. I call the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s Amendment 18, also in the names of my noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. My noble friend is a great supporter of impact assessments and she is right. In framing the new financial assistance schemes, it is important for the Secretary of State to understand the likely effect of any new ways of remunerating farmers for their farming activities and for their stewardship of the countryside. Many farmers are presently bemused by the measures contained in this clause and would much appreciate greater clarity from the Government. The publication of impact assessments would improve their understanding and help them to plan for the future.
I do not think I can support the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in her Amendment 28, because she wishes the Government to publish more information than is appropriate. Farmers should be entitled to rather more privacy than the noble Baroness would allow.
In Amendment 32, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Dundee seek to shorten the period of the first plan to five years. However, payments under the new ELM schemes are not expected to commence until 2024, and I think the full seven years—which would mean only three years after those schemes start—would be the minimum time necessary for the Government to prepare their plan for the second period, based on their review of the use and effectiveness of the schemes during the initial period.
On the other hand, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in his Amendment 33, seeks to extend the length of each plan from five to seven years. However, as I said in Committee, I do not think the noble Earl’s reason is valid. Even if the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is not quickly repealed, as I hope it will be, the noble Earl is surely aware that general elections have not taken place regularly every five years.
I think the noble Earl is being a little modest in seeking to ensure that plans are published at least two months before they come into effect, and I am delighted that, in Amendment 35, the Minister proposes that subsequent plans should be published at least 12 months before they come into effect. That is in line with what several noble Lords recommended in Committee.
I am not sure whether Amendments 47 and 106, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, are helpful. The best thing the Government can do for British farmers is to ensure that unnecessary, unjustified red tape is removed, so that they can compete successfully at home and abroad. During our membership of the EU, as noble Lords should be aware, British farmers have not enjoyed a level playing field with their competitors: French livestock producers receive €1 billion a year of voluntary coupled support, as opposed to a mere €39 million available to Scottish crofters.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, since the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford, Lord Rooker and Lord Addington, have withdrawn from this group, I now call the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
In connection with Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I admit that I do not understand much about impact assessments. However, I would hate impact assessments to further delay this whole process. As the details of ELM schemes may not come out for another couple of years, I find that quite worrying.
However, my main purpose in speaking is to support Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for all the reasons that he has given—although I cannot honestly claim that I have had time to study what either the Bible or the Koran say about the seven-year period. I would, however, add to the list of pests that he mentioned something that is now rather important: the prevalence of the grey squirrel and the muntjac, which are steadily gnawing through our trees. If they are not taken in hand, they will make a new forestry policy extremely difficult—but that is another matter.
From a business planning point of view, it is essential that the agricultural sector be given as much clarity as possible when making any important investment decisions. The sector does not have the luxury of either deep pockets or the same access to banks and capital markets as big business. The costs of farm machinery and other capital items continue to rise, as do running costs. The sector needs the security of being able to plan forward with a considerable degree of certainty if it is to thrive in terms of profits and employment.
There is also the issue of aligning ourselves with our competitors, in particular those in Europe, with its seven-year period. That is why I also support Amendments 47 and 106, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which relate to another aspect of business planning. We need to watch and learn from others, so that we can compete sensibly on this much-hyped level playing field. I fear that, as an industry that is unlikely ever to become entirely independent of taxpayer support, we will always be brought into the political arena. But this new Bill gives us a chance to rewrite the rules. Let us grasp the opportunity and instil as much sensible business practice into the industry as we can.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, we are in a mess on this group of amendments. I would like some clarification. I think that we were misled by the Deputy Speaker when she said that Amendment 18 was not moved. As I understood the situation, if an amendment is tabled, anyone can move it. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was not here, the next speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, who was a signatory to that amendment, should have been invited to move it. We are now in a situation where we are told the amendment was not moved, but Members have been speaking to it. As I understand the rules, we are not allowed to speak to an amendment that has not been moved. What is happening? Could this be clarified? If I want to speak to Amendment 18, am I in order? If all the rules have been broken, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will at least reply to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and support her by getting this amendment tabled for Third Reading. I think that the House has broken lots of rules and I would like clarification before I continue.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I shall, of course. I shall start with Amendment 28, as it was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I will then discuss much about the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
What a wonderful thing flexibility is. I am grateful to the Minister for replying this way. That gets us out of the hole.
I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. There should be an impact assessment. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
I thank the Minister for his Amendment 35. As said by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, it is a sensible compromise. The Minister has moved some way. I congratulate the Government on having moved on at least one amendment. They refused to move on anything in the Fisheries Bill, but on the Agriculture Bill, we have a slight shift. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is as pleased as I am that we are making a little progress.
I must pick up on the little discussion between the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Carrington, about biodiversity. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is right: the species that have thrived over the last 10 years have been the grey squirrel and the muntjac, as a result of which we are hardly able to grow any decent commercial deciduous woodland in this country. Until that problem is solved, we will be able to plant a lot of trees and take away a lot of empty tubes in 20 years’ time when the trees have all failed because they have been attacked by deer or grey squirrels.
I cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on reducing the period from seven years to five in his Amendment 32. It will be difficult enough for farmers in the timescale they already have. That is for lots of reasons—we have talked about the age profile. Agriculture is a long-term business that needs a lot of careful planning. We need to know what ELMS will be. There will be such a learning curve for farmers, who will need a great deal of help—we will come to that when discussing the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. By the time ELMS comes in, there will be little time for farmers to get acquainted with the system, particularly those of the older generation and those still suffering from lack of broadband connection. Without social media and broadband, they will not be able to operate the latest modern machinery, which is all digital and high-tech. This will cause them a lot of problems.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will be very short. I was working from an old version of the Marshalled List when I signed up to speak on this group and I discover that the amendment I wished to speak to has been regrouped somewhere else, so I am not going to say anything. I am sure the House will be deeply grateful.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I simply want to say that I strongly support Amendment 30, because where the end is wished, the will must be provided. There is altogether too much hollow rhetoric and good intention in this area. We need firm commitments, and that involves the discipline of preparing the budgets that are necessary to deliver them. I congratulate the noble Lords concerned on having emphasised this vital point.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been another lengthy debate on how the financial assistance provided by the Secretary of State is to be properly assessed, including transparency of information to ensure that the public good principles of financial assistance are fulfilled, and on bringing the multiannual financial plan for consideration in Parliament before being brought into effect—quite a simple statement that has a wealth of detail behind it. The financial assistance scheme will have an impact on the farming community. It is, therefore, imperative that this impact should be assessed and that the outcomes and public responses are considered, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, said. It is important that there is transparency around payments for public good.
At first, I was not in favour of Amendment 28, as I am anxious that farmers are not subsumed in collecting information and data. However, I understand from my noble friend Lord Allan of Hallam that the majority of this data is already collected by farmers, as he indicated this evening. It is therefore important that this information should be readily available and transparent, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans pressed for.
Again, transparency is at the root of amendments around the multiannual financial plans. Setting expectations around financial assistance is key. The farming community, like every other industry and household, needs to know what it can expect and plan accordingly. Will the Minister indicate how such strategic priorities will be funded if a budget for this annual expenditure is not set?
My noble friend Lord Teverson again returned to his wish to see the plan period brought forward from seven to five years. His amendment found little support in Committee, but I fully support him in his very powerful arguments. The Agriculture Bill is heralded as a new dawn for farming and land management, but it would seem that the Government are taking a very softly-softly approach. In many ways, this is to be welcomed, but it is not good for the environment, which is suffering now. We might previously have said that the environment was suffering badly; now, we say that it is suffering catastrophically. The environment can longer afford for us to take a softly-softly approach. We must act now and move the transition forward from seven to five years: that is part of the process of acting now. As my noble friend Lord Teverson so eloquently and passionately said, we have to do something now. Will the Minister indicate why he believes it is better to take a softly-softly approach and watch the environment deteriorate around us? I do not believe that this was pledged in the Conservative Party manifesto.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, has amendments on the timings of the multiannual assistance plans, as has the Minister. I am encouraged that the Government have tabled Amendment 35, which says
“in the case of the first plan, as soon as practicable before the beginning of the plan period for the plan.”
Can the Minister say just how soon he imagines “as soon as practicable” might be? If he can give reassurances on this, I think the House would be satisfied.
The level playing fields sought in the two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, are essential so that farmers who are currently living close to the edge of financial viability can be reassured that financial assistance will be provided. This is a very important group of amendments and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and all noble Lords who have raised important issues about the application and accountability of multiannual assistance plans. All noble Lords, quite rightly, are seeking to provide some rigour in the allocation of £3 billion a year or more which is being set aside by the Government to fund the farming sector for the future. We all have an interest in ensuring that the money is allocated fairly, in line with the strategic priorities, and is seen to be producing value for money.
At the moment, Clause 4 is remarkably light on detail as to how this will be achieved, so I agree with the noble Baroness that an impact assessment is very important and should be standard practice for a government project of this scale. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the public have the right to see how and where this money is being spent. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raises an important point, which I very much agree with, about the allocation of moneys to each of the strategic priorities. Underlying all of these contributions is a desire to ensure not only that the money is spent wisely but also that it is all spent, so that we are not left gifting unused moneys which could have been put to good use back to the Treasury.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, have raised issues about the timing of the plans and the need to ensure parliamentary oversight. In this regard, the Minister’s Amendment 35 is helpful as far as it goes, and the 12-month advance notice for future plans is welcome, but he will know that the proposal to lay the first plan before Parliament “as soon as practicable” before the start date is not going to reassure many in the sector whose livelihoods depend on the funding. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that it would be useful to have some clarity from the Minister as to what that phrase means. I would have thought that the proposal from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, of a two-month deadline, was eminently sensible; I hope the Minister addresses it in his response.
I also commend to noble Lords our Amendment 41, which is coming up in a later group and which would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament about the progress of the tests and trials before the transition can begin, therefore allowing some parliamentary scrutiny of that process.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raises an important point about the internal market within the UK and the dire consequences for all of us if we do not get the balance right and create a level playing field. This is a huge challenge which is not going to be resolved in this Bill, but he is right to raise the consequences for the farming sector and to urge all parts of the UK to work together on this matter.
I said at the outset that there is a compelling case for more detail on how the multiannual financial assistance plans will work. I am very much hoping that the Minister will provide the reassurance we are all seeking that this work is in hand and that we will see more details in due course, and certainly well before the schemes are launched. I look forward to his response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a very interesting debate.
Turning first to Amendment 28, the Government believe that it is important that the public can see how financial assistance being provided under Clause 1 is being spent, as part of our ongoing commitment to openness, transparency and accountability. Clause 2(8) allows the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation to provide that specified information relating to the financial assistance given under Clause 1 is published. Clause 2(9) sets out the information which may be specified. This already includes information about the recipient of the financial assistance, the amount of the financial assistance and the purpose for which the financial assistance was given. Sufficient information will be published under the regulations that the Government are currently developing to underpin subsections (8) and (9).
To inform the development of these regulations, on 4 August the Government launched a public consultation on their proposals for financial and beneficiary information publication. Within the accompanying consultation document, the Government set out how they believe that beneficiary data should be published on a publicly available searchable database, and that details of the name of a beneficiary of financial assistance, postcode, amount of funding received and a high-level purpose of the funding payments should be recorded.
The consultation also proposed that the regulations require the publication of the land management plans—LMPs—which will be a key component and requirement of the environmental land management scheme pilot. The Government seek to strike the right balance between accountability and transparency, on the one hand, and the privacy of agreement holders on the other. On that final point, I assure your Lordships that the Government will publish only information that is relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which it is processed.
Turning to Amendment 18, this is a framework Bill. As a result, the powers in Clause 1 do not in themselves impose a regulatory burden. The Government believe that impact assessments are very important; where the Bill will introduce new regulatory provisions, the Government will produce and publish regulatory impact assessments in line with the Better Regulation Framework guidance. I have reflected on the points raised in Committee by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I assure your Lordships that I am fully cognisant of the important role that impact assessments play in providing a solid basis for scrutiny of government policy. With this in mind, I can confirm that the Government will publish the impact assessment narrative that has been prepared for this Bill. It summarises the measures in the Bill that will have a regulatory impact on business and sets out a clear plan for when more detailed, quantitative assessments will be produced for each of those individual measures. This impact assessment narrative will be published later in the autumn.
The Government continue to work closely with farmers, foresters, other land managers and key stakeholder groups to ensure that they have ample opportunities to inform the design of Clause 1 schemes. For example, the Government recently consulted on their proposals for regulations under Clause 2(8) and Clause 3, which will set out the Government’s approach to financial information publication and the enforcement regime to accompany Clause 1 financial assistance, respectively. The Government will also conduct a public consultation before finalising the design of the full ELM scheme, which is to be launched in 2024. This consultation will be accompanied by a full impact assessment.
Turning to Amendments 47 and 106, the Government are keen that we seize the opportunity of EU exit to remake England’s farming policy so that it is suited to the needs and demand of farmers, the environment and the public at large. Welsh Ministers have decided that it is not appropriate to take powers to allow Welsh Ministers to operate or transition to new schemes in this Bill. These powers will be provided for instead by the agriculture (Wales) Bill. We believe that Welsh Ministers must have the space to develop policy to suit the needs of Wales. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that in forming the agricultural framework, the Government of course considered other countries’ agricultural policy. As this Government develop these proposals further, we will continue to look across the United Kingdom and internationally to be aware of and learn from agricultural policy in other nations.
I turn to Amendment 32. I should note that Clause 4 was introduced following extensive feedback on the Agriculture Bill 2018, taking into careful consideration what would be a suitable timeframe for multiannual financial assistance plans. The first plan period was designed to match the entire agricultural transition period, providing the necessary details on how financial assistance powers in the Bill would be used. Following extensive consultation the Government have legislated for a seven-year transition, as set out in Clause 8. The Government believe that seven years strikes the right balance between signalling the end of area-based direct payments and giving farmers time to adjust. Certainty, in our view, is very important.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I have received a request from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to ask a short question.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I ask my noble friend where the business plan that he says will be published in the autumn will be published. I am slightly concerned that “in the autumn” could be interpreted as 21 December, and that the plan could come out after both Houses have risen. Having served on the EFRA Committee for a number of years and looked very closely at the budgets, I am not quite sure which particular spending would be interrupted by Amendment 30.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I would love to give your Lordships a precise date. The Government understand the need to bring forward this information as soon as possible; I said autumn. We in Defra are seized of that importance. I will look at Amendment 30. All I can say is that our lawyers looked at it and advised me that that was the case but, if my noble friend would permit, it might help to have some legal expertise on why there was that interpretation.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for his summing up. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, have summed up extremely well, but there are a few points that I will add. First, I tried to move Amendment 18 on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, because I supported it, but unfortunately I was too slow; that is not something you can often say about me. I was entranced by the argument between five and seven years. Honestly, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, swayed me with his wartime analogies; they were worthy of the ERG. I was lost slightly by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and Moses. I thank all Peers who have spoken. It was a slightly mixed group.
The Minister asks your Lordships to trust him and almost every Peer in this House does but, when he asks the House to trust the Government, it is a completely different matter. If it is not in the Bill, it does not exist. It is all very well to talk about what the Government will do later but, if they are not bound by the Bill, I do not trust them to do it. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 29. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 29
Lord Grantchester
“Financial assistance: duty to provide advice
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to secure the provision of training, guidance and advice to persons receiving financial assistance under this Act, for the purpose of enabling those persons to deliver the purpose or purposes for which the financial assistance is given.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision for advice on matters which include but are not limited to—(a) the impact of any practice upon the environment,(b) business management, including the development of business plans,(c) the health and welfare of livestock,(d) the safety and health of workers in any agricultural sector,(e) innovation, including alternative methods of pest, disease and weed control,(f) food safety, insofar as it relates to the production of food or any activity in, or in close connection with, an agri-food supply chain,(g) the operation of any mechanism for applying for, or receiving, financial assistance under this Act, and(h) marketing of any product falling within an agricultural sector under Schedule 1.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision for training, guidance and advice to be made available to persons receiving financial assistance.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I have retabled Amendment 29 from Committee, as it could be said to reflect very well on the wide-ranging debate we had on the many challenges and opportunities faced by the rural economy as the focus changes towards providing support for production to be recognised for its environmental and welfare impacts. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for adding their names to the amendment after tabling their amendments in Committee, and to my noble friend Lord Whitty, who has widespread experience of the sector from his excellent service as an Agriculture Minister in a previous Labour Government.
All sides of the House and all shades of opinion acknowledge that, as we move to new funding schemes, there will be a lot of new information, terminology and conditionality that farmers and land managers will need to become familiar with, all accompanied by complex administrative processes that will need to be complied with. Of course, it will be understood that there will be pilots and guidance available to participants but, given the relative speed of the transition proposed, it does not seem unreasonable to expect Defra to recognise the responsibilities it should perhaps take towards those wishing to take part in the schemes by playing a more active role in educating, clarifying, guiding, encouraging and assisting the sector.
Many pitfalls could be encountered. In Committee, discussion also covered the sometimes disproportionate punitive actions that can be taken against farmers when they act in good faith but fall short in some small regard. I was particularly struck by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who spoke of
“the importance of allowing failure”.—[Official Report, 14/7/20; col. 1654.]
The Government are well placed to step in, whatever the circumstances, should it be necessary. They can pick up on bad experiences and eliminate misconceptions that could quickly deter applicants through social media.
Of course, it is understood that participation in schemes is voluntary. However, we would wish to see the full participation of the agricultural community to enhance our environment and to benefit businesses.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his responses to my amendments in Committee, and for his kind words in the last group. I am equally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for bringing back this subject and for his equally kind words.
To my mind, this matter of advice is absolutely at the core of what is needed in the new system. We need it to be advice based, not rule based. We need it to have expertise, to be capable of being local and to be trusted. The adviser corps needs to be trusted by both Government and by farmers. We need to run the system so that it is objective based, not action based.
For instance, one of the objectives local to me should be restoring chalk grassland. No one has any real idea how to do that successfully in a modern agricultural system; we will have to try lots of different things, and a lot of people are going to fail. They need to be supported in that failure, and we need a system that helps us as a nation to learn from that failure and take people forward. That is what an advice-based system should be doing. It is a learning system, not a static system from some tablets of stone handed down but a system that learns from everything that is going on around the country and shares that learning. It is not centralised; centralised is utterly impossible, given the variety of the countryside and different agricultural situations.
We have had enough centralisation. I do not want the Environment Agency letting the Cuckmere flood disastrously because it is too small for it to be bothered with. I want once again to have curlews in the middle of Eastbourne—to have a local solution and not one imposed by the Environment Agency, such as what the water levels should be in the Langney Sewer, which, despite its name, is a pure chalk stream. I want the system to let us have a go at doing things differently—for instance, to have grass sledging on sheep walks. We need to have some way in which to raise money from our countryside to restore our SSSIs. Our local SSSIs are going back to bramble and scrub. We do not have the finance to bring them back as they should be—we need some greater way in which to earn money from the chalk uplands. We need to experiment and try things, and we need an environment where that is encouraged and supported. Trust, support and advice is what I hope we will get from the new system.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to put my name to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, which we discussed in Committee. At Second Reading, I spent my allotted three minutes, or whatever I was allowed, talking about training. It is absolutely crucial; farmers are individuals and do not work in a uniform way, as businesses do in factories and offices. Soil varies across farms and varies over short spaces; what one farmer is doing in one place could be totally different from what another farmer is doing 200 yards away or half a mile away, where the soil, the criteria and the weather conditions are slightly different, because the soil is a bit colder in the spring. It makes farming a very localised and specialised industry. Also, farmers vary hugely, from those who have large estates with a large amount of land in hand to small farmers who are just managing to get by on almost a crofting basis. These are very different individuals, who will need help with these changes.
At the moment, we are talking in a slight bubble, because everything is going quite well. The Minister is having a peaceful time in introducing this Bill, but what happens when we start to get trade deals that start to cause problems with imports that are not up to our standards? What happens with the EU? Increasingly, I am concerned about its threats and actions with regard to farming in Northern Ireland and fishing. What happens when it takes retaliatory action that affects our farmers and fishermen? These people are going to need help and advice from the Government about how to be able to compete. It would be a very different climate in which we are discussing this Bill if it was in three months’ time when we were actually out of the EU and the EU had taken some of the measures that it has already threatened that it is going to take.
My noble friend and his department will have to respond very quickly to that—otherwise, in the famous words of the president of the NFU, Minette Batters, it will be game over for British farming. That is something that none of us who have been discussing this Bill in this House want. Without an amendment like this, or complete reassurance from my noble friend, it has to be put into the Bill to protect farming.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am extremely pleased to be able to speak in support of the previous three speakers and their amendment, which I briefly touched on in Committee. Everyone is agreed that the future is going to be very different from the past. Having talked to a number of farmers in the bit of England I come from, my first-hand feeling is that a significant number of them have no clear idea about how they should be approaching the future, and what they should do for the benefit of themselves, their families, their businesses, the landscape and the wider community and economy in which they are set. I do not think this is necessarily their fault. After all, a large number of the rules of engagement are being altered. One likely result of this is a large number of people, probably through no fault of their own, ending up going in the wrong direction because they did not know where the road they should follow was.
I personally have a very unusual land-use problem on the land that I farm. It is going to involve a significant amount of money just to discover the right way forward for me. I am not trying to make a point just about myself. There will be quite a number of people who, in completely different ways, find themselves with rather unusual problems which they will need to resolve. It is going to be in everyone’s best interests to try and make sure they get it right in the end. As I have previously raised with the Minister, it is a great pity that some of the money that is being taken off the basic payment scheme cannot be hypothecated to enable people to buy advice on dealing with the specific problems on their farms and holdings.
Finally, the amendment looks at this from the perspective of the farmers and land managers—the people on the land itself. However, I am prepared to hazard a guess that, from a Treasury perspective, if we can avoid making mistakes, we can end up saving public money.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have attached my name to my noble friend’s amendment. As other noble Lords have said, farmers will be faced with the most fundamental changes in the way that they operate—the biggest change for half a century. Although there is a seven-year transition, some decisions will have to be taken early. Decisions will have to be taken at different paces through the transition period and there are huge complexities. The old system of production subsidies and the current one of area payments are simplicity itself compared to what is being put forward in the Bill, which I broadly support. Most farmers, particularly smaller ones, will require guidance and support. Many will need bespoke help. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, it is up to the Government to ensure that they have the help and guidance to face up to these revolutionary changes. The Government and the agencies which will apply the changes have some responsibility here. It is reasonable for a modest slice of the savings from CAP to be used to ensure that that happens.
When I was a member of the first ministerial team in Defra, it was the habit of farmers to bemoan the disappearance of ADAS. I still find the odd farmer who complains about that. A very eminent Member of your Lordships’ House once confessed to me that he was the MAFF Minister who introduced the abolition and privatisation of ADAS. The theory at the time was perfectly respectable: that a large number of consultancies and specialist support for farmers would spring up if there was a competitive environment. It did happen in some specialisms but, in general, it did not.
I am not saying that we should go back to a state-run operation such as ADAS but that it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that there is advice, not only on regulations and subsidies but on a lot of the technology, economics and accounting that will be required under the new system. The translation from fringe environmental systems to the new ELM system will be pretty complicated for most farmers. I am not really concerned whether private companies, the agencies or the Government themselves provide it. The amendment is designed to ensure that the Government take responsibility for that advice being there, because it will be a bumpy ride for a lot of farmers. There will be some failures and we need to ensure that those failures are not terminal—and that if necessary, that advice is backed by not only government support but government resources. I support Amendment 29.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, first, for the purposes of all of Report, I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner, as chair of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, and chair of the advisory board of the Government’s Global Food Security programme on research. In Amendment 29, we have the key to getting the whole new farming and environmental land management programme to work on the ground. It is exciting that we have a new approach to helping farmers produce our food and manage our countryside. But with some basic ELM schemes still being piloted, neither we nor even the Government know exactly where we are going.
The pilot stage of ELMS is, in a way, providing the Government with their own training. I hope they will learn from it, but one thing is certain: farmers and land managers will need all the help and training they can get if we are to make this new approach work on the ground. Because there is little time between now and the putting in place of thousands of ELMS contracts, we must get a training scheme in place as soon as possible—training a farmer not only in how he can best judge what he and his land can provide of value for the nation, but in how best to deliver that value. With proper training it will be better for farmers, better for our flora and fauna, better for visitors and above all, as others have said, better for the taxpayers, who might then get the best returns that their money can buy.
Farming is one of the most isolated jobs in the world. Farmers are not necessarily slow to change, but without some form of proper training scheme it will be hard for them to engage successfully with this brave new world. Without their successful engagement, not only will the brave new world not happen but farmers themselves will fail financially, in their droves.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. No? Then we will move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, during the dinner break, I went for a brief walk and reflected then on what feels like ancient history: my honours thesis in 1983, which was on abomasal bloat in goat kids. Your Lordships can be reassured that I am aware it is dinner time, so I will not venture further into that subject. However, one thing that emerged during that year, as I was completing that honours thesis, was that the work had received some modest support from a milk manufacturer. It had donated the supplies for the goat kids, and in return got an awful lot of free student labour and the imprimatur of a university using its product. Soon, however, we found that there was a conflict between the commercial interest of the manufacturer and that of the science. It was private profit versus public good.
My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and I have been reflecting on that again and again today. Relying on the market rather than public service’s guidance and rules has led us to the society and countryside we have today. The market will, and by law our commercial companies have to, maximise private profit. All too often, that is at the cost of public good.
A seed company, fertiliser or pesticide manufacturer, or tractor company will want to sell more of their products, but moving in the direction we are talking about—agroecology, agroforestry, looking after the land—often means reducing, and using fewer, inputs: for example, using a local tree nursery for hedges and fruits rather than a multinational seed company. Yet, so much of the advice and information that farmers have been forced to rely on over recent decades has come from those commercial sources, which do not want to head in the direction provided by this Bill. So, we have to provide an alternative source of advice.
If we look at the history of this—to where we went backwards and went wrong—we go back to 1996 and the debate in your Lordships’ House on the privatisation of ADAS. Lord Mackie of Benshie said then that charging for its services had led to less advice being requested, a shift towards commercial suppliers’ advice and a concern about how public opinion of farmers had declined. In Committee on this Bill, I put forward a modest little amendment, 234, suggesting that a service be established by means of which farmers could associate, lead research and work with the experts we have now.
I ask the Minister at some point to look back to that discussion. One interesting, original contribution came from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who developed this proposal into something like a NICE for farming. Where otherwise is the advice and support in this clause to come from? It is clear that we need a duty to provide that advice, as so many other noble Lords have said in this debate. Farmers cannot be left on their own in this fast-changing, uncertain situation. This is not just about the Agriculture Bill; so many other aspects of the world are changing—the climate emergency, for example, and different markets and economic situations. We need to develop the expertise; we need the Government to do this. I would argue that this amendment is a crucial step in that direction, and I commend it to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I supported the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the same amendment in Committee and I continue to support him. I will not repeat my previous remarks but emphasise that, without access to funding for advice, the take-up of the proposed environmental land management schemes will be more limited. I certainly agree with the interesting hypothecation idea of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood.
Farmers will be considering new ventures of which they may have no experience, so they need funding for advice. The average farmer is not a rich man; his success is likely to have come from concentrating on what he knows best. Our capricious climate has clearly demonstrated that sticking to what you do best is a sensible policy in farming. The farmer is therefore unlikely to rush into a new scheme without considerable thought and encouragement. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, he is also aware that under previous schemes, including BPS, the sanction regime has been tough. So, once again, he is unlikely to move swiftly into ELMS without a great deal of thought and advice.
I raised in Committee the issue of the digital divide, which was identified by the University of Sheffield and the Institute for Sustainable Food. For many in rural areas, access to good broadband may be limited. This, together with lack of time and, perhaps, age and social isolation, has made it difficult to follow developments on the ELM schemes. All this means that it is so important to provide financial advice to farmers for training and guidance so that they can be encouraged into ELMS on the basis of knowledge and confidence.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and his co-signatories on bringing this amendment forward. It is absolutely essential that farmers have the best advice available before they make a decision. I notice that the explanatory statement for the amendment given by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, refers to
“training, guidance and advice to be made available to persons receiving financial assistance.”
I make a plea to the Minister that this advice should be given before they even apply for financial assistance to enable them to decide how best to seek that financial assistance and to put it to good use.
I urge the Minister, when she sums up this debate, to agree to the sentiments behind the amendment and to consider who would best give such advice. Agriculture societies, such as the Yorkshire Agricultural Society, and many farming charities are very well placed to do so, in addition to many government bodies such as Natural England and others that the Minister might have in mind. I commend the amendment to the House.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I add my support for the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester on the provision of advice, training and guidance for those in receipt of financial assistance. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, made a good point about there being a kind of free application need as well.
As a nation, we are asking farmers and land managers to make big changes in the way they manage the land —to deliver not only productive and efficient farm businesses but a whole range of public goods as well. Therefore, good advice covering all those issues will be really important.
It was delightful to hear the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, reminisce about the demise of the publicly funded agricultural advisory system. It flourished after the war to get productivity up but got knocked on the head in the 1990s. Now, many farmers get advice solely from their commercial agronomists, which is altogether too narrow a focus. Advice and training will be particularly important for small farms.
I do not think that a publicly funded or publicly promoted advisory system needs to be top down and statist. Many noble Lords have made the point that local conditions are very important, and that is absolutely clear. We have experience in this country of a number of organisations that have set up county branches to give advice and support, and to bring together farmers around common issues on a local basis. I think that we could rapidly reinvent that. Therefore, the role of the Government needs to be to stump up some money and to give a modest amount of assurance on the quality of the advice being given. At the end of the day, farmers will take advice only from people whom they trust and feel comfortable with, so that has to be built into whatever system is introduced. It would also be beneficial to create some small local businesses in the advisory field to help boost the rural economy. There is a real role for government here.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is a very sensible amendment. In everything that we have debated in session after session, the scope of responsibility that we now see lying with farmers and their families has been emphasised. The significance of that cannot be underestimated. Therefore, we must ensure that, particularly with all the new requirements that we are properly asking of them, there is proper preparation.
I cannot help smiling when I think back to a time in the 1960s after my and my wife’s graduations—I was at the LSE and she was at Exeter; I am surprised that this is not mentioned more often. Through our marriage, we had a very good friend who was in what was called the agricultural advisory service. Back then, I thought what a sensible, practical service it was, and he was an enthusiastic professional working with it. He brought a lot more to it than just a professional background and skills; he brought a great deal of commitment and imagination, and he formed a real relationship with the farming community. Incidentally, he also told us a good deal about the realities of farming.
I congratulate my noble friend on having introduced the amendment. I am just very sad that, after all these years, we are reinventing the wheel.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
I, too, would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for moving this amendment. He and other noble Lords are surely right that it will be vital to have training and guidance available in this way. We have heard a great deal about the changes that may be coming down the track and, of course, the ELM schemes will mean a lot of change. It is important that those receiving financial assistance are assisted in delivering the purposes identified, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said.
There has been some discussion today about tenant farmers. We must look in particular at the smaller players in this regard; they are far less likely to be able to access advice, and this will be an important contribution to what they will be able to do and to ensure that they are indeed acting in the public interest. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, rightly points out that the average farmer is not well-off—he or she. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, put it, almost all the rules of engagement will have changed. Both the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out how farms and local circumstances already vary, and now we have massive change added on top.
There can be various sources for guidance, not least from our outstanding agricultural colleges, Natural England, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, whom I owe much for advice, and experienced farmers in a local area. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, rightly warns about taking advice from commercial sources with a vested interest, and we looked at that in detail when we looked at pesticides.
There will be a vital need for guidance from the Government because—as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said—they have a key responsibility here. ADAS did play an important role, as he said, whatever its shortcomings. We support this amendment and look forward to seeing what the Minister says in response.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their almost universal acknowledgement tonight of the importance of advice in a time of significant change to the industry. The rules of engagement have, indeed, changed fundamentally.
I reiterate the Government’s view that expert advice and guidance is critical to the successful delivery of future schemes. As currently drafted, the Bill already gives the Secretary of State the necessary powers to fund the provision of advice, guidance and other means of support to recipients of financial assistance under Clause 1. The Government certainly intend to use this ability; advice and guidance is one of the priority areas in the 40 live tests and trials that are feeding into this theme.
I will give some examples of how this could be done. For future tree health schemes, we are looking to refresh and improve our offer of plant health advice to ensure that land managers have the information they need to manage and respond to tree health issues. For animal welfare grants, these one-off payments could cover investment in equipment, infrastructure, technology and training. For animal health schemes, we are also looking at ways to increase advice given to farmers, both from vets and other agricultural advisors, to help them improve animal health. We also want to increase peer learning between farmers through, for example, facilitated farmer groups. The Government have also stated their intention to offer advice to those applying for productivity grants to help them decide which investments would achieve the greatest improvements in business performance.
In Committee, reference was made to the ongoing ELM scheme tests and trials. We are using these to identify the most effective means of providing advice and guidance to farmers and land managers, which will enable them to deliver on their funding agreements with confidence. Since then, the number of ELM tests and trials looking at the provision of advice and guidance has increased to 40, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to designing a scheme that works for farmers and land managers. Evidence shows that, for advice to be effective, it must be trusted, consistent, credible and cost effective. The Government are considering how these principles can be embedded into advice for all schemes and working with farmers and other land managers to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, asked specifically about the availability of training schemes. The ELM trials are exploring ways in which skills and qualifications for environmental land management can be improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, also asked how agricultural colleges could be drawn upon to provide advice and dispense information. The Government are supporting the work of the skills leadership group in exploring ways to address the fragmented nature of the existing skills, education and advice landscape. Representatives of the agricultural colleges have been involved in these conversations.
Defra is currently running a £1 million grant funding project to explore how it could provide resilience support to farmers and land managers in England to help them prepare for reductions in direct payments in the transition period. The project, which is targeting some 1,700 farmers and land managers, aims to identify how, where and when they may need to adapt their business models and resilience as a result. Evidence coming from this project will help inform the design of a national scheme, which is currently in development for launch in early 2022.
I was asked about the availability of broadband in some areas. We are connecting some of the hardest-to reach places in the country, including through the SFB programme and the £200 million rural gigabit connectivity programme. We have also announced £5 billion of funding to close the digital divide.
I hope that I have managed to give some reassurance that advice and guidance are already considered in the scheme design, that the Government are committed to their provision and that we have the powers we need to deliver in this area. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment, especially the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for their additional reasons for supporting this amendment. As everyone has expressed, this is a fundamental change to the rural landscape and agricultural industries support.
The possible lack of an impact assessment, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, could be identified as a challenge of detail for what may be required for the successful launch and promotion of this scheme not being fully appreciated. We would want the scheme to be a success.
The amendment is not prescriptive on how the Government may go ahead and deliver that advice. The Minister’s confidence need not be at the expense of caution. My noble friend Lord Whitty drew attention to the withdrawal of advice that, as I was reminded, has reduced the level of the UK’s agricultural productivity in comparison to other EU countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, emphasised the importance of training to achieve farmers’ engagement. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, reflected on the quality of advice that could come from more commercial sources, which could be a further challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned the digital divide. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, emphasised, if I am interpreting correctly, that advice must be part of participating in schemes. My noble friends Lady Young and Lord Judd also spoke of the importance of advice in expressing their support.
With all this support, I could be tempted to press this amendment. The Minister assures us that the Government have the power, under Clause 1, to provide advice. This intention should perhaps be promoted more clearly to the agricultural sector. I thank her for her remarks and wider explanations. However, in agreeing to withdraw this amendment, I call on the Government to keep it in mind as the Bill is returned to the other place for further consideration.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 31. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions and elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make this clear in debate.
Amendment 31
“( ) The Secretary of State must have regard to the current environmental improvement plan when setting out strategic priorities for giving financial assistance during the plan period.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to environmental improvement plans when planning the provision of financial assistance for agriculture.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 31 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the Government’s environmental improvement plan when setting out their strategic priorities for financial assistance in the multiannual plans.
This amendment tackles an issue raised in previous debates in your Lordships’ House—the lack of joined-up policy across the different initiatives before us. It was an issue in the Fisheries Bill, and there is a similar issue in this Bill. It was a failing identified by this year’s report of the Natural Capital Committee, which criticised the silo approach to policies being adopted by Defra. It is a failing identified by the Committee on Climate Change, which wrote to the Minister, Victoria Prentis, in June this year, urging the department to develop a joined-up approach, stating:
“Defra has yet to set out how ELM”—
environmental land management—
“the Environment Bill, the 25 Year Environment Plan and various policies planned for trees, peatlands and nature will fit together.”
It is also a failing underlined by the latest progress report on the 25-year environment plan, which showed, for example, no progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from natural resources such as agriculture and forestry.
This amendment would forge a critical link between the Agriculture Bill, the Environment Bill and the 25-year environment plan. It would ensure that we avoid the mistakes of the past, where the common agricultural policy made decisions on farming which bore no relationship to the EU’s environmental policy.
We accept that the Government’s current intention is to base the new ELM scheme on the 25-year environment plan. This point was made by the Minister in Committee when we tabled a similar amendment. But this Bill is for the long term, and policy priorities change. Equally, the 25-year environment plan is a long-term document. It would be all too easy for these documents to diverge over time. Without the clear link to the environment improvement plan set out on the face of the Bill, it would be entirely possible for a future Secretary of State to set out strategic priorities for financial assistance under this Bill that bear no relationship to the key environmental strategy set out elsewhere. The amendment seeks to fill that structural deficit. It would provide stability and reassurance for the long term, and policy direction to address the many criticisms of a lack of joined-up government on these issues.
We were disappointed that the Government did not hear the sense of our argument at Committee and come back with their own version of an amendment which would address our concerns. I ask the Minister specifically to give a commitment to come back at Third Reading with a government amendment on this issue. If the noble Baroness feels unable to do so, I give notice now that I am minded to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and to support this amendment. She set out the issues clearly, so I will be brief.
In Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has already mentioned, the Government sought to reassure noble Lords that they were committed to achieving their aim of leaving the environment in a better state than they found it and that the environmental improvement plans involved in this strategy would be covered in the Environment Bill. We were also told that the office for environmental protection will monitor progress and make recommendations to the Government for further action. We do not yet know what sort of teeth the OEP will have and whether or not the Government will follow its recommendations.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to have added my name to the amendment, which is now a cross-party amendment. While I will not repeat what other noble Lords have said, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on the state of nature, I will say that we have had another report only this week from the RSPB, which shows that over the last 10 years the Government have missed a number of key biodiversity targets.
We will turn our natural recovery around only by giving the right economic incentives to our farmers. I think the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was the first this evening to mention nature-friendly farming. We will not get the recovery we need for our nature unless we give the incentives to our farmers, who manage 69% of the land in our country. They are key to our nature recovery.
As it stands, the Bill gives the Secretary of State complete leeway between the allocations of funding for the different purposes in Clause 1 and Clause 2. Schemes with little environmental value might be supported; we could find that allocations are weighted towards productivity improvements or gobbled up by tier 1 options that add the least environmental value. We cannot afford to do that. We need to ensure that there is synergy between the Agriculture Bill and the Environment Bill. The Government’s own discussion paper on ELMS says that the outcomes in the 25-year environment plan are a key guide for this financial assistance. We need to turn that into a reality. The way to do that is to put this in the Bill.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I add my support to the thrust of this amendment, moved so excellently by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I support the idea that we need a joined-up approach to tackling environmental challenges. The aim of linking the Agriculture Bill, the Environment Bill and the 25-year environment plan by putting this into the Bill makes eminent sense, especially as I know that this Government are committed to real action and development on climate change and have already done significant amounts to make sure that this country is a world-leader in pushing forward with environmental protections and climate change planning.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure the House on this issue and, ideally, table the Government’s own proposals at the next stage, so that we are able to put this in the Bill. I know that we can be proud of the Government’s record on climate change and that there may well be significant desire to ensure that this is not a contentious issue and that there is cross-party support, as we have seen in the debates so far.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee. It is certainly a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch—I wholeheartedly endorse her views—and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
As a number of speakers have already said, we are seeking to bring about the most profound change in the way agriculture is managed and focused. If ever we had any doubt about the importance of the situation we are in, those who had the pleasure of watching the BBC’s programme on Saturday, hosted by David Attenborough, who talked about extinction in a calm, measured and scientific way, were shown beyond any doubt the challenges that we face. This amendment, bringing home to the Government the importance of linking the environmental challenge to the Agriculture Bill, is absolutely well-founded and I am only too happy to endorse it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I also declare my interest as a member of the EU Environment Sub-Committee. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on bringing forth this amendment. As its co-signatories and others who have supported the thrust of the amendment have said, it very clearly demonstrates the link between this Agriculture Bill, establishing public benefit and financial assistance for public goods, with the provisions of the Environment Bill.
I understand the difficulty the Minister is in, having listened very carefully to the words of our noble friend and colleague, the Minister who replied to an early debate, saying that he would love to give a date when the Environment Bill might be coming but was unable to do so. I hope my noble friend will look favourably on this amendment on equating the two Bills.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those occasions when we have to try to reference across from another piece of legislation to make a coherent whole. Environmental considerations are key if we are to achieve half of the accepted objective. That is where we are: it is accepted as something that has to happen. We have to combine the two. The entire political class agrees that, since there must be environmental improvement, they are going to have to work with sectors such as agriculture, and just about every other sector, in order to achieve that. Unless something like this is written down, we know that departments and groups of officials and Ministers will tend to go their own way. They are not good at paying attention to people you “should” talk to; they pay attention to people you “have to” talk to. I suggest that something like this would actually be a very good thing to have in the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I too support this amendment and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling it again. Farmers have absolutely no idea what the future holds and what ELMS will contain—and we have none either. We have a blank canvas as far as that is concerned. Even on the last amendment, on training, my noble friend on the Front Bench said, “We are doing schemes—we still do not really know what we are doing, but we are doing tests at the moment to see what the best way forward is”.
Having heard the debates earlier on Clause 1, and having had support across the House for nature-friendly farming, it would seem to me utterly logical to include an amendment such as this, so that any potential farmer who reads this Bill will see that there is an immediate link to the environment. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.
I would also point out that this amendment will not cost the taxpayer a penny. In that respect it is one of the great amendments: it merely links two bits of legislation, and in doing so might even save the taxpayer money, because farmers and land managers will have a much clearer idea of what they are supposed to be doing to try to achieve a better and healthier farming environment.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the value of the amendment is that it calls our bluff. The environment is something of which we are all in favour, like goodness and all the rest. But the question is: how do we turn our commitment in that sphere into action, and into substance? The amendment brings that home. We should not just get on with the task of agriculture and then add, “There’s an environmental concern, isn’t that nice?” We must relate the two, and this is the way to do it, so I am glad to support the amendment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, during the various debates on this Bill I have made the connection between it and the Environment Bill that is coming down the line. The environment improvement plans and the Government’s 25-year environment plan cannot be divorced from what is happening in the Bill that we are discussing. All speakers have supported the amendment, and have made very similar comments.
The Agriculture Bill provides for multi-annual financial assistance plans, including identification of strategic priorities for assistance, the regard to be had to these strategic priorities when setting the budget, and monitoring the impact of the financial assistance given. There is, however, currently no requirement to take the goals and ambitions of the 25-year environment plan and the Environment Bill into account when setting strategic objectives for financial assistance.
It would be possible for the Secretary of State to set these strategic priorities under the Agriculture Bill, and for that to have no relevance to the key environmental strategy that should be guiding all investment in the natural environment. This appears to be nonsense, and presents a risk to environmental recovery, since the financial assistance schemes created by the Bill, particularly the ELMS, will be one of the main mechanisms for funding and achieving the goals of the 25-year environment plan. The CAP similarly failed to make the structural link to wider objectives, which allowed it to undermine environmental ambitions. But moving away from the CAP presents a unique opportunity to rectify this failure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lady Parminter, along with noble Lord, Lord Krebs, have set out the case extremely clearly. Amendment 31 would give the Government a duty to consider the country’s environmental improvement plans when setting priorities for financial assistance schemes. This would ensure policy coherence. Environmental improvement plans will be created by the Environment Bill, and the first one will be the existing 25-year environment plan. But we do not yet have the Environment Bill.
The Government clearly intend to design the new environmental land management schemes, which are currently only in pilot stage, in such a way as to support delivery of the 25-year environment plan. However, over the years we have seen the failings of the CAP, highlighting the fact that good intentions do not always lead to the desired outcomes. How often that happens in life. I can hear my mother’s voice in my ear as I speak. Creating structural links between policy areas in law is not only important but vital, with the environment in its current state of catastrophic decline.
The Minister is aware of the concern on this issue, not only in this Chamber but in the whole country. I hope that he is in a position to give reassurance and commitments. If not, we will be supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and others in the Lobby.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
On Amendment 31, I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government will fully take into account the proposed steps and goals of environmental improvement plans, including the 25-year environment plan, when they determine the strategic priorities that will sit within the multiannual financial assistance plans, so the amendment is simply not necessary.
The Government are absolutely committed to achieving their aim of leaving the environment in a better state than when they found it. That is why they are seeking to legislate for environmental improvement plans in the Environment Bill that is currently in the other place in order to drive forward long-term improvements to our natural environment. The 25-year environment plan will be adopted as the first statutory environmental improvement plan and the Government expect it to set the benchmark for future EIPs.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked a characteristically cogent question about the lack of a proper system of measurement, as identified by the Natural Capital Committee. We are engaging with stakeholders, scientists, economists and environmentalists, including the Natural Capital Committee, to develop comprehensive indicators to measure progress towards the goals set out in the 25-year environment plan.
The planned introduction of the ELM scheme under Clause 1 of the Bill clearly demonstrates the Government’s commitment to look at wider environmental objectives when setting their strategic priorities for funding under their multiannual financial assistance plans. Indeed, the ELM scheme will be a key mechanism for delivering the environmental goal set out in the 25-year environment plan by providing farmers and other land managers with public money for the delivery of multiple public goods.
There are six key public goods that the ELM will help to deliver that correspond directly with goals set out in the 25-year environment plan: namely, clean air, clean and plentiful water, thriving plants and wildlife, a reduction in and protection from environmental hazards, mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, beauty, heritage and engagement with the environment. Defra’s ELM team is currently working on understanding the full range of actions that the scheme could pay for in order to deliver across all the goals in the 25-year environment plan.
Should there be any changes to the plan or a future environmental improvement plan, the Government will review the ELM scheme to ensure that the public goods that it is funding remain in line with delivering the priority goals and commitments that the Government have set out in the plan. The Government will be publicly accountable for the delivery of the strategic priorities in both its multiannual financial assistance plan and the environmental improvement plans. This House will of course have the opportunity to scrutinise the drafting of provisions for the environmental improvement plans when the Environment Bill reaches this House.
I had hoped that with this reassurance I would be able to persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to withdraw her amendment. However, I cannot make the commitment that she seeks to table a government amendment at Third Reading.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have added their support today. As the evening gets later, we seem to be finding more and more consensus around the Chamber, which is very welcome.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who rightly reminded us that, as the Natural Capital Committee flagged up, proper systems of measurement are absolutely crucial in terms of the future of environment plans and the crossover with our agricultural activities. We have to have proper measuring systems to measure outcomes and to measure success, but at the moment those links are not obviously made through legislation.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for reminding us of the State of Nature report and the RSPB report. They make very depressing reading but show the scale of the task ahead and why the sorts of measures that are in our amendment are so important.
I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. He is absolutely right that we do not know what the future holds, but we need to get farmers more guarantees and security for the future, and that is why we are attempting to build in those long-term connections. I am also grateful to him for pointing out that the amendment would not cost the Government anything; indeed, there is a very strong case for saying that the integrated policies that we are suggesting should be introduced might actually save the Government money. That should be a welcome outcome.
I say to the Minister that the Government can make commitments but, as noble Lords have often been reminded on other occasions and in other debates, the Government cannot commit future Governments. We are trying to build in a long-term connection between these two separate arms of Defra’s activity. Yes, I absolutely agree that ELMS will be a crucial part of delivering the 25-year environment plan, which is why it is important that that is in the Bill and that it has long-term resonance to it. The Minister was right to anticipate that I would not be happy with her response. I am sorry to say that I am not. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(a) in the case of the first plan, as soon as practicable before the beginning of the plan period for the plan, and(b) in the case of a subsequent plan, at least 12 months before the beginning of the plan period for the plan.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the first multiannual financial assistance plan under Clause 4 must be published as soon as practicable before the beginning of the applicable plan period, and that any subsequent plan must be published at least 12 months before such time.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 36. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover of the amendment and the Minister may only speak once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 8: The agricultural transition period for England and the termination of relevant payments
Amendment 36
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will move the start of the seven-year transition away from direct payments from 2021 to 2022.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move and speak to Amendment 36. This group of amendments covers a range of activities relating to the transition period. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for their support in co-signing the amendment. The attraction of Amendment 36 is its clarity and straightforwardness: it calls for a simple deferral of commencement, moving the start of the seven-year transition period away from direct payments from 2021 to 2022.
Why is this necessary, given that the House has just agreed to government Amendment 35? I listened carefully to what the Minister said. He was clear that he could not give a precise date when the Environment Bill will reach this House—that is obviously not within his control, so I am grateful to him for that—and the department is keen to make progress. However, we owe farmers and other land managers a degree of certainty as they prepare for the biggest change in nigh on 50 years in farm support and agricultural policy.
I was disappointed that the Minister was unable to give a specific date, much as he would wish to, for the business plan setting out spending for the initial five-year period. We heard only that it will be published in the autumn. The autumn finishes on 30 November but potentially could run until 21 December. That could be after both Houses have risen—if we do rise—for the Christmas recess. That is very disappointing, although I know the Minister couched his remarks by saying he would like to see the spending and financial plan in place as soon as possible.
The difficulty I—and, I think, other signatories to this amendment—have is that I do not see any logic at all in why, for subsequent plans, a period of at least 12 months before the beginning of the plan period should take effect. My humble submission to the House this evening is that it is even more important for the Government to set out in their initial spending plan what the consequences for farmers will be. We are asking farmers, land managers, growers and others—I know my noble friend Lord Naseby takes great interest in horticulture—to take decisions for the forthcoming year without any of us knowing in any great detail what the terms of this financial assistance plan under Clause 4 will be. My noble friend helpfully points out in the explanatory statement to government Amendment 35 that
“the first multiannual financial assistance plan under Clause 4 must be published as soon as practicable before the beginning of the applicable plan period”,
but, as I have said, only subsequent plans would need 12 months’ notice.
I humbly submit that it is incumbent on the Government to bring forward this first plan, which—if my understanding is correct—will last for the whole transition period. I am not asking for the transition period to be reduced, as others have done. That would be quite wrong. We owe it to farmers, growers and others to have seven years to prepare, but for the life of me I simply cannot understand why we are not having a 12-month period and a delay. I therefore urge the House to look favourably on this simple delay of one year so that we all benefit from the results of the pilot schemes and the ELMS projects. I see newspaper reports that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, has been to visit local farms in his constituency in North Yorkshire, but other than the farmers themselves—and Defra, presumably—none of us has any detail whatever.
I shall listen carefully to what support there is for this amendment in the course of the debate on this group. I seek greater clarification from my noble friend the Minister. I would like to know why there is not a 12-month lead-in to this crucial first business plan and why we are not seeing the results of the trials. I express my concern at how little knowledge there is at grass-roots level about how any plan will affect decisions that, frankly, are being made as we speak. I beg to move.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as farmer, landowner and a recipient of BPS payments and their predecessors for many years. I will speak to Amendment 37, to which the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has kindly attached his name, and Amendment 40, to address the problem of the likely payment gap that will affect farmers as the direct payments are reduced in 2021, while the revenues from joining any new environmental land management scheme will not arrive until 2024.
I covered this in some detail in Committee and will not repeat that speech. However, the subsequent response from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and his office, together with the progress made on issues I identified at that time, has not made me rest any easier—indeed, the reverse, which is the reason this amendment has been tabled on Report.
First, we have no information on the cuts to BPS after 2021. Although promised for the autumn—which has arrived, of course—it might well be delayed until after the Bill comes into effect.
Secondly, we still have no real details on ELMS that would enable even elementary planning. Instead, during July Defra organised webinars for farmers to introduce ELMS. These were excellent and slick presentations of the concept but, when it came to the Q&A session with farmers afterwards, there were no answers to be had.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 36 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I am also a signatory. I also support Amendment 41, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has clearly articulated the purpose of Amendment 36. It is important that the Government provide a degree of certainty for farmers in relation to the new environmental land management schemes. We are simply asking for a deferral of the commencement date from 2021 to 2022.
As we all know, there is not a lot of detail yet on the ELMS pilots. It is generally felt that it is too soon to switch to this new scheme in 2021, without that background and concrete detail. While we wish to keep the seven years, we are asking for a deferral of one year for the commencement.
I feel that government Amendment 35, moved formally by the Minister, does not go far enough. We do not have enough information on how it will operate, or what the plan is for the next year. Therefore, I am very happy to support Amendment 36, because it provides that necessary deferral for a year to allow the plans to be worked up, to collect the statistical evidence from the ELMS pilots and to provide that much-needed certainty to farmers who are faced with a whole new funding framework after some 50 years. There is a whole new generation of farmers who never knew anything but the European framework that has been with us for such a long time.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I can be brief. Amendment 36 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, may appear very minor, but when you consider that we are in the last third of this year and that this is first day of the Report stage of the Bill, there is very little time left before the seven-year transition period is due to begin.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, both laid out the uncertainties facing landowners and farmers, not least until greater details of ELMS are clear. The Bill is going to make a huge change to both farmers and landowners, and it is much better that we take them with us. Indeed, I think it is only fair that we give them time to make the necessary adjustments, as there are still so many details to be worked out and the implications of the Bill are so significant. I hope the Minister will find a way that we can adopt this proposal.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am concerned that the mistreatment of and disrespect for farmers under the Bill is continuing. I speak to Amendment 36 and to support Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and Amendment 41.
The 2022 harvest season has begun. Crops are being sown right now that are due to be harvested next year, and farmers just do not know what rules they will be harvested under. With respect to Amendment 29, the Government accepted that expert advice and guidance is a priority for these farmers, but there is nothing to advise and guide them on—they simply do not know what the rules are going to be. Similarly, in proposing Amendment 35, the Government have accepted that the minimum reasonable period is 12 months, but they are not giving the farmer those 12 months.
There were very reasonable objections raised, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that we do not want to delay the environmental achievements due to be delivered by ELMS. I agree; we do not want undue delay. However, it would be an environmental disaster to proceed with the transition period that will be stillborn at birth.
No farmers are going to adopt this if they do not know what it is or how it is going to work, so it will be useless from the outset. We need to take time; the Government need to get responses to their tests and trials and work out what they are going to do. Rushing this legislation and rushing the transition period into being is not going to deliver any benefit to farmers, the environment or the public.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as recorded in the register. I fully support and I am very happy to attach my name to Amendment 37 in the name of my noble friend Lord Carrington. I am delighted to support him in this debate.
I am very concerned indeed about the gap in support as the current basic payment scheme is unwound and access to the new ELM scheme becomes available as planned in 2024. As I chat to farming friends, it is very clear that they remain completely in the dark and unclear on what lies ahead, as has been stated many times in this debate—and just now by the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
Smooth transition should be a priority to ensure that we unlock the huge benefits that the new policy is capable of delivering. Farmers have been supported by the CAP, with all its weaknesses, for decades, and are familiar with the systems involved, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, just mentioned. As we know, many, particularly those in livestock areas in the uplands, are currently very dependent on that support. To move at pace from where we are today to a satisfactory destination at the end of the transitional period when we have no information on the steps that are being considered by government is not only very worrying to farmers but a massive risk. Time is not on our side, as I stated in Committee. ELMS pilots are just under way and meaningful conclusions will take a couple of years or more to interpret. There will be only three years from the time the Bill becomes law to draw conclusions from the pilots and then launch the ELM scheme to the entire farming sector. There is at present no way that farmers can prepare for this change, because no information is available.
This change in policy is a unique opportunity to facilitate restructuring of the agricultural sector, but it cannot be rushed. It is reassuring that the Minister recognises that there is a gap and in an earlier debate outlined the various options that will be available to farmers from next year: new stewardship schemes, productivity grants, et cetera, to help with the transition. However, if he will forgive me, it all sounds rather last minute, a bit hasty, and an attempt to plug the gap to be seen to be doing something. I do not want to appear cynical but I am concerned that this will suck out capacity from the department and its agencies—capacity that should be devoted to developing the ELM scheme and assisting farmers with transition. It is regrettable that so far we have information only on the deduction from the BPS for the first year of transition. This amendment is important in that it is designed to smooth the process; to limit the dismantling of support from the BPS to a reduction in total of 25% until the ELM scheme is available is a sensible approach.
I restate what I said in Committee—that I
“genuinely believe that we can lead the world in delivering a wide range of crucial outcomes from the management of the countryside, provided that the policy is well designed and land managers”
have access to the advice recommended in an earlier debate and time to adapt. It would
“be a disaster if such an important change in policy was rushed through and we failed to engage appropriately”.—[Official Report, 21/7/20; col. 2070.]
In response to the eloquent comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I say that the outcomes that he and we all desire will best be delivered through a well- managed transitional process. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the department will adopt the timetable proposed in this amendment.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my agricultural interests as detailed in the register. I am speaking to two amendments in my name, both of which received support from across the House in Committee, and both of which relate to the period before the introduction of the environmental land management schemes.
The first is Amendment 38. I have never been a particular proponent of organic farming, but we should all be worried that the area of land farmed organically in the United Kingdom is down by over one-third in the last 10 years. In this same period, it is up by two-thirds or more in most other European countries. Our performance in this respect puts us in the same league as countries such as Bangladesh, Mali, Saudi Arabia and Syria, to mention just a few. Only 2.7% of our land is farmed organically. Surely a Government who are committed to improving the environment should be prepared to expend taxpayers’ money to encourage farmers to convert to organic systems.
Baroness Rock (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Wrackleford Farms Ltd, a tenant farming enterprise. I shall speak to Amendment 42. The amendment, supported by the NFU, would ensure that farmers entitled to payments receive those payments within guaranteed timescales to help ensure certainty of cash flow. I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for his support.
I said in Committee that any farmer will tell you that cash flow is their number one consideration. As a farmer, it is one thing to know that financial support will be reduced, but quite a different thing to know when that financial support will be received. Regulations relating to the phasing out of BPS therefore need to include clarity on when a farmer will receive payments.
While it is true that the existing payment windows will come over under retained EU legislation, Clause 9 gives the Secretary of State the right to modify the BPS legislation, including potentially by removing the payment window in place at present. We cannot have a situation where no payment window is set.
Furthermore, it is arguably the case that the current payment window under the CAP rules provides little recourse to farmers if the RPA fails to meet its payment obligations. This leaves farmers waiting an unsatisfactory length of time and in great uncertainty as to when payments will be made. The impact of these delayed payments cannot be overestimated. There is the financial impact: greater borrowing costs, lost business opportunities and less attractive prices for farm produce or inputs. But it also has a substantial impact on the well-being of farmers, their families and their relationships with their farm suppliers, which—importantly—filter down through the wider rural economy.
The payment window for direct payments is seven months: 1 December to 30 June of the following calendar year. Current rules state that payments have to be made only to the value of 95.24% of funds by that time. We all know that farming revenue and costs are both volatile; nothing remains the same month to month or year to year. The overwhelming message from farmers is that they need certainty over the timing of payments.
There need to be payment windows—or dates that Defra has to meet—either fixed in schemes or set out in individual agreements. This will allow holders of agri-environmental schemes to plan with great certainty and to manage their cash flow. It is not acceptable to ask farmers to undertake work at their own cost and to comply with associated strict time limits but then provide them with no certainty on payments associated with those works.
The government department BEIS has a prompt-payment policy that requires payments within a certain number of days: 30. I would welcome a similarly prompt-payment policy approach for agricultural schemes with guaranteed timescales. I hope the Minister will provide reassurance on this matter.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, while I thoroughly support the aims of this Bill and the direction in which the Government are taking us, I have to say that I get more and more concerned as we delve into the detail of the Bill and the experts who are farmers—such as the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Carrington, my noble friend Lady Rock and others—expose the concerns that farmers face. It is for that reason that I support many of these amendments.
I tried to put my name to Amendment 36 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, but there was already a full house of supporters. However, I supported this amendment in Committee and would do so again now. The argument is very compelling that the pilot schemes have only just started and it is going to take a long time for them to report and for the department to go through them, gestate them and work out what the future is. There would be very little time for the farmers to implement the results. Therefore, putting the whole thing back by a year would be a sensible, pragmatic and welcome solution to one of the many problems that the farmers face.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made some very good points when he moved Amendment 37, which also deserves support. On the points made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on Amendment 38, I reiterate that you do not have to be an organic farmer to protect the environment. You can farm in a perfectly normal way and bolster it. My main concern is Amendment 42, to which I have put my name and which has just been so well introduced by my noble friend Lady Rock.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, put it very succinctly when he spoke of sucking out the good of the department—I think those were his words. My concern is that as we move to ELMS, inevitably the department will move the good people into the new scheme and the less good people will remain with the old scheme. I hate to categorise the department in that way because all the members of Defra are good, but inevitably the really bright ones will be with the more attractive new scheme, and as the old scheme runs out, there will be an inevitable tendency for it not to receive the same attention that it gets now.
My noble friend Lady Rock was absolutely right to say that the one thing farmers need is certainty. As that support is reduced, so it is imperative that the payments are made promptly and on time. What recourse does a farmer have if he or she is made bankrupt because the Government, using taxpayers’ money, do not pay as they should? The area of financial support is hugely concerning and we must get it right. As the Bill stands, I am not convinced that we have got it right, which is why I support Amendments 36 and 42.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I call this group of amendments “Mind the Gap”, as I did in Committee—although I note that others have called it “The Valley of Death”.
The Minister has shown some flexibility over Clause 4, on the multiannual plans. He has listened well to the views of this House and adapted the Government’s position on Clause 17, on reports to Parliament on food security, but it seems strange that here, where there is every excuse in the world for delay, there has been no shift in the Government’s position—as yet. I am always hopeful.
It is a good two years since this Bill was first published, and since then there have been numerous delays in the implementation of what I have already called the “brave new world” of ELMS. The long, drawn-out shenanigans over Brexit froze everything in its tracks for a good 18 months, with this Bill being withdrawn from its parliamentary passage more than once during that time. Then of course there was this year’s lockdown, which paralysed the system and slowed everything up even more.
Above all, since my first meeting with the ELMS team at Defra early last year, there has been a gradual realisation that the introduction of ELMS is not going to be quite so simple as was first thought. We now know that it will take several years to get ELM schemes up and running across all the country, yet in the Government’s transitional timings there appears to be no allowance for the fact that the brave new world will not be a firm reality until 2024 at the earliest.
All the farmers that I have spoken to are very worried about their future. How are they going to survive, when no one really knows how things are going to work in future? Even the Government do not yet know, and yet, in spite of all the delays—mostly not the fault of Defra, as I said—we still seem to be stuck with the 2021 start of the transition period. This cannot be right. With the rug of the old world being pulled out from under them, and the new rug unlikely to arrive for some time, more farmers than necessary are going to fall down that gap.
So Defra has every reason to take this one back and think again. I do not care how it does it, but we need something to close the horrible gap that is looming. Amendment 37 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Curry, gives everyone the best chance of survival, while giving the Government the greatest room for manoeuvre. A 25% cut in the single farm payment will be enough of a shock to force farmers to throw themselves into the new training for the brave new world that we are assured will be available, but it will not be so much of a shock that they drown before they get there.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on why I cannot support Amendment 36 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Leaving the EU, and now dealing with the pandemic, has led to farmers feeling that they are in a more uncertain place than ever before. They are under pressure to feed the nation now more than ever. Therefore, support to them is vitally important, and introducing new schemes that reward farmers for producing that which they do best should not be delayed.
The present system will be simplified. It was in Committee that we heard that Defra is on track and organised for implementation for 2021, and, even more importantly, that the money is in the piggy bank and oven-ready to go to those who will benefit most from the payments. New and existing countryside stewardship agreements can still be applied for up to 2023. Delay appears unnecessary and possibly harmful, and instead of bringing certainty, allows for another year of possible uncertainty. The farmers where I live appear content with the 2021 start.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I hope that the Minister will resist Amendment 36, which would delay the start of the agricultural transition. Climate change and the biodiversity challenge are urgent, and we need to provide the financial support and the advice and guidance as soon as possible to equip farmers and land managers to tackle these challenges.
On Amendment 38, in his name, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, admitted that he was not a great fan of organic farming in the past. I have not exactly waved a flag for it either—but he, like me, is concerned about the decline in the area of land farmed organically in the UK compared with most other developed countries. Organic production accounts for only about 2.5% of agricultural land in the UK; the EU average is 7.5%, and Austria has a whacking great 24%. Yet the UK organic market is growing like a mushroom—far faster—and we are sucking in imports as a result. UK farmers are basically missing out on the growth in the organic market.
The public benefits of organic production are well attested in things like biodiversity, environmental performance and animal welfare, so growth in the organic acreage would be a good thing. What is needed is not only support for the organic transition to be enhanced into the future; it needs to be coupled with the provision of advice. It is a big step change for farmers and to do the transition well they need support. There used to be something called the Organic Conversion Information Service, but support for peer-to-peer learning would be a help.
We also need to see help with ongoing market development, as other countries have done. Using public procurement to increase the amount of organic food consumed in public settings would be an excellent thing. Copenhagen, for example, can now boast of over 80% of food consumed in public settings being organic. What support can the Minister give to organic growth?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
I support Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. There is really no doubt that UK performance in the area of organic conversion has been astonishingly poor, and we have not seen a will or determination from the Government to make the progress that we might have hoped for in the past but can now hope for in the future. This amendment is a very modest step in that direction.
We can only look with envy at what is happening across the channel. The EU’s farm to fork strategy aims to see a 50% reduction in the use of pesticides by 2030 and a 50% reduction in the use of antimicrobials for farmed animals and aquaculture, as well as 25% of farmland being used for organic farming—roughly 10 times as much as we have now—by 2030. We are being horribly left behind. We look at countries around the EU and see that Austria is already at 24% and Italy at 15%.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, one of the things our failure to support this conversion means is that we are seeing more imported food. It is often food of higher value and it is being denied to our farmers—that is, farmers do not have access to that market because they are not growing organic food.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that other forms of farming can be environmentally friendly and sensitive. I would certainly say that of course you do not have to be organically certified to be environmentally sensitive, but this is the only system of registration, recognition and guidance that we have for agroecology. Organic systems by definition are agroecological. Anything else is just making a claim or suggesting that it is happening. Many of us probably feel we know it when we see it when we walk into a field, but that is not the same as something that immediately pushes in that direction.
I encourage the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, to consider pushing this issue forward if we do not hear a satisfactory answer from the Minister. We need to take at least this modest step forward.
I also want briefly to express support for Amendment 42. We know that farmers, like many other small and medium-sized enterprises, can have huge problems with payments from the large companies they supply, such as multinational manufacturers and supermarkets, but they really should not be waiting for payment from the Government; they should be able to rely on that.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the proposed legislation will inevitably cause a great deal of extra work for not only Whitehall but many farmers on the front line. They have a lot of burden and a lot of challenges; their time is scarce.
In recent years, but particularly in the context of Covid-19, we have seen the consequences of ill planning, of the rushed implementation of new measures and of promises unfulfilled, including the consequent maximum disruption. Rationalisations after the event are no substitute for all the promises at the beginning. For those reasons, there must be time for civil servants and others, and particularly farmers themselves, to prepare properly. In that context, the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has insight and sensitivity and realises the practicalities of what is involved.
When it comes to Amendment 41, in the name of my noble friend, the same arguments that I have just applied are highly relevant. What is important about this amendment is that it sets out in detail the things that must be in place and tested. That means not just uttering words off the back of an envelope or making a press statement from No. 10 Downing Street, but ensuring that these things are tested and proven. At stake is the success of the new arrangements. That will be very important, as we do not want disruption of agriculture and total chaos for farmers. From that standpoint, I believe that Parliament has an overriding duty to make sure that it is convinced about what is proposed and that we are able to vet it and give, or withhold, our approval. This is an important amendment and I am glad to be able to support it.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a landowner, an arable farmer and a recipient of payments from the BPS and its predecessor schemes. I will be brief, as the arguments have been well rehearsed on most of the amendments, which I support.
I support the reasons given by my noble friend Lady McIntosh for seeking to delay the start of the seven-year transition rule, having heard her concerns about farmers not knowing about the first plan, mentioned in Amendment 35, until after the Bill has become law.
I also support Amendment 37, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his well-judged comments on the countryside stewardship and production grants. This amendment seems entirely sensible, in that it would stop any further reduction beyond 25% until the ELMS was available.
I also back Amendment 39, tabled by my noble friend the Duke of Wellington, the aim of which is to support small hill farmers. I wonder whether he might consider extending it to small lowland livestock farmers.
I am also sympathetic to Amendment 42, tabled by my noble friend Lady Rock. I would just like to say how good the RPA’s performance has been in recent years, and I am sure that that will be extended to the new regime.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, listening to this debate, it is quite clear that the one thing not available here is any degree of certainty or confidence regarding the future. My name appears on Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I do not know whether he saw it, as I added it at the last moment, but it is there. For me, this amendment offers the preferred option in providing a degree of certainty. A year’s trial is probably the option that I like best. However, I am not a farmer and am not in the system.
I hope that when the Minister responds he will try to address some of the many concerns that have been expressed. The central theme running through them is that people are worried about the change and the transition. When there is that degree of concern running through a system and people feel that they cannot buy into it because they are uncertain, I suggest that something has gone fundamentally wrong. Without a degree of buy-in, it will not work.
I have already said today that the Minister is facing a challenge, but I believe that he is facing a slightly bigger one here. People in and around this industry really need to know what is going on. We have also heard people say that they do not want delays because of other schemes coming in, but if the fundamental group—the farmers—are concerned, we need something that gives them a solid basis for confidence. At the moment, it just is not there.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, a transition period of seven years is quite a long period in which to phase out old policies under the CAP and bring in new policies under the Agriculture Bill. The transition is currently planned to begin in 2021, and it will be vital for Defra to put in place the necessary support to enable a stable and just transition for the farming community. There is currently much unease in this community about just how it will be affected in the future—a point made by many noble Lords.
Farming is not something that can be changed overnight. Time is needed to adjust farming plans and to secure the necessary capital investment to make some of the changes required. A key part will be support for business advice and skills training, time-limited support for capital investment to improve productivity sustainably, and wider improvements to connectivity in rural areas, such as rural broadband.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, the lead amendment in this group, Amendment 36, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others was subject to much debate in Committee. There were many alternative proposals for the transition period between the present system and the full implementation of ELMS being separated from landholdings. This amendment would delay its start for one year. I thank her for her amendment, as she has foreshadowed many of my remarks.
I will speak to my Amendment 41 in this group. However, before I do so I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Curry of Kirkharle, for their Amendment 37. Further amendments to it have been tabled, in Amendments 38 and 39 by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and Amendment 40 by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
I understand the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his anxieties concerning cuts in direct payments. I appreciate the emphasis given by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, to the organic sector by doubling conversion payments, and to the hill-farming sector in the less favoured areas by freezing their reductions below £30,000 per hill farm.
Amendment 40 specifies that the regulations in this amended clause are subject to the affirmative procedure. However, we could not consider supporting these amendments without extensive further information being available to apprise us of their merits.
I would also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for her amendment concerning the importance of cash flow and grants to the viability of farming businesses in today’s increasingly volatile business circumstances.
However, I propose an alternative approach to these amendments. Amendment 41 disapplies Clause 8. In Committee, amendments around a transition period and the multiannual plans were spread between groupings. This has been reflected today with the consideration of Amendment 32 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and Amendment 33 from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, being in a previous group. This has meant that the debate has been at cross-purposes with Amendment 41, as these other amendments concern the length of multiannual plans only. However, I recognise that multiannual plans were subject to extensive consultation in the 2018 Bill and set for seven years in conclusion then. This has possibly overshadowed the merits of my Amendment 41. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for adding his name to this amendment and for his recent remarks. I also thank my noble friend Lord Judd for his remarks in support.
How the changes to the ELM system and the nature of each seven-year period between plans and a transition period interact can indeed be very confusing. This is why I have tabled my Committee amendment with a few changes. Having reflected on the debate, as well as on evidence both formal and anecdotal from recent trials and pilot schemes, we have revised our approach in a fair, common-sense way that is also flexible to circumstances. This is because so much is unknown and the results of any trials have yet to be considered. This appears to be recognised to some extent by the Government’s own Amendment 35.
Amendment 41 removes from the Bill the previous start date of the transition period and gives the Government a degree of flexibility by having a start date set in regulations. There is no need for the Government to define a start date in primary legislation which they could later regret, and which would set the legislation off into a period of uncertainty should ELMS not be adequately ready for implementation—as their Amendment 35 partially recognises. The amendment states that the start date would be set once the Government have confirmed that any scheme to operate in the first year of the transition was fully operable.
Everyone can agree that it is important to get started on the transition phase, but so much preparatory work is yet to be done. There is anxiety already that countryside stewardship schemes starting in 2021 can be withdrawn, yet schemes started this year, in 2020, cannot be withdrawn without penalty. There are also very considerable concerns being highlighted and heightened in relation to Covid-19 and the potential onset of any phase 2 consequences this winter.
I highlight that Defra’s plans are themselves being reconsidered in relation to the transition period. I understand that the department is now planning a new interim or stepping-stone scheme to bridge the gap that may appear between the BPS and the ELM scheme. The sustainable farming incentive, or SFI, will bring in limited elements of ELM tier 1, while avoiding the funding gap that will arise from the Government’s ill-considered cutbacks before full schemes are available. This is some- thing we drew attention to as early as Second Reading.
I understand that claimants are expected by Defra to have lost half of their payments by 2024, when full pilot schemes are expected to be rolled out. Can the Minister be transparent on this new scheme and the amount of cutbacks being envisaged? It is important to the credibility of the Government’s plans, so forcibly expressed by the Minister.
Is this SFI scheme under serious consideration, and where will the funding come from if funding cuts to BPS are to finance ELMS, as repeatedly expressed? Will the Countryside Stewardship entrants be excluded once again, as already mentioned? Surely Amendment 41 is preferable to the uncertainty, complexity and confusion that will arise if these reports are confirmed. I understand that the announcement is held up with the Treasury’s comprehensive spending review. It would be more than unfortunate if the Minister could not be forthcoming tonight when the House is considering this Bill.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I will be the first to say, coming from a farming background and being a farmer myself, that I know that change can present these great concerns, and that is why the Government are clear that they want to work with farmers to ensure we get the schemes right. I think we are doing that properly, and I would like to explain why.
On Amendment 36, with which I will also address Amendments 37, 39, 40 and 41, the Government are committed to introducing new schemes that will reward farmers for producing goods that are valued by the public. Our planned reductions for 2021 are intended to send a clear signal of reform. It is important that farmers have certainty about when the agricultural transition will begin. There may be some in this House who do not agree with this. But many people, including those in the farming community, will feel that direct payments are poorly targeted and offer poor value for money. This is something that I have been very seized of, as have many of us farmers who seek to farm well and look after our land. This is a conclusion we all have to draw from the current regime. Therefore, applying appropriate progressive reductions to these payments will free up money that can be used to support farmers better—I repeat, “to support farmers better”—and deliver public goods.
We believe it is important that this process is not delayed. The Government are on track to introduce new schemes from 2021 while continuing to fund new and existing Countryside Stewardship agreements which farmers can apply for until 2023. Signing a Countryside Stewardship agreement gives a viable, long-term source of income for providing environmental benefits. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and other noble Lords that no one in a Countryside Stewardship agreement will be unfairly disadvantaged when they move to new arrangements under ELM. I should also say to the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that the Countryside Stewardship scheme includes a specific uplands wildlife offer.
We will also provide productivity grants to farmers for investments in equipment, technology and infrastructure, which will help their businesses to prosper while improving their productivity and enhancing the environment. These grants will be available from 2021. In addition, the national pilot of the future ELM scheme will also begin in 2021 and will be funded from the reductions in direct payments. The national pilot will be informed by the engagement with farmers, land managers and other stakeholders which is already well under way, including tests and trials.
I have to say again that I think we may sometimes be attending different webinars or whatever, because the impression I have been given is that many farmers have found it stimulating, particularly the younger ones, who have found talking about such matters, and the innovation of the new way forward, refreshing. As I have said before, they will be able to look the taxpayer in the eye and show that we are producing better for the public and better for farmers.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am disappointed, unless I have misunderstood, that my noble friend did not reply to the basic question of why we cannot have a 12-month notification of the first plan. I am no farmer myself—the closest I got was having two fields on which we claimed a tiny amount, which I have now left my brother to get on with.
I understand that, according to the Companion, I can take this opportunity to put another question to the Minister. The Government have spoken about easing access: how do they imagine easing access to the existing countryside stewardship scheme and new measures to assist improvements in productivity through the transition period? That would go some way to allaying the fears. I have to say that this is a key concern of both the Tenant Farmers Association and the NFU in the briefings I have had from them. Obviously, they represent the lion’s share of farmers.
The Government have talked about a new interim scheme, called the sustainable farming initiative, but surely this would just add to the complexity of an already busy policy space, particularly when existing schemes are available and just need to be improved. Might not such a sustainable farming initiative take Defra’s eye off the ball in properly developing what we all want to see—a good ELM scheme? Will my noble friend reply to that and to my original question as to why we are not having 12 months’ notice of the original business plan?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I think I have been very clear that we will be announcing the funding for the early years of the agricultural transition period, including direct payments, later in the autumn—I hope as soon as possible. I cannot say any more than that. As I said, that announcement will provide much of the reassurance that I suspect noble Lords and farmers are looking for about those early years. I have set out the maximum reductions for 2021. Those are all designed, as I said, to enable the Government, at the beginning of the transition and the reforms, to provide extra countryside stewardship agreements and productivity grants to farmers, which I think will be very desirable to start next year, and the national pilot for the future ELM schemes.
All this is designed to combine all that we want to do in enhancing food production and the environment. It is sensible to start these schemes next year, and the resources, through the reductions, will be there to work on this. It is a seven-year transition and the Government are very mindful of the manifesto pledges about the resources that will be available to this agricultural budget. We intend to support and work with farmers to make a better scheme, with a public return for it. I do not think there is much more I can say to my noble friend, other than that this Government have shown by our commitments to funding that we are four-square behind the farmer, but I say candidly that the current system is poor value for money.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, wishes to ask a short question for elucidation.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the House for asking the Minister a follow-up question. I listened carefully to his remarks but, by the time the communication channels had reached the Deputy Speaker, she had already intimated to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that she could have her consideration of the amendments. I had not heard any reference in the Minister’s remarks to the sustainable farming incentive, but the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, repeated that question to him. I understand now and am very grateful to him for the fullness of the reply that he can give tonight.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I have been very clear that the Government are bringing forward schemes of a countryside and environmental aspect, which will be funded through reductions in the direct payments. This is what we want: to start sustainable environmental and countryside stewardship schemes. This is all about what we want to do with farmers, as part of a major plank of this legislation. I am beginning to wonder whether it is me or whether noble Lords do not want to press the receive button for what I am seeking to say.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have to express disappointment that I have not received the assurances I sought, but I do not wish to test the opinion of the House. I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Carrington
“(1A) Where any business is in receipt of direct payments under the basic payment scheme, any financial assistance from the Secretary of State may not be reduced by more than 25% of the specified amount in subsection (1B) prior to a scheme providing financial assistance under section 1(1) being introduced.(1B) The specified amount is an amount to be determined by the Secretary of State by regulations, and may be based on—(a) the amount a business received under the basic payment scheme for a specified year, or(b) the average amount a business received under the basic payment scheme over specified years before 2021 determined by the Secretary of State.(1C) Regulations under subsection (1B) must provide for a right of appeal if a business believes that any financial assistance they receive will be reduced by more than 25% of the specified amount prior to a scheme providing financial assistance under section 1(1) being introduced.”Member’s explanatory statement
This will ensure that cuts in direct payments for 2021, together with the currently unknown cuts in the following years, do not inadvertently damage the viability of farming businesses before they can adapt their business plans to benefit from the productivity grant schemes due to uncertainties regarding trade agreements and the proposed agri-environment schemes.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner. Frankly, none of the responses added any further light, other than the very last response, which was achieved by questions from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the sustainable farming initiative. That appears to be the only new news we have had all evening. I talked about the inadequacy of the old countryside stewardship schemes and productivity grants. So I must say that I am extremely disappointed.
Having said that, I cannot find great consensus around the House to combine on one of the three proposed amendments that broadly cover this issue. I certainly would not want to divide the House without seeing that sort of consensus so, with great reluctance, I move and withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 43. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak once only and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 16: Support for rural development
Amendment 43
“( ) providing new socioeconomic support programmes to help farming households”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that Defra has the ability to assist farming households through a variety of non-production related schemes, so these households can continue to farm and manage their land.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 43 is a very harmless amendment, which merely gives Defra powers to introduce schemes to boost the rural economy. It does not force anyone, including Defra, to do anything, but merely enables them to ensure that as many as possible of the farming families, who are the backbone of rural England, will be able to survive on their land in years to come—particularly in the next five years, through the dramatic changes being introduced by the Bill. The fact that such powers also allow Defra to support the wider rural economy, and thus justify the rural affairs bit of its title, is incidental to the Bill, but it is hugely important to the majority of the people who live in our countryside. We should never forget that all the UK farmers and foresters together represent only about 4.5% of the rural population.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 44, which is the last of the day in my name. It is complementary to Amendment 43 from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and I adopt everything that he has just said on rural development. It permits provision for future contributions to existing socio-economic schemes, which provide essential capital investment and support for rural businesses and have been warmly adopted in the south-west. I declare my direct interest as the recipient of a RDPE grant, albeit that the project in question has been delayed—as has so much—by coronavirus.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, explained, the need for this amendment arises from the ongoing uncertainty around the scope and timing of the UK’s Shared Prosperity Fund. This may or may not come into effect in 2022. If the last few years have shown us anything, it is that the best-laid plans often go awry. This amendment aims to provide some confidence to recipients of existing RDPE schemes that they will be supported going forwards, whatever lies ahead.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I support both amendments. In the case of Amendment 43, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, I believe that, with our existing knowledge of the precarious existence of farmers—particularly in upland areas—and their importance to the physical and social landscape of their localities, it is important to be able to support them through non-production-related schemes, as many of the existing and proposed schemes may not work for them. I hate to bang on about this, but it is particularly relevant in the light of the proposed cuts to BPS—even if it is only 5% in the first year, although some of us argue about how important 5% is. There is a lack of detail about what will follow in subsequent years, and also a lack of detail on ELMS.
I see no reason why Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, cannot be adopted, as it should cost the Government nothing since contributions to the RDP should already have been budgeted and, as I understand it, are expected to be rolled into the new proposed UK Shared Prosperity Fund. It is therefore just a timing issue, and correctly gives the necessary reassurances to the current RDPs.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I am in favour of both these amendments. I was just reflecting on a visit I made to a small town in south Shropshire called Clun, which was then home to what was said to be the food bank in the smallest community anywhere in the UK. I am glad that both noble Lords introducing these amendments have focused not just on the individual situations, as pressing as they often are, but on the need for communities to be assured that money is coming in. On that basis, we want a Britain where there is no need for any food banks; we should not rest until the last food bank closes due to lack of demand. In the meantime, we have to find other ways to make sure that money is going into communities that sometimes are, and have for some time been, really struggling.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with this amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington. He is godfather to my daughter and one of my oldest friends. When I say that, I mean that I have known him forever, not that he is old in age, obviously.
I understand where the noble Lord is coming from: the needs of farmers and their households, along with rural communities, must be supported through the challenges they face. Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to drive enterprise and jobs by re-energising our rural areas and those who live and work in them, and the UK Shared Prosperity Fund will do just that. It will cut out bureaucracy and create a fund that invests in UK priorities and is easier for local areas to access. To that end, I know that departments are working closely together to address the challenges faced by our rural communities. I hope that the Minister can elaborate on how that will pan out, with the UK Shared Prosperity Fund being very much part of dealing with those challenges.
Importantly, the problem with the support programme suggested by my noble friend is, I believe, that it would bring unintended consequences, taking money away from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund and therefore muddying the waters—which, I am sure, is not what was intended by this amendment.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
As the noble Baroness who has just spoken said, we all have huge admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington—but, alas, I cannot support his amendment either. The whole point of the Bill is to move farming subsidies away from simply supporting farmers to exist as farmers, and the amendment seems to try to reverse that. I believe we should be giving support and advice to farmers to innovate and transform, and to provide the public goods that the public want and be paid for it.
I fully recognise how upland farmers in particular have had their whole livelihoods dependent on subsidy. The whole point of these agricultural support changes is to show how such marginal farmers, whose pure farming enterprise is likely to be insufficiently profitable, can earn a living by diversifying into producing a range of public goods.
Similarly, Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has a very worthwhile objective, the continuity of socioeconomic programmes currently funded under the EU rural development programme. These have been very important for many of our most underprivileged and remote rural areas in the UK, but I do not think the continuity of socioeconomic support should be gained by kidnapping the limited funding that will exist for ELMS and under the previous CAP budget.
Instead, we really have to hold the Government’s feet to the fire to move forward more rapidly on clarifying the role, operation and size of the UK shared prosperity fund so that there is no delay or gap. My worry is that when the shared prosperity fund fully emerges, it may be neither shared with the rural areas, in that it is showing signs of being very urban focused, nor indeed terrifically prosperous, not having much money behind it. I hope the Minister can allay my fears.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate those taking part in this group of amendments on their stamina. Given the late hour, I will be brief. These two amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, deal with assisting farming families through wider rural economy means. I have listened carefully to the interesting and informative debate we have had, and can agree with the majority of the comments made.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said during his contribution on the first group of amendments, this is the Agriculture Bill and should be primarily about land cultivation and management. This is a view shared by many, but not all, noble Lords who have spoken during the first day of Report.
I believe that the shared prosperity fund should support those in very rural areas and provide for them through RDPs, but wish that this should be confined to the transition period. I look forward to the comments on this group by both the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, and the Minister.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that we adjourn the debate on Amendment 43.
Agriculture Bill
Thursday 17th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 130-III(Corrected) Third marshalled list for Report - (17 Sep 2020)
17:18 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 58 - Ayes: 280 / Noes: 218 - Amendment 58 agreed.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it seems only right that, having spoken on the amendments in the fourth group, which would have restricted financial assistance to solely supporting production, I also respond to these amendments, which call for the opposite.
Amendments 43 and 44 come from different places but clearly demonstrate the importance of allowing a level of financial assistance for purposes other than production. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, when she said on Tuesday evening that she wishes to see a United Kingdom where there are no food banks. Their proliferation in both rural and urban areas in the last 10 years is a failure of government to address poverty issues in our communities. The devastating effects of the pandemic, combined with the disastrous rollout of universal credit, have pushed more and more people in this country into reliance on these services, which casts an indelible blight on one of the world’s richest economies.
I am particularly interested to hear the Minister’s response to Amendment 44, which raises the lack of progress—in public, at least—in relation to the UK shared prosperity fund. I know that my colleagues in both national and local government in Wales are particularly interested to know what happens next in the distribution of this promised funding, which replaces the generous EU grants of previous decades. I share my noble friend Lady Young’s fears about the shared prosperity fund being neither shared nor prosperous.
In relation to Amendment 44, does the Minister believe this point is covered by the government amendments in the group after next? If not, is there any form of contingency should a gap arise in the availability of development funds?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I will take Amendments 43 and 44 together. I would like to reassure your Lordships that we recognise the importance of the issues that these amendments raise. Farmers and farming households make a valuable contribution to our national life, and we recognise that the needs of farming households may change as we move away from the common agricultural policy.
As set out in their manifesto, the Government intend to introduce the UK shared prosperity fund to replace EU structural funds. The manifesto also stated that it will, at a minimum, match the size of those funds in each nation, which was reiterated by the Chancellor in the last Budget. The final decisions about the quantum and design of the funding will take place after a cross-governmental spending review.
The Government have made a long-standing commitment to ensure that all policies are rural proofed—that is, ensuring that policy outcomes work in rural areas. This includes the development and delivery of the UK shared prosperity fund, on which Defra and MHCLG officials are working closely. In advance of the introduction of the UK shared prosperity fund, £60 million of funding will continue to flow to rural businesses via the final tranche of the growth programme, which the RPA is currently assessing.
The fund will play a vital role in supporting rural and coastal communities in recovery and renewal from Covid-19, and our expectation is that the growth programme and LEADER elements of EAFRD will be a component of the fund. This was set out in a letter from the Defra Secretary of State to the chair of the EFRA Select Committee on 7 September. Defra officials continue to work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which leads on the fund’s development, to ensure that its design takes account of the dynamics of rural economies and particularly the challenges faced by rural communities, as well as the opportunities that I believe rural communities have. We have been in contact with MHCLG Ministers and I can assure your Lordships that MHCLG recognises the importance of these considerations.
I fully recognise the importance of reassuring rural communities and farming households about the future of local growth funding. The Government will look to set out their national approach to local economic recovery and devolution through a White Paper expected in the autumn. We firmly believe that the best way to make progress is to continue to work collaboratively at local and national level. The MHCLG has established an economic recovery working group, which meets regularly, bringing together a range of local growth partners to work on emerging themes and concerns across the country, including those relevant to rural areas. This includes representatives from rural local enterprise partnerships and local authorities.
If new socioeconomic support programmes were to be operated under Clause 16, they would have to operate under broadly the same framework dictated by the existing CAP. Clause 16 provides the Secretary of State with the power to modify or repeal retained EU legislation relating to rural development in England. This clause will not be used to introduce any new schemes, as they will be covered under Clause 1.
I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Earl will accept my confirmation that the UK shared prosperity fund will provide great opportunities for growth and investment in rural communities and will include the successor for the growth programme and LEADER elements of EAFRD. I believe this is a cause we all share and hope that, on that basis, given the explanation of the work we are undertaking between the two departments and the imperative of rural proofing, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
I have received a request to ask a question from the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
Following up the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, I ask the Minister to confirm whether he considers that government Amendments 45 and 46 might address the issues raised by Amendment 44. It is important to have that clarified. I thought that they did as I read them in preparation for today. That would certainly alleviate some of the concerns behind Amendment 44.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, when we come to the amendments in my name I will explain that they intend to, and will, provide for the smooth running of existing schemes under the EU programmes, not only so that they can continue to work well but so that people due to receive funds from them can do so. The amendments we have discussed were about additional and beyond, but my amendments on retained EU law are technical amendments to ensure that the existing programme under the existing schemes can work effectively.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this short debate, albeit that it has taken place over two days—three, if you add in yesterday. I also thank the Minister for his carefully worded reply. I know that he personally understands the problems I have described and the importance of the wider rural economy, not only to farmers and farming households but to those who live on the edge in our countryside and whose poverty remains largely ignored by government.
Meanwhile, I reassure my good friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it was never my intention to take money away from ELMS, or even the agricultural budget—or perhaps, as she might have put it more figuratively, I had no wish to hang another bauble on to the ELMS Christmas tree. I was trying to make the “rural affairs” bit of Defra a bit more of a reality, as recommended by two Select Committee reports of this House in recent years. However, as hinted at by my very old friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, it is probably best to keep rural communities alongside all other communities and therefore firmly within the ministry for communities, now known as MHCLG.
The Minister has indeed given me some comfort in what he said about the shared prosperity fund, although I realise that nothing is certain before the comprehensive spending review. It might have been good to hear some indication as to when we will get any tangible details about the shared prosperity fund, but I suppose, with our economy currently on a precipice of uncertainty owing to the fallout from Covid and the ongoing doubts about the Brexit deal, it would have been asking too much to expect more detail when neither the Treasury nor MHCLG have any firm grip on where they are going.
Anyway, I will stop there. In the light of the Minister’s undertakings on the Floor of the House about a future rural component of a shared prosperity fund, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“( ) amending Annex IV of the Regulation (indicative list) to cover broadband connectivity and digital literacy.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 44A. In doing so, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her support. The amendment is incredibly straight- forward. It would enable farmers and all those in our rural communities to have the broadband connectivity and digital skills to operate confidently in that space.
As we have seen through the Covid crisis, our farmers have been on the front line in so many ways, filling in for long supply chains that should, in many ways, probably not have been that length in the first place. Our farmers have absolutely stepped up. Although they have been on the front line, they have often found it impossible to be online. The National Farmers Union broadband survey last year showed that 15% of those in our rural communities had no indoor broadband connectivity at all, and a shocking 36% could say they had only adequate broadband cover.
As we have also seen through the Covid crisis, it is not just the economic imperative to be online; there is a social and psychological dimension. Not only have our farmers not been able to run their businesses efficiently and effectively, the social dimension of keeping in contact with friends and family, and the psychological difficulties often felt with the remoteness of rural communities, have been brought home only too strongly through the Covid crisis.
Amendment 44A would put an end to this parlous position when it comes to broadband, digital connectivity and digital literacy. Earlier this year, in response to the EFRA Select Committee inquiry on broadband conductivity, the Government said that they had in principle put £5 billion in and would look at a shared rural broadband network. It was talked of in principle and intention. How do the Government intend to put that into will?
It is not just good soil and good farm management that produce our fabulous food, fruit and horticulture products but having high-speed broadband and the confidence and digital skills to operate in cyberspace as much as across the fields of the United Kingdom. We must demonstrate that we are all in this together. That means providing a level of broadband and digital literacy for all our farmers and all those in our rural communities. Does my noble friend the Minister agree? If the Government are not up for supporting the amendment, will she say how they intend to get the best out of all our rural communities, not least our farmers, to deliver on the levelling-up agenda and to drive economic, social and psychological benefits for our farmers and all those across our rural communities? I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 44A and I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for tabling it. I pay tribute to his expertise, knowledge and sheer perseverance in this area. It gives me the opportunity to draw further attention to how woeful broadband and wi-fi connections are in many parts of rural England because places are simply too far—more than a mile—from the local box.
Also, many will not appreciate the issue with the mobile phone signal. I look directly at the Woolsack; I am sure this problem is not unfamiliar in Scotland. In the summer in parts of North Yorkshire where the red phone boxes have been removed it is inherently dangerous if you do not have access to a landline. It is incredibly important that we should have a good mobile phone service. I had hoped we would be able to piggyback on the police service, but apparently we are not able to do that for security reasons. North Yorkshire Police made a massive investment to make sure they could apprehend criminals by getting reinforcements where that was the case.
I take this opportunity to bring to my noble friend the Minister’s attention how in many areas of the dales and the moorlands of the north of England there is both poor mobile phone conductivity and woeful broadband—it is persistently bad. I welcome the amendment and the extra spending the Government have announced to be spent in areas such as North Yorkshire, recognising that this is the case.
We went into the last election and the previous one with a commitment to a universal service of “x megabytes by x date”. That date keeps moving. Can I press my noble friend on what date we will have universal service and on whether the additional funds that the Government can find can be spent on the 3% of the population who are hardest to reach? It grieves me greatly to be told that 97% of the population will have universal access to broadband but not the 3% of us who happen to live in rural areas. I want to ensure that we can reverse the priorities and spend the additional money, and any other money that is available, in these hardest-to-reach areas.
As my noble friend Lord Holmes set out, it is an unacceptable situation that, in the 21st century, children who are sent home from school because one of their class has Covid-19, and who are diligently trying to do their work at home, prevent farmers going online to fill in forms. I hope that the Minister uses her good offices to correct that situation.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for bringing forward this amendment. I suspect that other Peers did not realise that this amendment had been re-tabled, hence the short speakers’ list.
During the Covid-19 lockdown it became painfully apparent how inadequate the broadband system is, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has said. It is vital that all areas of the country have good, fast and resilient broadband, especially those in our agricultural sector. Many Peers attempting to take part in virtual proceedings have struggled with connections suddenly dropping off or being unable to log on in the first place. In 2018, the average broadband speed in rural hamlets and isolated dwellings in a sparse setting was half that of major conurbations. Can the Minister say whether this has improved in the intervening two years?
In the aftermath of the Huawei fiasco, the Secretary of State was clear on the consequences of the Government’s decision to pull out. Operators charged with delivering 5G will now, without compensation, have £2 billion less to spend on rolling it out, at the same time bearing the cost of ripping out high-risk vendor 5G equipment by 2027. This is a huge proportion of the investment which was to be committed by the operators towards 5G rollout. Can the Minister say whether, in the intervening months since this decision was made, the Government have now reconsidered providing compensation to providers and consumers? The change in provider will delay the rollout of 5G by two to three years. Rural communities are already extremely disadvantaged in their connectivity. Many rural businesses have had to relocate to more urban areas to continue operating. Those in the farming community, like others, must fill in all their forms online. This now appears to be the Government’s only way of communicating with those residents to whom they attempt to provide services.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, during the lockdown children were dependent on Zoom connectivity to take part in sessions with their teachers. Although this meant that they received some tuition, for many the connection was so poor that it was hopeless. If the Government are true to their word in wanting to support rural communities, it is vital that broadband connectivity and digital literacy are taken seriously. This is not a “nice to have” for the agricultural industry, but an “absolute must”. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for once again raising this important issue. He is right to draw attention to the alarming lack of progress in rolling out broadband to rural areas. This is hindering the ability of British farmers to do their job, and it will become even more of a crisis when new farming techniques requiring regular digital applications become mainstream.
The latest Ofcom report identifies 677,000 homes and offices without decent broadband, but the vast majority—496,000—are in rural areas. Ofcom also reports that many rural areas are left with patchy and unreliable mobile reception, with less than half having 4G coverage. Sadly, it is all too common to hear stories of farmers driving around the countryside to try to get a signal to carry out even the basic business connections that they need for their work.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for tabling this amendment which seeks to use the Agriculture Bill to provide for new socioeconomic support programmes to help fund improved broadband connectivity and digital skills in rural areas beyond the end of the current rural development programme. He is indeed a champion of addressing the very real digital divide.
I reassure this House that we recognise the importance of the issue that this amendment raises. This Government are determined to connect every home and business to the fastest broadband speeds available. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has just said, access to digital is key to helping all rural communities build resilient modern businesses, as well as supporting them in their daily lives. Indeed, the Covid-19 pandemic has shown the integral role that digital connectivity plays in our daily lives, economically, socially and in continuing to deliver essential public services. The Government are investing record amounts to level up digital infrastructure across the UK. We are already connecting some of the hardest-to-reach places in the country, including through the superfast broadband programme and the £200 million rural gigabit connectivity programme. The Government want nationwide coverage of gigabit-capable broadband as soon as possible.
We have also announced £5 billion of public funding—not just in principle; it has been announced—to close the digital divide and ensure that rural areas are not left behind. Only last week, we announced that more than £22 million of additional funding is being invested in the UK Government’s broadband voucher scheme, which subsidises the cost of building gigabit-capable broadband networks to hard-to-reach areas. The Government are working with mobile network operators to deliver mobile connectivity improvements through a shared rural network. Much is therefore already in place to improve connectivity in rural areas, and we have already started the 5G rollout.
We also recognise the importance of improving digital skills in rural areas. There is a wide number of initiatives to support this, including the digital skills partnership launched by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in 2017, to bring together organisations from across the public, private and charity sectors to work together to close the digital skills gap at a local level. Although the current rural development programme allows for support for broadband and digital skills, these wider government initiatives are the key funding mechanisms for broadband connectivity and digital skills. However, we are also committed to supporting rural communities through post-EU exit funding and the UK shared prosperity fund, which will play a vital role in supporting rural and coastal communities in recovery and renewal from Covid-19.
As set out in the manifesto, the Government intend to introduce the UK shared prosperity fund to replace EU structural funds. Defra officials are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which leads on its development, to ensure that its design takes account of the dynamics of rural economies and the challenges faced by rural communities. The final decisions about the quantum and design of future socioeconomic funding will take place after the upcoming cross-government spending review.
With these assurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
I have received no requests for further short questions. Accordingly, I call the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
I thank the Minister for her full and thorough response, and all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. All I would add at this stage is that the Minister consider further whether there is anything in this space which could be considered for Third Reading. The Agriculture Bill provides a real opportunity to focus on such an important bedrock—as important as the soil will be the fibre which enables food to grow, economic development and the social and psychological well-being for farmers all across our rural communities. So I urge her to consider whether there is anything that can be brought at Third Reading. Also, will she consider convening a round table with colleagues from DCMS to see whether there are any further specific support ideas that can be deployed in this space? I once again thank noble Lords who participated and the Minister for her full response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 45. I remind noble Lords that Members, other than the mover and the Minister, may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment, or anything else in this group, to a Division should make this clear in debate.
Amendment 45
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance
(1) The appropriate national authority may give financial assistance to—(a) a person who is a party to an agreement entered into in accordance with any of the following provisions—(i) the Rural Development Regulation,(ii) any legacy rural development provision, or(iii) Articles 32 to 35 of the Common Provisions Regulation (community-led local development), so far as relating to support for rural development,where the agreement has not concluded, or(b) a producer organisation implementing an operational programme approved in accordance with the producer organisations aid provisions.(2) In this section—“appropriate national authority” means—(a) the Secretary of State, in the case of an agreement entered into or an operational programme approved in accordance with any provision or provisions so far as having effect in relation to England;(b) the Welsh Ministers, in the case of an agreement entered into or an operational programme approved in accordance with any provision or provisions so far as having effect in relation to Wales;(c) DAERA, in the case of an agreement entered into or an operational programme approved in accordance with any provision or provisions so far as having effect in relation to Northern Ireland;“the Common Provisions Regulation” means Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund etc;“legacy rural development provision” means any EU regulation, EU decision or EU tertiary legislation relating to support for rural development that preceded the Rural Development Regulation (including—(a) Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development,(b) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development,(c) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 of 30 June 1992 instituting a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture,(d) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, and(e) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1096/88 of 25 April 1988 establishing a Community scheme to encourage the cessation of farming);“the producer organisations aid provisions” means—(a) Articles 32 to 38 of the CMO Regulation, which make provision about aid for fruit and vegetable producer organisations (“producer organisations aid”),(b) so far as relating to producer organisations aid, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891 of 13 March 2017 supplementing the CMO Regulation with regard to the fruit and vegetable, and processed fruit and vegetable, sectors, and(c) so far as relating to producer organisations aid, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/892 of 13 March 2017 laying down rules for the application of the CMO Regulation with regard to the fruit and vegetable, and processed fruit and vegetable, sectors;“the Rural Development Regulation” means Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State, the Welsh Ministers and DAERA to continue to make payments where agreements and programmes are currently supported under an EU programme relating to rural development or fruit and vegetable producers.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 46, 107, 110, 111, 122, 123, 124 and 125 in my name. Following new legal advice from the European Law Group and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, these technical amendments are being tabled to put beyond doubt that a body of retained EU law relating to multi-annual programmes under rural development and common market organisation will be created at the end of the implementation period, where this is not created automatically by virtue of the interrelationship between the withdrawal agreement and European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Clauses 14, 15, 16 and their equivalents in the Welsh and Northern Irish schedules all rely on a body of retained EU law being created on implementation period completion day that can then be applied in domestic law and modified as required. Article 138 of the withdrawal agreement means that rural development programmes and some parts of the common market organisation will continue to operate under EU law after the end of the implementation period. However, Section 3(2)(a)(bi) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 prevents EU legislation that is directly applicable in domestic law as a result of the withdrawal agreement under Section 7A of EWA also becoming retained EU law. I am sorry about this, but I want to go into some technical detail so that it is very clear to your Lordships.
This created a legal doubt as to whether the legislation governing the relevant rural development and CMO aid schemes would roll over to become retained EU law. These amendments therefore put that question beyond doubt by ensuring that a body of retained EU law relating to multi-annual agreements and programmes in rural development and CMO will be created at the end of the implementation period. They also provide a payment power to continue paying existing holders of agreements or programmes once the EU funding ends. This power to pay does not depend on modifying retained EU law. Such a power is necessary to ensure domestic funding can step in when existing EU budgets are exhausted in circumstances where these agreements and programmes continue to be regulated under the withdrawal agreement.
As I said, these are technical amendments required to ensure the Bill works as it was originally intended, so that modifications may be made to existing programmes where appropriate, simplifications and improvements may be made to schemes and scheme beneficiaries can continue to receive payments. These government amendments are supported by, and made with the approval of, the devolved Administrations. That is most important and the schedules for Wales and Northern Ireland are at their request. I also emphasise that there is no change to the policy intent of Clauses 14, 15 and 16. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
Then we shall move on to the noble Lord, Lord Mann.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I appreciate that I may be in a tiny minority in this House. I do not intend to press anything to a vote and I fully understand the detail and the logic of these amendments. But I heard the Minister refer on a number of occasions to manifesto policy at the election and, having in another life represented a 500 square mile rural consistency, I have taken the opportunity to see whether there was any misprint or printing problem in the election leaflets, because I saw or heard nowhere a proposal for retained EU legislation. It illustrates a rather different approach, albeit by consensus across political parties, when it comes to agriculture as opposed to, say, manufacturing industry and other areas of state aid. Of course, this is still one of the two unresolved issues for negotiation in advance of the forthcoming EU Council, although the detail on state aid has been less clear.
I do not recall anyone ever telling me when they voted to leave the European Union that they were voting to keep the common agricultural policy, albeit with a different name, or to retain through legislation, funding and priority the same systems, or indeed that there would be a seven-year transition period. Actually, I think I would sooner have supported leaving the European Union. Transition periods, even ones of seven years, may be very sensible. I am happy to have voted for a seven-year transition period, but I do not think that I am in a minority across the country in being wary of us adopting some elements of what the EU created and what some of us would regard as the worst elements, because the common agricultural policy was the most incoherent form of state aid, the most invalid and antiquated, and one that did not serve the future interests of this country. So I put it very politely to the Minister that I am not suggesting that he should be circulating leaflets saying that the Government are proudly retaining EU legislation and what goes with that in terms of funding, but there needs more thought in debate, particularly in relation to state aid, that what might serve one community might well serve another community. I am quite sure that steel communities, which are part of rural communities in many parts of this country, would be keen to hear similar principles being applied on an ongoing basis.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these amendments. I have only two questions for my noble friend.
It concerns me that these amendments have been tabled at this stage. Why did we not know about this problem before? Why has it only just come to light on Report? It worries me that we might be letting other issues through.
Are there any other related programmes affecting other industries where primary legislation might be needed to cover the gap, as my noble friend is covering it for agriculture in this instance?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend has tabled this group of amendments to clarify the legal situation in what seems a potentially vexatious area.
I want to place on record how dependent many heavily deprived rural areas have become on parts of the European rural development fund. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Mann, I want to place on record a bid to make sure that any offerings from the shared prosperity fund will include a heavy element of rural development and grants.
I also want to put a question to my noble friend the Minister. What will the natural end of these schemes be? I assume that they will be phased out. If the schemes are rolled over in the specific circumstances to which my noble friend referred, will they reach the natural end of their life by 2023? Will the LEADER programme and the other programmes that fall under the current rural development schemes—they have obviously had much funding from both EU and domestic funds—continue to benefit from the new ELM schemes? Is that the Government’s intention?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, this group of government amendments relates to the rural development regulation and would allow the devolved Administrations of Wales and Northern Ireland to operate once the EU programmes of financial assistance have ceased. It will be extremely important for the rural development regulation to continue and for fruit and vegetable producers to be supported.
As I understand it, the amendments would, under the withdrawal agreement, roll over both retained EU legislation to cover existing programmes and a large number of programmes on which the farmers of the devolved Administrations rely. They cover apiculture in Northern Ireland and Wales, and some consequential amendments cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland only; another includes Scotland as well.
As the Minister indicated, the devolved Administrations are in agreement with these amendments. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on state aid and have some sympathy with them.
I generally welcome this large group of amendments. They give a lot of technical detail, as the Minister said. I hope that this will mean that slightly fewer statutory instruments follow on from this Bill. I also note the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about whether this covers a gap and whether we should have known about it beforehand. Generally, however, I support all the amendments in this group.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we welcome these technical government amendments, aimed at providing greater certainty over the state of legacy funding schemes and EU-derived legislation.
I appreciated the Minister’s technical explanations in his introduction. However, I would appreciate it if he could explain why these amendments have been tabled only at this late stage of consideration, given that the points they cover will have been on the department’s radar for quite some time.
A number of EU exit statutory instruments have been found to contain errors that have required correction by later instruments. Is there a mechanism for changes to be made to these provisions should any problems arise? We have spent a summer of U-turns, with a plethora of problems arising across government in a range of offices and service delivery and systems simply not working. Should it not be the case with good governance that problems are dealt with before they become a problem? I urge the Minister to use his expertise in these matters to look at these mechanisms again and ensure that changes can be made to the legislation in good time in this House.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very helpful debate. I am most grateful to noble Lords for their general welcome for the amendments, although I want to deal with some of the points made. I will be the first to say that the perfect form is something we all aspire to, but I am afraid that we are all human.
I want to explain this matter precisely because my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox of Newport and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, made absolutely fair points. The advice from the European Law Group about retained EU law changed recently, prompting Defra lawyers to want to put beyond doubt that we can continue to pay beneficiaries under existing CAP schemes.
I would not blame the noble Lord, Lord Mann, if he was not listening to our earlier deliberations, but I explained on Tuesday that one reason why the Government were keen to start the transition is that we are the first to say that we do not think that the CAP has been directed properly or that it has given value for money on all the things we want to do. I am happy to send that reference to the noble Lord; we are clear that that is why we want a transition and want to start now. As for existing programmes, I also say to the noble Lord that this is about where people have entered into existing programmes in good faith. We want them to have the ability for that to continue, as the programmes were forces for good, and for those applicants to receive the funds that they thought were the case.
On a point raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, I say to noble Lords that part of what we will want to do in supporting the farming sector but also rural communities is that there will be financial assistance through Clause 1 and other clauses in this Bill for farmers. I emphasise that the whole essence of the UK shared prosperity fund is that “shared” means across the country. I assure your Lordships that this is the case everywhere I go; it means to former mining communities, rural, coastal, suburban and urban. It is a shared prosperity fund, and it will not be successful unless it is precisely that. I absolutely understand that it is important that all communities—certainly those that have been going through very difficult times over quite a long period of time and particularly in those areas where industrial change has been so acute—are included.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their welcome for these measures. As I say, I have had to bring them forward because there has been a change of advice. As for my noble friend Lord Caithness’s question about whether there are other sectors, I try to master this brief but mastering other departments’ briefs might be a little difficult. However, I will send that message back.
As for the length of the programme—the “natural end” that my noble friend Lady McIntosh spoke of—I cannot say precisely for each and every scheme, but we have said that we will fulfil our promise to pay for those schemes that are in existence through domestic funding for the length of those particular schemes. I cannot comment on each and every scheme, but we say that we will back those schemes that have been entered into in good faith.
With those explanations—I will look at Hansard in case there are more technical details—I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“Retained direct EU legislation
(1) To the extent that any legislation within subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) would (in the absence of this subsection) be prevented from becoming retained direct EU legislation on IP completion day by section 3(2)(a)(bi) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, section 3 of that Act is to have effect in relation to that legislation as if subsection (2)(a)(bi) of that section were omitted.(2) The legislation within this subsection is—(a) Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development,(b) Regulation (EU) No 1310/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down certain transitional provisions on support for rural development,(c) any EU regulation, EU decision or EU tertiary legislation relating to support for rural development that preceded the Rural Development Regulation (including—(i) Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development,(ii) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development,(iii) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 of 30 June 1992 instituting a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture,(iv) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, and(v) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1096/88 of 25 April 1988 establishing a Community scheme to encourage the cessation of farming),(d) any legislation made under the legislation in paragraphs (a) to (c), and(e) so far as relating to support for rural development—(i) Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund etc, and(ii) any legislation made under that Regulation.(3) The legislation within this subsection is—(a) Articles 32 to 38 of the CMO Regulation, which make provision about aid for fruit and vegetable producer organisations (“producer organisations aid”),(b) so far as relating to producer organisations aid, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/891 of 13 March 2017 supplementing the CMO Regulation with regard to the fruit and vegetable, and processed fruit and vegetable, sectors, and(c) so far as relating to producer organisations aid, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/892 of 13 March 2017 laying down rules for the application of the CMO Regulation with regard to the fruit and vegetable, and processed fruit and vegetable, sectors.(4) The legislation within this subsection is— (a) Articles 55 to 57 of the CMO Regulation (provision about aid for apiculture), and(b) any legislation made under that legislation.(5) The legislation within this subsection is the following, so far as it relates to producer organisations aid, apiculture or support for rural development—(a) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy,(b) any legislation made under that regulation, and(c) any EU regulation, EU decision or EU tertiary legislation relating to the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy that preceded Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (including—(i) Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures,(ii) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures, and(iii) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that legislation relating to support for rural development, fruit and vegetable producer organisations and apiculture that has direct effect under the Withdrawal Agreement in relation to existing programmes will also be retained direct EU legislation.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 49. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may only speak once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 17: Duty to report to Parliament on UK food security
Amendment 49
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the first report under Clause 17 to be prepared on or before the relevant day. The definition of relevant day is inserted by a related Government amendment to mean the last day before 25 December 2021 which is a sitting day for both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 51, 54 and 56 in my name.
I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate on this topic in Committee. I gave the matter considerable thought following your Lordships’ remarks then. The importance placed by noble Lords on the food security reports is shared by the Government. In Clause 17, the Government are making an important new commitment to analyse relevant statistical data by publishing a regular report on the crucial subject of food security. The food security report will be a significant body of work that will use a set of core measurements and indicators for each of the key topic areas. This will include a range of areas covering both global and domestic food security including, although not limited to, supply sources of feed, resilience in the supply chain and household food security.
As I set out in Committee, the Government have no intention of waiting until the end of that five-year period to publish the first report. I and other Ministers have listened closely to the points made by your Lordships and have been persuaded that there is merit in changing the frequency of reporting in the Bill to require reports to be published at least every three years. We have also been persuaded to include a duty in the Bill that the first report be published on or before the last sitting day before 25 December 2021 for both Houses of Parliament. This first report will include an analysis of statistical data relating to the effects of coronavirus on food security in the UK. The amendments that I have tabled reflect the importance of this new duty while maintaining the great benefit of allowing reports to cover long-term trends. I hope your Lordships will recognise that the Government have heard the feeling in this House on this issue and have acted. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 50 in my name. Attentive colleagues will have noticed that our Amendment 50 is very similar to the amendments now being proposed by the Minister. We are very pleased that the Government listened to our arguments on this issue in Committee. At that time we argued that, particularly in the light of the Covid experience, regular reporting on food security was essential. We know that when we leave the EU transition period there will be an even greater need for a focus on the reliability of the food supply chain and our capacity to guarantee that the nation will be fed, so regular reporting to Parliament is essential. It is good to see the Government taking this issue seriously.
I know there are other noble Lords who believe that the report should be published more frequently. We think this is a fine judgment, but on further reflection we continue to believe that a first report to Parliament within 12 months followed by every three years thereafter is the right balance. It would make the three-year report a substantial intervention rather than an annual routine occurrence, it would enable us to have a significant debate on the consequences of any shortfall, and it would ensure that the report stood out from the voluminous annual reporting cycle that Governments are required to issue without any real analysis. So we support the Government’s amendments, and I hope they show the true intent of the Government to make the food security reports a major contribution to future policy direction in this sector.
I also welcome the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who rightly raises the issue of “household food insecurity”. It is clearly important that any analysis of food security should look at the national picture but also at issues of distribution, equal access and food poverty of the individual. This is an issue that we hope to address in our national food strategy amendment, which we will come to later.
The amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, rightly flags up that measures on food security are meaningless unless there are also reliable sources of livestock feed available either domestically or through being imported. The amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans makes an important case for any food security report not just to be aesthetic analysis but to be a document with objectives and targets for the future.
All these amendments are making an important contribution to the shape and substance of any future food security reports, and I hope the Minister is able to take them on board in his response. In the meantime, we thank the Minister for his helpful amendments. We hope this is a sign of the seriousness that the Government will assign to these reports and any action that will need to follow.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady Jones, there is a great deal of agreement between the Opposition and the Government on the importance of the Government’s amendments. The only point that I would make in strong support of what my noble friend has said is that food security is such a vital issue and that things can, through unforeseen circumstances, change so rapidly that, if we are to make what we are attempting to achieve through these amendments effective, shorter time spans are not only necessary but absolutely essential. I hope that the Minister will be able to agree.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 50, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and to Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, both of which I have attached my name to.
I start with Amendment 53, which concerns adding household food insecurity to the matters on which the Government must report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, noted earlier, adding to our remarks last week, although we can treasure the contribution of people who donate to food banks and the volunteers who work in them, food banks themselves are a national disgrace. No one should have to rely on charity to feed themselves. The government reports on food security and insecurity should also include not just what food is available but whether everyone has access to a full, healthy diet, and whether it is available to them financially, physically—I am thinking of things such as food deserts—and practically. On that latter point, do they have the cooking facilities and the energy they need to prepare the food?
On Amendments 50 and 52, I agree with an earlier comment that the question of whether the Government should report every three or five years is finely balanced. I welcome the fact that the Government agree that reporting every five years is not nearly often enough. I think that there is an argument to be made either way, although I can probably live with a three-year reporting cycle, and I hope it is something that we can get a real national focus on. Food security is one of the central roles of government—surely making sure that people do not starve has to be right up there.
I did a little survey of the news this morning, looking at what is happening around the world. I discovered that the Chinese corn crop is expected to fall by 10 million tonnes—nearly 4%—from the latest government estimates after heavy wind and rain toppled crops in major production areas in the north-east corn belt. That follows the events in America in August, when, across Iowa, 14 million acres of insured crops were damaged by what is known as the derecho—that is, conditions very similar to those experienced in China. I do not need to rehearse for your Lordships’ House just how difficult a year this has been for our farmers. The idea that we can simply rely on buying food on the global market is a very dangerous approach for all kinds of reasons, but food security has to be top of the list.
Just this morning I was at a Westminster Food & Nutrition Forum policy conference on the future of agricultural land use. There was a very interesting contribution from Adrian Aebi of the Federal Office for Agriculture at the Swiss embassy in the United Kingdom. I was interested to learn that Article 104 of the Swiss constitution provides that the agricultural sector shall sustainably make
“an essential contribution towards … the reliable provision”
of food and
“the conservation of natural resources and the upkeep of the countryside”.
Mr Aebi also informed us that the Swiss Government have clear targets for local food supplies and for improving diets, and they have expressed their intention of pushing towards a more plant-based diet for both environmental and human health reasons. I do not have the information to judge exactly where Switzerland might sit on a global league table of food policy but the UK clearly needs to do better. The Government keep saying that they want to be world leading in these areas, so we need to see clear targets from them on such things, particularly in relation to England.
It is interesting that reference to this issue is made in the Swiss constitution. Of course, we have our unwritten, accidentally accreted over many centuries, constitution that lacks such provisions. That is perhaps something to think about for the future.
I welcome the progress that we have made in this area. We have moved forward but we need to keep focusing on food security as a crucial part of government policy. Seeing all the work that is happening in your Lordships’ House on this issue, I am confident that certainly we will keep working on it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for recognising that the House was very uneasy about there being a five-year period between the initial and subsequent reports. If I understood him correctly when he spoke to this group of amendments, the Government will report at least every three years. However, if, for example, there is a shortage of food supply at home and a big fall in our self-sufficiency from the current 60%, and if, at any time after 1 January, there is any threat to the level of food imports into this country that could cause a future shock or crisis, I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity to review this matter and report more frequently than every three years. However, I thank him for listening to the House and to those of us who raised these concerns at Second Reading and in Committee.
I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans in his Amendment 57, to which I have appended my name. It would require the Government to specify food security targets and implement actions to ensure that those targets were met. I hope that my noble friend would in the course of natural events seek to do that in the reports to which he has referred.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening and I thank noble Lords who spoke in Committee about the need for more frequent reporting on food security. It is important that we have more frequent reports on food security. Only this year, the Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Committee, of which I am a member, published a reported entitled Hungry for Change. It detailed the need for regular reporting and to address inadequate supply chains, which will be exacerbated not only by Brexit but by Covid. We need to address the effect of this global pandemic on the current levels of food insecurity in the UK, the developing world and other areas on which we rely for food.
I also support Amendment 50, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which I regard as probably an interim measure. I was happy to put my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She and I well recall our time as members of the EFRA Select Committee in the other place, of which she was chair. The committee found that levels of food security and food insecurity were equally inadequate and required to be addressed. Perhaps now we are getting to grips with this issue, which will have been made worse by Covid and Brexit.
On food provenance, it is important that we know where our food comes from and that it is properly controlled. People should receive an adequate supply of food and should no longer have to resort to food banks. However, the reality is that many people rely on them. We have to try to ensure that people have access to the right benefits, and in that regard there should be a review of the whole universal credit system.
Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to address the issue of food security? It is a global issue as well as a domestic one. We need specific food security targets to be set on an annual basis, although I welcome the move to a three-yearly basis. Relevant reporting to Parliament is also required every three years, although I would also prefer to see that on an annual basis. We have to see what is actually going on, and when we have witnessed that, surely Parliament, working with the Government, can take appropriate action to address deficits in both food security and insecurity.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have supported my amendments and also the Minister, who has been listening long and hard to all of this. I feel that the Government have come a long way on the issue.
Household food insecurity is very different from national food security and we should measure both. I should say that measurements of household food insecurity are already being taken. The Family Resources Survey does this as a part of its work every year while the Food Standards Agency collects data on household food insecurity as part of the Food and You survey. These measurements are being made and while I realise that taking them every year seems like a lot, if you are hungry, three years will seem like an extremely long time.
Quite frankly, if you are poor and cannot afford to buy food, it does not matter to you if the supermarkets of Chelsea and Westminster happen to be well stocked for those who have enough money in their pocket. The Trussell Trust produced a report this week saying that by Christmas, it reckons that 670,000 more people will be coming to food banks as the furlough scheme is lifted. We have a great deal of household insecurity, which can lead to incalculable damage.
I thank the Government for this amendment and I support it, but I would like to keep the channels open. People cannot wait three years to find out whether the food system is going to be made better for them and their children.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 52 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and then to Amendment 57 tabled in my name. I am grateful for the way in which the Minister has listened closely to the House and brought forward amendments. This is immensely helpful. On Tuesday, several noble Lords rehearsed the reasons we need the highest levels of food security possible, and I will not repeat those arguments now. Although I agree that this is a difficult call, my personal view is that annual reporting would be preferable. Nevertheless, I shall listen carefully to the arguments as they are made.
On Amendment 57, while I welcome the Government’s commitment to produce a regular report on food security, it is vital that this is a means by which Her Majesty’s Government can express their policy targets and mechanisms to address any issues in this area. Currently, the provisions in the Bill envisage a fairly static output that merely reports on the current food security situation rather than a more dynamic report which seeks to set out an agenda for change where change is required. There is little point in the Government merely producing a report of which Parliament is required to take note; we need a platform for evaluation, repurposing and, of course, to inform future actions. At the very least, it will be essential to ensure that food security targets are both met and monitored. Where the report indicates that there are issues with aspects of our food and environmental security, the Government must come forward with their plans and policies for addressing those shortcomings.
This amendment would provide the necessary architecture for the Government to take the matter forward and ensure responsibly that the UK is adequately prepared for any future uncertainties. It would be a failure if, having taken the time to consider the importance of having a food security report, we do not also ensure that it is used to inform changes in policy and procedures. A statutory requirement for Her Majesty’s Government is needed to address these issues and it needs to be included in this Bill.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 53 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which recommends that government reports on food security should take into account measures of household food insecurity. As the noble Baroness has just pointed out, it would be anomalous if in isolation, on its own, some assessment of national food security were to have a good reading while at the same time, United Kingdom household food security might have a poor one. That inconsistency would be prevented by this amendment, which requires the Government’s report to consider household food insecurity alongside food security.
I am also in favour of Amendment 57, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, on specifying food security targets so that thereafter, actions can be taken to ensure that they are met. The prescription within the amendment is irrefutable, for how can we proceed efficiently and competently if we do not state and specify targets in the first place? If we do not use targets at all, how then can we properly calculate any future level of progress and judge whether we have acted correctly to attain certain levels of food security in the United Kingdom?
I come now to Amendment 55 in my name on supply sources of livestock feed as an input to food production and the reliance on the food supply chain. As I pointed out in Committee, there are three major disadvantages from imported animal feed. First, these imports undermine the country’s food security. Secondly, there is the carbon footprint arising from their production and transport. Thirdly, there is the environmental damage which their cultivation causes in certain countries, notably soya beans in Brazil and Argentina.
In 2019, imports of animal feed broke a record by exceeding £2.4 billion. The feed is mostly soya or intensively produced grain being grown by companies that are responsible for deforestation in the Amazon. If we use feed from land that should be forest, we are adding to the destruction of an ecosystem which sustains our climate and biodiversity. Regarding the resolve to increase our own homegrown animal feed supply as much as possible, my noble friend the Minister has already referred to the Pulse Crop Genetic Improvement Network, a project due to end in 2023. Its aims include the production of better quality animal feed and to discover alternatives to imported soya beans. Based on the existing level of research, can my noble friend say what targets can already be set both for the reduction of imported feed and an increase in homegrown feed?
Meanwhile, United Kingdom importers could be encouraged to buy feed from countries that demonstrate similar environmental standards to those of the United Kingdom, and perhaps guided in this endeavour by international certification bodies. Does my noble friend agree with that? If so, what steps might the Government now take to buy from certain countries rather than others and to make use of international certification bodies?
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. What we are talking about is very important and it is heading in the right direction but the approach should be much more about management by exception, as they say in the private sector. Crucial targets and standards should be set and there should be reporting when things go wrong. It should not be a matter of waiting a year, two years or three years. There should be indicators and then the Government should report to Parliament when things are going wrong. It means doing that at the earliest time and saying what is being done to put it right. That is slightly similar to how, in the private sector, companies are required to give profit warnings if the track they indicate they are following is being deviated from. There should be a much more dynamic approach to this question. I would like to see standards set and reports produced when the standards are not being met.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward his amendments on this issue. I would still prefer the reporting to be annual, but he has made a move towards us, and I will not dispute his suggestion of three years.
My noble friend Lord Dundee made some interesting and useful points about animal feeds and the damage caused when growing them in other countries, particularly in Brazil, as we have seen recently on television in the Attenborough programme. It is a matter of concern.
More generally, I am concerned about getting too detailed about food security. We must remember that a great many British farmers rely on exports, and if we are restrictive on our imports, it is going to be very easy for other countries to be restrictive on our exports. As the situation stands, I fear the EU could be extremely difficult about our lamb and beef exports in the not-too-distant future. That would have a profound effect on farming, and it is something my noble friend will have to be aware of. Overall, we are not doing too badly on producing our own food. We import an awful lot we do not need for our own diet, but we are lucky to be rich enough to afford it.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 53, of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, in this group because it relates to food insecurity. The point I want to make today, when shortly we are to debate the whole of the food strategy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is that the issue of food insecurity for our poorest households—but not exclusively poor households—is a whole food chain issue. That is why I was a bit disturbed on Tuesday, when it was suggested that this Bill was about the agriculture sector’s relationship with government and government subsidy or support to deliver public goods, expressed primarily in terms of farming’s relationships to the environment, the countryside, biodiversity in the countryside, animal welfare and, perhaps, the wider rural economy.
Those are all vital issues, but arguably the biggest public good is the contribution to the delivery of a safe, accessible and healthy diet to our population. That involves the relationships of farmers not just with the Government or the environment but the whole apparatus of the food chain with which farming trades. Together, they need to deliver an effective food strategy to improve our population’s diet, drastically reduce obesity and other food-related disorders and make healthy food available to all at affordable prices. Food insecurity exacerbates poverty and disease and explains, in large part, the escalating dependence on food banks. That is why we need a national food strategy.
Like others, I served on the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. The work of that committee, together with that of Henry Dimbleby’s food commission, will hopefully form the basis of that new government strategy. But it will if society recognises the crisis of unhealthy diet is an important one we are all facing, which has to be addressed, in part, through the relationship between farming and the other key players in the food chain.
Much of the regulation on food focuses on farmers, who are generally small businesses, and final outlets—restaurants, cafés, food shops and takeaways—which are also, largely, small businesses. But the nature of the food chain—the economics of it and, to some extent, its whole regulatory structure—is determined by the substantial companies in the middle of the journey from farm to fork, such as processors, wholesalers and supermarkets. These sectors are highly oligopolistic, but their decisions affect the price and standards to which farmers produce, as well as the tastes of consumers and the price and availability of food. They influence via their advertising budgets and their store displays in a way that affects price, diet and the availability of healthy food. These industries spend 20 times more on advertising highly processed food and confectionery than they do on fresh fruit and vegetables. Farmers and consumers need fairer, more balanced, greener contracts as we trade throughout the food chain.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s Amendment 52 and my noble friend Lord Dundee’s Amendment 55 concerning
“supply sources for livestock feeds as an input to food production and the resilience of the feed supply chain.”
Further to my Amendment 12, which did not find favour with the House, I believe the issue of food security is vital, having highlighted the UK’s lack of self-sufficiency in fruit, vegetables and potatoes in that amendment as well as the figure of 30% of our food coming from the EU.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Amendment 50 to make reporting at least every three years, rather than every five. But, with the transition phase now ending and a volatile food supply possible if there is no trade deal with the EU, I believe that a report on food security every three years is still too limited, particularly when we are having continual cases of extreme weather and perhaps future virus outbreaks. I hope that in Amendment 51 this will be covered as a case for further reports more than once every three years.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, my interests in this Bill are published in the register. This has been a good debate. I wish to add my voice to those of other noble Lords in support of the Minister’s proposed amendments to Clause 17, which recognise the strength of noble Lords’ feelings, expressed particularly in Committee. That is why the Government have committed to publish the first report on food security before both Houses rise for the Christmas Recess next year, with successive reports in future every three years.
The first report will include the impact of the current coronavirus pandemic on food supply, which will be a critical aspect of it. It will give a particular and important emphasis to the report. As noble Lords will be aware, there is a wide range of statistical data on food supply and consequent security that is already made available annually. However, the whole point of the exercise is to evaluate the longer-term trends in these reports and recognise those in the sound compromise of a three-year cycle.
I may seem like a crowd cheerer for the Minister, but I believe that my noble friend should be thanked and congratulated on reading the mood of the House accurately and acting on it.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 51, in which I join the Government. It was an amendment I proposed in Committee, so I thank the Minister and Government for agreeing to it. I very much appreciate the reaching of a consensus on this point.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Farming is, obviously, key, and its main focus is the provision of food. It is important that the House has reached consensus on this point. I do not agree with the point made that we need a more regular food security report; it is proposed that it should be annual. An annual report will result merely in a cut and paste of data and little consideration. The three-year cycle is key, because you can pick up trends and some novel work can be put into the process between or during each reporting cycle.
Finally, with respect to food security, I caution that we should not merely focus on the volume of food available. High-volume, low-cost and low-quality food is exactly what we do not want; obviously, we want sufficient volumes of food, but it needs to be food of a quality that will keep this nation healthy. We have all seen over the past six months how important good health and good diet are to the nation’s ability to deal with this terrible coronavirus.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon. This is a vital group of amendments covering food security, and I agree that the main purpose of our agriculture is to provide healthy, nutritious food. I welcome the Minister tabling amendments that require the first report on food security to be prepared before 25 December 2021, so long as it is a sitting day of both Houses. A further amendment requires reporting every three years. Others have tabled amendments pressing the case for more frequent food security reports.
I welcome the change in the Government’s position and thank the Minister for his introduction. I have added my name to Amendment 50 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. This is a similar amendment, which requires that the first food security report be laid within 12 months of the passing of this Bill. It is important that the first report on UK food security should be completed within 12 months of the implementation of the Act and every three years thereafter. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, made a very powerful case for why it is important to get on with this matter. Food security is important to everybody in the country.
The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Boycott, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans would like this food security report to be produced annually. We are all concerned about the state of food security, as we should be. However, I appreciate that the production of this report will be bureaucratic and is likely to take a good deal of data collection. I wonder whether the production of a yearly report would create such an administrative burden that the information contained in it would be insufficiently detailed to be meaningful. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on this.
On Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, it is important that household food security is considered. At the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, we saw huge food shortages being experienced by households, including those of people working for the NHS who were unable to get to the supermarkets at a reasonable time. As we approach a second spike, food security will again come into focus.
I support the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on the impact of importing animal feed specially grown in what were previously rainforests in Brazil.
It is a terrible thing to be hungry. We are one of the richest countries of the world, and we must have robust measures in place to ensure that we can feed our own residents. Food security targets are one way to monitor this, alongside an implementation plan to ensure that targets are met. I fully support the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, and I support the Minister’s amendments and look forward to his winding-up comments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I should in the first instance have declared my farming interests, as in the register.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I think there is a general feeling, even from those who would have preferred an annual report, that we have come to a good House of Lords consensus on this matter. I particularly want to acknowledge what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said in speaking to Amendment 50, and all those who supported that amendment.
I turn particularly to what my noble friend Lady McIntosh and others said about Amendment 52. I understand the desire to publish yearly. We feel that it is very important to allow sufficient time to observe longer-term key trends from a variety of sources. We do not think that this would be as well met if it were necessary to publish reports each year. Producing reports at least every three years will allow proper consideration of trends from data. This is what we will put into statute, but if circumstances required earlier reports, of course we would produce them. That is why we very much feel that a report next year, given corona and, indeed, any other circumstances, will be very important.
Such trends may include, for example, the cost of food commodities; the sustainability of natural resources required for food production and supply; and the diversity of entry ports into the UK for food and drink imports. Some of these trends are slow-moving and do not change significantly year on year, but they may well do so over a longer period. That is where we must have that degree of analysis.
I say to all noble Lords, although I am particularly mindful of my noble friend Lord Marlesford, on the continuing work and vigilance, if there are issues of concern, I—and, I am sure, ministerial colleagues in the other place—would want to bring them before the House if there were certain crises. When there have been issues of concern, whether flooding or resilience because of Covid, we of course want to air them and bring them, in my case, before your Lordships. This is a particular point for the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie: much data on food security will be available on an annual basis. Data that will be used in the food security report, such as the Government’s Agriculture in the United Kingdom, the Family Resources Survey and the Living Costs and Food Survey, are published and made publicly available annually. Of course, Defra officials routinely track to spot any unexpected or significant changes. That is all daily work. The reports required under Clause 17 will consider the data produced through these surveys, in addition to less frequently produced data, to provide deeper analysis to help us provide an accurate picture of the UK’s food security to support the development of policy for the future.
On the important matter of the topics to be covered by the food security reports, we shall draw on established statistics, such as those I have mentioned, but officials will also want to monitor new data sources and emerging issues.
On Amendment 55, I reassure my noble friend that the food security report will already cover—under Clause 17(2)(b), regarding UK availability and access—the capability of UK agricultural production of crops, livestock and fisheries produce. This will include the availability of inputs, such as animal feed products. I was very mindful of what my noble friend Lord Caithness said in embellishing on what we are seeing in certain parts of the world.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no request from any noble Lord to ask a short question after the Minister’s reply, so I shall now put the question.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires reports under Clause 17 to be prepared at least once every three years (instead of at least once every five years).
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first Government amendment to Clause 17.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(3) In this section “relevant day” means the last day before 25 December 2021 which is a sitting day for both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a definition of “relevant day” into Clause 17.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 58. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 58
Lord Krebs
“National Food Strategy
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a strategy outlining the steps that Her Majesty’s Government proposes to take to—(a) increase sustainability of food production,(b) support food production and consumption, and(c) improve dietary health and reduce obesity,in the United Kingdom.(2) In relation to the priority mentioned in subsection (1)(a), the strategy must include analysis of the merits of—(a) incorporating the environmental sustainability of food into the Eatwell Guide,(b) ensuring that domestically produced food meets environmental sustainability standards,(c) ensuring that food waste is minimised,(d) ensuring that public procurement meets both health and sustainability standards, and(e) providing increased funding for research and development into sustainable agriculture.(3) In relation to the priority mentioned in subsection (1)(b), the strategy must include analysis of the merits of—(a) supporting local and regional food identities,(b) supporting procurement of food produced in the United Kingdom where appropriate and sustainable, and(c) developing an assurance scheme for food produced in the United Kingdom to enhance consumer confidence in the safety, quality and sustainability of such food.(4) In relation to the priority mentioned in subsection (1)(c), the strategy must include analysis of the merits of—(a) ensuring the reformulation of less healthy foods using fiscal and other appropriate means,(b) restricting the marketing, promotion, and advertising of less healthy food both in retail outlets and through the media,(c) reducing food insecurity, food poverty, and obesity in the lowest income groups,(d) standardising and mandating food labelling relating to nutrition, and(e) improving children’s diets.(5) Before publishing the strategy under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must develop a standardised set of reporting metrics on health and sustainability across the food system by which progress on implementation of the strategy can be measured.(6) The strategy in subsection (1) must—(a) set out proposals for independent oversight of aspects of food policy covered by the strategy, and(b) consider whether responsibility for such oversight should be given to—(i) a new non-departmental public body, or(ii) an existing organisation.(7) In preparing the strategy under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult—(a) other relevant Ministers of the Crown,(b) the Scottish Ministers,(c) the Welsh Ministers, (d) the Northern Ireland Department, and(e) bodies that appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of the UK agricultural and food sectors.(8) In this section—“Eatwell Guide” means the United Kingdom’s national food guide entitled the “Eatwell Guide”, as produced by Her Majesty’s Government;“food waste” means waste of agri-food products by households or the food service sector;“less healthy food” means foods high in fat, salt and sugars.”
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister and his officials for spending time yesterday in discussion with all four of us who have signed this cross-party amendment. Amendment 58 seeks to put into the Bill something that the Government are already committed to doing. The Government have said that they are
“committed to ensuring our food system delivers safe, healthy, affordable food for everyone, regardless of where they live or how much they earn, and which is built on a sustainable and resilient agriculture sector.”
This is precisely the purpose of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke eloquently a few moments ago about the nature of our food system. He anticipated a number of points that I will make in my short introduction.
The amendment would ensure that the Government put in place policies that will, in combination, help to tackle the dreadful burden of ill-health in this country that is caused by poor diet, particularly among the poorest in society. The Covid-19 epidemic has brought the cost of obesity into stark relief. The Government have spoken of it as a wake-up call. The new obesity strategy, launched on 27 July, is a very welcome step and an acknowledgment of the crisis we are facing.
The amendment would also ensure that our food system is more environmentally sustainable, underpinned by the latest science, while supporting farmers by encouraging local food, where appropriate. The fact that this country is one of the most depleted in the world in its biodiversity shows how unsustainable we have been up to now. I anticipate that the Minister will say in his reply that the Government have commissioned Henry Dimbleby to prepare a report on the national food strategy and are committed to publishing a White Paper within six months of his final report, and that this amendment is therefore unnecessary. However, this process may well take us into mid-2022. Any actions that follow would not only be uncertain; they might not arise until some distant future.
Fixing the failures in our food system is too urgent for further delay. If the disagreement is about not whether but when, let us get on with it now. Neither the children whose lives will be blighted by ill-health from unhealthy foods nor the environment that is being damaged by food production can wait any longer. I will listen carefully to the debate and the Minister’s reply but if he is not able to give a commitment to act sooner rather than later, I will wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and it has been an enormous pleasure to serve on the committee of which he was the chair. I think that our report has been invaluable and is extremely thorough, and I know that, like him, we are a little disappointed by the Government’s reaction. However, also like him, I very much thank the Minister for the time he has spent with us.
It is roughly 12 years to the day since I began work as the chair of the London Food Board—appointed by our current Prime Minister, in fact. I have worked for many years in this area: I have loads that I could talk about and loads of things that I have done. However, despite all the effort of so many people working across the sector—charities, Governments, think tanks, consultancies, agencies, doctors and health departments—the situation has not got better. Actually, it has got worse.
Next week, the Food Foundation—of which I am a trustee—publishes the updated version of its annual publication, The Broken Plate. It makes for terrible reading. I will give the House just a few snapshots. Within food advertising budgets, out of a rough spend of around £300 million, 14% is spent on soft drinks, 17% is spent on confectionery, 17.7% is spent on snacks and just 2.9% is spent on fruit and veg. The poorest 10% of households would need to spend 76% of their disposable income to meet the Government’s recommended diet, the “eatwell plate”. Since last year, this has risen by over 2%.
If you are a baby born today, these are your life chances with the system we now have. At age five, 13% will be overweight and 9% will be obese. At age 21, 21% will be overweight and 25% will be obese. However, at 65, 22% will be overweight and a staggering 57% will be obese, and they will have a range of illnesses: diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancers and osteoporosis, as well as really bad teeth.
Why on earth do we let this carry on? I have been asking myself this question repeatedly for 12 years. I have also been involved in many measures to fix it: little moves that perhaps make something a bit better; bits of Sellotape over this problem or that problem. But the thing is—and this is why this amendment is so important—it is not about fixing one little thing here or another thing there; this is a system that is largely outside the Government’s control. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said on the previous group of amendments, it is a system run by a few very giant companies that have become very rich at our expense.
If you apply simple capitalism to the food system, this is what you get: sell more products made from ever-cheaper ingredients. It is easy to see it when you talk about clothes or cars, but it is also what we do with food, and these are the results we see around us. We have foods that contain chemicals, that have necessitated cutting down rainforests and that have deprived orangutans of their homes. In short, we have created a system that is out of control. What we have is the politics of the market and not the politics of health.
If we want to make proper improvements, we have to support this amendment. It is only by having a proper food strategy—one that cuts across government, involves all the departments and is treated with the serious attitude that it deserves—that we will make the proper changes that we need. When noble Lords are thinking about voting on this, I ask them to please remember that food is also the major driver of our biodiversity. That is why it belongs here in this discussion about agriculture.
It is not just that we are getting ill from our food system: insects are dying, while animals all over the world are losing their habitats. Right now, roughly 65 billion animals are sitting in some sort of cage somewhere on our planet, eating food that, as was said, often requires deforestation to make, and waiting to be killed and processed on the journey to our plates. This is a really lousy way to run such an important system. It is a tragedy, because nature gives us healthy food—amazing and extraordinary stuff. I believe that we all have a right to it, wherever we live and whatever we own. I beg noble Lords to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a member of the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission and a former chief executive of Diabetes UK.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I hope it will go to a vote and that we will pass it, because it is so important and requires further discussion, and it would be very helpful for the House of Commons to have to discuss it.
This amendment is like the proverbial good pudding—it is full of good things or plums, or whatever you want to say. In particular, I pick out the question of food waste, which is such an important issue—everybody says it is important but nobody does a huge amount about it. How important it is to support local and regional food identities in the production of quality and diverse food. On restricting the marketing, promotion and advertising of less healthy food, I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has said.
There has been huge political, economic and commercial pressure in this country in recent years for cheap food. A lot of food in this country is in fact, by historical standards, incredibly cheap—but being cheap does not necessarily mean that it is good food. It can be: in Trawden, an old weaving village just up the valley from where we live, there was no shop left, but a group of volunteers got together to set up a community shop that provides an astonishing range of really good, diverse, nutritious food which is incredibly cheap. Of course, most of the staff there are volunteers; you can do it on that basis, but it is not a basis for everywhere.
On the other hand, in June, when I came down before the recess, the facilities here were not all that great, due to the position that we are in. So I called at a convenience store on the way in and bought a couple of what, from the pictures on the packet, looked like rather nice ready meals. I could not believe how ridiculously cheap they were—less than a couple of bags of crisps, really. I put them in the microwave in the pantry on our corridor and thought I would have my tea. I have not eaten such nasty food for a long time. It was awful. You can tell that I do not do much shopping, given that I was buying these things. Nevertheless, it was an eye-opener as to how nasty cheap food can be.
The problem is that people who are living on the absolute minimum income—the sort of people whom the Minister was talking about earlier, who rely on the DWP—have to buy the cheapest food that they can get, because of their circumstances. So, for the people who buy a lot of the cheapest food because they cannot afford more, not only is the food cheap, it is not good. This is so important.
This amendment, in a way, underlines the whole Bill. We have talked about food production; the environment in which it is produced; the effect of food production on the environment; the quality of food; the standards that will be applied to food that is imported and to the production of that food—and all the rest of it. But where is the food strategy itself? What is the Government’s view on the food strategy? The Minister spoke of “safe, healthy, affordable food” and was quoted again by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. But we do not know what the present Government’s overall strategy will be when it comes to the trade-offs between incomes for farmers, quality of food, price of food and where it all rests with international trade. We are still waiting for the Government to tell us.
We know what the different systems can be. First, if farmers are to produce food in this country, they must have sufficient income—that is pretty obvious—but the question is how that income will be put together. We know that the existing CAP system, which is mainly, though not entirely, based on the area of land in a farm, will be replaced by payments for public goods. In Committee, I tried to tease out from the Government a definition of “public goods” but such a definition was not forthcoming. It means different things to different people, according to what they think is important. I think that access is an important public good; other people do not necessarily disagree but put more priority on other things—even I might put more priority on other things. What is a public good? Is the production of good, healthy, affordable food a public good or is it, as the Minister said several times previously in his replies on this Bill, a private good, because it is something that can be left to the market and the price that farmers and producers get for that food is a private, not public, good? There is a muddle about this.
You can put tariffs up, which is basically what the Common Market did originally. It protected the European farmers behind tariffs in order to provide food security in Europe. That then turned into production subsidies and a level of intervention in the market that resulted in the famous beefs mountains—which people out there still think are part of the CAP, although they disappeared long ago. Then it was all decoupled from production and the farm payments were based on land; that is the system that we have more or less got to now, with some environmental bells and whistles added. Now it is going to be decoupled from land and based on public goods. That is all very well, but none of that says what our trade relationships with other countries will be—the countries that we import food from and export food to—or what trade arrangements we will have. Deal or no deal, we will have arrangements with the European Union and with countries in the rest of the world. The nature of those arrangements and how they will work will have as much effect on the future of farming and of food—the price and what we get—in this country as everything in this Bill. They must be looked at together.
I would say that we need to concentrate on fair trade, health and well-being and environmental sustainability, putting the whole trade thing in the context of the environment. One of the best books I have read in the last year or two was Doughnut Economics, by Kate Raworth, an economist. She puts economics into the framework of society and the environment, rather than at the top. I recommend it to all noble Lords—and to the Minister. I hope he can tell us what our strategy for food will be in the future, in relation not just to all the things in this Bill but to our trading relationships with the rest of the world.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I rise to offer the Green Party’s wholehearted support for this amendment. I reflect, as I did yesterday with the immigration Bill, that the current system of a maximum of four signatures does not allow the full breadth of cross-party support for an amendment to be shown on the Marshalled List. This is something that I may be raising with the House authorities.
I begin by returning to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in introducing this amendment: neither human health nor the environment can wait any longer. That made me think of Oral Questions yesterday when the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in a supplementary question, asked the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, where our peat strategy was. This is an extremely urgent climate matter. I heard the chief scientist from Defra reflecting this morning on how crucial this was, how the UN will soon be including peat emissions in its global calculations and how we need to act. Yet we are still waiting. We have no legislative framework and we do not know when we will get this delayed strategy. When we are talking about the food, health and diet of the nation and the well-being of our agricultural land, we cannot afford to leave this hanging.
It is often said that we are talking about creating, for the first time, a food strategy for England. Wales and Scotland have been well ahead of us in this area for many years—particularly Scotland. But we do have a food strategy. Our current strategy, although it is not written down, is to let supermarkets and multinational manufacturing companies decide what we eat. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, set out in her extremely informed speech—she is of course your Lordships’ House’s expert in these areas—how that has given us a truly dreadful diet and a truly dreadful environment. We have to give people the chance to eat well and healthily, which simply is not available to them at the moment through our current food strategy.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my heart always cheers when I see an amendment to any legislation by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. He brings experience, wisdom, knowledge and insight in a disciplined way to our proceedings, and I thank him warmly for this amendment. I am also glad to see my noble friend Lady Jones in full support.
We can in this House sometimes sound a bit like a Greek chorus, wringing our hands about what is wrong, social evils and the things that are failing to deliver the kind of society we all claim to want to see. The great thing about this amendment is that it takes the opportunity of this Bill to bring in a comprehensive and disciplined way some muscle to what we are going to do—demanding plans for action in specific areas by specific dates.
I have just looked through the list in the noble Lord’s amendment and think of all the hours that we have spent in this House discussing these things:
“increase sustainability of food production … improve dietary health and reduce obesity”—
how we lament obesity, but here is a firm suggestion as to what we should do about it. The list continues:
“incorporating the environmental sustainability of food into the Eatwell Guide … ensuring that domestically produced food meets environmental sustainability standards … ensuring that food waste is minimised”—
the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke powerfully on this point; I too become appalled and disgusted when I see the mountains of food that go to waste. The amendment further calls for:
“ensuring that public procurement meets both health and sustainability standards … providing increased funding for research and development into sustainable agriculture … supporting local and regional food identities … supporting procurement of food produced in the United Kingdom where appropriate and sustainable … developing an assurance scheme for food produced in the United Kingdom to enhance consumer confidence in the safety, quality and sustainability of such food … ensuring the reformulation of less healthy foods using fiscal and other appropriate means … restricting the marketing, promotion, and advertising of less healthy food both in retail outlets and through the media … reducing food insecurity, food poverty, and obesity in the lowest income groups”—
how we profess our concern about this grave social issue, but in the midst of our society we have these areas in which food insecurity, food poverty and obesity are so prominent.
I could go on, but I quote at length from the amendment because the points in it need to be spelled out for all to hear. I am very glad that the amendment has been moved. It is a helpful way of bringing the production of food and the whole system of agriculture into a direct relationship within a comprehensive strategy for dealing with many of the social and immediate problems which confront us. It is a terrific amendment and I shall be glad to support it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on moving this amendment, which on the face of it has much to commend it and covers a wide-ranging issue. In his introduction, he stated that he wanted to put in the Bill what the Government are committed to doing to deliver safe, healthy and affordable food to all. I cannot imagine that any Member of your Lordships’ House would disagree with that.
We are very fortunate to benefit from the expertise and knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who is, of course, a member of the advisory panel on the national food strategy, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, all of whom have signed this amendment.
The noble Lord also went on to say that the Government are committed to publishing a White Paper six months after the publication of part 2 of what I call the Dimbleby report on the national food strategy. After that, Mr Dimbleby is invited to review progress six months later. My concern with the amendment, and I look forward to what the Minister will say in summing up the debate, is that it pre-empts part 2 of the national food strategy. It is not always that I say this, but again I commend the Minister in this regard, because the Government seem to be on the side of the angels and have commissioned Henry Dimbleby to produce his report. I pay tribute to Mr Dimbleby and all those who have contributed, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, Minette Batters and a host of others who have huge expertise and add great value in this field.
I understand, looking at the first part of the national food strategy, that the recommendation covers two main themes: making sure that a generation of our most disadvantaged children do not get left behind, that eating well in childhood is seen as the very foundation stone of equality and opportunity, and so it goes on; and then the second part of part 1, which I am going to draw on heavily when I come to later amendments. Mr Dimbleby talks of the essence of sovereignty being freedom, saying that this is a one-time opportunity to negotiate our new trade deals, that the Government must protect the high environmental and animal welfare standards of which our country is justifiably proud, and so it goes on.
So I am slightly confused, because I do not disagree with one iota of what is in this amendment. But there are many issues that I have found cause to criticise the Government on, and my noble friend has been patient in the extreme in listening to this, both outside and inside the Chamber, and I thank him for that. But when the Government have gone to the lengths of commissioning a national food strategy, are we not being a little pre-emptive in Amendment 58 before the House this evening?
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 58 on the national food strategy in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, connecting as it does to the useful Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which we have just debated and which recommends that government reports on food security should include assessments of household food insecurity.
As has been said, healthy food and a healthy environment are central to the Bill; therefore, it would be consistent with the Bill if the Secretary of State should present a food strategy to Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has indicated, its aims should be to increase sustainability of food production, to support food production and consumption and, not least, to improve dietary health and reduce obesity. I hope the Minister will back this proposal.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, took less than three minutes to move the amendment. I hope to copy that and avoid some of the Second Reading-type points that I have just been listening to.
The new clause is titled “National Food Strategy” and I think the word “national” is important. I shall touch on only three points. Subsection 2(d) concerns public procurement. We do need central control to do something about public procurement. We have devolved so much to bodies such as schools, prisons, the MoD and the NHS in terms of the budgeting. Trying to get national policy without dictating the detail to them is very difficult and needs a cross-government effort. I know how difficult it is to do because I tried and failed. So that is one issue.
My second point concerns paragraph 3 and “developing an assurance scheme”. There needs to be a good government kitemark assurance scheme. To be honest, what we have is not satisfactory, whether it is Red Tractor or the RSPCA. They are all over the place. The public need to have something they can be absolutely confident about, and I therefore think that an assurance scheme that the Government have developed —in consultation, obviously—would carry an awful lot of weight.
My third point concerns the fourth paragraph, on marketing and promotion. Something like 40% of the food in the supermarkets is on promotion. On restriction, I am also in favour of the voluntary changes in reformulation. When I joined the Food Standards Agency, it was almost at the end of its programme to launch the reformulation to reduce salt, which was on a voluntary basis and was incredibly successful. The UN supported it at its conference in London because of the work of the FSA. That work was then removed to the Department of Health behind closed doors by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and that was the end of it, in a way. The reductions we have had are nowhere near as good as in the past.
That brings me to my final point. Much of what was required on obesity, and changing the attitude to promotion and marketing, was set out years ago. I only reluctantly mention the names of civil servants, but they have said things in public. Dr Alison Tedstone of Public Health England, who was formerly at the FSA, had all this planned out. She spoke to all-party groups about it when Theresa May was Prime Minister. Theresa May dumped it all—absolutely dumped the programme in terms of advertisements before the watershed and the obesity programme for children. So it is all there; we do not have to invent anything.
My final point ties in with what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said. I have been in the Minister’s place, getting up to say to the House, “Well, it’s in the Bill, we’re going to do it, you’re pre-empting something”, when deep down I really know that if I can get this in the Bill, it will be so much easier when I am back in the department to actually get the policy through. Because I do not believe the timetable that has been set out following Dimbleby 2 can be maintained unless there is a real parliamentary push, and the way to do that is to adopt Amendment 58.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I too had the privilege of sitting on the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—the Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Committee—and I am grateful to the Government for their response to our report. I would classify it in English as “disappointing,” in Scottish as “peely-wally,” and I think the amendment before us goes a long way towards implementing what was unanimously agreed in the report. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that to have it in the Bill now is the right way forward to help Defra in the future.
The quality of the food we eat is costing us all billions—costing this country a great deal of money, and unnecessarily. We are the processed food capital of Europe, and that is a number one spot that we should not be holding. It was the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who said that we want to encourage the production of good, healthy food. I argue that the farmers do produce good, healthy food now: it is the industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said on the previous group of amendments, that turns decent, good food into the poison that we are fed by supermarkets—all this ghastly processed food. Some of it is absolutely delicious, and you have to go for a second helping, but it is poison: it is doing us no good and it is costing the NHS, in due course, one heck of a lot of money.
So it is the industry. I remember that on one occasion we were interviewing Judith Batchelar of Sainsbury’s and then the British Retail Consortium. I pressed hard and it took a long time to get a final answer from Judith Batchelar, but she did finally say that Sainsbury’s would not sell chlorinated chicken. The British Retail Consortium, on the other hand, said, “Oh, no, we have no control over our members”. In other words, “We are not going to say anything, and we are certainly going to produce the cheapest food that we can find on the market.” The industry will be called to the table kicking and screaming against any change.
As so much of the food we eat is either fast food or from restaurants, we have absolutely no idea what we are being served. It is one thing to buy something with a label on it in a supermarket or a shop, but it is quite another when we eat outside our home and have absolutely no idea where the food comes from.
On a point of nitpicking detail with the amendment, I would have liked in subsection (4)(d), on food labelling, to have included the effects of climate change. I mentioned this quite a lot in Committee, and I hope my noble friend has read the book by Professor Bridle that I recommended to him, or at least his officials have and given him a precis of it.
Another point we raised in Committee which is hugely important to the whole of our national food strategy is what I would term Whitehall governance. It is not just Defra; there are numerous departments within government that are all involved in the food we eat, whether it is education—through schools—or the National Health Service, or whoever it is. Whitehall governance has also got to improve. It was quite clear from the number of Ministers we had to interview to get any sort of idea of what the Government were trying to do that it is not a joined-up process.
I believe this amendment would go a long way to push that in the right direction. I do not think my noble friend Lady McIntosh is right in saying that it will pre-empt part 2; it will strengthen the Government’s hand when part 2 is published. By that stage, the Government will be a little bit more ahead of the game than they are at the moment.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, this amendment would include in the Bill a new clause introducing a national food strategy. I understand that Henry Dimbleby’s team will publish part 2 of their review before the end of the year, and that the Government have committed to publish a White Paper within six months of that. I therefore believe this is the wrong place and the wrong time to try to legislate, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. However, I do agree with many things he said in his introductory speech. In this instance, I tend to agree with my noble friend Lady McIntosh rather than my noble friend Lord Caithness.
I believe that the best way to encourage people to improve their diet and reduce the problem of obesity—which seems to me also worthy of being described as a pandemic—is to produce policies that will maximise prosperity for all. The lower the proportion of household income that basic necessities such as food account for, the more people will choose to buy higher-quality and healthier food products. The creation of another non-departmental public body with powers to influence food policy, including the reformulation of less healthy foods by fiscal means, would run the risk of creating a vast, unaccountable bureaucracy, which would cause distortions in the market.
As noble Lords are well aware, the economy has been badly hit by the Covid-19 pandemic, and unemployment is rising. Does my noble friend the Minister not agree that it is the wrong time to restrict the marketing, promotion and advertising of what the amendment calls “less healthy foods”? Surely it is not good for your health to eat large quantities of certain foods, but modest consumption of many foods containing salt does not harm most people in any way. I worry that a new body, or an existing organisation, that the noble Lord wishes to have oversight of these matters might overstep the mark, besides the obvious risk of tempting the nanny state to be overzealous, which would reduce personal responsibility for matters such as choice of diet and possibly even have counterproductive results.
I think that Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy can make an important contribution to public understanding of the importance of diet. However, the best way to ensure that a wide range of healthy food is available at reasonable prices is to ensure that our food markets will be free of the distortions that exist today as a result of our membership of the common agricultural policy.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to this amendment, to which I have added my name, along with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for so excellently setting out the rationale for this amendment, and I declare my interest as the mother of a dietician. I am grateful to the Minister for his time, and that of his officials, in providing briefings.
In Committee we had a long debate on this issue, with a large number of speakers raising the issues around the need for a national food strategy. We were headed off by the Minister on the grounds that we were waiting for Henry Dimbleby to produce his first report. This has now happened, and I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that this is unlikely to be actioned without something in the Bill.
I am sure the Minister will again try to head us off by wanting to wait until part 2 of Henry Dimbleby’s report is produced some time next year—it will not be produced this year, as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, thinks. After the second report has been produced and digested, the Government have promised to produce a White Paper consultation on the food strategy within six months. After that consultation, a food strategy will appear at some time, but this could well be in 2022. I ask the Minister to give some clarity on the timescales in his response.
There cannot be many in the country who do not know that a healthy diet and exercise are vital if we are to avoid the rigours of diabetes and obesity or avoid falling victim to Covid-19. However, for many people, knowing that a healthy diet and exercise are needed does not necessarily mean that they fully understand what a healthy diet is, what foods they should avoid and which they should eat more of. Other noble Lords have produced really frightening statistics on the health of the nation.
The amendment is specific: nutritious, healthy food must be readily available. The rise in the popularity of television cooking programmes shows that people are interested in the preparation of interesting-looking food made from fresh ingredients. However, many TV adverts we see scheduled, especially from large supermarket chains, often feature food that is high in fat, salt and sugars, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has referred.
Beefburgers are a prime example. To me, the images on the screen are not that appetising, but I am sure that for those who regularly consume beefburgers, they are enticing and encourage them to fill their supermarket baskets with them. There is nothing wrong with beefburgers, eaten occasionally, made at home with fresh meat and without the addition of salt and sugar. However, when eaten on a daily basis, as they will be in some households—especially those who are on low incomes and cannot afford electricity to cook meals, and find it easier to go to the takeaway— they do not improve life chances. My noble friend Lord Greaves has given examples of ready meals and their quality, and I am sure that most of us have had one of these at some stage in our lives. Getting manufacturers to reduce the amount of fat, salt and sugar is key to improving diet—the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has said it all so much better.
In this House, we have a duty to do all we can to improve the diet of the nation. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, my daughter is a dietician and frequently says to me, “What are you doing about it?”. Alone, I cannot do a great deal, but together we can make a difference. This amendment is one way in which we can make a difference. On our virtual Benches we will support the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I urge your Lordships to support this amendment, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to have added my name to this amendment, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and I thank all noble Lords who have added their support in this debate.
In Committee we tabled an amendment calling for a national food plan to complement the previous clause on food security, and we had a very useful debate which highlighted the need to anchor a food strategy to the funding of farming for the future. Since then, considerably more thought has gone into what the shape of a national food strategy should be, and we believe that this amendment sets out a clear road map for the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made clear, it was well informed by the excellent Lords report Hungry for Change: Fixing the Failures in Food, a substantial piece of work which highlights the need for action in many of the priorities set out in this amendment. It makes the link between the food we grow, the environmental impact and the public health consequences of a poor diet and emphasises the need for a standardised set of reporting metrics on health and sustainability as well as an adherence to procurement standards. It also calls for the establishment of a national food strategy, backed up by the establishment of an independent body, analogous to the Committee on Climate Change, with responsibility for strategic oversight of its implementation. That is what this amendment seeks to deliver.
I have to say that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, seemed determined to ignore all the evidence, which shows that a lack of access to healthy food, along with poor diets and poverty are driving up levels of diet-related obesity and non-communicable disease. This adds something in the region of £6 billion a year to the NHS bill. There is a cost to this nation from inaction and a benefit to the agricultural sector if we can shift the solution to healthier food production and away from ultra-processed food. The Government need to address these issues.
In parallel with the work of the Lords committee, we know that Henry Dimbleby has also been working on a national food strategy. His interim report was published in July, and a more substantial final report covering many of these issues is due next year. We welcome that initiative. The Government have committed to publish a White Paper within six months of its publication and to follow up the recommendations, which is obviously a welcome step forward. However, there is no obligation on the Government to agree or to enact his proposals, or indeed to follow up the recommendations in our own Lords report. My noble friend Lord Rooker rightly reminded us that Governments have form on not following through on excellent reports of the past. Our amendment therefore seeks to provide legislative assurance that these proposals will be followed up with actions.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that we are not attempting to pre-empt or prejudge what the recommendations will be; we went to great lengths not to do that. We are asking only that the Government take them seriously and come up with their own food strategy within a set timeframe. Our amendment requires that the strategy be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the day that the Bill is passed, which we believe is reasonable and achievable. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made clear, it is too urgent for any further delay.
For all the reasons articulated by noble Lords, a national food strategy, based on the issues set out in our amendment, is vital for improving the health of the nation. It is essential that our future agricultural policies are aligned with policies that deliver healthier food to feed the nation. It is a fundamental responsibility of government to act on this issue and to ensure that its agriculture, environment and public health strategies are all joined up on this issue.
I also thank the Minister for his helpful meeting yesterday. We had hoped to persuade him to make this a government amendment, and I still hope that we have persuaded him and he can make that commitment today. However, if that is not possible, I ask all noble Lords to support this amendment if it is put to a vote.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords. I am well aware of the mindset of many of your Lordships, having had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and other noble Lords yesterday, as well as from what has been said today.
However, I open by saying that the Government are committed to developing a food strategy. I thought that in some of the contributions it appeared as if this was not the case so I point out that commitment, which will support the development of a sustainable, resilient and affordable food system, support people to live healthy lives, and protect animal health and welfare. I say to my noble friend Lord Dundee—without any chiding—that that is why the Government have already commissioned an independent review into the whole of the food sector. The review was launched in June 2019, and in July this year the first report was released, dealing with some of the most urgent questions raised by Covid-19 and EU exit.
The final report from Henry Dimbleby’s review is expected to be published in 2021. It will provide an opportunity to analyse the food system in this country and put forward—yes—an ambitious and comprehensive plan for transforming it. Although it will be for the independent team to develop its final report, it will examine the food system from root to branch, analysing in detail the economics and power dynamics that shape it, the benefits it brings and the harm it does. In doing so, it will look across the interwoven issues of health, climate change—mentioned by my noble friend Lord Caithness—biodiversity, pollution, antimicrobial resistance, zoonotic diseases and the sustainable use of resources.
The Agriculture Bill is a framework Bill, and it is unusual to put detailed commitments into this enabling legislation. The Government have been very firm on their commitment to publish a food White Paper within six months of Henry Dimbleby’s final report—my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering referred to that. It is only reasonable to say that we will need that time to reflect and secure agreement from all government departments ahead of Henry Dimbleby’s final recommendations.
We must also be careful not to pre-empt the contents of the final report, providing the independent team the opportunity to assess independently which measures would be most effective for our food system. Specifying what the White Paper must cover at this stage brings with it the risk that it directs thinking in a certain way, which could lead to new and innovative ideas being missed. It would therefore be premature to set out exactly what the Government’s food strategy must cover in the way that the amendment prescribes. The Government also have an issue with fixing a timetable without certainty on the publication date of the final report.
I also see this amendment in the context of the food security reports. Matters such as food supply and consumption, food safety, the resilience of the supply chain for food and household expenditure are already stated as being within the scope of these food security reports. The first report is be published on or before the last sitting day before Christmas for both Houses of Parliament. This report will also include an analysis of statistical data relating to the effects of coronavirus on food security in the United Kingdom, which was a key focus of the first report from the national food strategy. These reports will therefore certainly support the development and fulfilment of an ambitious food strategy.
I am also grateful for the Hungry for Change report, published this July by our Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment. We will of course be building on a wide range of work as we develop our food strategy, including that report and many others.
I will cut in here and say that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, mentioned diet, but only one noble Lord referred candidly to exercise: the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, obviously has a lifetime’s commitment to access and walking. Again, this is not just one thing but a combination of many issues that we have to grapple with.
Tackling public health and food issues properly requires a joined-up and practical approach across government departments, which goes beyond this Bill alone. During the Covid crisis, collaboration between government departments has been vital to ensuring that the food system receives the required support. We set up a joint ministerial food and essential supplies to the vulnerable taskforce, and throughout the crisis this example of cross-government working ensured that vulnerable people had access to food.
We are committed to continuing this level of collaboration and engagement across government to develop and deliver a new food strategy, as will be set out in the White Paper. I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness, for example, that Defra is already working with the Department of Health and Social Care and others to ensure that improving public health is a core priority of government policy.
Covid-19 has brought the risks of obesity and other health issues into sharp focus. As we all identify, it is more important than ever that people achieve a healthier lifestyle. The Government launched their new obesity strategy on 27 July to set out practical measures to get the nation fit and healthier, protect people against Covid-19 and protect the NHS. A coalition of partners is supporting delivery of the strategy through the Better Health campaign, which is encouraging adults to introduce changes to help them work towards a healthier weight.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to his concern about “sooner or later”. I understand that, of course. There is an imperative about the Government’s work in seeking out Henry Dimbleby to bring this forward, and our promise remains to bring forward a White Paper within six months of the final Dimbleby report. If we are on target, Royal Assent to this Bill is probably in October. Advancing this amendment, we are voting, if that is noble Lords’ wish, for something the Government will have to reject in the other place in the end—I must not conjecture on what the other place will do—because of the timing.
I say honestly, and can commit this across government, that I am fully confident that the plans already in place by the Government to develop a comprehensive food strategy will deliver the intent behind this very laudable amendment. There are issues, as in all these things. My noble friend Lord Caithness said he would have liked this or that. There are issues in putting something in the Bill now, but I think we are all united in wanting to ensure that our food system is fair, affordable, healthy and sustainable.
I understand the mood of the House. I think I assess the mood of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, although I must not pre-empt him. I ask him to withdraw his amendment because of the points I have made genuinely. The Government are developing a food strategy; it is an issue of timing. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has been engaged in the Dimbleby report. She, more than anyone else, can confirm that this is a report of the utmost depth and rigour. The Government will want to have at least six months—or within the six months, as I have said—to make sure we get cross-Whitehall collaboration to bring forward something of lasting value to every person in this country.
My reasoning for asking the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to withdraw his amendment is not to reject his and other noble Lords’ very distinguished role in bringing this matter forward but to be honest in saying that I think there are difficulties because of the timing. I respect whatever the noble Lord does, but that is why I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and the Minister for his careful and considered response. Overall, there has been very strong support for the amendment, with some excellent speeches. I will mention just a few points; I cannot really do justice to them all.
My noble friend Lady Boycott made the important point that, in spite of all the efforts made in recent years, things are still heading in the wrong direction. The Food Foundation’s Broken Plate report highlights some stark statistics to support this. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also emphasised the urgency and pointed out that the current strategy is to let the industry rip. She also highlighted, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the importance of metrics and measurements to ensure that we know whether we are moving in the right direction.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 59. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 18: Declaration relating to exceptional market conditions
Amendment 59
Lord Carrington
“(a) there is an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets or a serious threat of an acute or chronic disturbance,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that financial assistance can be provided to the farming industry in England at times of crisis caused by natural phenomena that lead to chronic problems in addition to the acute economic problems already covered by the Bill.
Lord Carrington (CB)
I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner, as set out in the register.
I welcome the provisions in the Bill that will allow the Government to provide financial assistance where there is a disturbance to markets for agricultural commodities causing producers to face reductions in income. However, I am concerned that the Bill unnecessarily constrains the Government from acting in all relevant circumstances. The Bill as presented to us will not provide the Government with sufficient ability to intervene in markets where disruption has been caused by environmental factors such as weather—for example, drought or flood, both of which we have had examples of in recent years.
I have taken on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, when similar amendments were debated in Committee and, while I agree that farm businesses need to take responsibility for resilience and sustainability as far as they can, we are looking here at events which are, generally, one-off events which occur outside the control of the farmers affected. For instance, in the case of floods, the farmer has no input into the maintenance of sea walls and other major flood defences.
I am aware of past suggestions that farmers should look to use some form of insurance facility to cover those eventualities but, in reality, such insurance is either unavailable or accessible only at disproportionate cost. In other countries, Governments have offered such insurance, but this has proved extremely costly to the taxpayer and has encouraged moral hazard.
There are also farming disasters which continue on a chronic rather than an acute basis, such as animal disease—for example, bovine TB. The Bill provides only for acute circumstances. In highlighting the issue of chronic or long-running issues, the amendment does not require the Government to intervene in those widened circumstances but provides a mechanism for the Government to do so if it believes it necessary. This seems an entirely sensible approach within an enabling Bill, which contains so much about providing the Government with powers to act when necessary. I emphasise that this amendment provides a power, not a duty.
Although the Minister indicated that the objective of the Bill’s provisions is to deal with acute rather than chronic issues, I believe it would be a major missed opportunity not to include power to deal with chronic issues within the legislation. Without the power to intervene in markets where environmental or chronic issues prevail, the Government could be rendered impotent in responding without bringing forward further primary legislation. Surely it must be better to ensure that the powers are available in the Bill on a forward-thinking basis rather than belatedly having to take them when an issue needs to be addressed. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on tabling these two amendments, both of which I support; I am delighted to have co-signed Amendment 108.
I have just one question. I spoke at some length in Committee, and my noble friend the Minister was generous in her closing remarks in that debate, stating that there is current legislation that would pre-empt these provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to the specific example of flooding; obviously, one could refer to others, such as the current pandemic. In this instance, I am delighted to say that farmers managed to get the food into the shops and on to the supermarket shelves, and worked all hours to do so. There could, however, be shocks and other glitches to the supply chain. These two amendments provide for such circumstances and it would be neat, in my view, to include them in the Bill.
My question to my noble friend when she sums up is very specific. I think she referred to the new farming recovery scheme as a case in point where there is current primary legislation on which farmers could depend if such assistance was required. But to my certain knowledge, when farmers in North Yorkshire, in the constituency of our right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, applied for the scheme, they were given the proverbial raspberry. We saw the devastation caused to the farms and to tourism in the area. They are still reeling from that result. That was in January—it seems an awfully long time ago, but it was only January this year—and they were still not back on their feet when they had to deal with the total lockdown from March onwards.
I should like my noble friend to revisit that legislation and, if she does not have time to do so today, leave a note in the Library on why she is convinced that that legislation covers the scenario set out in these two amendments, because in my experience it certainly did not in the case of North Yorkshire and our right honourable friend.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I meant to declare my interest as a landowner and arable farmer in my earlier contribution. I support Amendment 59, as I did in Committee. It is very important to have the power to extend financial assistance to events caused by natural phenomena, as well as the economic problems already covered by the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, stated, the amendment moves beyond global market changes to other triggers, such as extreme weather and disease. Like him, I do not believe that the extension should be used as an excuse for farmers to claim that they have been victims of circumstance, particularly if caused by their own inefficiency or incompetence. Like he does, I believe that it is very important that once a natural phenomenon event has been identified, intervention should be implemented without delay.
As other noble Lords have stated, the Minister said in Committee that this situation is already covered by current legislation, but I bear in mind the recent comments of my noble friend Lady McIntosh about the situation in North Yorkshire. I also ask the same question. I believe the amendment should be in the Bill.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on this amendment. It is encouraging that in the briefing note the Minister gave all of us there is a paragraph on the Government’s agriculture bounce-back plan, arising out of the impact of Covid-19. I am conscious that the Government are onside, but the question is whether this should be in the Bill, as the noble Lord described.
I share that I am closely involved with Sri Lanka, as many noble Lords will know. I remember seeing the devastation there on Boxing Day 2004. My wife and I went out there a few days later to help. If you happened to be in the spice trade, it was totally wiped out by two waves. These things do happen.
I also declare an interest in the Cayman Islands. I have family there. Those islands were almost wiped out some 20-odd years ago. In the last season Hurricane Irma did horrendous damage. These are part climate change, part other events.
I add to that list that I worked in India, in Calcutta, for the Reckitt & Colman group when the Indians invaded the tea estates. That hit the tea market something rotten that year—from memory it was 1962. These strange events do happen.
We are used to financial crashes and I think that seed health and other sorts of areas are covered. Nevertheless, today, in the world we are in now, I believe we need to have something in the Bill. It does not proscribe the Government too much. It is just a very sensible precaution relating to climate change and all the other challenges we face.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests, which I declared on previous occasions. I will make one small flanking point to those made already.
As I explained to the House on Tuesday, you can see from farming accounts that the vast bulk of a farm business’s income is from traditional agriculture. They are businesses that have a relatively high turnover and low margins. Against that background, we have been talking a lot about various environmental changes that we want to see in the country, which in turn will be paid for by the public money for public goods formula.
However, against the whole-farm income of the vast majority of farms in this country, that amount of money will still almost certainly be relatively small. If a farm business faces a complete crash in its market—I speak as someone who has an animal livestock business that was wiped out in the foot and mouth outbreak—it faces an existential threat. When faced with an existential threat, you simply do everything you can to save that business. In reality, that means that, whatever the rules about how public money is paid for carrying out environment changes of one sort or another, it will simply be stopped and it will have to be sorted out later.
Rather the same problem faces Lake District farmers, where I am chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, with the Covid outbreak, which has killed off much of the tourist trade, although it is picking up now. It had a pretty devastating effect on farm incomes in a form of agriculture where the margins from traditional husbandry are very low and the farm business’s survival depends on generating tourist revenues.
I argue that the effect of market disruption, quite apart from the impact it might have on any particular farm business, poses a very serious threat to a lot of the entirely good propositions for environmental change and improvement inherent in the debate we are having on the Bill. Therefore, the environmental aspects of what we are discussing are a genuine potential candidate for collateral damage from market collapse. As such, for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others have given, it is appropriate that these provisions should be in the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, in 2016, before the referendum, I chaired the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee. We carried out an inquiry into resilience in agriculture, so I can say from the beginning that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that insurance is quite often not an appropriate solution for farmers, however it might appear to be so superficially.
Having said that, I find these amendments somewhat problematic. I will explain why. First, it is because the Bill as drafted talks about the disturbances being acute. The amendments would add “chronic” to the description of the disturbances, but all the interventions have been about the results of that disturbance. To my mind, that is quite an important distinction, because you could have a short-term problem with a long-term impact. I am not clear whether, as drafted, this talks about the original problem or the impact.
I am also genuinely unsure why existing provisions are not good enough. I heard with some interest what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, so I look forward to the Minister clarifying that, but this is one area where I feel the Government have farmers’ backs in the event of these sorts of disturbances. I do not recall seeing anything from the NFU on this so I am not sure it regards it as a big issue, but perhaps when he winds up the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will enlighten me on that.
I am reassured that the amendment would provide a power, not a duty, because a duty to continue to offer support for a “chronic” disturbance could be for years and years. I do not think that would be appropriate; I would be pleased to see it as a power and not a duty. Nevertheless, the Government can move quickly when they need to, as they did in bringing in the furlough scheme, for example. I am not entirely convinced by these amendments, I am afraid.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for returning to the subject of crisis management in his amendments. The clauses in Chapter 2 bring further into domestic legislation the powers that the European Commission exercised to provide emergency assistance in extreme market circumstances. The Secretary of State may modify the retained direct EU legislation from the withdrawal Act. This would usually involve intervention on storage. At this stage, once again, as I join another day’s proceedings on the Bill, I declare my interest as recorded in the register as being in receipt of funds from existing systems derived from the CAP.
We noted the Minister’s reply in Committee that
“farmers already manage the effects of fluctuating everyday weather conditions”,
and that the existing powers contained here and elsewhere
“are sufficiently broad to ensure that agricultural producers will be covered”
should it be necessary to provide emergency financial assistance
“due to exceptional market conditions”—[Official Report, 21/7/20; col. 2184.]
brought about by unforeseen economic, environmental or welfare factors.
The term “chronic conditions” is interesting, as this would suggest exceptional circumstances becoming endemic and longer lasting. This would suggest that the market would need to adapt on a wider basis after any exceptional market disturbances caused by economic or environmental factors had been provided. It would suggest that the adverse effect on the price achievable for agricultural products may not return to normal. This circumstance would become subject to far more extensive dialogue and analysis, and when such a situation may warrant the actions wanted by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, needless to say it would be controversial and subject to much debate.
We understand that Welsh Ministers are aware of these details and have not drawn attention to any aspect with which they are uncomfortable. The Minister has advised the House that the Welsh Government have agreed to these provisions; that would be our position also. We are generally content with the current drafting. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her remarks, which reflect many of our thoughts.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate.
I recognise the concern to ensure that farmers in England and Wales are protected against acute and chronic disturbances, including those caused by natural phenomena. The exceptional market conditions powers could be used to address acute and severe market disturbances caused by natural phenomena, such as extreme weather, so long as there is an adverse effect on the price achievable for one or more agricultural products. I hope that that reassures my noble friend Lord Northbrook.
The UK Government and Welsh Ministers are confident that the existing powers are sufficiently broad to ensure that agricultural producers will be covered should they need financial assistance due to exceptional market conditions caused by economic, environmental or other factors. The current Covid-19 pandemic is a disturbance caused by environmental factors and is exactly the type of exceptional circumstance that these new powers are intended to address. We could not have foreseen that this pandemic would be as wide-ranging or prolonged as it has been, and farmers could not have been expected to prepare for the disturbances in daily life that it has caused. I feel confident in saying that if these exceptional market conditions powers were at our disposal now, the Government could have used them to support farmers during these difficult times.
The particular powers in respect to England, in Clauses 18 and 19, and in respect to Wales, in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Schedule 5, are framed to deal with unforeseen short-term shocks to agricultural markets rather than chronic conditions. These powers allow Ministers to act swiftly to deal with a crisis situation. These amendments would lower that bar and risk creating open-ended powers that allow the Secretary of State to make payments to farmers in much wider and undefined circumstances.
In most cases, farmers already manage the effects of fluctuating weather conditions. There are also powers in existing legislation that allow the Government to act in exceptional circumstances to support farmers in the event of extreme weather conditions. For example, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 could be used to make one-off payments to farmers affected by extreme weather. In response to recent flooding, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh acknowledged, the UK Government launched a new farming recovery fund for England, using powers under the NERC Act.
I have some details about the fund because I was interested to find out why some claims were not being met. I am afraid that I do not have the numbers here for my noble friend but I commit to writing to her with the details of the scheme, which are quite complex, and to furnish the numbers on how many grants have been made available. When I write, I will of course let noble Lords have a copy.
The Government want to encourage farmers to manage their own risk and become more resilient to foreseeable and longer-term disturbances. Elsewhere in the Bill, there are provisions to support farmers to improve their productivity, as well as to provide financial assistance for the delivery of public goods. For example, the Government will help farmers to invest in equipment, technology and infrastructure, and will support high-quality research to promote innovation and productivity in agriculture, horticulture and forestry. Part 3 also sets out powers to strengthen fairness and transparency in the supply chain. This will enable food producers to respond more effectively to market signals, strengthen their negotiating position at the farm gate and seek a fairer return.
I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I have received a request from the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, to ask a short question of elucidation.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
To clarify, does the Minister believe that the term “exceptional adverse conditions” covers exceptional events such as extreme weather and serious diseases, which can cause major financial problems for farmers and food security? Does this Bill cover them?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that this Bill will cover those situations.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate and, of course, the Minister.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, that, in moving this amendment, I have the support of the CLA, the NFU and the TFA, so it is a matter of general concern to all farming organisations.
We have heard several examples of problems that have required assistance, whether in Richmond, Sri Lanka or elsewhere. The contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was extremely interesting. His emphasis on farmers’ reliance on income from farming is certainly something that we should bear heavily in mind, because that is what the whole industry is about; it is not about ELMs. As I understood it, the noble Lord’s concern was very much to do with making quite sure that the Government understand the cash-flow implications of these issues and the need to work fast to resolve them.
As has become clear from all the questions we have heard, my real point on this issue is that there is a lack of understanding of what is covered by this clause. The last question very much indicated that that is the case. However, we have received assurances from the Minister. I do not believe that it is worth my taking this any further, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 60. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover of the amendment or the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Clause 20: Modification of certain retained direct EU legislation in connection with exceptional market conditions and for general purposes
Amendment 60
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
“( ) Before laying regulations made under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult— (a) the Scottish Parliament,(b) Senedd Cymru, and(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 60, I will also speak in support of my Amendment 92, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, have added their names. Both amendments have a similar purpose, although Amendment 92 is put in stronger terms.
Amendment 60 relates to the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations regarding markets and storage in the event of exceptional market conditions. While these powers, if used, would apply to England, the implications for agricultural sectors in the devolved parts of the UK could be significant, as much of the output—certainly a significant amount of it—of farms and food processors in the devolved areas is marketed to and through England.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to provide financial support or make regulations where there are exceptional market conditions, described as “a severe disturbance” or the threat of such, in agricultural markets. That could create a situation where financial support for English producers, or regulations inhibiting non-English producers, disadvantages producers from other parts of the UK. That could arise without deliberate intent, so I argue that it is in the interests of the Secretary of State to accept Amendment 60, which would require him or her to consult the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 109, which is tabled in my name. A similar amendment was considered in Committee, but I wish to probe the Minister further on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, rightly mentioned the role of devolution and its importance among our devolved nations and regions.
For us in Northern Ireland, the Agriculture Bill mainly contains provisions setting out the future agricultural policy framework for England. However, a number of provisions apply across the UK and some apply specifically to Wales and Northern Ireland. The powers in Clause 45 and Schedule 6 have been included to provide a legal basis to continue existing farm support measures following exit from the EU. The schedule allows the Northern Ireland department to modify direct payment regulations to simplify and improve how they operate in Northern Ireland. The schedule was developed when the Northern Ireland Executive was not functioning, and as a result many of the powers are intended to provide flexibility to develop future agricultural policies to meet local circumstances. Thankfully, the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland and devolved arrangements were restored in January this year.
While the schedule provides much needed certainty in the short term, Northern Ireland is still left without a long-term vision of how agriculture and the environment will be supported in future, with no clarity around what outcomes a future policy framework should aim to deliver. This is despite widespread recognition from stakeholders that the current system is not fit for purpose.
Northern Ireland is facing considerable challenges. Northern Ireland’s economy is largely agricultural, so the challenges centre around species and habitat loss, agricultural and greenhouse gas emissions, poor water quality and market volatility, among others. The way in which we manage and use land will directly impact upon our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change, as well as to meet other environmental commitments. There is a need to reform how we farm and manage our land, and to move towards a resilient, profitable and environmentally sustainable farming sector. The need to outline the future direction of travel for Northern Ireland is of paramount importance.
There is a need for timebound provisions for Northern Ireland, which the Minister argued against in Committee. Currently, a risk exists that the provisions within the Northern Ireland schedule could continue indefinitely. This would result in the long-term continuation of direct payments in their current form, which have been criticised by a range of stakeholders and do little to address the numerous crises facing farming and the environment. Although the Northern Ireland department has undertaken valuable work with a range of environmental and agricultural stakeholders on the development of a draft future agricultural policy framework, the direction of travel remains unclear. While the provisions within the Northern Ireland schedule are similar to those which apply to Wales, there is an important difference. The Welsh provisions will expire in 2024, but there is no sunset clause outlined in those relating to Northern Ireland, hence my amendment, which has been supported by other noble Lords.
This is largely because the Northern Ireland schedule was created in the absence of an operational Assembly. This is important, as the presence of a sunset clause relating to the Welsh schedule creates an onus on the Welsh Government to develop domestic legislation in a timebound manner. The absence of a sunset clause in the Northern Ireland schedule creates a risk that the development of a future agricultural policy framework for Northern Ireland will be further delayed. This sunset clause is supported by the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, which has already communicated that. We are of the firm belief that Northern Ireland needs a bespoke, sustainable land management policy, legislated for in the form of a Northern Ireland agricultural Act, which would obviously have to be brought forward by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. As long as these provisions are contained in Schedule 6 and in this errant Bill—so to speak—that acts as a break upon the Northern Ireland department and prevents or dissuades it from bringing forward such a policy.
I urge the Minister to review the situation in relation to this and to talk to the Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister. I would be extremely grateful if he could see what can be done. He might then consider tabling a government amendment to that effect at Third Reading, because the bottom line is that we need to set our own agriculture policy and frameworks now that we have a devolved settlement in Northern Ireland. We want to encourage and underpin that, and to ensure that an important sector of our economy is facilitated to do just that.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 60 and 92 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bruce, and have added my name to them. As he has already said, Clause 20 gives the Secretary of State the power to modify the retained direct EU legislation for England relating to public intervention and private storage aid, and, as the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee points out, this power is replicated for the Welsh Ministers.
I welcome these powers, of course, as it cannot be expected that legislation should remain relevant in perpetuity; as time passes and situations change, the requirement for legislation to be modified will become inevitable. But nowhere in this clause is there a recognition that, with all four countries in the UK having the power to modify and intervene, a mechanism will be required to ensure that a decision taken by one country does not have an adverse effect on the other three countries of the UK. Nowhere is there a recognition that a mechanism will probably be required to avoid or resolve disputes. My noble friend’s Amendment 60 highlights the issue and offers a solution.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 109, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, to which I have attached my name, and I also wish to express my support for Amendments 60 and 92.
On Amendment 60, which concerns a promise to consult, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, indicated, the Government have said that that commitment has already been made, so surely it would not be too difficult to agree to put it on the face of the Bill. Securing consent would be stronger, and to avoid conflict or rows, and to make things clear, transparent and open, surely that would be the best way forward.
To address primarily Amendment 109, the absence of a sunset clause in the Bill as it currently stands presents a risk that Northern Ireland will be left with basic payments regulations indefinitely. A sunset clause such as proposed would create an expectation that Northern Ireland’s Government would develop their own specialised agriculture legislation and a fairer, more environmentally friendly alternative to the basic payment scheme. Of course, they could just decide to roll over the existing provisions in 2026. The amendment, or something like it, would not force action but would open up a democratic window and opportunity for debate about action.
In yesterday’s debate on the immigration Bill, the Government Benches spent a great deal of time expressing a desire for non-discrimination. Surely this proposed new clause would put Northern Ireland on the same footing as Scotland and Wales in deciding agricultural policy. This is non-discrimination that should surely apply in this crucial case, given that agriculture is very important to the economies of all three of those nations.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, the absence of a sitting Assembly from 2017 to 2020 meant that little consultation took place on this issue, but the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, in a single day of very packed evidence on a number of issues, said that it wanted this sunset clause, and that is surely where the Government should take their guidance from. It recommended a timescale of 2024, but in terms of the electoral cycle there are good reasons to provide a bit more time. Your Lordships certainly know how long these considerations can take.
In the interests of ensuring that the Minister does not feel too uncomfortable, I shall not refer specifically to internal market issues, which have been creating difficulties for some of his colleagues, but I hope that the Government will take on board this call. It is not political, except in the broadest sense of seeking to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have democratic control over their own future. Amendment 109 would provide flexibility and the opportunity for action, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, these powers under Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Bill make a declaration that exceptional market conditions which trigger financial assistance of a varying kind are to be exercised by the English Minister by way of regulations made under the negative procedure. That means that they will escape extensive parliamentary scrutiny, as we are well aware.
The sort of market conditions that Clause 18 has in mind is where there is a severe disturbance or a threat of such disturbance to agricultural markets that would have such a significantly adverse effect on producers in England as to constitute exceptional market conditions. That is to be judged by the limited criterion of the prices farmers receive for the sale of their agricultural produce. It is made clear in the Explanatory Notes that the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland have the ability, under their devolved powers, to make similar arrangements within their own jurisdictions. The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Bennett, have outlined the unsatisfactory position in Northern Ireland, and I support their call for clarity. However, I suppose that that is the reason it is thought these clauses do not require legislative consent from the Welsh Senedd or the Scottish Parliament —let them do their own thing.
But of course, if exceptional market conditions exist in England, they are bound to have an effect, certainly in the borders of Wales that I know best. I recall that Welshpool was once the largest market for sheep in Europe, but there are equally strong markets in both Oswestry and Shrewsbury, and what happens in one affects the others. I remember that when I was chair of Marcher Sound, broadcasting to north Wales and Cheshire, our farming report every morning at six o’clock broadcast the price of hoggets in markets on both sides of the border. This was vital early intelligence as I headed for the London train.
It seems common sense that introducing financial assistance to English farmers under Chapter 2 would have a vital effect on prices and risk unfair competition. Moreover, agriculture is a significant part of both the Welsh and Scottish economies, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, pointed out. Surely decisions of this nature should be subject to consultation with, and consent by, the devolved nations. I have no knowledge of the markets of Carlisle and Berwick, but I have no doubt that there would be serious financial implications for those agricultural markets, and equally for those in Northern Ireland.
It may be suggested that exceptional market conditions could be so exceptional that an English Secretary of State would have to move quickly with no time for consultation, but surely he would move and should move in step with the devolved Administrations, and certainly not with any of the belligerence to which my noble friend Lady Humphreys referred.
The Minister will recall that, at the Second Reading and Committee stages of this Bill, I raised the issue of internal markets and price stability, not knowing that the now infamous Internal Market Bill was about to be unveiled to the world. Did the devolved Administrations know of the contents of that Bill? Their alarmed reaction demonstrates that they did not. It is a Bill that is perceived to be a unilateral grab at former EU powers which ought to be directed immediately to the devolved Administrations, and I promise that I will not even mention the attack on the rule of law.
The Government sometimes tell us that we have already left the EU, so get over it. Well, devolution is a fact of 20 years’ standing, and it is about time that the Government understood that one of its main implications is the need for consultation and consent. There is a limit to the extent to which lack of time can be pushed when there is no consultation. As the whole country knows, the reason for the rush and haste and us being here until midnight discussing this Bill is due to the hazard which this Government chose to construct for themselves. I support Amendments 60 and 92 in this group, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I should like to speak to Amendment 109 in this group and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, on bringing this point to the attention of the House. This part of the Bill, which concerns the devolved nations, is a particularly grey area as regards how it is to be administered. The noble Baroness and the authors of other amendments in this group have done the House a service by throwing light on these issues. I had hoped to put my name to Amendment 109, but I was not surprised to see how much support the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has had.
I want to pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s work in this regard. She is a former Member of and was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly and she was a great support to me in the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the other place. Rather unnervingly, she was always in her seat before I took my place, which is a little disconcerting when you are chairing a committee. I am sure that she will play a prominent and active role in the new Select Committee on Common Frameworks Scrutiny, to which she has just been appointed, and I congratulate her on that.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will have regard to the concerns that have been raised in this group of amendments. He and I have had conversations before on the common frameworks and what progress has been made on them, so I will pay close attention to his response. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for bringing forward her amendment in this group.
Lord Alderdice (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, along with other noble Lords, in Amendment 109. As usual, she has set out the arguments clearly and in substantial detail, and I do not intend to rehearse what she has already said. However, on 23 July, I made a number of points when we were discussing a similar approach to these things in Committee. I want to repeat some of those and add to them because the situation has changed and developed in a very unhelpful way.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, as a number of Members have said, this debate is in the context of exceptional market conditions. I had the privilege in 1979 of being a PPS in the Northern Ireland Office and spending many happy hours in Northern Ireland, where it really comes home to one that agriculture is absolutely vital to that part of the United Kingdom.
I shall make the simple point that, as one who was responsible for a fair amount of drafting in another role in the other place, it seems that officials would much prefer to have an automatic reference in a Bill than an implied one, particularly when it is in sensitive areas. For instance, we are likely to see changes because of climate change. To take an example that I used earlier, who would have thought 20 years ago that Sussex and Kent would be competing in the viniculture market, with enormous opportunities to export? There may well be other developments because of climate change that happen in just a section of England and, unless they are automatically referred to the other three devolved Parliaments, we may find that they too have micro-industries in their particular part of the UK.
That just seems sensible in Amendment 60. I am not going to be tempted to go to Amendment 109 and I actually think Amendment 92 is wrong.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the noble Lords who tabled or supported the amendments in this group, which raise various issues relating to devolved competence. Amendment 60 makes what seems a very sensible suggestion of consulting the devolved Administrations before laying regulations under Clause 20. Given that certain modifications to retained EU legislation are likely to impact on the devolved nations, perhaps on some more than others, it seems perfectly right that there should be a formal consultation requirement. However, I note that even formal consultations on many important matters have not been taking place as regularly or as needed in other matters, and I urge the Government to work much more proactively in this manner.
For the past 20 years, we have had three other legislatures in the UK, and none of the new laws resulting from our withdrawal from Europe should be an opportunity for a power grab of devolved responsibilities back to Westminster. I am therefore glad to see that Amendment 92 proposes a requirement for the devolved Administrations to consent to any regulations being made under Clause 35 on standards relating to the marketing of agri-food products. While we would certainly welcome a mechanism for meaningful consultation, we recognise that a requirement for consent could, in certain cases, delay the implementation of important changes to marketing standards.
Amendment 109 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, my noble friend Lord Hain and others proposes a sunset on the Northern Ireland provisions contained in Clause 45 and Schedule 6. As the noble Baroness noted earlier, Northern Ireland has an economy based largely on agriculture and needs a long-term future policy framework without further delay. The case has been strongly made for that amendment and I look forward to the Minister’s response in relation to it.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting and thought-provoking debate. I would like to open by setting out a little background, because I think a lot of this would be helpful. The UK Government have been working closely with the Welsh Government, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland—DAERA—and the Scottish Government to develop a UK agricultural support framework. My noble friend Lady McIntosh made this point. We expect to be able to agree this soon.
Defra Ministers already meet our devolved Administration counterparts on an almost monthly basis as part of the inter-ministerial group IMG EFRA, where any modifying of legislation can be discussed. In addition, there are already good working relationships in place within the Defra situation—particularly, from my direct knowledge, between the devolved Administrations. If I am allowed to say so, I very much respect Lesley Griffiths, who is a Minister in Wales. For example, the IMG EFRA meeting, which takes place almost monthly, is used as a forum for discussion on policy changes. The Government intend to keep the devolved Administrations informed on any early thinking on possible policy changes to marketing standards in England.
I also agree with the tenor of this debate, and I want to raise what the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, said about collaboration and tone. That is absolutely key, particularly in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, where agriculture is such a strong feature of national life. I would like to think of England as a rural country but, my goodness, in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales it is at the core of the national economy.
Thinking of Amendment 60, the UK agricultural support framework includes crisis measures, public intervention and private storage aid for collective discussion to ensure there is an opportunity for any concerns to be raised about the effect of changes in one part of the UK or another. The UK Government work collaboratively with devolved Administrations on this matter, and I will give a complete assurance that it is in everyone’s mutual interest that that continues and is successful.
Amendment 92 seeks to ensure the Secretary of State would need to secure consent from devolved Administrations before laying regulations under Clause 35(1). Clause 35 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations on marketing standards for products marketed in England only, so it would not be appropriate for devolved Administrations to be able to veto these England-only changes, which would be the effect of this amendment. In the same way, we have not taken provisions to require the UK Government to consent to change in devolved areas.
I say this because the UK agricultural support framework states that Administrations should refer all planned changes in marketing standards for collective discussion to ensure that there is an opportunity for any concerns to be raised about the effect of changes to standards in one part of the UK or another. The Government think that is the best way forward. It is a way we can collaboratively and collegiately work on such an important issue—the agricultural framework.
Everyone knows that agriculture is devolved, and the Welsh Ministers in DAERA under this Bill have taken powers themselves in Schedules 5 and 6 respectively. Wales can modify retained EU law itself under paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 5, and Northern Ireland under paragraph 2 of Schedule 6.
Turning to Amendment 109; I have thought about this a lot because perhaps there is some confusion at my end. I have heard words such as “parity” on this matter, and a number of noble Lords from Northern Ireland have spoken. My understanding is that the Northern Ireland Assembly has debated and agreed its legislative consent to the Bill. Therefore, we do not believe this Parliament should seek to override the constitutional view agreed by the Assembly.
Reference was made to the committee that recommended a sunset clause, but the Northern Ireland Assembly recommended the LCM without it. Our view, and I entrench this very strongly, is that it is for DAERA to decide and to liaise with the Assembly, not the UK Government. I am intrigued that we are seeking to impose a sunset clause when it has been made clear to me and Defra, as the honest brokers of this, that the Northern Ireland Assembly does not want to set an arbitrary date, and it will be for Northern Ireland to decide how and when it has a new agriculture Bill. We agree with that, and sometimes devolution means that we will have separate ways forward. That has been the LCM from the Assembly and DAERA, and we believe that the Agriculture Bill—of which, as I say, I have been the honest broker regarding the Northern Ireland schedule—gives Northern Ireland plenty of scope to involve its thinking on the delivery of agricultural support. I therefore tactfully suggest that, if we believe that this is a devolved matter, it is for the institutions of Northern Ireland to decide.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I have received no requests from noble Lords to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this debate for their support for my amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and noble colleagues who have spoken on the Northern Ireland sunset clause so clearly and unequivocally. I believe that all three of these amendments are central to how our devolution settlement is to proceed.
The Minister is a face of government that we all find attractive: he is constructive and conciliatory, and I am sure that, given his background, when he talks about engagement and discussion across the devolved Administrations, he does it in entirely the style that we see here. However, I am afraid I have to say to him that there are other members of the Government whose style is far less conciliatory and can be abrasive.
We have legislation coming down the track that is absolutely crucial to the future of the devolution settlement, especially the Trade Bill and the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, where it would appear that the Government, frankly, are bent on centralising control and weakening the devolution settlement. Given the point about agriculture being so important to the devolved Administrations, there is perhaps an opportunity in this Bill to put those markers down. Actually, I would have liked it if the Minister could have accepted Amendment 60; I accept that Amendment 92 was a tease for further discussion about some form of qualified majority voting.
However, with regard to just saying, “We consult; therefore, we do not need to consult”, I say that the time will come when some decision will be taken without consultation, and there will be no recourse because there is nothing in law to prevent it. That will be disruptive and a shame. The Prime Minister says that he is moving his legislation to protect the future of the union. The reality is that nobody threatens the future of the union more fundamentally than our current Prime Minister, and Ministers should understand that the precious union is very delicate at the present time.
Ministers need to reach out not just with reassurance but a willingness to create a mechanism, as my noble friend Lady Humphreys said, that will enshrine the way decisions are taken and disputes are resolved in ways that do not leave it—because this it is where the Bill leaves it—to Westminster and the English Secretary of State to override devolved decision-making. The Bill allows that to happen; these amendments were designed to prevent that happening, and I regret—but am not entirely surprised—that the Government have not accepted them. However, I can assure him—and I am sure that other noble Lords will agree with me—that these issues will return in spades in the debates we will have on the coming legislation between now and Christmas. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 61. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or the other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 27: Fair dealing obligations of business purchasers of agricultural products
Amendment 61
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Government to provide regulations for fair dealing obligations of business purchasers of agricultural products.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I rise in the absence of, and at his request and with his permission, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who has been unavoidably called away and sends his apologies. His two amendments refer to Clause 27. They are minor amendments but would have significant consequences.
The clause relates to fair dealing obligations of business purchasers of agricultural products and enables the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of them. The regulations may be sector specific or in general terms. As we learn from the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power
“to make regulations to introduce obligations that promote fair contractual relationships between primary producers, producer organisations, associations of producer organisations, produce aggregators and the business purchasers of their products.”
Obviously, there is a great desire for fairness and for protection from unfair trading practices.
At the kernel of the two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, is a wish to ensure a better relationship between the processors, the supermarkets and primary producers. I am sure that this is a concept with which all noble Lords agree. Rather than press his amendments at this stage, he seeks to ensure that we enable primary producers to make the investments they wish to make to meet the new responsibilities they face as set out in Clause 27.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, went to great pains to state, and I am sure that he has reassured my noble friend the Minister of it, that rather than press the amendments to a vote at this stage, he is grateful for the opportunity to set out the views expressed in them and seeks an early meeting with the Minister if it would be possible. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, I had an exchange of emails yesterday with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, to make sure that I understood his amendments correctly. He basically put it to me that he wishes to place an obligation on government rather than for it to have a discretion, which is as the Bill is drafted, to make regulations on fair dealing. I have told him that I support the fair dealing provisions in the Bill—I said so in Committee—particularly with regard to food waste, which is often in effect forced on farmers, making them less competitive and environmentally more wasteful, by the requirements of supermarkets, which I do not think is fair dealing. I am all in favour of that, but I am less convinced about the placing of such an obligation on Ministers. However, these issues can be well discussed in the next set of amendments, about the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for his amendments, for the significance in which he holds them as necessary for the Bill, and for leading the House in returning to Clause 27 on fair dealing obligations. I am sorry he has not been able to stay tonight to make his case due to personal circumstances, and I hope all continues well. Nevertheless, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for stepping in and moving his amendment. I concur with much of what she said. The distribution of market returns from food between the primary producer and the rest of the supply chain, especially in regard to the retail sector, certainly appears unbalanced. The proportion returned to the farmer has steadily declined over many years.
That regulation is needed to ensure further provision to introduce a greater measure of fair dealing obligations on the supply chain is recognised in Clause 27. Following the establishment and workings of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, the specific task of monitoring relationships between the UK’s largest supermarkets and their direct suppliers has proved very effective. I would go so far as to say it has proved critical in delivering effective change down the supply chain.
We would not be able to support the noble Lord should he wish to press his amendment. The specific details of each statutory code are being developed in consultation with industry and will be set out in secondary legislation. It will be extended across all sectors of agriculture. This is already in progress.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh for introducing this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I confirm that my noble friend Lord Gardiner has agreed to meet the noble Lord, Lord Empey, at the earliest opportunity.
There is no doubt that the Government will use these powers. The introduction of fair dealing obligations is vital in the creation of a more equitable supply chain. This is a point on which there is wide agreement. However, the Government believe it is equally important that these obligations are appropriate and proportionate and produce the right outcomes.
To ensure this, the Government intend to consult industry before regulations are made, to ensure that they are properly tailored for the issues at hand. In this regard, a UK-wide consultation exploring contractual issues in the dairy sector has recently been concluded. The consultation invited a broad range of views about future regulations, asking specific questions about various issues. Some of these issues, such as contractual exclusivity, are almost unique to the dairy sector. The Government intend to repeat this approach for any future exercise of the powers in Clause 27, allowing the views from industry and other stakeholders, often about very detailed sector-specific issues, to inform final decisions.
The introduction of blanket obligations across the whole of UK agriculture would hinder the ability to reflect the specific nuances of each sector and potentially fail to address the specific problems experienced by particular types of producer. Also, given that certain agricultural sectors are far better integrated than others, comprehensive obligations could ultimately lead to provisions being introduced into sectors where they are simply not required.
I hope I have given sufficient reassurance and ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Empey.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful to those who have contributed to this debate and am sure the noble Lord, Lord Empey, is grateful for the opportunity to have put forward his views and the sentiments described in these two amendments.
My noble friend is absolutely right that the consultation with the interested parties that has just concluded will be crucial in the development and implementation of the regulations. It would be helpful to have confirmation that these responses will be available on the web so that we can look at them when it comes to implementing regulations before the House at that time.
At this moment, given the confirmation of a meeting with my noble friend Lord Gardiner, I am sure it is the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, with the leave of the House, to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I remind noble Lords that, other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Any Member wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Lord Grantchester
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts is given to the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and my noble friend Lord Whitty for adding their names to this amendment and to many of my following amendments, which introduce the office of the Groceries Code Adjudicator as the mechanism by which these fair dealing provisions under Clause 27 will be administered. At this stage I will mention that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, asked me to express his disappointment that he has had to leave tonight because of the late sitting of our proceedings; he cannot get home without leaving immediately. He would have liked to have been present to make his remarks on this important series of amendments to this clause.
I introduced these amendments in Committee as probing amendments to draw out from the Government how they expected to take these provisions forward. As with many features of this framework Bill, so much of the detail and the governance arrangements are not being made explicit in the Bill.
That these provisions have been recognised as needed and necessary to the better conduct of a fair market is something that the Government can be congratulated on. The debate in Committee underlined how effective the GCA Act has been in setting out and policing business practice in the GSCOP, which now regulates the behaviour of the retail industry, which must abide by it in its relationships with its direct suppliers. There was universal praise for Christine Tacon on how she, as the adjudicator, successfully encouraged effective change to become embedded down the supply chain.
In response, the Minister explained that his department, Defra, would be the lead department in delivering these obligations. The Government intended to commence these regulations agricultural sector by sector, starting with the dairy industry. This has already started, with a consultation on the operation of contracts that is drawing to a close next week, as I understand it, on 24 September—that is, three months after the opening of the consultation in June. However, I may be corrected, as on a previous amendment the noble Baroness the Minister said that it has already closed. That it is on the cusp of closing or has already closed is regrettable in that we are not able to deliberate on the consultation in our considerations on the Bill.
I table these amendments again to give the House a chance to debate these important provisions and reflect further on the Government’s approach. I state again that Clause 27 is a very bold and ambitious step that the Government have taken. I express concern that, although the groceries code has proved very effective in stabilising fair dealing provisions in the retail sector, difficulties remain regarding whether this was the appropriate mechanism to cover the whole of the supply chain: the service sector as well as the retail sector, the widespread diversity of food products in the supply chain and how they are delivered across many forms of enterprise and business practice.
The Government are undertaking a huge task and care must be taken, as a one-size-fits-all regulatory regime may not fit all in the appropriate manner. The problems and solutions in one sector and the relative merits in the behaviour of various participants may not be suitable to be applied across the board to all sectors, each with differing market imperatives, regarding how the various markets may be made to work more effectively. That there is an imbalance in negotiating power between the primary producer through the processing, manufacturing and product development supply chain and the end market is not in doubt.
I shall not press these amendments tonight, nor support other amendments, including Amendment 87 should it be pressed. The Government have set out on the task and already started a consultation with the dairy sector. As I set out in Committee, I was concerned that these provisions had a narrow focus on contracts. Indeed, Clause 27(1)(a) specifically addresses contracts. Fair dealing provisions should examine the business relationship in its widest implication and interpretations that encompass many various circumstances that arise in primary production. However, it must be recognised that a first step is being taken, and it is starting at a very pertinent point—the contract.
In the interval between Committee and Report over the Summer Recess, I spoke to many in the dairy sector, especially those at the foot of the supply chain—the dairy farmer and his or her processor. I can tell the Minister that the department’s consultation has been widely promoted among the many sections of the industry: the farmer, the producer group representing the farmer’s suppliers, and the processing industry. Many have shared their submissions with me, and I am sure that the Minister’s department will receive a widespread response. Here and now is perhaps not the place to debate this further; I will add merely that the voluntary code of practice—VCOP—in contracts, introduced in 2012, has proved ineffective in improving fairness and transparency on a wider scale and, as has been experienced during this pandemic, urgency is needed to tackle the problem more extensively and in a comprehensive fashion.
I also note that this is a widespread problem throughout the industry that now extends across borders, with the overseas ownership structure covering the dairy industry in both the UK and Europe. The EU is also pressing on with its solutions, through directive 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chains. Can the Minister make any comment, even though the consultation has barely closed, on the progress of the consultation, concerning the numbers, extent and general features beginning to become clear? Even in the immediacy of the lockdown, the retail relationship with the supply chain is today much better than it has been, due to the activities of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
Will the department be separating out submissions from the retail sector and the service sector from this consultation? The consultation does not mention the wider farmer-processor relationship with the ongoing supply chain, and specifically with the retailer. Will the Minister give a commitment that further inquiries will be conducted as the submissions are considered? It may prove difficult to make immediate recommendations. Reflecting across other sectors in the industry, can the Minister give any indication as to when further consultations will be progressed? Which sector has the department next in mind? Furthermore, how might the various sectors combine to find comprehensive answers to this very difficult problem of fair dealing in the industry, a problem that is now being tackled by the Bill? I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the co-signatories for bringing forward Amendment 63 and others in this little group. Amendment 67, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick—I thank her for supporting this amendment —seeks to achieve precisely the same ends. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in expressing regret that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is not able to speak to this group, but I entirely understand the circumstances in which he felt he had to head north.
Again like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I pay tribute to the Groceries Code Adjudicator, who has done a sterling job in regulating the relationships between the major retailers and direct suppliers. I was most grateful to have the opportunity to discuss this amendment with my noble friend the Minister, who I understand may be able to signify some movement in this regard. I look forward to that with great interest.
I hope that the Government are minded to widen the remit to cover the gap that needs to be plugged by including the indirect supply chain, such as dairy, which is currently excluded from the process. For dairy producers and fruit growers, many of whom are quite small in size, it is extremely difficult to bring a complaint to the Groceries Code Adjudicator. That is why I am very keen—and it is something that we concluded some seven or eight years ago on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee next door—that it should be incumbent on the Groceries Code Adjudicator to bring forward, on her initiative, investigations in this regard. The indirect supply chain, as well as the direct, is extremely important for these small suppliers, and things do sometimes go awry. We should not be entirely reliant on complaints from small producers and growers who can too easily be identified and may, as a result, lose their contract, livelihood and mainstay of their income.
I very much support the Groceries Code Adjudicator taking over this role. I understand the difficulties, as she reports to a different department. If there has been some movement and my noble friend is able to see a way forward in this regard, I think it would be very welcome to the House.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support this suite of amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has said, I was quite happy to add my name to her Amendment 67 but, in fact, all these amendments as elucidated by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, clearly seek to achieve the same ends, namely to widen the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the indirect supply chain, to benefit those in the dairy industry and fruit growers’ association.
I pay tribute to the outgoing Groceries Code Adjudicator, Christine Tacon, and welcome the new person to that role. It is interesting that there was a review published on 16 July this year into the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which found that:
“The overall evidence from the review also suggested there is still a need for”
such an organisation and such a person,
“to ensure retailers comply with the requirements of the Groceries Code.”
Some responses to the review indicated that some suppliers are still reluctant to raise issues with the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The Government recognise in the report the steps that the current Groceries Code Adjudicator has taken to encourage suppliers to raise issues and make the commitment to work with the next Groceries Code Adjudicator—the new person in that job—and the retailers directly.
Since the Groceries Code Adjudicator is the independent regulator ensuring that regulated retailers treat their direct suppliers lawfully and fairly, it would be good at this stage if the Minister could show us a certain direction of reflection in his thinking in respect of the amendments in this group, which seek to widen the remit of the role to cover the indirect suppliers and to ensure that there are greater levels of regulation.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I have added my name to Amendments 63 and 64 in this group, as I believe that the Bill needs to be much clearer on who will take responsibility for complaints into alleged non-compliance.
Fair dealing in agriculture is vital to the reputation of the farming industry, and the public need to be reassured that there is someone watching their backs. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for setting out the argument so clearly. The aim is to widen the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, who is a truly independent person.
A “specified person”, as stated in the Bill currently, could be anyone. Can the Minister say who the Government had in mind to be this person? Would there be open recruitment, with advertising, or would this be an appointment through the old boys’ and old girls’ networks? The Groceries Code Adjudicator is a far better choice: a nationally recognised person who has a reputation and inspires trust and confidence. This is the proper person to take forward alleged non- compliance.
Amendment 64 sets out how the Groceries Code Adjudicator will interact with the Agriculture Bill in determining a complaint being carried out. I have not added my name to Amendments 65 and 66, but I fully support them. It is somewhat surprising that the Bill just refers to functions being conferred on “any” person. This does not fill me with confidence. Of course, this person must be competent and appropriate, and this should be in the Bill; otherwise, it might be somebody like me.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has spoken about fairness and contracts. Dairy farmers are at the start of the supply chain and need to be considered carefully. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has tabled an amendment which would also give the Groceries Code Adjudicator responsibility for the supply chain in the regulatory clauses of the Bill. There seems to be a wish to achieve the same aim, as has been reiterated by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
Given the very reasonable arguments which have been put forward this evening, I hope the Minister can give a positive response to this debate. I look forward to his response.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, had requested to come in, and I understand she has not been able to. Therefore, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, before the Minister responds.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Thank you— I was scrubbed by mistake. I am sure your Lordships are very happy that I have been slotted back in.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Thank you very much. I would like to say that these amendments are so obviously a good idea for the regulation and adjudication of this part of the Bill. There is nothing else to be said; I hope the Minister accepts them.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, and I thank all noble Lords for contributing toward it. Of course, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, is not with us. He sent me a note, and I will have further discussions and considerations with him, because I am very keen to hear what he would have said in this debate.
Turning to Amendments 63, 64 and 67, I would like to assure noble Lords that work is ongoing to determine the most appropriate mechanism of enforcement for the provisions under this part of the Bill. No decisions have been made about who will be appointed as the enforcement body for Part 3. It is important to note, with particular reference to Amendment 67, that while all the measures contained in this part of the Bill will collectively work to improve supply chain fairness, the Government believe enforcement will work best when each particular policy area in Part 3 can be addressed individually. I say that because it is very important that we get to grips with the issues in each sector, identifying those that are distinct as well as those that may be common. I think that would be a pragmatic consideration.
On the suggestion that the Groceries Code Adjudicator should be given enforcement responsibilities, it is important to note that one of the key factors in the adjudicator’s success is its targeted focus on the behaviours of the UK’s largest supermarkets with their direct suppliers. This has enabled the adjudicator to work closely with the industry in developing supply chain solutions. I join other noble Lords in acknowledging in the work of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. It has been a considerably successful tenure of office.
A government call for evidence in 2016 explored the possibility of extending the adjudicator’s remit beyond those directly supplying the largest retailers. The review found insufficient evidence of widespread problems further down the groceries supply chain and concluded that there was no justification to extend the remit. However, it did identify some remaining concerns. These were sector-specific and predominantly concerned with the first stage of the supply chain. Following on from this, we feel that such issues are best addressed with the appropriate and targeted interventions included in the Bill.
Preliminary analysis of the responses to the Government’s consultation on the dairy sector has shown that there are a range of views about appropriate enforcement. I emphasise that an adjudicator-style model is only one of many potential means to resolve contractual disputes and ensure compliance with any new regulations. Amending the Bill to appoint the Groceries Code Adjudicator as the enforcement body would serve potentially to tie the Government’s hands to only one of the many possibilities available. This would also preclude the ability to listen to the views of industry and respond accordingly, which is really important and, we think, critical in creating effective solutions.
The Government are, of course, aware of the issues that farmers face in the supply chain and that is not confined to the dairy sector. To answer one of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the Government will carry out similar consultations to explore the issues facing other sectors in turn. Discussions with stakeholders have already begun, to look at the situation in the red meat sector and what sort of interventions could improve the position of producers in that supply chain.
On Amendments 65 and 66, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for highlighting the importance of a robust enforcement regime to ensure that the fair dealings obligations are effective and sustainable. It is important to state that no decisions have been made about the nature of enforcement, or the body responsible for enforcement. The reason is robust and strong: the Government want to work with industry and listen to its ideas and concerns before any final decision is made.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the consultation on the dairy sector. To be precise, I can confirm that the consultation closed on Tuesday. The consultation included a specific question about dispute resolution and, while the detailed analysis is still being carried out, it is already clear—this is broad-brush, because I asked whether there are any indicators—that stakeholders have a broad range of views about the most appropriate form of enforcement and finding the best solution will obviously require some consideration. The Government aim to publish a summary of responses later this year, which will be very important and will provide greater detail about the views shared and the options available. I hope it will not be too long before there will be scope for that consideration. The Government will exercise due diligence in designing the enforcement regime and appointing a regulator.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that I do not recognise her description of the rigour with which I and other Ministers consider appointments to public bodies. It is a very serious matter; we recognise that it is a matter of people coming forward to help in the public service. I reassure her that it has no input other than that it must be done rigorously, and the right people need to be chosen.
The Government intend the fair dealing obligations to create positive change for the industry. That is why we are doing it and why this is such an important feature. I am very glad that the noble Lord and other noble Lords have raised this, because this is all part of the prism of this Bill. A lot of people are worried that we are talking too much about the environment, but a lot of the guts and detail of what will come out in the provisions of the Bill are designed to help the farmer in the great production of food, and so that we can help the farmer get fairer dealing.
I have a note relating to the remarks of my noble friend Lady McIntosh on the GCA launching its own investigations. The Groceries Code Adjudicator can launch its own investigations, if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that a large retailer has broken the code. Again, I think the adjudicator’s work has been essential. I think and hope that, in the spirit of this debate, the reason the Government would at this time resist putting forward a particular body, however successful the adjudicator has been in this area, is that the best way to deal with difficulties in certain sectors is to work with the sector to see what is the best mechanism for enforcement. Let your Lordships be in no doubt that these are provisions that we recognise must be attended to, and in short order, because they are the way that will help the farmer in this situation.
In that spirit, I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have come forward to speak tonight. I certainly appreciate the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in calling for the extension of the role of the adjudicator, and the various discussions with the Minister. I agree that the widespread experience of the Groceries Code Adjudicator should give rise to exploring how the role of that office may be extended.
I remind all noble Lords that agriculture can be characterised as unusual: it is almost unique in that producers invariably buy retail yet sell wholesale. I certainly appreciate the Minister’s comments and the gracious way in which he is going to include the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in further discussions. He has also come forward with a very helpful update on his department’s ongoing deliberations. I appreciate that the Government need flexibility to get the right solutions to each sector’s issues, and I look forward to clarity being provided in the publication of this consultation and to the debates we will have on that later. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 68. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 32: Identification and traceability of animals
Amendment 68
Lord Wigley
“provided that those functions do not extend to a geographical area or species outside the original remit of that body when established.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that Clause 32, as included in the Bill, does not undermine the democratic answerability of the devolved administrations.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, once again I draw attention to my registered interests. The amendment maintains the theme of devolved consideration and is a simple probing amendment, which I suppose I should really have tabled in Committee. But I shall not detain the House for any great length of time.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that Clause 32 does not undermine the democratic answerability of the devolved Administrations, which I am sure the Minister would never want to do. I shall try to spell out clinically the problem that this amendment tries to address. I have given the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, notice of these issues to facilitate her response.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I declare my interest as a livestock producer from Scotland.
Amendment 68A in my name emphasises much the same point for much the same reason. I have considerable admiration for my noble friend the Minister, who, along with his officials, has laboured hard and finally found a formula through which it has been possible to get a legislative consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament, as well as other Administrations, for this part of the Bill.
My amendment reflects the fact that given the present political views of the devolved Administrations, the Government have realised that they must get devolved agreement. Can my noble friend the Minister give the House some idea of which functions the body that is being proposed under this power will be expected to carry out? When we found that we were going to have the chance to resume control of our own laws, many in the agricultural and rural industries hoped that there would be frameworks to ensure seamless regulation across our own UK market. The Government then found that these functions under the devolution Acts had not been reserved to Westminster, so it was possible to argue that anything which could be considered to be part of agriculture and the environment was a devolved competence. It now appears that what we have in front of us is as far as we can get by way of a framework, but any final outcome will be hard won.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, has given a considerable description of the attitude with which these powers were received in the devolved Administrations. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I see this as an issue about the identification and traceability of animals being an area where the need for a joined-up policy is truly vital. It is an area where new technology is making an enormous difference to the capabilities of the information which can be included. Inevitably, it is triggering updates to the systems in the different parts of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has just explained the situation in Wales in some detail, and I must admit that I am not familiar with how this works in Ireland. However, in England, the AHDB is now moving on to using electronic identification for all livestock. It is in the middle of setting up the livestock information service using a database supplied by a company called Shearwell Data which will hold all the English data. Quite separately, the Government in Scotland are introducing electronic identification for cattle; the system is to be called ScotEID. They already have a well-tried one for sheep which has been running for some years.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the tremendous trade in livestock within the UK, both north to south and west to east. A large quantity of cattle and sheep which have a Scottish electronic identity will land up in England and vice versa, and it will be the same for the other Administrations. The normal expectation is that their identity would remain on the database of their registration. The person buying the animals would have to know their origin and then have to input or source any relevant information from that database, perhaps at a different end of the country, as will the authorities if there is an issue with health or disease. Other areas of possible similar divergencies are in carcass classification and food standards. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who has such wide experience in these fields, has to say.
Apart from all these complications, at what point do the Government hope to be able to have a comprehensive view of what is going on? Is this the final framework in this area, and what about other similar areas?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The noble Baroness is not here, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, for introducing their respective amendments. These two amendments refer back to comments that I made earlier about the status of the common framework agreements. It is very clear at this time that this is a fuzzy area and it is not quite clear what the status of the common framework agreements is—and yet, in the very specific circumstances that both noble Lords speaking to Amendments 68 and 68A referred to, time is pressing on and we need to know how the different Administrations across the United Kingdom will administer this part of the Bill.
My question to the Minister is: what is the status of the common frameworks at this time? I understand that they have been reduced to 21, but obviously the process is ongoing. It would be helpful to know whether this level of detail has been reached in the current negotiations and how circumstances referred to in Amendments 68 and 68A can be avoided if at all possible.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I avoided devolved issues in Committee and was seeking to avoid them on Report, but I want to come in to support the noble Lord, Lord Wigley.
I have a couple of points to make. One is a general one, and it is no reflection whatever on the Ministers on the Front Bench: the Government do not do devolution. My experience of that comes from 2010 to 2013, some years ago now, when I was chair of the Food Standards Agency and the coalition Government came in. It was quite clear that there was a major problem with their attitude towards devolution, and I think that has carried on. I realise that there are relations between Ministers and they talk to each other, but the government machine does not do devolution.
My more specific point is that I plead guilty on two issues, really. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board was one of my babies when I went back to MAFF, or Defra, in 2006. The merger of the six levy boards was done under my watch. Of course, I realised at the time that I was the English farming Minister, not the Great Britain farming Minister, and the issue applied only to England. Furthermore, before that—this shows, I freely admit, that as the years go by I get a bit out of date, and I have had a year when I have not been on the ball, as it were—the cattle tracing service for passports and birth information, located in Workington at the time, was a UK-wide body; indeed, we recruited Welsh speakers. It could be that that has been taken apart and is no longer there, but the fundamental issue behind all this is traceability.
One reason we do it is self-interest, but the reason we were forced to do it by the European Union, as it does elsewhere, is so that we know what animal has been where if a disease breaks out. The issue should not be one of a dispute between devolved Administrations not being able to access the information; it is absolutely fundamental that the traceability of animals, their movements, the feed they have had and other matters is available if an animal disease breaks out—I hope that it does not happen but we have to prepare for the worst—particularly where there is a transfer to humans, or indeed if it is widely spread to other animals because they move around the country, as has just been said, east, west, north and south, and that leads to real problems.
So, first, I fundamentally doubt that the Government really do devolution. Secondly, in an area like this, Clause 32 is quite specific that the Government are in fact taking on board UK-wide information; indeed, relating to Scotland as well. The Minister is going to have to explain exactly what the detail is in terms of the devolved Administrations and how traceability—and the way we need it to operate in an emergency, because it is always an emergency when you actually need it—will actually function.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, we are, again, addressing how matters might be properly devolved. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has identified some key challenges in his amendment, and the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, is complementary to it. It seems to me that these amendments need to be taken very seriously by the Government, who need to assess the implications laid out by noble Lords.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
We might not strictly be noble friends but I am grateful to my noble compatriot Lord Wigley for tabling Amendment 68, allowing a brief discussion of how the changes contained in Clause 32 will impact on the devolved Administrations. I agree with my noble friend Lord Rooker that, despite the better efforts of some people—Ministers and officials in his Government—generally people do not do devolution 20 years on.
I am also grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his Amendment 68A, which is designed to probe how these traceability provisions will work as animals or their meat move across the UK’s internal borders. I understand that, although agriculture might have always been devolved in a theoretical sense, the UK Secretary of State has, in many areas, tended to act on behalf of all four nations.
These provisions on the identification and traceability of animals are important, and I am sure that the current drafting has the approval of the devolved Administrations. Indeed, I will pass on the Minister’s earlier kind comments to my good friend the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs in the Senedd Cymru. However, I would be grateful to the Minister if, in her response, she could shed greater light on the points of detail raised by those who have tabled these amendments.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for his amendment, and I am very grateful to him for his advance notice of the points that he made. I will deal with Amendment 68A, in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, at the same time.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, rightly observed, Clause 32 provides that the Secretary of State may assign functions to a body relating to, first, collecting, managing and making available information regarding the identification, movement and health of animals, and, secondly, the means of identifying animals. These functions are vital for the purposes of disease control, for complete movement traceability of all animals across UK borders and for UK trade negotiations with international partners. The meat and livestock sectors have championed this new service and are strongly supportive of it.
In Committee, we introduced a government amendment providing that the Secretary of State secure approval from the devolved Administrations for orders assigning functions exercisable in relation to Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland to the AHDB, such as the handling of movement data shared with the AHDB by those Administrations. We have always said that we would engage intensively with the devolved Administrations prior to making any UK-wide orders.
The wording in Section 89A(2) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, as inserted by Clause 32, requires the Secretary of State to seek approval from the devolved Administrations for making orders assigning functions exercisable in those Administrations. Where any such function is assigned, it will be following full discussion with, and approval from, the devolved Administrations. These discussions will give the opportunity for any further concerns to be raised. Therefore, any appropriate limitations on species covered or geographical extent for any function relating to identification and traceability of livestock will be specified in the order and, I repeat, subject to approval from the devolved Administrations.
Regarding how livestock traceability will work between UK Administrations, each Administration will run its own multi-species traceability service. Currently, there is a GB-wide service for cattle and a service for pigs in England and Wales, but in the future, traceability will be fully distributed. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board needs to be able to process movement data on animals that are not in England, or that have crossed borders within the UK, to provide a complete picture of an animal’s lifetime traceability in disease-control situations. This is termed “the UK view”. It will enable livestock identification and movement data collected by each Administration to be seen by others and to be available to veterinary officials in all UK Administrations. I hope that this reassures my noble friend the Duke of Montrose.
I take issue with the assertation by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that this Government do not do devolution. As the Lords’ spokesperson for Wales and someone who is proudly Welsh, I assure him, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that we pay careful attention to preserving the devolution settlement in all three departments of which I am Whip.
The AHDB will also run the livestock unique identification service on behalf of England and Wales. This controls the issuing of official individual identification numbers to animals. All data will be handled in accordance with data sharing agreements and protocols agreed by all UK Administrations. No Administration will be able to use data outside the terms of that agreement.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked about the status of the negotiations on the common framework. In the last debate, my noble friend the Minister said that the UK Government have been working closely with the Welsh Government, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, and the Scottish Government, to develop a UK agriculture support framework. We expect to be able to agree this soon and we will update the House shortly.
I believe that this provides the assurance that the assignment of functions by the Secretary of State under this clause will be fully accountable to the devolved Administrations. With these assurances, and my belief that there is genuinely no clearing up necessary, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her response, and to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Northover and Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for their input in this debate.
Quite clearly this is not a subject area where one is seeking controversy; rather one is seeking to resolve a practical problem which might arise if it is not planned for in a way that avoids such eventualities. There must be clear demarcation of responsibility for all four bodies within the UK that have various responsibilities in these fields. They have to know what their responsibilities are and how far they go. To the extent that from time to time there has to be some cross-border activity, by the nature of the market, there must be clear ground rules on who does what and who communicates with whom.
To the extent that the Welsh Government have indicated that they see a way forward on this, that is fine, provided that it is the same interpretation on the other side of Offa’s Dyke, and in Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to their powers. If we can get a situation in which it is clear to all what their responsibilities are—where they start and where they end—we can avoid difficulties. If we do not, we will find ourselves in quite a complex situation with a lack of clarity with regard to responsibility.
I conclude with this. There is a saying, particularly in the farming fraternity, that good fences make good neighbours. In this instance, there has to be clarity, understood by all, on who is responsible for what fence and for what function. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 69. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 34: Agricultural tenancies
Amendment 69
The Earl of Devon
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to remove agricultural tenancies provisions.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendments 69 and 89 seek the removal from the Bill of Schedule 3 and the reforms contained therein updating the law on agricultural tenancies. This is not because I am not in favour of agricultural tenancy reform. To the contrary, it is because I do not believe that this is reform enough. My proposed amendments therefore form a protest and express frustration at the modesty of the admittedly sensible agricultural tenancy reforms contained in the Bill.
As discussed at length in Committee and on Tuesday, agriculture is key to meeting the nation’s net-zero carbon ambitions and assisting the Government to ensure that this generation hands a better environment on to the next. To achieve that, agriculture will need to change fundamentally. The biggest change will be to swap short-term profit for long-term sustainable investment and productivity.
The clearest illustration of this change is in the handling of our soils. The building of organic matter in soils, along with a healthy soil structure, requires long-term investment and a short-term decrease in productivity before any financial return can be realised. The same can be said of agroforestry, hedgerow management and any number of the worthy ELM schemes we have debated. None of this is possible if the farm operator enjoys only a short-term interest in the land.
The tenanted sector accounts for approximately one-third of our farmland, of which nearly half is now let on farm business tenancies. The average length of an FBT is less than three years, and 90% of all new tenancies are let for no more than five years. It is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve both a sustainable business and a sustainable environment when farming with a three-year horizon. There is an urgent need to change this and to permit everyone who farms in the UK to enjoy a much longer horizon in which they can expect to reap the long-term benefits of adopting environmentally sensitive farming techniques.
This is urgent, and I am concerned that if we make do with what TRIG has agreed is possible now, we will lose the impetus for further reform for a generation and our agricultural landscape will continue to be blighted by a short-termism diametrically opposed to the noble goals of environmental land management, as set out in Clause 1. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to support the amendment and to speak to my Amendment 84, which is attached to it. My amendment is very simple; the words on the amendment paper spell it out. It is to ensure
“that tenant farmers in Wales have a mechanism to object”—
if they need to—
“to a landlord’s refusal to consent to enter into a financial assistance scheme.”
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her support for it.
The point is that there must be a system operating in Wales, and for clarity it should be included in the Bill that this right exists and that the responsibility lies with Welsh Ministers. For that reason, I am glad to speak to Amendment 84 in my name.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I understand that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans is not on the call, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Rock.
Baroness Rock (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Wrackleford Farms Ltd, a tenant farming enterprise. I shall speak to Amendments 81, 82, 83, 85 and 86, which stand in my name. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for these amendments. I shall also speak to Amendments 69 and 89 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and Amendments 87 and 88 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
In speaking to my Amendment 81, I speak also to Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which will achieve the same outcome for Wales prior to it coming forward with its own legislation, as this amendment envisages for England. This amendment is a straightforward change to require the Government to come forward with the necessary regulations to allow an agricultural tenant to refer to dispute resolution an unreasonable refusal from a landlord following a request made by the tenant to join a scheme developed under the provisions for financial assistance.
While the Government may give an assurance that they will use the power available in this part of the Bill to bring forward the necessary regulations, there is no reason why the Government should not commit to doing so in the Bill. Tenant farmers are rightly concerned about their ability to access new public payments for public good schemes in light of their tenancy agreements and some of the restrictive clauses which they contain. Tenants must be given the assurance that they will be able to enter new schemes without the landlord being able to unreasonably withhold consent. The change which this amendment will make is entirely in line with the Government’s policy and should not cause any issue for them but at the same time it would give a tremendous boost of assurance to tenant farmers who are looking at the possibility of taking part in new schemes as they develop.
Sadly, there are circumstances where landlords refuse consent on an unreasonable basis for their tenants to enter schemes. Although it may be considered prudent for landlords to allow their tenants to remain profitable, it can sometimes be the case that landlords seek to use the leverage involved in having to give their consent to make unreasonable demands of their tenants, including surrendering secure tenancies in favour of insecure farm business tenancies, seeking the surrender of land, buildings or dwellings or merely to make the life of the tenant difficult. Having said that, there are, of course, plenty of examples where relationships between landlords and tenants are very good and where the changes being envisaged by this amendment would not be a risk to those good relationships or undermine what the parties are trying to achieve in those circumstances.
Amendment 82 closes a potential loophole in the provisions of the Bill around gaining the consent of the landlord, which is required to be obtained by the tenant in entering a financial assistance scheme. The Bill contains a relatively narrow set of criteria which need to be in place before the tenant has recourse to potential dispute resolution for an unreasonable refusal of consent to join a financial assistance scheme. The Bill envisages providing the tenant only with the option to object where the tenancy agreement or legislation governing the relationship between the landlord and the tenant restricts the tenant’s ability to participate without the landlord’s consent. However, there may be individual requirements set out within the financial assistance schemes which require tenants to seek the landlord’s consent. It may be because of the nature of specific land use changes envisaged by schemes being considered by tenants. Currently, that situation would not be covered by the provision in the Bill, and the amendment seeks to address that by ensuring that all refusals by a landlord can be referred by the tenant to dispute resolution on the grounds of reasonableness.
The Government may say that they will ensure to address this point in the way in which they design schemes, and I have some sympathy with that, but it would be better to have the provisions in the Bill rather than have to rely on individual schemes having their own appeal mechanism.
Amendment 83 would address specific issues around unreasonable restrictions within tenancy agreements which prevent farm tenants investing in their holdings to carry out activities or improvements which assist with the productivity or sustainability of the holding. This could include using the holding for non-agricultural activities which are in keeping with and complementary to its agricultural uses, which many farms want to do and which adds much-needed financial stability to those holdings.
Many tenants will have agreements which require them to seek their landlord’s consent for the installation of new fixed equipment or to carry out new activities where the requirement for the landlord’s consent is absolute. In these circumstances, there is no recourse for the tenant, who feels aggrieved by a refusal from the landlord. In that it is a point of public policy that farming should become both more productive and more sustainable, it would be an error not to allow tenants the same ability to fulfil those objectives as others. Of course, reasonable landlords will give reasonable consent for activities which improve the productive capacity of the holding and/or its sustainability, but, sadly, there are situations where such consent is not forthcoming. This is mostly because landlords are seeking to extract other concessions from their tenants, as I have set out previously. This amendment does not seek to provide a carte blanche ability for tenants to avoid reasonable clauses within their tenancy agreements, but it would provide the opportunity for them to appeal against an unreasonable refusal from their landlord. Indeed, this suggestion formed part of the recommendations of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group in its report to Defra in October 2017.
Amendments 85 and 86 would enhance the franchise of individuals who are able to apply for succession of tenancy for the limited number of Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 tenancies which continue to have rights of succession. Where those rights of succession apply, a narrow list of close relatives are able to apply to be considered to be eligible to take on succession tenancy. Up to three generations of members of the family can be tenants of the same holding. The current franchise includes husbands, wives, civil partners, sons, daughters, individuals brought up in farm families and treated as children of a marriage or civil partnership, and brothers and sisters of the deceased or retiring tenant. However, crucially, the list of potential successors does not include the grandchild, the nephew or the niece of the deceased or retiring tenant, nor does it include children from a cohabiting partner of the deceased or retiring tenant. The amendment seeks merely to correct for those omissions. This is also an issue that was considered by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group. It is often the case that the most appropriate successor in a family business is not to be found in the immediate generation but in the next, and there is no reason to deny the ability for the tenancy to be passed to those individuals should they also be able to meet the other eligibility criteria.
I strongly support Amendment 87 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as it seeks to provide a framework for encouraging longer-term farm business tenancies. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised, the average length of FBTs is under four years. With 90% of all tenancies let for five years or less, this is a crucial issue. I look forward to hearing what the Government plan to do about it and ask that consideration be given also to the taxation environment within which landlords make decisions about farm tenancy letting, as has been proposed by the Tenant Farmers Association.
Amendment 88 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering is crucial to this legislation. FBT tenants should not be left out of the possibility of objecting to their landlord’s refusal to allow them to enter into a financial assistance scheme. Should my noble friend push this matter to a vote, I would certainly vote in favour of the amendment, as it closes a dangerous loophole for nearly half the tenanted sector of agriculture.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 69 and 89 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I cannot support the removal of the tenancy provisions in the Bill that those amendments would achieve. However, I understand and fully agree with his view that we urgently need a specific Bill covering agricultural tenancies. It could pick up on many of the issues already recommended by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group. I urge my noble friend the Minister to give an assurance that an agricultural tenancies Bill will be brought before this House in the not too distant future.
I know that my noble friend the Minister is very supportive of the tenanted sector and highlights its importance to the whole agricultural industry. I thank him particularly for his empathetic engagement on this. It is therefore right that new legislation, providing security and stability to the tenanted sector, should be brought before the House. Although I am minded to test the will of the House on my amendments, I will listen carefully to what the Minister says before making my final decision.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lady Rock and thank her for her staunch and eloquent support for Amendments 87 and 88. Perhaps I may briefly address Amendments 69 and 89, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I have great difficulty with them because they would remove from the Bill all provisions relating to agricultural tenancies. That would be a very regrettable move. However, I support Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which is a mirror image of the amendments standing in my name.
I will address my remarks primarily to Amendments 87 and 88. Clearly, as I say in my explanatory statement, Amendment 87 would seek to
“bring into effect a legislative change proposed in the tenancy reform consultation carried out by DEFRA and the Welsh Government, which has not been covered by the Bill, to encourage landlords to let longer Farm Business Tenancies.”
I would like to draw out some of the comments made by my noble friend Lady Rock in speaking to her amendments as passionately and eloquently as she did. I am minded to press Amendment 88 to a vote, not on my behalf but on behalf of all the agricultural tenants for whom, I know, this is close to their hearts.
I have had cause to raise this issue at previous stages of the Bill and I feel passionately about it. I grew up in a part of the world—Teesdale, in the Pennines in the north of England—where the farm incomes are among the lowest in the land. The farmers there probably survive only because their wives go out not just to help on the farm in all weathers, particularly at lambing time. In normal circumstances, outside Covid, they also go out and try to earn a living to keep the family afloat.
The basis of Amendment 88 is very simple. It is to put the tenants’ agreements under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 on exactly the same basis as under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. My noble friend Lady Rock referred clearly to the devastating effects of moving from a secure tenancy agreement to an insecure tenancy, which do not bear thinking about in the present climate. Tenant farming is the bedrock of this country; it is almost unique to the English countryside. I remember so clearly from my years as a Member of the European Parliament how we stand out as one of the few areas of Europe with such a well-developed system of tenancies.
What I find so heartbreaking about the current situation is that the two Acts have not yet been brought together. To me, the provisions covering tenants under them should be absolutely as one. This is a highly regrettable situation. To be fair, my noble friend the Minister tried to go to some pains to put my mind at rest in Committee. Yet I find myself tabling the same amendment on Report, and potentially putting it to a vote, because I have not had satisfaction on this point.
I believe I am here as a voice for those people who cannot be represented otherwise than through our good selves in this House. I urge my noble friend to consider any reason why the tenancies under the two Acts cannot be treated in exactly the same way. It would be grossly unfair if any tenants’ possible access to financial assistance could be refused at the whim of a landlord. I accept there are good tenants and bad tenants; there are good landlords and bad landlords. But we have to look at the worst-case scenario.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, together with my membership of the National Farmers Union and the CLA.
I sympathise with, but do not support, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in his amendments which would remove both Clause 34 and Schedule 3 from the Bill. Although, in an ideal world, the legislation on the reform of tenancies would be in a separate Bill, the clauses cover several matters that have been agreed by the industry through TRIG. So, if necessary, I would reluctantly accept Clause 34 and the schedule. However, what I certainly would not support—and I am afraid I do not support either the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, or the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering—are Amendments 85 and 86 regarding succession on the death of an Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 tenant.
The suggestion that the rights of succession should be given to nephews, nieces, and grandchildren as well as partners and their children is several steps too far and begs the question, “Why stop there?” It would unnecessarily prolong the life of the AHA 1986 tenancies when we have moved on to the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, along with a more modern and flexible regime for letting agricultural land, with the hope of bringing new entrants into the industry.
All these amendments would achieve is benefiting a small group of successors, some of whom might succeed anyway in view of their existing competence and relationship with the landowner, and others who might see it as an easy way to inherit an otherwise unaffordable house and a deceptively attractive way of life. It would also have the serious effect of depriving landlords again of their property rights and access to their own land for another generation.
Land could and should be freed up for a wider pool of occupiers under arrangements and agreements that are more flexible and more market-oriented and might help deliver productivity advantages. New tenancy agreements or share farming, as well as joint ventures, which are more collaborative, work well for new entrants and young farmers.
I am also opposed to Amendment 88 with its proposed changes to the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. All stakeholders in the industry have expressed their agreement that the 1995 Act provides a suitable framework for tenancies in the modern era, with flexibility for the parties to agree the terms that suit their arrangement. This legislation has generated very little need for litigation or dispute resolution, and on previous occasions, all parties were agreed that the Act did not need revision or reform.
The amendment would create a situation where a recently agreed tenancy agreement can be amended in a way not foreseen or agreed to by the parties. If the parties are not able to agree on amending terms—an option that is, of course, open to them—to do this by recourse to an expensive alternative dispute-resolution process will have a very negative impact on that relationship and more widely on the landlord/tenant sector. It will undermine cross industry efforts to encourage parties into longer term agreements and possibly undermine the lettings market altogether. It is a different context to that under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 framework and will be counterproductive to the industry. It is also proposed in the amendment that the detail of how such a dispute would be resolved by secondary legislation be determined at some later point. This is very unsatisfactory.
Issues and factors like these certainly need to be further discussed and considered by TRIG before being legislated upon. The National Farmers’ Union has welcomed the reforms in the Bill but also urges that other reforms, such as landlords’ consent to variation of terms under tenancy Acts, are taken forward through TRIG. Please could the Minister consider separate legislation to cover tenancy reform issues that are not currently in this Bill on the back of the TRIG recommendations?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and to participate in the debate on this group of amendments. Noble Lords will know of my interest in my family business, which is on the register.
I speak as someone privileged with “boys’ land”—they say this of the silts around the Wash. This land is ideal for arable farming, and we grow a diverse range of crops, from bulbs, in which we are prominent, to cauliflowers and potatoes. My neighbours are engaged in a great variety of different cropping, and this diversity —together with the marketing and distribution facilities —has encouraged field-scale horticulture similar to that in the Netherlands. It has also led to large-scale investment in protected cropping indoors and not exclusively under glass. I admit that this experience colours my thinking as to how we can raise productivity and harness modern techniques of scientific agriculture. It also colours my thinking about the role that the occupation and use of land plays in allowing a lively and prosperous industry.
I spoke in Committee on amendments covering tenancy issues and, in particular, about the value of cropping licences. I explained the background to my conviction that a dynamic farming and growing industry depends on having a lively market for land occupation to make this land readily available to up-and-coming farmers and growers. Schedule 3 is the product of the dialogue between the Government and the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, where different parties to this issue are seeking to find consensus on landholding issues.
Consensus must be the right way to seek to change something as complex as this. I might add that it seems to me that this whole Bill is about establishing a consensus on a path for agriculture into the future. It is with this in mind that I cannot support the wish of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, to remove Clause 34—and, with it, Schedule 3—of this Bill. I believe that Schedule 3, which his amendments seek to remove, delivers on the Government’s consultations in England and Wales and, indeed, on many of the recommendations from TRIG.
The Bill is not a root-and-branch reform of tenancy legislation. It is not intended to be. Listening to this debate, I am very much aware that many noble Lords are impatient for more changes. However, these modest key and agreed changes, which form Schedule 3, will help to modernise agricultural tenancy legislation and, more importantly, play a part in giving this key industry the flexibility to adapt to change, and this is why they should remain in this Bill.
Having said that, I hope there can be consensus on further issues that the UK and Welsh Governments will wish to discuss with TRIG to see what other actions will lead to a thriving tenancy sector. In turn, this will require further consideration by Parliament and legislation. However, as it is, Schedule 3 makes considerable changes now, and they should be supported.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, although I declared my agricultural interests earlier, I should specifically declare that I am, and have been, a landlord, as a freeholder and as a trustee of let agricultural land, as well as having been a tenant, both of family land and, until recently, some land belonging to a third party. What I found interesting and remarkable about the speeches on the amendment is that, while a number of speakers have taken varying stances, they almost all seem to be coming from the same general place on the map—as I do and hope will become apparent.
It is helpful when thinking about these matters to start from the original economic rationale for the landlord and tenant system. Landlords provided fixed equipment and the tenant the working capital. The parties negotiated around that and the farm business was put together as what might be described as a form of joint venture. The reality in days gone by was that the landlord’s negotiating power was frequently stronger than that of the tenant. This point was graphically drawn to the attention of the House by the late Lord Williams of Mostyn in his final speech on the Bill reorganising the composition of this House, some 15 or so years ago, in what I consider to be the finest speech that I have heard in this Chamber. The imbalance over the years has led to a series of specific pieces of legislation to introduce rules for fair trading—something that we have just been considering in a different context—into this marketplace. That is as it should be.
Too often, the debate is conducted in black and white terms, when it is in reality shades of grey. Landlords range from hard-nosed financial institutions and Dukes to widows, orphans and charities—for example, the National Trust, which interestingly is not always popular among its own tenants. Tenants range from huge farming companies to smallholders. Their circumstances are wide-ranging. There are good and bad landlords, and tenants who are exemplary farmers and some who are chancers and incompetents. However, both sides, whatever characteristics they have, ought in a free society to be treated even-handedly within the legal framework surrounding whatever arrangement they wish to put in place. While this may, to a degree, depend upon one’s perspective, the landlord is not, in granting a lease, conveying away his freehold or emotional and other commitments to the land. It is not the re-creation of some form of copyhold system.
A tenant, particularly when he also obtains a farmhouse, is acquiring more than a mere business asset but a home, and making a considerable investment in someone else’s property. This must not be forgotten. Questions around bare land may be different. On top of that, both parties may be investing substantial sums of money, and all this must be taken into account. There is a perhaps an understandable tendency, at least superficially, to treat tenants as good and landlords as bad. That is not, by any means, universally the case. I speak from first-hand experience on which it is unnecessary to elaborate further here.
The conclusion that I have come to when thinking about these matters over the years is that perhaps the best way to make a mess of the landlord and tenant system is to rewrite it on the hoof on the Floor of Parliament in an ad hoc manner. Rather, as a number of speakers have said, those in the industry should, from time to time, review the matters to find a middle way that, as far as possible, represents a compromise acceptable to all those involved. That will need to be led by some entity or organisation like the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, TRIG. Failure to do that will not only wreck a system that must adapt anyway to completely new circumstances as the output of farming changes but, as many speakers have said, but properly ensure fairness on all sides. It is certain that if changes are made in an ad hoc, incremental way, real injustice in all kinds of unexpected places is likely to result. I am old-fashioned enough to think that it is a matter that Parliament should do its best to avoid.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkeharle, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. This is an important group of amendments, to which others have spoken eloquently. I added my name to Amendments 81, 82, 83, 85 and 86 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. I congratulate her on her speech and agree wholeheartedly with her detailed comments.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, moved Amendment 69 and spoke to Amendment 89, which would remove agricultural tenancies from the Bill. I listened carefully to his speech and I am afraid I cannot agree with him. Removing reference to tenant farmers from the Bill because insufficient importance is given to them is not the answer. Tenant farmers are a vital part of the patchwork of agricultural holdings across the country. If they are removed from the Bill, I am unclear on just how we can safeguard their survival. However, I agree that three years is far too short for a farm tenancy business.
The amendments I will speak to all apply to Schedule 3 and would ensure that those currently involved in agriculture on a tenancy basis can function effectively. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, on financial assistance schemes. These must be open to all tenant farmers. It is unacceptable for their landlords to refuse consent for them to engage in these schemes. Those who work the land and do the back-breaking jobs involved should be able to reap the rewards. It is unacceptable for landlords to block the rewards, cream them off for themselves or alter the tenancies to the disadvantage of the tenant, as the noble Baroness indicated.
I turn to the amendments that relate to the rights of succession to a tenancy on death. Many tenant farms will be run by extended family members. For some, the nephew, niece or grandchild of the farmer will have been helping to run the farm for some time and see it as the only way they themselves can get into farming. It is therefore imperative that they should be able to succeed to the tenancy. They have experience and expertise, often gained over many years, and the farm will be in safe hands. Similarly, those in civil partnerships or cohabiting should be able to succeed to the tenancy where they wish to do so.
We have on previous days on the Bill debated the importance of encouraging new entrants into farming. To shut out those who wish to carry on the family tradition by refusing succession to the tenancy would be both cruel and unwise. These are the very people the Government should be encouraging to take up the reins and carry on. They are also the ones likely to welcome a move to a more environmentally friendly way of farming. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington: no one related to a farmer or his extended family could possibly think that farming is an easy option.
Lastly, I support the letting of longer farm business tenancies. In Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred to the woefully inadequate length of farm business tenancies of three years. This is hopeless for anyone wanting to plan ahead and make the best use of the land.
While I accept that short tenancies mean that others can come on to the land, it is not likely to encourage proper management of the land if, at the end of three years, the tenant farmer has to give up and move on. Often, there are no farms for them to move on to, as the popularity of pony paddocks means that some farmers have sold off land piecemeal for this purpose. A longer tenancy agreement is vital if the Government are to ensure that ELMS are successful. The Government cannot insist that it will take farmers seven years to convert from CAP to the ELMS system and then legislate only for three-year farm tenancy businesses. These are all vital issues, and should the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, wish to test the opinion of the House, we will support her. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Tenant Farmers Association for its communications on these clauses. I also thank the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments for further consideration. They tackle many aspects of the two major Acts, the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, following the Government’s consultations on their workings, on which there has been so much debate. I recognise the passion with which many speakers have spoken tonight. These relationships can certainly become fraught and I appreciate the experiences that the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, shared with the House. It is a difficult and complicated subject that has been deliberated on by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group over many years. The Bill delivers on many of its recommendations, and the Minister will see that they are drafted to balance the interests of tenants and owners.
I understand that many of the amendments were consulted on last year but did not receive enough support and that therefore further, more detailed work may be required. I understand that there remains an appetite in England and Wales to consider the situation further before coming to a conclusion by the enactment of these amendments. The amendments are certainly important and have our broad support, including Amendment 88 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. We agree that there should be parity between tenants under the 1995 Act and those under the 1986 legislation in objecting to a landlord’s refusal to enter into a specific financial assistance scheme. We wish generally that all farming operations, whatever the terms of their occupancy, should be encouraged to take up the various ELM schemes and make their contributions towards an environmentally sustainable agriculture.
We would also be receptive to the modern interpretation of relationships that could lead to wider inclusion in tenancies, in line with our general encouragement for new entrants to come into the industry, provided they can meet the various eligibility provisions. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, argues that these clauses should be excluded from the Bill, but we would not go along with such an approach. If improvements to the legislation have been agreed as part of the TRIG process, we would not wish to hold them up. However, regarding further amendments, we can see that these may not have received the more considered support as widely as may be necessary for enactment in the Bill. We await the outcome of a more comprehensive assessment throughout the industry.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, used the word “passionate”. It has been a passionate debate and I think that, whatever the tenure of ownership, tenancy or commonhold, the challenges of farming are very profound. Obviously, the Government need to work towards creating an environment in which all types of tenure are able to run a strong business.
Turning to Amendments 69 and 89, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, proposed that we should in effect decide not to take forward what we have banked in our work. The package of tenancy reforms included in Clause 34 and Schedule 3 were shown by public consultations in England and Wales to have broad support. They deliver on many of the recommendations from the Tenancy Reform Industry Group—TRIG. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, made that point rightly, because the Government have brought forward those recommendations which commanded broad support. These provisions will help to modernise agricultural tenancy legislation, providing tenants with more flexibility to adapt to change. That is why it is very important that they remain in the Bill, so that they can be delivered now.
I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, would like to see tenancy reform delivered through a separate dedicated Bill, and I can assure him and noble Lords that both the UK and Welsh Governments are keen to engage in further discussions with members of TRIG to explore whether any further actions may be needed to ensure what we all want, which is a thriving tenanted sector.
On Amendment 84, the tenant farming sector remains, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, and as we all know, a crucial element of agriculture in Wales. Within last year’s consultation, the Welsh Government outlined their proposals for a new sustainable land management scheme in Sustainable Farming and Our Land. It also consulted on a series of measures to modernise the tenant farming sector in the agricultural tenancy reform consultation. Policy development on tenancy reform remains ongoing in light of the consultation responses received and is being carried out in conjunction with development of sector-wide proposals for future agricultural support.
The Welsh Government acknowledge the importance of ensuring that tenant farmers are able to access any new scheme, and their view is that a Senedd Bill would provide a more appropriate legislative vehicle for that purpose. Further consideration will be given to what provision is needed in due course. The Welsh Government intend to publish a White Paper later this year to pave the way for an agriculture (Wales) Bill to be introduced in the next Senedd term.
On Amendment 87, there can of course be benefits from tenants and landlords entering into a longer-term tenancy agreement. There has been a lot of talk of three years. As far as I am aware, the parties can, if they so choose, have any length of term they desire; in the same way as with arrangements with any other property, that is a matter for the parties. I was therefore a little concerned that there appeared to be among certain of your Lordships this idea that everything was for three years and there was no leeway. As far as I know, and from my experience, that is not the case.
However, when the Government consulted on this matter of longer-term tenancy agreements, the feedback gathered indicated that introducing shorter notices to quit would be unlikely to affect significantly landowners’ decisions about the length of tenancy to offer. Other factors such as the size, quality and location of the land, and personal motivations for owning land have a much greater influence on decisions about the length of the tenancy term offered.
It is also important to recognise that, while there are benefits to longer-term tenancy agreements, shorter-term tenancies can be more suitable for different business models. For example, short-term lets have been shown to be very often more appropriate for new entrants looking to rent land on a flexible basis to gain experience. They can also be more suitable for some seasonal horticultural businesses. However, I can assure your Lordships that the Government will continue to work with TRIG on this important issue. That includes exploring how the sector can encourage more landowners to offer innovative long-term agreements to tenants who would welcome them rather than defaulting to standard short-term agreements.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their conscientious and passionate contributions. I did not expect much support but wanted to prompt some vigorous debate, which I am pleased to have done.
I pay tribute to the wise work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Rock and Lady McIntosh, in this area. TRIG deserves great credit for its tireless efforts, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that we should follow the industry where we can. The ability of tenants to obtain access to financial support and support for capital improvements is important, albeit that I would note the need to maintain contractual freedom in such a highly regulated area. Increasing the opportunities for new entrants to farming via succession is also an important consideration—I say that as landlord to at least one tenancy that began under Queen Victoria. However, I note the words of warning from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about unduly extending cumbersome and outdated AHAs.
I have heard what the Minister had to say and appreciate the length of his response. I look forward to holding him to his assurances of further engagement with TRIG in the years to come. I agree with the need to foster enthusiasm among landlords and tenants with the increased adoption of FBTs, but preferably those that enhance the environment and our rural communities.
In three days of debate on Report, we have spent barely a late hour on agricultural tenancies. I believe this proves my point: it is not nearly enough.
Before I conclude, as this is my last appearance on Report, I thank both Ministers for their endless courtesy and patience with the efforts of a novice. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 70. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 70
“Duty to sustain the UK agricultural industry workforce
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a strategy outlining the steps that Her Majesty’s Government proposes to take to—(a) ensure an appropriate supply of seasonal agricultural workers,(b) increase the number of people undertaking—(i) practical training, and(ii) formal qualificationsrelating to agricultural work,(c) ensure agricultural workers have sufficient access to—(i) financial advice,(ii) affordable housing,(iii) mental health support, and(iv) any other support the Secretary of State deems appropriate, and (d) ensure agricultural workers are subject to fair sectoral terms and conditions.(2) In preparing the strategy under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must consult—(a) other relevant UK Ministers,(b) the Scottish Ministers,(c) the Welsh Ministers,(d) the Northern Ireland Department, and(e) bodies that appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of the UK agricultural industry.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I move Amendment 70 in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and my noble friend Lord Whitty. I tabled a similar amendment in Committee and we had an excellent debate, with considerable support around the Chamber. I was rather hoping, therefore, that the Minister would have heard the case and taken action to follow it up—but, sadly, that hope was in vain. So I now bring back a variation, which includes my noble friend Lord Judd’s very sensible addition of access to affordable housing.
Our amendment is fairly modest. It would simply require the Government to draw up and publish a strategy to address the concerns about the provisions for agricultural workers set out in the amendment. As we argued, the workforce will be fundamental to delivering the changes in farming practice envisaged in this Bill. There are about half a million people working in the agricultural sector across the UK, and their skills will need to change.
The sector is about to experience a huge transformation, moving from low skill to high-tech, and the workforce will need the training and resources to adapt to the new world. We already know that robotics, precision farming, and data capture and analysis will become commonplace. Add to this mix the new requirements to understand biodiversity, soil and plant health, and the operation of ELMS, and we get a flavour of the challenges ahead. The sector has previously been characterised by low skill and low pay. But now there is an opportunity to make employment in the agricultural sector an exciting proposition for younger people, but only if we tackle the structural problems that hold back rewards and make it difficult to have a career and a long-term future in the sector.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and those noble Lords who have added their names to this amendment, on bringing it forward again.
I would be interested to know from my noble friend the Minister what share of the workforce agricultural workers make up. My impression is that their numbers have declined quite steeply in recent times. If that is the case, there is a strong argument for hoping to maintain a sustainable agricultural industry workforce. Clearly, many smaller farms are relying expressly on family members, but we are hoping to rely on SAWS—the seasonal agricultural workers scheme—to help farmers and growers. I believe that the numbers are increasing, and they will make a big contribution.
I have a question that I would like to put to my noble friend, which I think was raised in Committee, although I do not recall the answer. Subsection 1(c) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 70 refers to ensuring that
“agricultural workers have sufficient access to … financial advice”.
The number of providers of such advice is quite large already; I do not know whether the noble Baroness is thinking of a new source. In our earlier debates on the Bill’s provisions, we discussed the proposal that financial advice be provided to those applying for the scheme. Under the new scheme, what financial advice will be available to ensure a sustainable workforce? Am I right in thinking that agricultural societies and charities might have a role to play in this regard, in guiding farmers to sources of income and providing advice for the workforce in this sector?
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an absolutely first-class proposed new clause. It is completely rounded in many ways.
I want to deal with the first part of the amendment, which relates to seasonal workers. Again, I plead guilty because I have some history here. I realise that it means seasonal workers, and not overseas workers, some of whom are permanent—indeed, in many of our meat plants and abattoirs, their occupations are permanent. Returning to seasonal workers, we have a problem. I plead guilty to the fact that when I was the Home Office immigration and nationality Minister in 2001-02, it crossed my desk that we had to abandon the seasonal workers scheme because we were getting ready for the accession of eight new EU members in 2004, where we would recruit openly, and it was always known that Romania and Bulgaria would be ready-made sources of agricultural workers.
The one thing about the previous scheme that was almost unique was that it was based, in a way, on higher education around the world. We had, I think, workers from over 100 countries who came to the UK on a seasonal basis. I was told at the Home Office, “The thing is, they all went back home.” That was the whole point. It was very much based on higher education—they had courses to go back to, but Britain probably benefited economically for much of their time here.
Now, we are leaving the EU and we have not done anything. It is no good the Home Office simply saying that we have to recruit British people. That has not worked this year, notwithstanding the problem with the virus, and it will not work next year either. Therefore, it is not about turning the clock back, but we need a professional, strategic seasonal workers scheme. In many ways, we are unique in the things that we grow, in our climate and in the difficulty of recruiting our own people on a seasonal basis. It used to be easy to do in my younger days, as I know—as an engineering apprentice, I picked fruit in Scotland.
The fact of the matter is that we had a scheme that worked. As I say, the only reason we abandoned it was in getting ready for the accession of eight new countries to the EU—but we are leaving the EU, are we not? The point is that it was not that seasonal with the eight new countries.
It is not easy, I know, having been at the Home Office in the years I mentioned. When I turned up at Defra in 2006-08, I was on the receiving end, and thought, “Oh dear me, I made a mistake there.” Even though we were recruiting lots, we were still in trouble with the flexibility on our farms. We have now reached a point where we ought to have such a scheme. The Home Office should not be concerned or worried about it. All the evidence shows that it was based on higher education. The students were flexible; they were in different academic years and came from around the world, so they fitted in quite well. As I say, they came from more than 100 countries—and they went back home. The Home Office seems to be obsessed with people coming to this country and staying here. That is not what the scheme was for.
Having made that point earlier, I do not wish to say anything else except that I agree very much with what my noble friend said about the work of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I absolutely 100% support the thrust of this rounded amendment.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment, as indeed I did in Committee. I thank my noble friend for being so resolute in standing by it. I express my appreciation for the way in which she so warmly welcomed my small but important amendment in Committee; it is now incorporated in the proposals before us.
The position on housing can be dire for those who wish to work on the land. It is simply impossible to find housing that is affordable. The absence of other public services and support services is a great hazard too because, let us face it, so much of the countryside has been turned into a middle-class urban extension.
Affordable housing is crucial, but the main point that I want to make in support of the amendment as a whole is that we can debate how we want the land organised, arrangements for ownership and so on, but in the end it is the motivation, quality, training and preparation of the workforce who are going to work the land that is crucial. This amendment is the result of an utterly sensible understanding that if we want to have successful agriculture, we need an enlightened, positive approach to the preparation of people, particularly young people, wanting to enter the profession in order that they may be as well equipped as possible to work it effectively.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is indeed an excellent amendment. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the other noble Lords who signed it. It would make a fantastic improvement to the Bill and to the future of our farming industry because it takes such a wide-ranging and holistic look at the agriculture and land management workforce, including training, mental health, financial health and, of course, affordable housing. Affordable housing is hard enough to find anywhere in Britain, but on the land it is even harder.
Noble Lords know that the Bill represents quite a sea change in our approach to land management and is an opportunity to craft a much greener future. We need to train and develop what one could call a new land army to seize this opportunity. The future needs new skills, new knowledge and a new passion for our natural world. Without a workforce plan we will fail to deliver the intended changes, so I think the Government should embrace this opportunity and accept the amendment.
At the very least, the Minister should undertake to conduct a broad and far-reaching workforce review and planning process. I know that we keep asking for plans for definitive actions but they really are necessary and they are so lacking in the Bill. In particular, what conversations has the Minister had with colleagues in the Home Office about the post-Brexit migration system and the availability of highly motivated people from all over the world who would like to come to Britain to contribute to what I hope is going to be our greener farming system?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I have added my name to Amendment 70. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, laid out the case for it very well and I support her comments.
Both at Second Reading and in Committee, Members of this Chamber raised the issues of the safety of agricultural workers and their access to training. Despite safety measures, it is not uncommon for farmers to have fatal or life-changing accidents during the normal course of their working day. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to the levels of mental illness and suicide among the farming community. Training is important to help prevent this, and it is vital, too, to ensure that new methods and technological advances which could make their lives easier are also readily available.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, again, all the topics raised in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, are worthy of a much longer debate—no doubt at another time. The amendment highlights the absolute importance of our agricultural workforce. It is important to recall that, with the changes that have occurred and the way that farming is currently done, very often the farmer and his family constitute the entirety of the workforce, compared with the time when, even on smaller farms, many more people would have been employed.
This Government wish to see a strong and resilient workforce across both permanent and seasonal roles. This year has seen initiatives such as the successful Pick For Britain campaign, and Defra will ensure that we continue to recruit British workers into the agricultural sector.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that we have held discussions with the Home Office. The seasonal workers pilot, held this year, has engaged thousands of workers to travel to work on UK farms, with 6,161 visas issued so far this year—that is the figure that I have with me tonight. The results of the pilot will be very important in enabling the Government to shape and inform future policy on the seasonal workforce.
It is a priority of the Government to ensure an agricultural sector that is not only successful and effective but one in which workers are treated fairly. Skills and training in agriculture will be of increasing importance to enable an innovative, productive and competitive agricultural sector which invests in people and their skills. The needs of agricultural businesses are always changing, and it is critical that skills providers can keep pace. This is particularly important as elements of horticulture and agriculture become increasingly technical and specialised, with advances in technology and automation.
In reference to a question my noble friend Lady McIntosh asked me, agriculture now employs 1.2% of the workforce. That is 476,000 people, 300,000 of whom are permanent agricultural workers—think what that was before mechanisation, when there were probably millions of people working on the land.
Training must recognise the role that advanced land management skills will play in this sector in future and further respond to any changes to requirements caused more immediately, for instance, by the impact of coronavirus. Work is currently ongoing to support this through the agricultural productivity task force of the Food and Drink Sector Council and the skills leadership group. I will send the noble Lord, Lord Curry, a copy of my remarks tonight; I much regret that he is not with us. This was an important point raised. This work aims to remove the fragmentation in the current farming training landscape. It will enable the industry to drive forward a greater uptake of skills, creating clear career-development pathways and promoting the sector as a progressive, professional and attractive career choice. Additionally, we continue to support the work of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, AHDB, which is creating new methods of training to assist in the recruitment and training of seasonal workers.
The Government also fund apprenticeships for training in agricultural occupations. There are currently 32 high- grade apprenticeship standards available in the agriculture, environmental and animal care sector, ranging from level 2 general farm worker to level 6 agricultural/horticultural professional adviser. Employer groups are working with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to develop a further seven standards. In 2018-19, there were 7,000 enrolments for apprenticeships in the agriculture, horticulture and animal care sectors.
In higher education, the UK is home to many internationally renowned specialist universities that offer highly technical courses covering food production, animal sciences, engineering and sustainable business, among many others. The UK boasts research institutions that are leading the world in understanding crops and livestock. I think particularly of the association of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, with Rothamsted as an example of the really outstanding research institutions on which we and the world will rely.
The amendment also raises the important issue of mental health. The mental health of all sections of the population, including farm workers and those living in rural areas, must surely be a top-order priority. I think we in our generation are all very much more aware of the imperative of addressing this than previous generations, which went through many travails. We are at last recognising and tackling this much better, but there is undoubtedly much more to do.
Defra has for many years provided annual funding to the Farming Community Network, FCN, for pastoral and practical support. The FCN has approximately 400 volunteers located throughout England and Wales who provide free, confidential pastoral and practical support to anyone who seeks help. The Rural Payments Agency works closely with Farming Help organisations to support the farming community in England. That includes having hardship arrangements in place for farmers facing financial difficulties.
Defra also supports the well-being of farmers through a programme of research and is carrying out an initial phase of resilience support through the future farming resilience fund, which this year is providing a £1 million project to provide support to farmers and land managers in England to help them prepare for the agricultural transition. I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that, yes, the financial support includes business support and advice. The project covers a range of business and well-being support approaches and measures across different sectors and regions to improve resilience and mental health. Evidence coming from this project will help inform the design of a national scheme, which is currently in development for a launch in early 2022.
On rural housing, I think your Lordships know that I facilitated a rural housing scheme at Kimble many years ago, and it is an issue on which I place great personal importance. The Government recognise that improving the availability of affordable housing in rural areas is essential to sustain thriving rural communities and to support the rural economy. My aspiration of multigenerational villages is very strong. Between April 2010 and March 2019, over 165,000 affordable homes were provided in rural local authority areas in England. Additionally, local authorities can already take advantage of rural exception sites to ensure that affordable housing can be provided to meet local needs, including for agricultural workers. The revised National Planning Policy Framework also supports farmers, with new policies to support the building of homes in isolated locations where this supports farm succession. Permitted development rights allow for the change of use of an agricultural building to a house. In 2018, the regulations were amended to allow up to 865 square metres of floor space to be converted, and up to five dwellings, an increase from the previous three.
I am very concerned for farmers’ and farm workers’ health and safety. The Health and Safety Executive is working closely with a wide range of stakeholders, including the NFU, to promote key messages that will prevent death, injury and ill health. This is an issue that the deputy president of the NFU, Stuart Roberts, and I, have spoken about at almost every meeting we have had. The HSE is working with farm safety partnerships of England, Wales and Scotland to help them drive forward the improvements needed in the farming industry.
I have tried to pick up the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Whitchurch, put into her amendment. If there are any areas that she would like to discuss further in terms of what we are doing and the importance of this work, I will be available to her whenever she wishes. I hope that I have demonstrated that in every sphere important work is already in hand. We need the skilled workforce and the right conditions for people to come and work in the countryside, now and in the future. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short but very interesting debate. I agree with my noble friend Lord Rooker that we have got a long way to go in getting the policy on seasonal workers right, despite what the Minister has said. We need a huge extension of SAWS. Every time I have talked to the Minister, he has said things along the lines of the Pick For Britain scheme being a success. There are very mixed stories coming out about that scheme, which was slightly predicated on using furloughed British staff to carry out that work in the fields, and that is obviously not a long-term solution. I hope that before we get too complacent about that, the Government have a proper review of the Pick For Britain scheme. To my mind, it was meant to be a short-term initiative. If it is to be a longer-term scheme, we need to look at how successful it has really been.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She is right, and although I do not know if “land armies” is quite the right phrase, I know exactly what she means. We need to bring it all together into some sort of workforce plan with a holistic approach to delivering on all of this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and other noble Lords, raised the issue of training; she is quite right to say that this is not just about the rather old-fashioned courses that we used to have at FE colleges and so on. We can do far more now in terms of online training, flexible training and training for life, because it is not just about going on a course for a year. It is something that should become absolutely integrated into our workforce activities.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 71. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make this clear in debate.
Amendment 71
“Export of farmed animals for slaughter without prior stunning
(1) A person commits an offence if the person exports to any country outside the United Kingdom a farmed animal for slaughter without prior stunning within ten weeks of arrival at the place of destination.(2) A person commits an offence if the person arranges or facilitates the export to any country outside the United Kingdom of a farmed animal for slaughter without prior stunning within ten weeks of arrival at the place of destination.(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to the export of a farmed animal from Northern Ireland to the European Union.(4) A person commits an offence if the person transports, arranges or facilitates the transportation of a farmed animal from Great Britain to Northern Ireland for slaughter, unless the animal is to be slaughtered in Northern Ireland.(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a certificate to be issued on export to certify that—(a) a farmed animal exported to any country outside the United Kingdom will be stunned before slaughter;(b) a farmed animal transported from Great Britain for slaughter in Northern Ireland will be slaughtered in Northern Ireland.(6) Regulations under subsection (5) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.(7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (4) is liable on summary conviction—(a) in England and Wales to—(i) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks;(ii) a fine; or(iii) both;(b) in Scotland to— (i) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months;(ii) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; or(iii) both.(8) In relation to an offence committed before section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference in subsection (7)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause prohibits the export from Great Britain of farmed animals for slaughter without stunning. It provides that farmed animals transported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland for slaughter must be slaughtered in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also in support of Amendments 72 and 73 in this group, which were tabled by my noble friend Lady Fookes. I remind noble Lords of my registered interests, which I highlighted in Committee.
All three amendments would enable us to put an end to much suffering incurred by thousands of animals when they are exported for slaughter or fattening. In their manifesto, the Government committed to end excessively long journeys for slaughter or fattening, so let us take this opportunity to deliver on that promise and put it in the Bill. Why wait? As I said in Committee, exporting animals for slaughter is simply a welfare insult. In this day and age there is no reason why they cannot travel on the hook rather than on the hoof.
I do not want to reiterate all the examples we discussed in Committee, but I remind your Lordships to look at the figures. The Animal and Plant Health Agency reported that around 40,000 animals were exported last year. Of those, around 30,000 were sheep, with only around half going to the continent. Some were transported all the way across Europe to countries that have a large onward trade to the Middle East. The long journeys are stressful for the animals and in some cases result in enormous suffering due to, for example, overcrowding, high summer temperatures and injuries received en route. On top of that, they can end up in fattening or slaughter systems that would be illegal in this country.
I believe that even in this country animals should be slaughtered at the closest point to production as a default option, and Amendment 73 addresses this. I understand that it is supported by the BVA. While I understand that various options in this area are being looked at, I point out that Amendment 73 would not come into effect until the end of January 2023, which gives us time to achieve that. As this was in our manifesto, surely the Bill is the right place to move this agenda forward and ensure that it happens.
Amendment 71 builds on the debate we had in Committee. In addition to Amendments 72 and 73, which focus on slaughter and fattening, and restricting journey times, it would specifically prohibit the export from Great Britain of farmed animals for slaughter without stunning. It provides that farmed animals transported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland for slaughter must be slaughtered in Northern Ireland and cannot be taken further afield before being killed.
In Committee the Minister stated:
“The Government encourage the highest standards of animal welfare. Although our policy is to prefer that animals are stunned prior to slaughter, we accept the rights of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat killed in accordance with their religious beliefs”.—[Official Report, 16/7/20; col. 1801.]
I emphasise that I too respect the needs of our multicultural society in the UK. If, as the Minister stated, it is our policy to prefer that animals are stunned prior to slaughter, as long as enough animals are killed in accordance for UK halal and kosher consumption, I see no reason for the Government not to accept this amendment regarding export.
Indeed, the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming have highlighted that more animals than are needed are already killed without stunning for UK halal and kosher consumption so that they are more flexible for sale. Figures from the Food Standards Agency indicate that in 2018 more than 94 million cattle, sheep and poultry were slaughtered without stunning. In addition, a Food Standards Agency report last year highlighted that 90,000 of the 2.9 million non-stunned animals slaughtered for kosher-certified meat were rejected as unfit for religious consumption and went into the general market unlabelled. This needs to be addressed so that there is equality of choice and those who would choose not to eat meat from an animal killed without stunning can identify that meat.
The BVA states that there is evidence that non-stun slaughter is highly likely to cause pain, suffering and distress. More animals than are needed are currently killed without stunning for the UK market. I personally find the figures I stated shocking and believe that we should kill only as locally as possible and only what is needed in this way.
The amendment would not prevent UK communities eating meat killed in accordance with their religious beliefs. What it would do is prevent British animals having to undergo long, stressful journeys to be killed in a way highly likely to cause pain and distress. Surely one of the main reasons for leaving the EU was so that we could put in place laws that we feel are right. The litmus test of humanity in a country is how we treat the vulnerable, and animals are surely among the most vulnerable. This trade is just utterly cruel, and if the UK wishes to consider itself a country leading in animal welfare, it needs to stop such practices around the export of animals now. I beg to move.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger most warmly. She has put the case on the various amendments powerfully, with great conviction and great compassion. I share her feelings and I hope this will not be lost on my noble friends on the Front Bench.
I do not want to add any more to what my noble friend said on her Amendment 71, except to point out that when the original exemption was made to allow religious communities with real scruples to have animals that have not been pre-stunned, it was never intended that they should be the subject of exports. I see no reason why unscrupulous traders should benefit from this so that they can send animals away to where pre-stunning is not so common. This ought to be dealt with very quickly indeed.
The amendment standing in my name and supported by my noble friend is a reintroduction of an amendment I brought forward in Committee to ban the export of live animals for slaughter or for fattening. This has been a gripe and a passion of mine for many years—in fact, since I was a young MP in the House of Commons. That shows you how long ago it was, because I am no longer the spring chicken—probably some people would regard me as an old boiler.
I feel very strongly on this issue, but I have concerns even about my own amendment, because we have had to include a provision permitting animals going to Northern Ireland freely to go into the Republic because of the withdrawal arrangement. This worries me enormously, because, once they are there, they can then be moved freely around all countries belonging to the European Union. Although there are supposedly welfare regulations which prevent them travelling for too long, they are weak and not enforced, so you might as well say they do not exist at all, because that is the plain fact of the matter. I worry that those who still want to send animals abroad will use this provision as a loophole.
I became more concerned about this only very recently. I did not know that the Port of Ramsgate, through which most animals currently exported go, tried to ban animals passing through it. The exporters took the port to court and unfortunately the court found for them and not for the port. That indicates the lengths to which they will go. Therefore, I am concerned about the possibility of animals being sent to Northern Ireland and the situation being almost worse than that which we have now. That is something on which I hope the Government will reflect carefully. I hope that they will be able to tell us that they will come forward with some arrangement, beyond my ken, which deals with this situation.
The other amendment standing in my name, again supported by my noble friend, would ration the hours which animals can spend in transport. I accept that this is a probing amendment. I am concerned about the hours for which animals travel, which came home to me in Committee, when I was horrified to learn of the extent to which animals travel within the United Kingdom. I had not quite appreciated that, so concerned had I been about animals going abroad. I saw this as an opportunity again to take up one of the manifesto commitments on ending excessively long hours for animals in transport. I remind my noble friends of that commitment.
I accept that this is a slightly strange way round of doing things. Normally, if a Government were going to introduce a measure such as this, they would get hold of the “stakeholders” beforehand—I think that is still the fashionable expression; that is, those whose livelihood depends on farming and transporting and who might be affected by any changes in the rules and regulations—and experts, such as vets and key farmers, who understand all the details of what it means to transport animals and can bring their expertise to bear. It is quite likely that one would want different hours for different types of animal. We know that calves are extremely sensitive to travel and feel it much more—they are also much more closely affected by temperature fluctuations. It also depends on the vehicles carrying them: whether they are good, bad or indifferent. My proposed new clause would permit distinctions to be made, and there is also a time lag. None the less, I recognise that this is the wrong way around, and I am sure that people can pick every manner of hole in the suggestions that I have made. However, my main concern is to ensure that the Government get on with this and bring forward really good arrangements.
I understand that the Farm Animal Welfare Committee has done a lot of detailed work on this issue, so I hope that we can pick up on that, in addition to the point already made by my noble friend, that the British Veterinary Association has it laid down as a cardinal principle that animals should be slaughtered or fattened as near as possible to where they were born or raised. I look to the Government this evening to bring forward some real progress.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak against Amendment 71. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for the thrust of her argument, with which I agree. I agree also with the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes—but not that she is an old boiler.
This is one of a series of amendments dealing with the export of live animals for slaughter. At the heart of Judaism is animal welfare and the very strict prohibition from causing harm to animals. The UK Jewish community has often raised the issue of animal transport, as it has serious concerns over both the length of time animals spend in transport and the conditions they are kept in during the journey. I stress that I know of no such exports from the UK for the kosher food trade, so I have no problem with Amendment 72.
In principle, I support a blanket ban on the export of live animals for slaughter. However, Amendment 71 singles out religious communities, such as Jews and Muslims, for no logical welfare reason. It suggests that only animals destined for religious slaughter should be forbidden from being exported, as if the method of slaughter makes the slightest difference to the animal’s horrendous journey. Furthermore, the standard of welfare at slaughter, with only very slight variants, is uniform across Europe as governed by EU directive 1099, which I understand will be retained in UK law post Brexit. No welfare benefits would accrue by preventing animals being transported for religious slaughter alone, travelling to France or other European countries, as regulations on religious slaughter there are identical to those here.
Amendment 71 seeks to claim that industrialised slaughter is somehow more humane than religious slaughter, and there is simply no conclusive evidence to support that. Just visit any abattoir—they are pretty horrendous. Stunning is an all-encompassing animal welfare panacea, which some hope will be unquestioningly accepted as such. We have had this argument often in this House, but in reality mechanical stunning methods, which may include asphyxiation by gas, electrocution by tongs or water or shooting with a captive bolt gun, cause pain to the animal. They also frequently go wrong, leaving the animal in even greater, prolonged distress. We have had this argument before on labelling an, came to the conclusion that we should label everything to say how it was killed. I have no problem with that.
Shechita—kosher killing—incorporates an integral and irreversible stun by severing the anterior structures of the neck with a rapid transverse incision using an instrument of surgical sharpness. I could go on at greater length about the methods but it is rather bloodthirsty, for the reasons needed to kill an animal.
Amendment 71 only seeks to stigmatise religious communities by belittling their legal method of slaughter for no logical welfare benefits. Yes, ban animals from travelling long distances. We should be against—as Amendment 72 is, quite correctly—sending animals on long horrendous journeys to be slaughtered by any method. So please look in the long term at the fact that we need to stop animals having horrendous journeys, so that what happens at the end of them is irrelevant because they are not being exported.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the next speaker, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very glad to be able to talk on this subject, and I declare my interest as a livestock rearer in Scotland.
This group is much focused on animals involved in exports, and I was thinking that many other speakers in the House today would want to comment on this. My remarks today are directed at Amendment 73—in the name of my noble friend Lady Fookes—in this group, which is, in the first instance, to do with the transport of animals within the UK. However, some comments inevitably will have a bit of a read-over to exports.
My noble friend Lady Fookes has a reputation as one of the foremost advocates of animal welfare in the UK, and this amendment brings forward a lot of proposals that would make life easier for animals and—if they had a chance of a practical outcome—might even make life easier for farmers. However, I will point out what seem to me like some practical difficulties. At the same time, it is proposing a very different world to the one that most of us see around us, and it would require a great deal of government intervention to bring it about. My noble friend Lady Hodgson is pressing the Government to do something in regard to the verbal intention they have given, but I feel it is a fairly big ask at this point.
My noble friend’s concept of requiring producers to take their animals to the nearest abattoir within 10 kilometres, unless prevented by a list of circumstances, has got problems, not least that in the last 10 years we have lost over 200 small abattoirs across this country. There has been some reduction in certain kinds of stock, but a major trigger was the regulations that were brought in from Brussels about the equipment and standards in abattoirs, and we are committed to maintaining those standards.
The end product of any of these units is a very perishable commodity, and I have no doubt that everyone is aware of that. The prices vary widely every year, both by season and availability in world markets. To limit farmers to only one buyer in a small abattoir is a recipe for commercial rip-offs. As a farmer in a mountainous area of Scotland that relies on sheep production, I say that we are only economically able to produce lambs in a limited season, and the net effect is that, at certain times of year, there is a huge flood of lambs looking for buyers, while at other times there is practically nothing that would keep the processing chain viable.
However, if my noble friend can achieve a solution to these drawbacks, there is another difficulty that is contained in her proposal. Due to a lack of small local abattoirs, farmers take their stock to livestock auction markets or collection centres, where the numbers can be combined to make the cost of haulage economic to an abattoir that has capacity for those numbers.
There is a difficulty in that all these markets and sites are regarded as agricultural holdings, and most of the stock will have come from more than 10 kilometres away, while all of it would be required to be held at these units for 24 days before undertaking a journey of up to 10 hours. This happens to be almost exactly the driving time from the two main markets of Aberdeen and Stirling to what is currently one of the main recipients of their throughput. It strikes me that the amendment as currently worded applies particularly to journeys starting in England; perhaps it is more than a coincidence that it has not described journeys starting in Scotland.
Unless there is a ready way of overcoming these major drawbacks, would we not make better use of this time to apply our minds to what would make livestock transport more bearable for the animals themselves? I would like to draw your Lordships’ attention to one of the most distant parts of the United Kingdom. On the Islands of Orkney, animals have to be driven to a ferry, but they have developed pods for the animals on the ferry, such that the journey to Aberdeen is regarded as an animal’s rest period before starting an ongoing journey. This does not read over immediately to other forms of transport, but it shows that, with a little thought, there could be other solutions. But I am afraid that, with its present wording, I would not be able to back Amendment 73.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, for a number of years in the 1960s and 1970s, I had the honour of representing one of the Portsmouth constituencies in Parliament. With a home in Portsmouth at that time, I was close to all that was happening. An abiding memory, which I cannot drive from my mind, is of the sheer dismay one felt at the noise of the frightened, uncomfortable, anxious cattle and sheep on the quayside, waiting to be transported to the mainland of Europe or elsewhere. It was a horrible sound, and it became all the more poignant because it was right beside thousands of decent British people setting off on their journeys by car, in comfortable boats with good catering facilities, for their holiday abroad.
Since then, having moved to the north of England 25 years ago and become very much part of our rural community—I live in quite a remote valley—it frequently strikes me that the contrasts are appalling. There is the beauty and scenic value of these wonderful cattle grazing in the fields. We know they are sentient beings. What fate is about to overtake them? It seems crucially important that, as civilised beings, we set the highest standards in these areas, and I am very glad to see that a number of your Lordships feel as strongly as I do, if not more so, and have taken the steps to give us the opportunity to support amendments to persuade the Government to give greater expression to our civilised values in the way we treat our fellow sentient animals, be they sheep, cattle or whatever. It will be a blot on our conscience—on our whole being—if we stand by while these appalling journeys are undertaken.
It is not just the conditions in Portsmouth, or God knows what conditions there are on the ship, or in what transport and for how far on arrival in a foreign country the animals will travel. It is the way in which in Britain we move our cattle about. They are sentient beings that have been grazing, enjoying and enhancing the countryside, but are then herded, full of anxiety and bewilderment, into vehicles that are driven impersonally. There is a lot that we can do to improve the animal kingdom for which we are responsible.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I am full of admiration for the doughty campaigners who have tabled this little group of amendments, and I pay tribute to them. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, on Amendment 71. It is misplaced and would open a can of worms if it were pressed.
I am grateful for the comments of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who is a hands-on farmer, which focused on animals for export. As I said in Committee, I have had first-hand experience of this issue. My noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger referred to Compassion in World Farming, an organisation that I first came across in about 1994. At that time, a mother and daughter ran that marvellous organisation with the support of Linda McCartney, bless her. They engaged a lot of students to come along to the port of Brightlingsea after their success in closing down the Port of Dover to live exports. Brightlingsea took all the remaining livestock due to go to the continent of Europe. As I mentioned in Committee—I shall not labour the point—I boarded the ferry and saw the disembarkation of the livestock, mostly sheep. They were happy and extremely comfortable. It was stress-free.
I pay tribute to the role of successive Governments and this Government in making sure that we have about the strictest animal welfare provisions across the European Union—my noble friend Lady Hodgson referred to this—and we have been in the vanguard of that. Everything that my noble friends are setting out to do in Amendment 72 has already been achieved. When he sums up, I am sure that the Minister will confirm that this will continue to be the case in retained legislation after the end of the transition period. We have reached an understanding through the Northern Ireland protocol, and I should be particularly alarmed if we sought to reopen that. Potentially, with all the amendments in this group, we could open a can of worms that would lead to major unintended consequences.
My noble friend the Duke of Montrose made a compelling point about the consequences of closing the abattoirs. More than 10 years ago, I was an MEP when the EU directive on abattoirs and slaughterhouses was made, and it was our gold-plating in this country that led at the time to their closure across the United Kingdom, with devastating consequences at the time of the foot and mouth outbreak because the livestock had to be transported for much longer distances than would otherwise have been the case.
I believe that we have reached a very good position under the rules that already pertain in the EU rules of animal movement. I would be very reluctant to see those reopened and, in any event, we are bound by the World Trade Organization rules that—I understand—prevent such a total ban on exports. I hope my noble friend will take the opportunity to confirm that this is the case. I pay tribute to the work that this Government, and successive Governments, have done to get us to this animal welfare state we have currently reached.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lady Fookes, on tabling these amendments. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, that she still thinks like a spring chicken, which is very admirable. I would support these amendments much more strongly if I did not absolutely abhor the whole concept of live animal exports. That we still do this absolutely sickens me, and it is way over time to stop this in its tracks and simply accept that it is inhumane.
However, one thing that annoys me, as somebody who voted for Brexit, is that this was one of the common examples we were given of what could be achieved outside the EU—the banning of live animal exports. These were the sort of promises made to people like me, compassionate Eurosceptics who wanted the freedom to create a better country. We certainly have not done that. Unfortunately, like most of the nice promises made by the Brexit campaign, restricting live animal exports seems to have gone in the bin in favour of the nasty stuff, like restricting immigration. We listen to the racists and we do not listen to the people who care about animals.
Your Lordships’ House really ought to think very hard about these ideas. I was swayed by the points of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, on Amendment 71, but I do support Amendments 72 and 73 because they would make huge leaps forward in animal welfare, and end the needless suffering of long, stressful and painful journeys to slaughter. This is one of the many things that people voted for in supporting Brexit. It is the will of the people and should be delivered.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lady Fookes, for tabling these amendments and enabling these important animal welfare issues to be debated tonight. I shall speak on Amendment 71 first, prior to taking on Amendments 72 and 73.
On Amendment 71, I accept the scientific evidence that the practice of killing by throat cutting, without pre-stunning, compromises animal welfare. This is also the view of the BVA. However, I respect the arguments of those who believe that the animal welfare concerns do not outweigh the rights of our own communities to religious freedom.
Government trade policy should refuse to look at exporting our livestock to other countries for slaughter without pre-stunning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, so powerfully articulated. It is possible to take advantage of new trading opportunities that we are told will open up post Brexit without agreeing to export animals slaughtered without pre-stunning. New Zealand exports huge quantities of sheep to the Middle East, and all are pre-stunned with halal certification.
In supporting the aims of this amendment, I ask the Minister to confirm that when the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, said earlier today, in response to a question, that the UK is at
“the cutting edge of free trade agreements”
this does not include the Government seeking to increase trade through increasing our exports of farm animals which are not stunned before slaughter.
I absolutely support the principles of Amendments 72 and 73. In fact, when I joined the RSPCA in the 1990s my first campaign, and one of the proudest I have worked on, was on the issue of live transport. I echo all the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the number of animals who suffer and the quite unnecessary levels of suffering that go on, given that this is all about profit. While I support the aims of these amendments, I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said about concerns over the WTO complications. Equally, I think I am correct that live transport is a devolved matter and, as such, the Bill cannot make provisions concerning it for another Government. My personal understanding is that the Scottish Government oppose a ban on live exports.
The Minister might therefore say to us at the end that the Government are not able to accept this amendment. However, he can outline how they intend to tackle the economics that drive this trade. The Farm Animal Welfare Committee report, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, reported to, was commissioned by this Government and the devolved nations back in 2018. It recommended improvements to transport journey times, ship and lorry standards and possible maximum journey times, once we leave the EU’s regulatory orbit. This approach would be WTO-compatible and achieve the same results as stopping the live exports, as it raises costs, and live exports only happen because of the economics.
When will the Government release the report from FAWC—now known as the Animal Welfare Committee —and, at the same time, undertake alongside it a consultation on live transport and exports? I would like to hear that it is an imminent consultation because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, mentioned, during Brexit we heard a lot about how Brexit was going to be about improving animal welfare, and live transport was an issue that was trumpeted. We have had that FAWC report since 2018. If we do not see something imminently—and I would expect that to be in the next few months—we can only assume that this is just another hollow promise from the Government on their commitment to animal welfare.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I intend to speak briefly, but in doing so I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Baroness Hodgson, for these amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, reminded us, she has been a lifelong campaigner on these issues and I pay tribute to her infamous doggedness and determination.
Noble Lords will recall that I spoke in favour of similar issues in Committee, and nothing I have heard then or since has dissuaded me from my view that exporting live animals is cruel and unnecessary. The noble Baronesses have once again illustrated the appalling animal cruelty that occurs in long-distance transport, whether through accident or deliberate neglect. It is clear that the occasional stories which appear in the press are symptomatic of a much deeper and endemic problem.
In Committee, the Minister reassured the House that the Government are actively considering how to take forward their manifesto pledge to end long journeys for animal slaughtering and fattening, whether in the UK or abroad. We welcome that commitment and look forward to receiving more details. The Minister also warned that the issues were complex, and we acknowledge that. But I sincerely hope that this will not be used as a reason for inaction, as he can be assured that the British public have high expectations in this regard. So I hope he is able to reassure us tonight that progress is being made and that the Government do now have a plan to deliver that manifesto commitment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for this serious debate. I understand the sentiments behind these amendments. The UK already has world-class animal welfare standards that this Government are committed to strengthening. The Government have been clear that, as part of our animal welfare reform programme, we want to tackle the issue of farmed animals exported for slaughter and fattening. We are carefully considering how best to implement our manifesto commitment to end excessively long journeys for animals going for slaughter or fattening. I want to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in particular, given her commentary, that of course we are still in the transition period. This is not possible for us to do; we cannot do it at the moment—we need to get beyond before we do these things. But I shall say more on that in a moment.
First, on the amendment on a ban on exports of live animals for religious slaughter, it is a long-standing government commitment to respect religious freedoms and, although our policy is to prefer that animals are stunned prior to slaughter, we accept the rights of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat in accordance with their religious beliefs. The advice that I have received, as we allow religious slaughter in the UK, is that any justification for this export ban would be difficult to reconcile with our obligations under the WTO rules.
The Government are clear that we would prefer animals to be slaughtered as close as practicable to their point of production. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that our view is that conducting trade in meat and meat products is preferable to transporting animals long distances to slaughter.
My noble friends Lady Fookes and Lady Hodgson raised the issue of long journeys. The Government have a commitment in their manifesto to end excessively long journeys of animals going for slaughter or fattening. Two years ago, we tasked the independent Farm Animal Welfare Committee, now AWC, not only to look into controlling live exports but to consider more generally what improvements should be made to animal welfare in transport at the end of the transition period. We are considering carefully its report and detailed recommendations.
For example, Amendment 73 would make it an offence to transport farm animals for slaughter or fattening on journeys which are over 10 hours in duration. This 10-hour journey time limit would apply to all species. The AWC report, however, recommends species-specific maximum journey times. The 10-hour limit would be greater than the maximum journey time suggested for some animals in the AWC report—for instance, meat chickens and calves—but would be much stricter than for other species, such as sheep. The evidence suggests that sheep can travel for longer without an adverse impact on their welfare.
AWC’s recommendations also address a number of other important elements of animal welfare in transport, including the temperature and ventilation within the transporting vehicle, space and headroom allowances, and the specific issues concerned with transporting at sea. All these are important issues in determining the overall level of protection of animal welfare during transport. We are carefully considering AWC’s advice and recommendations, and I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that we are launching a public consultation before the end of the year on how—and I underline “how”—best to implement our commitment to end excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening and on measures for improving animal welfare in transport more generally.
I say particularly to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose that animal welfare policy is devolved, and we are working on an animal health and welfare common framework with the devolved Administrations to achieve consistency across the UK.
I am grateful to my noble friends for their formidable advocacy and their care for animals. I assure all noble Lords that the Government will advance the issues and fulfil their pledges. I do not wish to be part of the widow and judge scenario. I assure noble Lords that we are moving to fulfil our pledge. I hope that, with those words, my noble friend Lady Hodgson will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I have had no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this very important debate. I thank the Minister for his reply and also for the time and courtesy that he has given in talking to us before today. We really do welcome his sincere input.
I am glad to hear that this is work in progress, although I am concerned that it does not get kicked into the long grass and that it is always not now. I very much hope that the consultation will come forward quickly. We are leaving those animals to a terrible fate while we still allow them to be exported for slaughter—with or without stunning. We should be aware that, in doing this, we really are not ensuring the highest standards of animal welfare, as we have heard.
That brings to mind the saying popularised by General Morrison of the Australian army:
“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.”
This is a standard that I would feel very uncomfortable accepting, so I hope we will move forward quickly with all this work.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in good faith that the Minister will do all he can to ensure that animals do not go on having to be exported for slaughter and fattening. I hope this comes into place as soon as possible and we live up to our election manifesto.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 74. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may only speak once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 74
“Welfare of animals as sentient beings
(1) Ministers of the Crown and local authorities must, when formulating and implementing any relevant policy, have regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings.(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report explaining how the duty in subsection (1) has been discharged.(3) For the purposes of this section—(a) “animals” are any non-human vertebrates, any member of the Class Cephalopoda and any member of the Order Decapoda;(b) “IP completion day” has the same meaning as in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020;(c) “local authorities” has the same meaning as in the Localism Act 2011;(d) “Ministers of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975; (e) “relevant policy” is an agricultural, horticultural or forestry policy relating to the treatment of, or taking action in relation to, animals or their habitats.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause incorporates into UK law the principles of Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which recognises animals as sentient beings and requires governments to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals in formulating and implementing agricultural, horticultural or forestry policies.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I believe that animals are sentient beings and that they feel pain, suffering and fear, as well as pleasure. This amendment seeks to incorporate into UK law the principles of Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which recognises animals as sentient beings and requires Governments to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals in formulating and implementing agricultural, horticultural or forestry policies.
Noble Lords will be aware of much debate over this issue during the process of the EU repeal Bill. Since then, one draft Bill has been withdrawn following criticism from the then EFRA Committee and a second new draft Bill has been promised but has not been forthcoming. At the end of last year, a petition closed having secured over 100,000 signatures, backed by 40 NGOs and charities under the A Better Deal for Animals campaign, demanding that sentience legislation be brought forward immediately to protect animal welfare as we leave the EU.
I am proud of the high-level political support that animal welfare issues have in our country. In one of his first speeches as Prime Minister, Boris Johnson said:
“let’s promote the welfare of animals that has always been so close to the hearts of the British people.”
In a letter from the then Secretary of State, Michael Gove MP, to Sir Roger Gale MP, patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, in March 2019, the Minister said that we will make
“any necessary changes required to UK law in a rigorous and comprehensive way to ensure that animal sentience is recognised after we leave the EU.”
In March this year, responding to the Westminster Hall debate in the other place on the aforementioned petition, the Minister, Victoria Prentis MP, said that
“the Government have committed to introducing new laws on sentience … We had an extremely clear manifesto commitment to do that, and I confirm that we will do so as soon as we can, but I am sadly unable to say exactly when that will be.”
The Minister also said, with reference to a number of concerns about Article 13:
“Frankly, it does not provide the sort of protection for animals that we want going forward.”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/20; cols. 233-34WH.]
It is only three months until the end of the transition period. We do not want a gap in the statute book on this issue. If the Government are not happy with Article 13 as it currently stands, could the Minister inform the House when they will be bringing forward their own proposals? Will it be in time, before we leave the EU? If not, I am not persuaded that having nothing is better, and I hope they are willing to accept this amendment as an interim measure until they come forward with their own proposals. I beg to move.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I warmly support this amendment and indeed have added my name to it. I must say that I am blessed if I can understand why this causes so many problems to the Government. I can understand how the regulations about how many hours an animal should travel raise all sorts of issues, but this is a general statement and I do not see why it cannot be introduced pretty quickly. I particularly like the part of this amendment proposing that an annual report must come forward from the Secretary of State to explain
“how the duty in subsection (1) has been discharged.”
I hope that is not offputting for the Government. It seems fairly reasonable to me and I hope that it can be introduced very rapidly.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, again I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and thank her for having introduced this amendment. The amendment speaks for itself and she spoke to it well. In light of what happened on the previous amendment, I am sure we will get reassuring words from the Minister asking us to take them to heart and not press the amendment. It would be more convincing if a declaration of that kind, which I know he makes in good faith, were backed up with some specific indication in terms of timing—what will this mean and how speedily do the Government intend to act.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as a number of noble Lords may know, I am a livestock farmer, and if you are a livestock farmer you have to try to ensure that the animals in your care have the highest levels of welfare. It seems to me that that is axiomatic, and I believe that, as a general proposition, it is incumbent on all us to treat animals of all kinds properly, whether farmed animals, domestic pets or whatever other category they may fall into. My concerns about the previous three amendments are that, quite honestly, they are very blunt instruments and I could not support them in the form they were drafted, for the kinds of reasons that were made clear by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the Minister.
I remember many years ago there was discussion, when I was a Member of the European Parliament, about whether it was appropriate to introduce the concept of sentience into the legislative codes of the Union in order to underpin and safeguard the position of animals. At that time, I am prepared to admit that I was unsure about that, but since then, I am beginning to think that I was wrong. I do not believe that animals have rights as such, certainly not in the sense that we have human rights, but I do think, as I have explained on previous occasions, that humans have responsibilities—indeed, they should be legal obligations —towards animals and that these should be enforced. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that something along the lines that we are discussing tonight, and was debated inter alia in the general election campaign, is appropriate, because it means that we can deal with these issues in a much more targeted and specific manner. I think that this would be much more beneficial, both for the society as a whole and for animals, than just simple, very broad, blanket statements, which is the approach that some people have adopted.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on Amendment 74 be adjourned.
Agriculture Bill
Tuesday 22nd September 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 130-IV Provisional Fourth marshalled list for Report - (21 Sep 2020)
14:53 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 78 - Ayes: 276 / Noes: 228 - Amendment 78 agreed.
15:37 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 88 - Ayes: 122 / Noes: 234 - Amendment 88 disagreed.
18:12 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 89ZA - Ayes: 307 / Noes: 212 - Amendment 89ZA agreed.
22:23 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 100. - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 200 - Amendment 100 agreed.
22:37 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 101 - Ayes: 266 / Noes: 159 - Amendment 101 agreed.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lady Fookes, for this amendment, which is a means to embed the needs and welfare of animals in agricultural policy and to partly fill the vacuum of this Government not transposing across EU animal sentience legislation or introducing their own legislation, which they had promised to do in their manifesto. The Liberal Democrats accept that animals are sentient beings with intrinsic worth. We have consistently argued this throughout the stages of this Bill, in my remarks at Second Reading when welcoming the fact that Clause 1 allows payments to be made for animal welfare, and in opposition to easing the regulatory framework on gene editing.
Animal sentience is the only issue not being brought across when we leave the EU at the end of the year. It marks the end of a proud era when the UK led the rest of Europe to better animal welfare standards. Indeed, it was the UK Government who first suggested and then got animal sentience accepted into the treaty article in 1997.
We support the intention of this amendment. If the Minister is not intending to accept it, can I press her to say when legislation on animal sentience will be delivered, and whether she guarantees that it will have comparable or stronger powers than the existing EU legislation? I ask her to be very clear on the latter point, as there are rumblings of a pushback in the Government on the way that Ministers report how they take into account sentience when making decisions. Only an open and transparent process will give people confidence about how the needs of animals are considered in policy decisions. Without a guarantee to at least match the existing powers, the sad reality is that our animals will have less protection than has been the case as members of the EU.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, during the passage of the EU withdrawal Bill in 2017, there were several amendments in the Commons on animal sentience. There were also debates on the issue when the Bill was in the Lords and attempts to table similar amendments to other pieces of legislation. Theresa May’s Government committed to clarifying the legal position on animal sentience as part of their Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill. This Government reintroduced the Bill in 2019, but it fell when Parliament was dissolved for the general election. A commitment to strengthen animal welfare rules was included in the December 2019 Queen’s Speech, and, as I understand it, there is a Private Members Bill which will have its Second Reading in the Commons in October. We hope that it will be similar to the previous Government’s legislation and that if this is a substitute for a government Bill, Ministers and Whips will give it the time it needs to reach us in the Lords.
In the meantime, I express regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, felt that she needed to table the amendment in the first place, given that Her Majesty’s Government have not managed to deliver a Bill in three years on this important issue. We agree that there should be a strong protection for animals and a recognition of their ability to experience feelings and pain, with all the implications that has for our treatment of them. However, we are not convinced that this is the appropriate vehicle for it. As such, I hope that the Minister can clarify the point about the Commons Private Member’s Bill and, if that response is satisfactory, the amendment will not be pushed to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, we can be rightly proud that the UK already has world-class animal welfare standards, but this Government are committed to strengthening these further.
We have introduced a ban on the commercial third-party sale of puppies and kittens, known as Lucy’s Law, to clamp down on puppy farming. Through the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019, we have legislated to ensure that wild animals can no longer perform in travelling circuses. We supported the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act 2019, commonly known as Finn’s Law, to increase protections for police animals, and CCTV is now mandatory in all slaughterhouses in England; this will help maintain and improve welfare standards. We are committed to banning the keeping of primates as pets. We published a call for evidence in October 2019 that ended in January this year. This exercise has informed proposals on which we will shortly be consulting. On Thursday, we reiterated our manifesto commitment to end excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that legal obligations towards animals should be enforced. That is why the Government are also supporting the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, which will increase the maximum custodial penalty for animal cruelty offences from six months’ imprisonment to five years. The new maximum sentence will send a clear signal to any potential offenders that animal cruelty will not be tolerated in this country and provide one of the toughest sanctions in Europe.
I place it on record that it has never been in dispute that animals are sentient beings, capable of experiencing pain or suffering, and this fact is central to our commitment to strengthening animal welfare standards. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, should know, this Government have a manifesto commitment to introduce new laws on animal sentience, which we will do as soon as parliamentary time allows. However, this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to legislate for animal sentience. As the noble Baroness recognises, the Agriculture Bill limits the scope of this amendment to agricultural, horticultural and forestry policy.
The noble Baroness’s amendment also extends the definition of “animal” to include decapod crustaceans and cephalopod molluscs, alongside non-human vertebrates. This is an important step that we should not take lightly. The current science is clear that vertebrate animals can experience pain and suffering. It is on that basis that the definition of “animal” in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is limited only to vertebrate animals. However, this Act also contains an important power to extend the definition to cover invertebrates where we are satisfied on the basis of scientific evidence that these too are capable of experiencing pain or suffering. Defra recently commissioned an independent external review of the available scientific evidence on sentience in decapods and cephalopods. The outcome of this review will be vital in determining whether our new sentience provisions and other laws should be extended to decapods and cephalopods. This review is expected to report early next year.
In line with our manifesto commitment, this Government will introduce effective, credible and proportionate proposals in due course. I recognise the strength of feeling across the House on this issue, and say to my noble friends Lady Fookes and Lady Hodgson, and to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that it is imperative that we allow appropriate time for debate to ensure that we get these important measures right. That is why I cannot accept this amendment as an interim solution, as was suggested in last Thursday’s debate.
As noble Lords will all be aware, parliamentary time has been at a premium in recent sessions, and I am afraid that, with other pressures, it has not yet been possible to find appropriate time to introduce these measures. However, I reassure your Lordships that this issue is a priority for this Government, and I hope that that gives the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, some comfort. When our measures are introduced, I very much look forward to discussing these issues in detail again.
I hope that I have given enough reassurance and that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have supported the amendment and spoken in its favour, and I thank the Minister for her considered reply.
Sentience is particularly important in the context of farm animals because of the trade in farm animals. They need to be seen as living, sentient beings, not as inanimate goods in the context of being traded. I agree that a limitation of the amendment is that sentience covers only farm animals, and clearly we want to see sentience brought in as a consideration for all animals.
I am concerned by the Minister’s statement that there will be new laws on animal sentience when there is time, as I feel that this is somewhat kicking it into the long grass, but I am glad to hear that priority will be given. At some point I would like to hear further when this will be, because it is so important that all animals, and farm animals in particular, are considered as sentient beings that feel pain and suffering.
For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I would like to hear more from my noble friend and may consider bringing it back at the final stage.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 75. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 75
“Application of pesticides: limitations on use in certain wind conditions
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for prohibiting the application of any pesticide for the purposes of agriculture at high wind speeds.(2) In particular, the regulations must make provision prohibiting the use of pesticides when wind speeds are high, near—(a) any dwelling;(b) any water source;(c) any public or private building or space where members of the public may be present.(3) Regulations under this section must specify a minimum distance between any of the locations listed under subsection (2)(a) to (c).”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, in leading this group, I make it clear that the wording of my amendments is inferior to that of Amendment 78, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I will not waste time on mine discussing wind speeds and contamination, et cetera, because I hope that he will move his amendment and that it will be supported across the House in a Division. If not, I will call a Division on his amendment.
I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a most informative meeting with officials. They confirmed that, although some parts of EU regulations will be carried over into our legislation after next January, the unused powers on which nothing has yet been done will lapse.
There are three main pieces of relevant EU legislation. Regulation 1107/2009 permits individual pesticides and Regulation 396/2005 sets maximum residue levels for pesticides in food. But Directive 2009/128/EC, which sets a framework for action to ensure that pesticides are used responsibly and that alternatives are developed, is the most important here. It contains a mixture of things that member states “must” do and “may” do. The “musts” have been implemented in Great Britain through the Plant Protection Products (Sustainable Use) Regulations 2012. However, at the end of the transition period the powers in this directive that allow, but do not require, particular actions can no longer be used, because the European Communities Act 1972 will no longer be in force. So we will have a lacuna, unless the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is accepted.
Over the years, Defra has been aware of the problems. In 2017, Defra’s former chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir Ian Boyd, published a paper in the journal Science entitled Toward Pesticidovigilance. This paper is a damning assessment of the regulatory approach worldwide to pesticides sprayed on crops, including that the impacts of “dosing whole landscapes” have been ignored, and that the assumption by regulators that it is “safe” to use pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes “is false” and must change.
Many of these chemicals are hormone disruptors. Some of them mimic oestrogens, and it has been suggested that this could account for decreased sperm motility and sperm counts and male infertility, as well as for breast, bladder, thyroid and other hormone-dependent cancers, childhood cancers and even brain malignancies.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 78 and I need to make it absolutely clear that I intend to seek the opinion of the House on it when we reach it. I am very much indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her support and her indication that she will back my amendment. She has made a significant part of my case by identifying the medical impact of exposure to pesticides and the doubts about the authorisation process.
I also thank my co-signatories, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall—demonstrating the cross-party support for this vital but very simple and specific amendment.
I should also thank the Minister for the meeting to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred. It was useful but we did not agree. As the noble Baroness said, it appears that the department’s line is that there is no need for the amendment because, under EU law now transposed and retained in UK law, the Government already have the discretion to come forward with such regulations. Leaving aside the fact that they have not done so over the 11 years since that law was put in place, on closer examination that assertion appears to be only partly true, and from January, as the noble Baroness, explained, it will not be true at all. We therefore need to put such a provision in this legislation.
In this amendment we are addressing the effect of pesticides on human beings—on those who are exposed to doses of chemicals not designed for humans and in many cases, particularly among residents, on those subject to multiple exposures to multiple chemicals. We want to see a regulatory framework imposing minimum distances between the buildings in which people live and which the public frequent, and the spraying operations of pesticides.
Regrettably, we are not talking about unusual events. Most of the harm comes from everyday tractor-based pesticide spraying at certain times of the year. Local residents, schoolchildren, members of the public visiting public buildings, medical facilities and educational buildings, and other bystanders are all vulnerable.
We have rightly spent some time on this Bill talking about protecting wildlife, biodiversity, farm animals, watercourses and soil from harmful effects of agricultural practice. This amendment is a vital but limited step in the right direction to protect human beings—primarily, residents in rural areas—by requiring spraying to be well away from homes, public buildings and places where the public are congregated. In particular, it moves towards protecting those who live, full-time, adjacent to crops that are subject to blanket applications and those who attend public spaces adjacent to such fields. As I have said, this is a very simple amendment. It requires Ministers to come forward with regulations establishing a minimum distance between such applications and the buildings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has spelled out the terrible damage that can be done to humans by ingesting chemical pesticides directly into the lungs and bloodstream. Regrettably, pesticides—including some still used on UK farms and elsewhere—on their own or in combination, can cause the breakdown of the immune system and can poison the nervous system, and can cause cancer, mutations and birth defects. The noble Baroness has convincingly spelled that out.
Noble Lords will have received materials from campaigners on this issue, including from the redoubtable Georgina Downs, who has dossiers on rural families who have suffered. In Committee, I cited just a couple of those testimonies; I will now share a couple more. Chris from Sawtry said:
“We have farmers spraying near our home and school. The fumes cause headaches, dizziness and burn the throat.”
Victoria from Curry Rivel said:
“I have witnessed crops being sprayed just metres from my Daughter’s rural school and have had signs of chemical scorching on our fruit trees in our garden … Just meters from my Daughter’s sand pit!”
As I said in Committee, manufacturers rightly and responsibly label their pesticides, insecticides and herbicides with warnings, such as “Very toxic by inhalation”, “Do not breathe spray” and “Risk of serious damage to the eyes”. Farmers and farmworkers are advised under health and safety laws, and by manufacturers, to wear protective clothing, and most do so—but residents are not so protected. Guidance to users that they should inform residents, and that the chemical used should be clearly identified, is very frequently ignored and pretty well never enforced. Ministers and others have lauded the UK pesticides regime as one of the best in the world, but it is wrong to say that it, or the EU system, is safe. In particular, they are not protecting those who live close by.
This amendment would have the effect of protecting members of the public from hazardous health impacts near buildings. It is a simple, straightforward amendment requiring the Government to come up with minimum distances from the application of such pesticides. It is best to leave the precise distance for consultation and scientific measurement, but let us today establish the principle. My amendment is a very small but vital part of the journey to protect our rural populations.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I support these amendments wholeheartedly. I would like to speak at length about them, but I will keep my remarks quite short so that we have plenty of time for a vote.
It seems strange that in America, Monsanto—or rather the new company, Bayer—is paying out $10 billion to settle tens of thousands of claims that Roundup causes cancer, yet it still claims that this a perfectly healthy product, does not put warning labels on the product and says that it is safe. It strikes me as very strange that anybody could deny that this amendment is necessary.
The amendment does not do what I would like it to do—that is, ban all pesticides from 9 am this morning—but it protects the more vulnerable people in our country. In particular, it protects children in schools, childcare settings and nurseries, people in hospitals, and people in any building used for human habitation. It seems such a sensible amendment—I do not know why the Government do not see that it is necessary.
I urge all noble Lords to please vote for this and make sure that the Government get the message very clearly.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I was pleased to be able to put my name to Amendment 78 from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and it is a pleasure to follow him. It is of course always a pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Finlay.
There is no need for me to repeat the arguments that have been so ably put, except to say this. As Members who have been following our deliberations will know, I have been speaking about the importance of preserving our wildlife and biodiversity. One of the seminal works that I remember reading when I was very young was Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, in which she highlighted the devastating impacts of DDT on wildlife. However, this is much more fundamental: this is about protecting human life. If we have not yet learned that people sometimes assure us that everything is all right when it patently is not, we need think only of the tobacco industry—as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said—and of asbestos. We would be failing ourselves, the public and our fellow human beings if we did not recognise the harmful nature of pesticides.
I am not an expert to know whether they should be banned entirely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has suggested. I am sure that there are many in the agricultural sector who say that they are incredibly important. However, one thing we can do is to get this amendment into the Bill, because it would protect so many people. It is not just about protecting those in rural communities, because the fumes can waft over other areas. I have not heard so far—although I am willing to hear it—the reasoning of my noble friend on the Front Bench, but from what I have heard so far, I am happy to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I alert the House that we have been having some technical difficulties with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, but I hope that he is now on the line.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support these amendments on controlling the application of pesticides. The amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others helpfully consider the consequences of different wind conditions, calling for the analysis and monitoring of effects, as well as for immediate limitations on pesticides use in wind conditions that threaten dwellings, water sources and members of the public. Her Amendment 76 usefully urges that when pesticides are already labelled as harmful, it should then become an offence to fail to inform residents living within a certain radius of the pesticide application that such an application is to occur. I am also in favour of Amendment 78, from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which seeks to ban pesticide applications near buildings where people live and work.
I come now to my own Amendment 80, which addresses two aspects: first, the need to develop targets for the adoption of integrated pest management associated with agroecological farming practices, including organic farming; and, secondly, and connected to these targets, to develop a system of analysis. This would monitor the reduction of harm to people and animals and the reduction of pesticide residues in food.
In Committee, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield gave a number of reassurances. These covered government backing for research into alternatives to pesticides and other chemicals. She pointed out that the transforming food programme, which includes methods such as robotics and vertical farming, might well cause pesticide use to diminish. As a result, does my noble friend agree that there is already consistency between what the Government confirm and what Amendment 80 seeks? Does she also consider that there is no divergence between confirmed government plans and the amendments in this grouping from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty? These latter amendments simply advocate safeguards and the expedience of good practice until alternatives to pesticides are successfully found.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too wish to speak in support of these amendments. I am pleased to learn that the Government say that they will carry on research into reducing the use of pesticides. There are perhaps somewhat controversial methods of reducing the use of pesticides, and one I will refer to is known as gene editing. This is a very significant variation on genetic modification, which was understandably opposed by many. Gene editing gives us an opportunity to do what plant breeders have done over the years and make plants less dependent on pesticides and more able to fight diseases. I would welcome a response from the Minister on the Government’s attitude towards gene editing as a contribution to the reduction in the use of pesticides.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my agricultural interests as in the register. I wish to speak to Amendment 80 in this group, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. It seems to me that any government policy that reduces the use pesticides in British agriculture is, unarguably, desirable. Farmers, however, will be damaged economically if they are not able to use certain pesticides. Damage to the sugar beet crop in France, as reported recently in the Financial Times, is an example of this. If public money is to be used for public goods, reduced use of pesticides should be compensated by public money. The amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is a step in the right direction and I do hope the Government will accept it. Encouraging conversion to organic farming will, among other things, reduce pesticide use. But I completely take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in last week’s debate, that certified organic farming is not the only nature-friendly system of farming.
I really hope that the Government will give the opportunity for farmers from 2021—not 2024—to earn extra payments for nature-friendly farming practices, including by reducing the use of pesticides. Developing targets for integrated pest management and monitoring the effects of pesticide use, and reducing pesticide residues in food, are aspirations that I expect should be embraced by a Government committed to improving the environment, as this Government are.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. No? Then I call the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I spoke on similar amendments to these in Committee. I am happy to add my support to Amendment 78, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. My mind goes back to the days when the Countess of Mar was fighting a lonely battle against MAFF on sheep dips and the problems they caused. I am just concerned that the Government are perhaps not taking this issue as seriously as I would like them to.
I am attracted to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, because it gives the Government flexibility. As I said in Committee, there is a difference between the effects of fungicides, herbicides and insecticides, depending on what you are spraying. Weather conditions make a difference, too. So further research is needed, but the principle of what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is trying to achieve is absolutely correct. There have been too many instances when the public have complained, particularly about nasty chemicals that have been sprayed, and some farmers do not take this issue as seriously as we would like.
I support my noble friend Lord Randall on the necessity of supporting biodiversity and wildlife. A lot of bees, birds and animals get caught up in spraying when they are nesting in hedgerows and the spray application is made in a bad way. So I give my support to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I hope that my noble friend Lord Gardiner will be able to convince him that the amendment should not be pushed to Division, but I do approve of the principle of it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to participate in this debate and would like to lend my support to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
There has been a lot of discussion over the last 40 years about the impact of pesticides on the human health of rural residents and on biodiversity, flora, fauna, insects and animals. Therefore, I am very much drawn to Amendment 78, which I believe is a crucial amendment, trying to protect human health from agricultural pesticides. Rural residents and communities across the UK continue to be adversely impacted by the cocktail of pesticides sprayed on crops in our localities, reporting various acute and chronic effects on health.
I am a rural dweller. I did not grow up on a farm but I am very conscious of the impact of those pesticides because I am an asthmatic. I have talked to many people whose health has been impacted by sheep dip, by Roundup and by the emergence of diseases that hitherto there was no family history of, and that they had not suffered from before. Exposure and risk for rural committees and residents are from the release of those cocktails of harmful agricultural pesticides into the air where people live and breathe because, once pesticides have been dispersed, their airborne droplets, particles and vapours are in the air irrespective of whether or not there is wind.
In that regard, I take note of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Vapour lift-off can occur days, weeks or months after any application, further exposing those living in the locality, and it has nothing to do with the wind. The Government’s stated position that pesticides are strictly regulated and that scientific assessment shows there are no risks to people and the environment, is simply not correct. Since 2009, EU and UK equivalent laws legally define rural residents living in a locality of pesticide-sprayed crops as a vulnerable group, recognised as having high pesticide exposure over the long term. Further, the risks of both acute and chronic effects of such exposure are again recognised in article 7 of the EU sustainable use directive. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept this amendment. If not, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will press it to Division. It should be given statutory effect because rural populations are looking for this direction and this protection.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
I congratulate the authors of this interesting group of amendments on the thought and effort that they have put into them. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, will realise, I have some concerns about her amendments, particularly regarding the drafting and how they might be interpreted; for example, the word “drifting” is open to interpretation. The noble Baroness herself highlighted some of the difficulties this group would have. It would be enormously helpful if the Minister could explain the current regulations when summing up. I am not totally familiar with this area but I understand that it is heavily regulated and that there is quite stringent provision in the current code of practice, which is operated by the Health and Safety Executive and was itself updated quite recently, I think in 2005.
I am also concerned about Amendment 78, which is loosely drafted. Subsection (1) includes the phrase,
“prohibiting the application of any pesticide … near”.
That seems very loosely drafted, so I would be interested to hear how the Minister thinks the provision could be implemented, were it to be passed today.
This is a good opportunity for the Minister to raise our awareness of previous research and commercial innovation relevant to air levels and other controls of pesticides. I am minded of the fact that a lot of work is going on, I think in Essex, breeding bugs that eat and destroy other bugs, which I presume would fall within the remit of Amendment 80 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dundee.
My concern is that, for the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, this area is already heavily regulated and the amendments could be very difficult to implement as drafted.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, because I do not want to detain the House, this is the only amendment that I am speaking on today.
I strongly support Amendment 79 and have personal reasons for doing so, so I need to tell a story. It is about the late Dr Bill Fakes, an old friend of mine, a former GP in my former Workington constituency who I met nearly 50 years ago. He was a brilliant man—yes, a bit eccentric, but that is often the case with gifted people. He was a biologist with an intense interest in entomology. He had been brought up in the Fenlands in the small rural community of Willingham. It was a market garden, an arable area, and with his love of nature he took a particular interest in the ditches and characteristics of the land where, with other children and friends, he would gather beetles and other insects, carefully logging their every characteristic. As a bright boy inspired by these activities as a child, he went on to study medicine at UCL in London, ultimately ending up in Workington as a young—yes, rather eccentric but brilliant—general practitioner.
In 1995 Dr Fakes was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and ended up, via West Cumberland Hospital, at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle, where a fellow medic and consultant took a particular interest in his condition. What they were not to know at that stage was that a number of his relatives and friends were subsequently to be stricken down with similar or associated conditions. They included his sister, his mother and one of his best young friends, Brian Haddon, all within a few years of each other and all from within the vicinity of the Fakes’ home in the Fens.
Dr Fakes’ response was to research his condition in detail, taking up much of his own time. Part of the research was to arrange for his pituitary gland, I think it was, to be removed from his body on death and sent for autopsy assessment at a special unit in Glasgow. Bill Fakes had been assiduous in making these arrangements as he believed that such an assessment would expose the danger of underregulated spraying arrangements. However, somewhere along the line the gland disappeared and was lost, and all the preparation came to nothing. Dr Fakes was convinced that his condition and that of his family and friends related directly to the use of pesticides in the vicinity of buildings and installations to which the public had access next to his home. He wanted all deaths in pesticide spray areas to be reviewed with a view to amendments to legislation dealing with pesticides, which brings me to Amendment 78 in the name of my noble friend.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my farming interest in Suffolk as in the register.
We are debating a number of amendments that could loosely be described as antipesticide. I am afraid I cannot support them because they would end up making the task of food production, which is the primary responsibility of the farmer, both harder and more expensive. As I have pointed out before, in Committee, some 70% of the taxable profit of farmers is composed of Brussels money; on my own farm the average figure over 14 years was 67%. As has been pointed out many times, switching money from the present system to environmental obligations inevitably reduces profitability, and it is in that context that we should consider these amendments.
I yield to no one in my devotion to sustainable and responsible farming that protects the environment and, indeed, enhances landscape, which in general is manmade—that is, made by farmers. I served three terms on the old Countryside Commission, two terms on the Rural Development Commission and five years as national chair of CPRE. A couple of years ago, I retired as president of the Suffolk Preservation Society after 20 years. I mention all this because, all too often, farmers are condemned without justification as people who are interested only in profit and short cuts and are not considerate.
We must make use of safe new technology when it is available, and this includes pesticides. Over the years, these chemicals have been more and more carefully tested and controlled to protect humans and animals, and all life in the environment. Many of the standards, rules and regulations on the use of chemicals are crucial; they must and will continue. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has just said that she would like all pesticides to be banned entirely, but, frankly, that is quite impractical.
I will give two examples where, lacking full justification and presumably formed on the precautionary principle—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has just mentioned this; it is all too often an excuse for sloppy thinking—the rules have actually been harmful to economic farming. These include rules on the use of treatments for seeds to grow two important UK crops, which are now banned. The first is on the use of a chemical called Cruiser for the treatment of sugar beet seeds to protect the crop from the devastating effects of a disease called virus yellows. This problem was mentioned a few moments ago by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
The second example is on the use of neonicotinoids for the seed of oilseed rape before it is planted to protect it from flea beetles, which can—and do—more than halve the yield. The ban on this seed treatment has led many farmers in the UK to give up growing oilseed rape. Of course, this merely means that the product is imported from Canada and the United States, where the bans do not exist. Obviously, I would have thought that there is no way in which the treatment of seeds under the ground can damage insects such as bees and butterflies, which feast on the nectar of a crop above the ground.
Of course, we must treat and use all chemicals with the greatest care and respect, but they are a crucial component of modern farming. I fear that these amendments are too wide and go too far, which is why I cannot support them.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, I hope I can contribute to this debate by drawing on my farming interests and my experience. Of course, some of the latter is now history: I remember personally hot water treating daffodil bulbs in mercurial dips and, in my part of the world, there was widespread use of aerial spraying. Quite rightly, we live in very different times, as all of us using chemical applications have become more aware. The prohibition of noxious and dangerous chemicals, such as DDT, is well known, and all farmers and growers have an awareness of selectivity in their use of chemical sprays and dips. The use of broad-spectrum sprays is now rare, and most applications are for specific purposes.
Noble Lords will know, as a result of this debate, that a robust regulatory system of comprehensive scientific assessments is in place to ensure that pesticides are not used where their use may harm human or animal health or pose unacceptable risks to the environment. All these regulations include operator risk as well as risk to the general public. Assessments are carried out by a large team of specialist scientists at the Health and Safety Executive, and independent expert advice is provided by the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides. This system derives from EU Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, which sets the rules for assessing and authorising pesticides, and Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, which sets limits for pesticide residues in food. All of these regulations will be carried over in full to UK law at the end of the transition period.
This brings me to the specific amendments in this group, and I have a great deal of time for all the signatories to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is a marvellous contributor to this House; I like, admire and enjoy listening to her, but it must be a long time since she was on a modern arable farm. Nowadays, she would see the precision with which sprays and chemicals are used; she would see the field margins adjacent to water courses and the headland nature strips. She would see modern sprayers, which bear no relation to the primitive things I used, with variable flow, nozzles and height. The operation of this kit is a highly skilled job and must be performed by a trained operator.
Farmers are a generous lot, but they do not spray their neighbours’ fields for them; neither do they spray the hedgerows, nor a neighbouring resident’s lawn. If noble Lords ever sought a contract with a multiple retailer—or even a third party who supplies a supermarket or chain—they would appreciate the high standards of husbandry and record-keeping that are required. Most farmers belong to accreditation groups as a consequence. When times are normal, I hope that the noble Baroness will join other noble Lords to visit our farm or, alternatively, attend a local LEAF Open Farm Sunday. Many people do. On our centennial open day last year, we had 500 visitors. If she stayed overnight, she would hear the sprayer go past between 5 and 6 in the morning, when winds are calm just before dawn, because that is the prime time to spray.
The thing that really upsets my nephew—he is responsible for our farming and growing and is active in many local farming groups and the drainage board—is that these amendments give the impression of a lack of trust. I will not repeat his critique of the well-intended but nightmare-inducing bureaucracy of the proposals in this group. We have over 100 fields on our farm plan, for example, and I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that our whole farm, except for 11 fields, is near one or two of the prohibited areas that he lists. How are noxious and persistent weeds and fungal infections going to be controlled with his measures in place?
I hope that my voice from the farm makes it clear that the use of pesticides, fungicides and other chemicals is not taken lightly by the industry and that the authors of these amendments will realise that, if we want more from our farmers in every way, we should maintain our confidence in them. This Bill will encourage farmers and growers, but we should not pass these amendments if we want the House and Parliament to retain their trust.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who has reminded us of the regulatory system in place at the Health and Safety Executive and given some examples of the impacts these amendments might have on farmers. I have added my name to Amendment 76, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and to Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I am grateful to both for their detailed and excellent introductions to this topic.
The use of pesticides was mentioned at Second Reading and in Committee. It is a topic which raises a great deal of concern among those living in the countryside and rural areas. Farmers spray their crops with pesticides to protect them from pests and diseases. However, some farmers—not all—do not exercise care when doing this, and their chemicals drift over neighbouring lands and properties, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned. These chemicals can be extremely toxic and for citizens to breathe them in is likely to have a very adverse effect, especially for those already suffering from respiratory diseases. It is not unreasonable for those likely to suffer from pesticide drift to be notified by the farmer of the fact that they are planning to spray their crops on a certain day at a certain time, so that neighbours may stay indoors or be elsewhere during the process. Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is specific about the type of buildings which farmers would be prohibited from spraying near. It is essential that our young children should be protected from inhalation of toxic chemicals. Their lungs are fragile. Hospitals where the sick and chronically ill will be cared for by NHS staff should be similarly protected.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by referencing my interests at Rothamsted Research, as recorded in the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, my noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for their amendments. They have all given powerful examples of the public health concerns that arise from close contact with pesticides. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay said, sadly, all too often our experience has been that the health problems come to light when the damage has already been done. You cannot blame the public for their scepticism when they are assured that chemicals are safe, because the reality all too often appears further down the line.
My noble friend Lord Whitty specifically raises concerns about the impact on those living and working adjacent to fields which are regularly sprayed. Farm workers have the details of the chemicals involved and, we hope, the appropriate protective clothing, but no such provision is made for the local population, so the provision in my noble friend’s amendment for a minimum distance to be set by regulation between private land being sprayed and nearby residential areas seems eminently sensible.
When we debated this in Committee, we argued for research into alternative methods of pest and disease control, in keeping with the wider aspirations of the Bill to deliver integrated pest management and greater biodiversity. We also argued that targets should be set for the reduction in pesticide use. This becomes eminently achievable as precision farming techniques become more widespread, and these issues were rightly raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in speaking to his amendment. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that what he is describing is best practice, not universal practice, and this is where the problems lie.
In Committee, the Minister confirmed that once we have left the EU at the end of the year, we will take responsibility for our own decisions on pesticide use in the UK. She also confirmed that the Government will consult on a national action plan to reduce pesticide use later this year, so it would be helpful if the noble Lord could update your Lordships on the timetable for that consultation and the progress to date. Can he also confirm that any recommendations will continue to be based on the precautionary principle?
In the meantime, the challenge of my noble friend Lord Whitty’s amendment is more immediate and pressing. Whatever the Government’s overall plans for pesticide reduction, there are likely to be continuing problems for those living close to fields that are being sprayed. This is an immediate issue of public health protection. I therefore hope that the Minister is able to provide some reassurance to my noble friend that action to protect those residents is being planned as part of the wider review. If he is unable to satisfy my noble friend, I make it clear that if my noble friend pushes it to a vote, we will support him. In the meantime, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, bringing with them experience of agriculture or medical specialism. I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
Turning to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I should first say to all noble Lords that the Government are committed to protecting people and the environment from the potential risk posed by pesticides. As I will explain, the Government have a robust regulatory system in place to ensure that pesticides are not used where that may harm human health. The use of pesticides is allowed only where a comprehensive scientific assessment shows that people will not be harmed. The scientific risk assessment carried out before pesticides are authorised covers all situations where people may be exposed to pesticides, including risks to residents and bystanders from the volatilisation of the pesticide’s active substance after application of the product. Products found to have an unacceptable risk from exposure would not be authorised.
The risks of possible pesticide spray-drift from pesticide use are assessed before a new pesticide product is authorised. This includes the effect of different factors, including wind speed, and the results are used to set specific statutory conditions of use for that pesticide as we only authorise products that will not have any harmful effect on human health.
The label on a pesticide product is the main source of information for the user of that pesticide. Phrases such as those listed in Amendment 76 relate to the classification of the concentrated product rather than the diluted spray. The information is required to minimise the user’s exposure and to ensure that they use the product safely and effectively. All users of pesticides are required to follow the statutory conditions of use for any pesticides they use. They should also follow the guidance contained in the Code of Practice for Using Plant Protection Products. The code requires that all users take reasonable precautions to protect the health of people, creatures and plants, to safeguard the environment, and, in particular, to avoid pollution of water. The code specifies that users must ensure that pesticides are only applied in the appropriate weather conditions with the correct, properly adjusted equipment, and that applications must be confined to the area intended to be treated. Collectively, these controls ensure that people are properly protected, based on appropriate risk assessments. They allow pesticides to be used where this is safe and will help UK farmers to provide a supply of high-quality affordable food.
The Government are committed to monitoring the impacts of the use of agricultural pesticides. Indeed, monitoring schemes are in place to report on the level of usage of each pesticide and on residue levels in food. They also collect and consider reports of possible harm to people or to the environment. We will continue to review the monitoring arrangements to ensure that they remain effective in supporting the authorisation process.
Turning to Amendment 80, I am most grateful to my noble friend for raising integrated pest management and the more precise use of pesticides, including through new technologies and new concepts, to which my noble friend Lady McIntosh referred. Pesticide users can reduce the need for pesticides, further reducing risks to the environment, combating pest resistance and supporting agricultural productivity. This is very important for all farmers: pest resistance is another issue we must contend with. The Government have made a commitment in the 25-year environment plan to putting integrated pest management at the heart of their approach. There are advances in this area that we should all champion.
A number of points have been made by noble Lords, but I particularly want to pick up the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and deal with the precise issue of lacuna and gap. That is precisely why the upcoming consultation on the draft updated UK National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides will set out how the Government will deliver our 25-year environment plan commitment. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend the Duke of Wellington that as part of this, the Government are considering the extent to which targets may support the delivery of integrated pest management. The consultation on the national action plan will be launched later this year and will set out these plans in more detail. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, that in Committee we had an extensive debate on gene editing and as I said then, we believe that the best way forward is to have a full and proper consultation on those matters.
I turn now to Amendment 78. I was very pleased to meet the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to discuss these matters. The Government agree that pesticides should not be used where they may harm human health or pose unacceptable risks to the environment. By pesticides, we mean all the plant protection products commonly used in agriculture and beyond, including herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. A robust regulatory system is in place to deliver that objective and to make sure that an authorised product, used correctly, does not harm people. As has been said by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, that system derives from EU law and, in particular, Regulation 1107/2009, setting out the rules for assessing and authorising pesticides, and Regulation 396/2005, setting limits for pesticide residues in food. All this EU legislation will be carried over in full into UK law at the end of the transition period.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the detail that he has afforded to this group of amendments and for his reply. I will make some very short comments. He speaks about consultation going forward; that is precisely the consultation required to inform the regulations to which the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, speaks. He talks about areas around railways and wastelands, which could become wildlife sanctuaries but are not at the moment because of the way they are handled.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, that the lack of trust is not in farmers but in the pesticide manufacturers. The spraying kit that he is talking about is incredibly expensive, as I know from seeing it at the Royal Welsh Show. It is eye-wateringly expensive and costs a lot to maintain, so is not within the reach of every farmer.
I do not want to waste time discussing my amendments. I point out that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has rightly said that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is flexible. It is simply about making regulations; it does not state what has to be in them, in terms of distance or children, and they would go to affirmative resolution. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and give notice that, in the event of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, being unable to call a vote on his Amendment 78, I will do so on his behalf.
Lord Whitty
“Application of pesticides: limitations on use to protect human health
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision prohibiting the application of any pesticide for the purposes of agriculture or horticulture near—(a) any building used for human habitation;(b) any building or open space used for work or recreation; or (c) any public or private building where members of the public may be present, including but not limited to—(i) schools and childcare nurseries;(ii) hospitals.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify a minimum distance from any of the locations listed under subsection (1)(a) to (c) to be maintained during the application of any pesticide.(3) For the purposes of this section “public building” includes any building used for the purposes of education.(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would protect members of the public from hazardous health impacts from the application of chemical pesticides near buildings and spaces used by residents and members of the public.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, for the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spelled out, I wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 79. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 79
The Earl of Dundee
“Planning guidance for agricultural smallholdings
The Secretary of State may create planning guidance for local authorities to facilitate the development of combined smallholding home and work spaces for the following purposes—(a) to encourage the construction of affordable rural houses;(b) to create employment in farming and ancillary enterprises;(c) to increase supplies of locally grown fresh food to improve food security;(d) to increase productivity and profitability through agroecological farming on smallholdings; and(e) to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, regenerate soil fertility and nurture biodiversity through smallholder farming.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would enable the Government to give guidelines to local authorities to encourage combined smallholding home and workspace development, thus promoting employment whilst also increasing local food supplies through productive and profitable agroecological smallholder farming.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, this proposed new clause would enable the Government to give guidance to local authorities. Many new entrepreneurs would like to set up agricultural smallholdings and to start viable businesses connected with high-quality jobs to do with farming and local food production, but are still prevented by restrictive planning regulations. The aim instead should clearly be to encourage innovative smallholding and workplace developments, promoting employment and affordable housing as well as increasing local food supplies through more productive and profitable agroecological farming. Since such smallholdings deliver significant public goods to the environment and society, they deserve full recognition and backing within planning policy.
I moved a similar amendment in Committee, not so much in terms of planning guidelines but instead to ask the Minister, my noble friend Lord Gardiner, what his views were on the scope and benefit of these projects. He could not have been more supportive. He pointed out that the Government, as stated in Defra’s Farming for the Future: Policy and Progress Update last February,
“intend to use the powers under Clause 1 to offer funding to councils, landowners and other organisations to invest in … opportunities for new entrants to access land”.
He also mentioned the Government’s resolve to “work with local authorities” and other institutions, mentioning that
“further details will be set out in the Government’s multiannual financial assistance plan.”—[Official Report, 21/7/20; col. 2134.]
He drew our attention to how local authorities would now be able to use rural sites for the delivery of affordable housing and how the National Planning Policy Framework will help the building of homes in isolated areas.
I am very grateful to my noble friend and, regarding smallholdings, much heartened by the positive background he explained. However, there are two different kinds of smallholding under discussion: county farms controlled by local authorities and the different kind of smallholding, not owned or controlled by local authorities yet entirely dependent on permission from local authorities to be able to establish or develop at all. Perhaps these two types may not have been sufficiently distinguished from each other in Committee. That is why I have brought back a revised amendment on planning guidance.
For instance, a modern agricultural smallholding might well combine farming with other work. Residents would have two occupations: farming some land and working from home. An example could be 30 houses and 180 acres of farmland, thus six acres per unit. A typical occupant might farm vegetables in polytunnels while also working part-time as an IT consultant via high-speed internet.
Post coronavirus, two interconnected trends emerge: a greater demand for property in the countryside and the growing potential of being able to work from home. The proposals outlined therefore fit in with those new demands and facilities. At the same time, such projects would provide excellent fresh produce to local urban markets, as a result strengthening the United Kingdom’s food security while advancing government plans for the countryside by increasing opportunities for rural employment.
In connection with the Bill, the farming methods adopted by these smallholdings would qualify for financial assistance for the purposes detailed in Clause 1. In view of their relevance to the purposes of the Bill, yet taking into account the tendency of local authorities hitherto to be restrictive, does my noble friend Lady Bloomfield agree, first, that the Secretary of State might now give planning guidance to local authorities to facilitate the development of combined home and work spaces for the purposes outlined in this amendment? Secondly, even if planning permissions are now less likely to be withheld or procrastinated over than they previously have been, there would be all the more consistency if the Government were to offer such guidance as envisaged. In any case, I beg to move.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I briefly give my full-hearted support to the noble Earl and his proposal. Again, I draw on my own experience at both MAFF and Defra and, at one time, as the Planning Minister, when I had a predisposition to facilitate the use of what you could term redundant farm buildings for other uses, be they housing or small enterprises—sometimes start-up or incubator units. I realise that it is not easy, and I know local authorities are suspicious because there have been abuses in the past. I realise that they sometimes want to limit the footprint of redundant buildings being extended too much, but the fact is that we need a national guideline for the flexibility.
The noble Earl pointed out that there are two classes of situation here. Local authorities could be deemed to be giving planning permission to themselves— or, indeed, not giving it—where they own the county farms. It is always a problem when one has to have these separate walls in local authorities. It does not always look fair.
I give my support for all the flexibility the Minister can give, by way of encouragement to local authorities under the planning system, for more modern uses of agricultural buildings. The idea of affordable housing and issues ancillary to farming are fine; I would go much further than that, but I rest on supporting the noble Earl.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
I first declare an interest as a member of the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, which has done a lot of work on agriculture. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on an excellent amendment. We certainly need to encourage new entrants and young farmers.
Looking at some statistics about farming apprenticeships, I was interested that they talked about a 2.7% growth in the industry as a whole and something like 137,000 people leaving the industry, so there are plenty of opportunities there. Is it currently easy for new entrants and young farmers? All the evidence we see is that you have to be very determined.
This is a really worthwhile amendment. It falls in line with our new approach to farming subsidies and the 25-year plan. It is a golden opportunity to put the emphasis, as it says, on sustainability and care of the environment. New young people coming into the industry will give it a fresh look; they are much better versed in the new technology. The point the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made about housing is also important. We need to recognise that it is not enough just to create the opportunity; we also need to enable people to live near their place of work.
The other point I would like to emphasise is that there is, as we have heard in this debate, an awful lot of best practice out there and a lot of good farming going on. Finding the opportunity for those farmers to buddy up with new entrants to act as mentors would be really good.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, mentioned food security and fresh produce. In addition, there would likely be less food waste. Giving guidance to local authorities also seems a sensible part of this amendment. I welcome the amendment and give it my full support. I trust we will have a positive and constructive response from the Minister.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, with whom I have the privilege to sit on the EU Environment Sub-Committee. I have just two questions for my noble friend the Minister. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for providing the opportunity to ask them in the context of Amendment 79.
What I find attractive about this amendment—and I hope my noble friend will agree—is that it is currently notoriously difficult for new entrants to penetrate national parks. Would my noble friend see some merit in an amendment along these lines to ease the restrictions, allowing new entrants to enter into agriculture, particularly in national parks such as the North York Moors National Park?
Another reason to find Amendment 79 attractive is subsection (a), which seeks
“to encourage the construction of affordable rural houses.”
It is often overlooked that one of the reasons it is extremely difficult for older farmers to retire and cease to actively farm is that there is nowhere for them to go. There are large houses and executive-style houses, but there is a lack of affordable homes with one or two bedrooms in rural areas. I have seen some in Hovingham, which are part of the Hovingham estate, and they are tastefully done, but I would hope that this could be more widespread. That is why I hope my noble friend will use an opportunity such as the wording of this amendment, perhaps in a more appropriate place than the Agriculture Bill, to ensure that there is a supply of affordable rural houses for those who wish to make way for younger members of the family to take over the farming commitment. We need somewhere for them to go.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has withdrawn from this amendment, so the next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, when this Bill was in Committee, I had the privilege of contributing on really critical issues to do with the protection of the environment and landscape, proper husbandry of soil for our future, the well-being of livestock, and the importance of protecting and securing our food supply, ensuring that it is environmentally friendly and good for our health. I believe that the amendment of the noble Earl contributes to this. It is clearly beneficial for smallholdings to be able to draw together all those key elements—the protection of the countryside and the decent ways we can grow our food and husband our livestock.
The intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is an important one. A third of the land-mass of the city of Sheffield is actually in the Peak District National Park, and a co-ordinated approach between local government and the park planning board to providing smallholdings and protecting those that still exist is really important, and that applies to national parks elsewhere.
The University of Sheffield is undertaking some creative and imaginative work on food production, which is being used around the world. That could be applied—expertise goes with the willingness of people to take on opportunity.
As the noble Earl described, the ability to work from home is now greater than ever, not just because people have learned during the Covid pandemic how to use the equipment but because the equipment is now more useable. People can combine one activity with husbanding the soil, and get a great quality of life from doing so. It also helps with local procurement, which will be an important issue, and therefore with the protection of our future food supply. It also benefits major urban areas, such as my own, where allotments have historically been critical, as well as smallholdings. Edward Carpenter, many years ago, was able to combine his wider activities with husbanding the land, and many examples of that sort exist.
I entirely support the noble Earl’s intentions this afternoon, but I offer one word of warning. I pay credit to Francis Wheen’s biography of Marx for this gem. Marx was once eulogising in one of the communist cells about how they would husband the land and livestock in the morning, then be able to write and have leisure and pleasure in the afternoon. One of those listening said, “And who will clean our shoes?” The answer came as fast as you would expect from Karl Marx: “You will”. Marxists have always felt that somebody would do something that would ensure that their lives were a little easier.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and others argued that we will need to take action to promote the development of smallholdings in the variety of ways that they may manifest. The noble Earl has proposed that there should be guidance for local authorities to encourage the development, through smallholdings, of affordable rural housing, as well as to provide employment, promote biodiversity, reduce emissions, and improve soil fertility and the supply of local food. These are very ambitious and imaginative aims, and he introduced his proposals in a very compelling fashion with some very experienced supporters.
There will be areas around the country where local authorities are supportive of this sector; there are others where the sense in the farming community is that the local authorities face the town and never look to the countryside. Challenges to the latter are never addressed, even though the countryside is, at the very least, important for those in the town.
There is considerable concern about how the Government are currently reducing planning guidelines. This looks like a benign way forward, but post Brexit and post coronavirus, local authorities will be even more overstretched. They may not have the resources currently to be looking at this area effectively as well; they will need imagination and expertise. If this amendment is agreed, the Government will need to make sure that any such extra task is properly resourced, or it may mean little. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 79 follows on from previous debates about how the Government and the devolved Administrations can support the agricultural sector and its workers in providing homes, job opportunities and so forth. Its specific focus on smallholdings is welcome and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. The priorities identified by the noble Earl’s amendment are perfectly legitimate, particularly the emphasis on locally grown food and steps to improve environmental performance, which arguably go hand in hand. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said, we need national guidelines so that flexibility can be given to local authorities for more modern uses.
Presumably, the amendment extends to England and Wales only, as is the case with Clause 34. It is important to recognise the doubly devolved nature of planning, whereby responsibility is split between national and local government, and for this reason it is not clear how quickly or effectively any new guidance would filter down. As a lifelong educator, I was particularly pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green’s suggestion of a buddy or mentoring scheme whereby farmers who are using new technology could be encouraged to support those in the industry who may need help in the use of those technologies. I would be grateful if the Minister identified any existing or planned schemes in this area.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I detect a greater degree of consensus on this amendment than on some others we will debate this afternoon. I am grateful to my noble friend the Earl of Dundee for the amendment. For many years, local authorities and other smallholding estates have provided valuable opportunities for new entrant farmers, enhancing the rural economy and bringing new energy and skills into the sector.
Smallholdings, as we have heard, provide excellent opportunities for sustainably produced, locally sourced food, helping to deliver our environmental objectives and increasing food security, which a number of speakers have described as a priority. That is why this Government are committed to supporting local authorities to facilitate the development of smallholding estates. I assure my noble friend that the Government intend to use the financial assistance powers already provided under Clause 1(2) to deliver the kinds of outcomes he is seeking.
The Government’s future farming policy update, published in February, committed to offering financial assistance to local authorities, landowners and other organisations to invest in the development of small- holdings in order to create more opportunities for new entrant farmers in future. We believe this will provide greater incentives for local authorities and other landowners to invest in the development of more smallholdings than would providing planning guidance. We want to encourage investment that will not only create more smallholding opportunities but provide guidance and mentoring to new farmers in order to develop sustainable and profitable farming businesses.
In addition, local authorities can take advantage of rural exception sites to help the delivery of affordable housing, and the revised national planning policy framework includes new policies to support the building of homes in isolated locations where this supports farm businesses with succession. I say to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who I recognise has a very relevant background in both Defra and housing, that in July 2018 the Government launched the revised national planning policy framework, which offers new support to rural areas. The rural housing chapter gives strong support for rural exception sites and the NPPF has new policies to support the building of homes in isolated locations where this supports farm succession. Indeed, the Government have increased permitted development rights for redundant farm buildings from three to five dwellings.
In April 2018, the Government amended the national permitted development right supporting rural housing and agricultural productivity. The Government recognise that work and home smallholdings are also provided by other organisations and that these require council planning approval. Guidance to councils on planning matters is led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with which my department works closely and will continue to engage with on these matters. My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised this issue, which we are well aware of, particularly since my noble friend the Minister has national parks within his portfolio. We recognise the importance of balancing the protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty with enabling the businesses and communities within them to flourish. I hope I have provided all noble Lords, particularly my noble friend, with enough reassurance and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
No noble Lord has indicated to me that they wish to come in after the Minister, so I call the Earl of Dundee.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their comments and support, as I am to my noble friend Lady Bloomfield for her positive evaluation of this amendment. As already indicated, the focus here is not upon the merits of agricultural smallholdings, which are already recognised by the Government and by your Lordships. The issue instead is whether the Government should give planning guidance for local authorities to facilitate these developments. My own view, shared perhaps by many noble Lords, is that such government guidance would not unreasonably constrain or inhibit local authorities; yet at the same time, it would help to reduce restrictions and delays. I understand that my noble friend might feel that this cannot immediately be done, but I appreciate the very positive context in which she is considering doing it. As time moves on, the Government might increasingly take a view which is translated to local authorities to good effect. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Requests for landlord’s consent or variation of terms
30 Before section 28 insert—“27A Disputes relating to requests for landlord’s consent or variation of terms(1) The appropriate authority must by regulations make provision for the tenant of an agricultural holding to refer for arbitration under this Act a request made by the tenant to the landlord where—(a) the request falls within subsection (3), and(b) no agreement has been reached with the landlord on the request.(2) The regulations may also provide that, where the tenant is given the right to refer a request to arbitration, the landlord and tenant may instead refer the request for third party determination under this Act. (3) A request falls within this subsection if—(a) it is a request for—(i) the landlord’s consent to a matter which under the terms of the tenancy requires such consent, or(ii) a variation of the terms of the tenancy, or(iii) the landlord’s consent to a matter which otherwise requires such consent,(b) it is made for the purposes of—(i) enabling the tenant to request or apply for relevant financial assistance or relevant financial assistance of a description specified in the regulations, or(ii) complying with a statutory duty, or a statutory duty of a description specified in the regulations, applicable to the tenant, or(iii) securing either or both of the full and efficient farming of the holding and an environmental improvement, and(c) it meets such other conditions (if any) as may be specified in the regulations.(4) The regulations may provide for the arbitrator or third party on a reference made under the regulations, where the arbitrator or third party considers it reasonable and just (as between the landlord and tenant) to do so—(a) to order the landlord to comply with the request (either in full or to the extent specified in the award or determination); or(b) to make any other award or determination permitted by the regulations.(5) The regulations may (among other things) make provision—(a) about conditions to be met before a reference may be made;(b) about matters which an arbitrator or third party is to take into account when considering a reference;(c) for regulating the conduct of arbitrations or third party determinations;(d) about the awards or determinations which may be made by the arbitrator or third party, which may include making an order for a variation in the rent of the holding or for the payment of compensation or costs;(e) about the time at which, or the conditions subject to which, an award or determination may be expressed to take effect;(f) for restricting a tenant’s ability to make subsequent references to arbitration where a reference to arbitration or third party determination has already been made under the regulations in relation to the same tenancy.(6) The provision covered by subsection (5)(e) includes, in the case of a request made for the purpose described in subsection (3)(b)(i), conditions relating to the making of a successful application for assistance.(7) In this section—“appropriate authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;“relevant financial assistance” means financial assistance under—(a) section 1 of the Agriculture Act 2020 (Secretary of State’s powers to give financial assistance),(b) section 19 of, or paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to, that Act (exceptional market conditions: powers available to Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers),(c) a scheme of the sort mentioned in section 2(4) of that Act (third party schemes), or (d) a scheme of financial assistance in whatever form introduced by Welsh Ministers;“statutory duty” means a duty imposed by or under—(a) an Act of Parliament;(b) an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales or Senedd Cymru; (c) retained direct EU legislation.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides the ability for farm tenants letting under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 to object to a landlord’s refusal to enter into a specific financial assistance scheme in the same way as farm tenants letting under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 89ZA. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 35: Marketing standards
Amendment 89ZA
Lord Grantchester
“( ) where a product is imported, a statement of compliance with the relevant domestic standards and regulations specified under section (Requirement for agricultural and food imports to meet domestic standards).”
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
At the start of the House’s considerations on day three of Report, I declare my interests as stated in the register, and that I am in receipt of funds under the CAP system.
I rise to move Amendment 89ZA in my name, and I thank my co-signatories to Amendment 93—the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—for transferring their support to this amendment as well. This amendment relates to subsection (2) of Clause 35, “Marketing standards”, in Part 5. That imported food products comply with British domestic standards needs to be backed up with certainty for the British consumer. Clause 35 also specifies Schedule 4, where agricultural products are made relevant to marketing standard provisions.
It is vital that the Bill sets the vision for the future approach of the UK’s agricultural and food policy. It can also signal to existing and future trading partners that the UK is committed to championing high quality and high standards in food around the world. While the establishment of the Trade and Agriculture Commission may have calmed some people, the temporary and limited nature of that body—which we will discuss in a later group of amendments—has served only to energise others.
There was a lot of debate in Committee on labelling, and this will be reflected today in discussions on amendments in the next group. In the UK, there are several quality schemes—the Red Tractor mark, Freedom Food, British Lion, organic and many others—which allow consumers to know at a glance that the products they are purchasing meet certain requirements. While these should continue to act as identifiers of quality British product, rather than being extended in their scope, Amendment 89ZA would allow the department to introduce the merits of some form of “meeting UK standards” badge. However, labelling would not work universally in practice, as 50% of food is consumed outside the home. The importance of the food service sector has been highlighted repeatedly throughout discussions on the Bill. That is why the amendment is linked intrinsically to Amendment 93 in this group, which I shall speak to now.
I am grateful that the Government agree that Amendment 93 is understood to be consequential to Amendment 89ZA. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for adding her name to this amendment, signalling how important this is to her and her party. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for consistently championing high standards in production methods, the environment and the importance of nutrition.
The strong theme running through your Lordships’ deliberations on the Bill is that of standards. This is not just a matter of food safety. Standards are important in husbandry methods—agricultural, horticultural and forestry—environmental and climate aspects, food nutrition and labelling, and imported foodstuffs marketed in this country. This group of amendments will determine how the UK’s standards will be set at the outset of our EU exit, and how they will be maintained.
Low-quality food cannot be allowed to jeopardise rural communities by undercutting UK farmers with product made using methods that would be illegal here. The National Farmers’ Union mounted a campaign on production standards that attracted over 1 million signatures. A Which? report found that British people really care about their food and expect that the UK will maintain high standards and, with time, enhance them—95% of respondents agreed with such a statement.
Consumers care about the welfare implications of, for example, US production methods that necessitate that chickens need chlorination to be made safe. They do not want chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef to be permitted to be imported and available on supermarket shelves. Voters who voted to get Brexit done can be forgiven for thinking that this was going to be enshrined in legislation—after all, it was in the Conservative Party manifesto. Now certainly is the chance to get it done here. In the Commons, a previous Conservative Government Minister, Neil Parish, proposed a similar amendment. He is now chairman of the prestigious Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee.
This amendment makes various key improvements. It prevents any agri-food chapters of a trade agreement being ratified unless, first, the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a statement confirming that any products imported into the UK will meet the minimum production standards of British law at the time of entry into the country. Secondly, the Secretary of State must lay regulations specifying a process for determining that the standards to which an imported food product has been produced or processed
“are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to animal health and welfare, protection of the environment, food safety, hygiene and traceability, and plant health”.
Thirdly, the House of Commons must approve the relevant trade deal chapters, and your Lordships’ House must debate them, in much the same fashion as it did the Brexit withdrawal deal.
Supermarkets have also endorsed the commitment to protect British food standards from dilution in trade deals. Waitrose and Aldi have committed to not stock lower-standard imported food. Just recently, the first stage of the Defra-commissioned national food strategy, chaired by Henry Dimbleby, also called for such a verification programme of core standards for imported food.
I turn now to Amendments 94 to 96, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. His explanatory statements claim that Amendment 93 as drafted is inconsistent with the WTO’s sanitary and phytosanitary agreement as it refers to domestic, not international, standards. I hope noble Lords will indulge me if I read a short extract from the WTO’s own guidance on SPS agreements:
“The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures sets out the basic rules for food safety and animal and plant health standards. It allows countries to set their own standards. But it also says regulations must be based on science. They should be applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health. And they should not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between countries where identical or similar conditions prevail. Member countries are encouraged to use international standards, guidelines and recommendations where they exist. However, members may use measures which result in higher standards if there is scientific justification. They can also set higher standards based on appropriate assessment of risks so long as the approach is consistent, not arbitrary.”
Finally, the last part says:
“The agreement still allows countries to use different standards and different methods of inspecting products.”
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and to support Amendments 89ZA and 93, both of which I have signed. Noble Lords have received repeated assurances from the Government that, to quote from the most recent Defra briefing note,
“in all future trade negotiations we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards”.
With this assurance, why is Amendment 93 needed? For me, there are unanswered questions and uncertainties about the Government’s statement. I will summarise some of them.
First, the wording of the Defra briefing notes that I have just quoted avoids saying that there will be no imported food of lower standards than UK-produced food. Perhaps this is because the Government consider that imposing certain domestic standards on imports may breach WTO rules as “technical barriers to trade”. This was just discussed in great detail by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. According to the interim report from Henry Dimbleby, we are already able to import certain commodities produced in ways that would not be allowed in the UK—for instance, using neonicotinoid pesticides. It is also unclear whether the pledge that the Government make applies only to novel foods, as it refers to the future, or to existing approved foods. My first question is: what is the Government’s position?
My second question is: what is meant by food standards? Standards is a vague term that can mean different things to different people. How do the Government define it? For instance, do they include food production standards in the definition?
Thirdly, it is not clear what role the Food Standards Agency and its sister organisation Food Standards Scotland will play alongside other bodies mentioned by Defra, namely the Animal and Plant Health Agency, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Health and Safety Executive. This is pertinent, as the Food Standards Agency is an independent, non-ministerial department while the other bodies are not independent—they are executive agencies, or non-departmental public bodies, directly accountable to their parent departments. Will the Food Standards Agency advise on welfare and environmental standards as well as on food safety standards?
Fourthly, the Defra statement does not say who will police production standards of imported food as it crosses the border. The Food Standards Agency and the Animal and Plant Health Agency currently check food safety and phytosanitary standards, but not production standards.
Fifthly, the Food Standards Agency will have to carry out additional duties in future. Has it been given sufficient additional resources in its baseline to carry these out? If so, who has determined the amount of extra money required?
Sixthly, and finally, the briefing says that decisions on imported foods will be taken by Health Ministers informed by the advice of the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland. What are the other factors that Ministers will take into consideration when making these decisions? The briefing implies that they will not simply follow the advice of the FSA or FSS but will take other factors into account.
It is only by supporting Amendments 89ZA and 93 that we can be sure that the Government are bound to their commitment not to import food of lower standards than our own domestic products. I look forward to the Minister’s answers to my questions but, as things stand, I will support these amendments if there is a vote and urge other noble Lords to do the same.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Krebs. I, too, thoroughly support the amendment. I apologise for my internet connection and hope that noble Lords can hear me.
Food is already in a mess, before we even contemplate lowering the standards that we have. For instance, we already know that chlorinated chicken is just the tip of the iceberg of bad food that comes into this country. I am greatly worried not just about the environmental impacts of cheap and bad food on the planet but also about its health implications. Bad food is the result of overconsumption and overproduction of processed, sugary foods, yet recently US negotiators have said that they were concerned that labelling food with high sugar content
“is not particularly useful in changing consumer behaviour”.
Anyone who has been involved in food politics knows that that is rubbish. It is like saying that labelling a packet of cigarettes as jolly good for your health is a way that will not help change consumer behaviour. This is completely contrary to over 20 years of UK policy to introduce clear, front-of-pack, traffic-light nutrition information to help shoppers easily identify which products are high in sugar, salt and fat. Reading any of the Government’s proposed new obesity strategies shows that this labelling is planned to be even clearer.
Across the world, labelling is already incredibly complicated. The industry likes it like that. It does not want things to be simple. However, there are people around the world trying to deal with this. For instance, the Health Minister in Chile recently decided that no cereal companies could use cartoons to sell their products, so Tony the Tiger disappeared, replaced by a black splodge. Children now tell their parents not to eat that cereal. If we do not set high standards, we will never be able to change things like this. We will not even be able to label sugar clearly.
I am also very worried about what will come into this country. Why on earth do we need more American biscuits? If you take a biscuit such as Tim Tams, a chocolate-covered cream biscuit, extremely like a Penguin, we will get this in spades and it will be cheaper than the Penguin, which already sells to 99.1% of households. Low-quality food is unhealthy food. It has usually meant deforestation in its production, terrible treatment of animals and, as I said the other day, there are over 60 billion of them; 80% of all living creatures on earth sit in cages waiting to be fed to us.
We have fought very hard for our high standards, and it seems quite extraordinary that at a moment of extreme crisis in health and the environment, we should even need to have this debate, let alone have the feeling that the Government might try to overrule it when this Bill goes back to the Commons. Even supermarkets are agreed that we cannot lower our standards. I listened the other day to Christiana Figueres say that we only have 10 years to get on top of the climate crisis, and that in 10 years we must cut our emissions by 50%. Food and agriculture contribute hugely to this, and if we do not have standards that look at the environmental impact, then quite frankly, we have not got a prayer. Next year, we are leading the COP. We should now be talking about achieving higher standards, not fighting to defend the ones that we already have.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who is a leading light on the advisory panel of the Dimbleby report, which I will refer to shortly. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for moving the lead amendment in this group. I do not intend to repeat many of the comments that have been made; he has very eloquently addressed the issues of the amendments in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and others, which purport to fall foul of the World Trade Organization.
I shall speak initially to Amendment 90, and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who have been on this journey with a similar amendment in the original rollover trade Bill, on which we made a lot of progress. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, rather annoyingly, got in before me by tabling the amendment that was carried. We will discuss that further in the context of the trade Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said when moving Amendment 89ZA, this is an issue that consumers and farmers care passionately about. It was front and centre of the Conservative manifesto—not that I saw that—which we want to build on with this amendment, to then adopt what was originally government policy in the rollover trade Bill. I will not refer to it, but it complements Amendment 97 which follows later.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others, referred to part 1 of the interim report by Henry Dimbleby—I almost called him a noble Lord—in the National Food Strategy. On page 7 he refers to
“grasping the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to decide what kind of trading nation we want to be. The essence of sovereignty is freedom—including the freedom to uphold our own values and principles within the global marketplace. In negotiating our new trade deals, the Government must protect the high environmental and animal welfare standards of which our country is justly proud. It should also have the confidence to subject any prospective deals to independent scrutiny: a standard process in mature trading nations such as the United States, Australia and Canada. If we put the right mechanisms in place, we can ensure high food standards, protect the environment and be a champion of free trade.”
There we have it. We are taking back control. I applaud that in this sea change, for the first time in nigh-on 50 years, we will decide how we trade.
Baroness Henig (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I reassure noble Lords that I intend to speak only once, despite being listed to speak twice on this group.
I put my name to Amendment 90 because it echoed the form of words that the Government accepted in early 2019—only 18 months ago—and it was inserted into the Trade Bill. Now, the Government are no longer prepared to sign up to it. I puzzled over what had changed, but now, given the events of the past two weeks, the answer has become clear. The May Government intended to align the United Kingdom with European regulatory standards. The Johnson Government are not happy to do this and, instead, in the event of no deal or a very skinny deal, want the option to pivot to the United States regulatory regime.
It is clear that a choice has to be made, as the two regimes are very different. If we align with European standards, there will be no issue with our existing animal welfare, hygiene or food standards. However, if we switch to United States regulatory standards, without which a trade deal with the United States will be very unlikely, if not impossible, British agriculture and British farmers will face great challenges, and many, I fear, will lose their livelihood.
Some noble Lords argued in Committee that farmers would rise to the challenge and would find a way to compete successfully in the United States market, but I must tell them that, for a start, those exporting lamb would have great problems, as Americans generally do not eat lamb. My guess is that farmers would struggle to access United States markets, save perhaps in niche areas.
Since Committee, the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill has been published and has passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons. This presents a further threat to British agriculture, as it would allow cheap food imports to circulate freely around the United Kingdom, except in Northern Ireland. This is of course exactly what United States farming businesses are seeking, and no doubt the United States Government are putting great pressure on the United Kingdom Government to deliver it. However active our National Farmers’ Union has been in mobilising extensive public support behind high food and animal welfare standards, I assure noble Lords that its efforts pale beside the relentless drive of the United States farming lobby, which has the weight and power of Congress behind it, plus close ties to a number of British parliamentarians, who are also putting pressure on the Government.
I can think of no greater impetus towards independence in Scotland than the Scottish Government being unable to ban cheap, often unhygienically produced, food imports. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, reminded us in Committee, the availability of cheap imported food across England, Wales and Scotland would cause huge problems for farmers in Northern Ireland and, as the United Kingdom is its biggest single market, would render them uncompetitive. Farmers in many parts of Wales and Scotland would also face similar challenges.
In Committee, we were assured by the Minister that existing laws on the statute book would safeguard our food and animal welfare standards, and that therefore amendments in this group were unnecessary. As we have also heard, clear promises were made in the Conservative election manifesto. I say to the Minister that laws can easily be changed by this Government, with their great majority in the House of Commons. Who, after the events of the last two weeks, can have any faith in Conservative manifesto pledges? I believe in the sincerity of the Minister but I do not believe in the sincerity of the Government.
Tens of millions of people in this country—over 80% of the population, according to recent polls—are looking to Parliament to uphold our existing high food standards and to keep out of the United Kingdom produce from the United States, in particular, which has been unhygienically treated and cheaply produced as a result of animal welfare standards which would not be allowed in this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, so graphically told us in Committee. Unless and until our high standards are written into legislation, a large majority of people across the country will not believe that the Government will deliver on their promises. If and when they do not, that will be a much greater threat to British farmers, British consumers and our agricultural exports than the common agricultural policy ever was.
Given the way in which government policy has evolved since Committee, I believe that we now need a more comprehensive amendment than Amendment 90, and I am very happy to support Amendment 89ZA and Amendment 93, if moved, in this group in the hope that they command the support of as many noble Lords as possible. I believe that we need to send a clear message to the Commons and the Government, setting out what the people of this country very reasonably are asking of us.
Finally, I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that a Government who are willing to break international law can surely find a way to interpret WTO regulations flexibly. Many other countries find ways of reconciling WTO rules with maintaining high standards of food and animal welfare and hygiene, and I have no doubt whatever that the United Kingdom can do exactly the same if it wishes.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. I commend Amendments 89ZA and 93, and Amendment 90, to which I have added my name.
There should be no compromises on food standards. Agriculture and trade are clearly inextricably linked. From the Northern Ireland perspective, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Empey, would agree, we want to protect our existing food standards. We do not want the import of inferior-quality food, because we regard the food that our farmers produce to be of such high quality that it should be safeguarded and protected. Therefore, there must be regulations that do not lower animal health, hygiene or welfare standards for agricultural products below established UK or EU standards.
Animal health and food standards are vital, particularly at this time of a pandemic. I go back to the report of our Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Select Committee produced earlier this year, Hungry for Change, for which we received evidence from Henry Dimbleby, who is leading the national food strategy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, he was quite clear that the consumer and the farmer want good-quality food. They do not want any compromise on standards, and they definitely do not want food imports of a lower quality. They do not want chlorinated chicken or hormone-infused beef. Such standards have to be protected, and that has to be written on the face of the Bill.
I remind noble Lords of the debates on the Agriculture Bill in the other place several months ago, particularly on the amendments concerning food standards. Farmers, farmers’ unions, environmentalists, the Food Foundation and the National Trust all believe that we and the Government need to hold food imports to the same standards that currently exist in this country. There must be no lowering or undermining of those standards in order to bring in cheaper food of an inferior quality. I would like to hear the Minister say today that he accepts these amendments—their words, their tenor and the sentiment behind them—and that they should be written on the face of the Bill. I support them.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support the first three amendments, Amendments 89ZA, 90 and 93, and Amendments 103 and 105. I shall ignore Amendments 94, 95 and 96 because they are inconsequential spoilers, and I think it is wrong to put them in this group.
At the very start of the Bill, I said to the Minister that the Government had managed to unite the National Farmers Union, Greenpeace, consumer organisations, supermarkets, the Green Party and the great British public, and that this probably meant the Government had got it wrong. This is possibly the most important amendment that we will discuss in the whole Bill because it is one that almost everyone in Britain cares about. One of the things that we get knocked around the head with, particularly when we talk about policing and counterterrorism, is Ministers telling us that this is “the will of the people”. Well, Amendment 89ZA embodies the will of the people to maintain our food standards.
When we talk of American standards, we all know that that is an oxymoron; they do not exist. Its farming practices and animal welfare standards are vile, and we should be ashamed that there is any idea that it might be able to import into our country. This is essential protection for British farming. There is no doubt that the amendment has to pass today. I hope that some of the MPs in the Commons will have a bit of backbone and support it as well.
As the internal market Bill, which has not yet arrived in your Lordships’ House, proves, we cannot trust the Government—on anything, really. They are desperate to make trade deals and are happy to bend and break laws and agreements. The Minister has been very helpful and given noble Lords repeated assurances but, as the resignation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, proves, no matter how honourable and trusted Ministers are in this House, Boris Johnson’s Government cannot be trusted and will ignore or overrule Lords Ministers. The only solution to this problem is clear wording in the Bill to protect British farming standards against this desperate Government. Again, I say that this is truly the will of the people.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare again my interests as stated in the register. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes for adding her name to mine on these amendments. I look forward to hearing her contribution and those of other noble Lords.
Like many noble Lords, I attended most of the seven days of Committee on the Bill. Although there were amendments that I thought would improve it, I felt that a large majority were either redundant or harmful. Many were proposed by noble Lords who have consistently opposed Brexit and, even if they now accept the decision of the people and the result of the general election of December 2019, still seek to align our rules and regulations as closely as they can with those of the EU, even in cases where the EU is a global outlier.
There is much that I like about Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, as I said in debate in Committee. It is right that any new trade agreements that we enter into should confirm the UK’s acceptance of its rights and obligations under the World Trade Organization’s sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. As we start to participate in the WTO as a new independent member, it is important that we do all that we can to strengthen its relevance and remit, which have been weakened by the ambiguous attitude towards it held by the present American Administration. The US has refused to nominate new members to the appellate body, which is hampering the hearing of appeals. The UK should become a leading advocate internationally for rules-based free and fair trade because that is the way to build a more prosperous world. Indeed, given the US disregard for the WTO, the UK as the fifth-largest economy will be able to take the lead in reviving support for international trade liberalisation, which has lacked a champion.
The problem with the noble Lord’s amendment is that there is a conflict between proposed new subsection (2)(a), which would require trade agreements to conform to the SPS agreement, and proposed new subsection (2)(b), which would require all food imports to conform to domestic standards, which means EU standards. EU standards conflict in some instances with the SPS agreement, which encourages Governments to adopt national SPS measures consistent with international standards, guidelines and recommendations. Most of the WTO’s member Governments participate in the development of these standards in three other international bodies: the Codex Alimentarius Commission, established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN and the World Health Organization; the World Organisation for Animal Health, or OIE; and the International Plant Protection Convention.
The SPS agreement aims to ensure that measures are applied for no other purpose than that of ensuring food safety and animal and plant health. Such measures should be based as far as possible on the analysis and assessment of objective and accurate scientific data. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, the SPS agreement permits countries to adopt standards higher than international standards if they think it appropriate but only if there is scientific justification, not if such standards are misused for protectionist purposes and not if they result in unnecessary barriers to international trade.
The EU is a global outlier in international food standards because it gives too much importance to the precautionary principle, which obstructs innovation and interferes with free and fair trade, thus driving prices higher than they need be. A case in point is the EU ban on hormone-treated beef, which the WTO ruled is not based on sound science and denies EU consumers access to US beef at affordable prices. I know there are noble Lords who might welcome the price of beef rising to such levels where economics will force people to change from a mixed diet, including a significant amount of meat, to a largely or all-vegetarian diet, but, besides interfering with the freedom of the consumer to choose what diet he or she wishes to eat at affordable prices, such restrictions will interfere with and limit the ability of British beef farmers to sell to new markets overseas at competitive prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said he thought I was seeking to prevent the Secretary of State setting UK standards and requiring him to conform exactly to international standards. I do not think I am trying to do that in any way. I believe that we import many products manufactured in countries with different labour laws, environmental standards and animal welfare rules. Of course we must set domestic standards at the high levels that we rightly wish to uphold.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said that chlorinated chicken was “bad food”. For a start, most chicken grown and reared in the United States is treated not with chlorine but with peracetic acid. Secondly, I do not believe that it is bad food; certainly, I have never found it bad when I have eaten rather good roast chicken on visits to the US. If people do not want to buy American food because they think American farmers’ standards are too low, they do not need to. However, we are not quite as good as we always think we are; there have been many articles in the newspapers recently about poor poultry food standards, pollution of rivers and so forth. Neither are the Americans anything like as bad as many noble Lords make them out to be; indeed, there is not much difference between American rules on poultry stocking densities and UK rules on the same thing.
If the UK adopts food standards compliant with the SPS agreement, no one will be forced to eat food produced in countries of whose animal welfare standards they disapprove. However, I have not heard any noble Lords on the other side of this argument call for clear food labelling to identify products such as chicken reared in Poland, Brazil or Thailand, where average stocking densities are higher than those permitted in the US or the EU. I understand that Poland does not yet comply with EU rules. It is also interesting that there is no criticism of animals killed in conformity with halal rules to conform with sharia law.
In common with most noble Lords, I applaud the fact that the UK has made a big contribution to the raising of animal welfare standards in the world and I sincerely hope that we will continue to do so. Our efforts in this regard should be made within the OIE, and not by trying to interfere with free markets in food by applying restrictions on imports which will drive up the cost of food, especially at a time when so many people’s livelihoods have been affected by Covid-19.
For decades, the time-honoured way of dealing with SPS and technical barriers to trade rules has been to rely on equivalence of standards and technical regulation. This is because an equivalence or recognition approach ensures that everyone’s overall approach to risk is the same—not that every country’s rules are identical. We are more likely to get better rules, and more pro-competitive ones, if we adopt an equivalence or recognition approach with regulatory competition. Pure harmonisation is unlikely to lead to the best result and tends to increase the regulatory burden on our farmers, making them globally uncompetitive. Moreover, this is the approach of most WTO members. The EU is seen as the outlier. Our trading partners are asking the question: will we truly be “global Britain” or will we be more protectionist than the French? In the former case, we will be welcomed into the community of trading nations; in the latter, we will not.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Trenchard; indeed, it was a pleasure to add my name to his Amendments 94, 95 and 96. This is the first time that I have spoken during the passage of this Bill. Until my husband retired, I sometimes described myself as a farmer’s wife—but I claim no special expertise in agriculture and, for the avoidance of doubt, I have no interests to declare. I do, however, have an interest in trade matters; that is what has enticed me into the Report stage of the Bill and these amendments.
I start from the position that the main amendments in this group are not necessary. The Government’s policy is clear: they are committed to high food and welfare standards. They have demonstrated that commitment in all the trade treaties negotiated to date—both the continuity ones and the latest jewel in our trade crown, the free trade agreement with Japan. I am sure that we will go over that ground all over again when we commence our scrutiny of the Trade Bill.
We do not need to write into law what the Government are committed to. I fully accept that Governments do that from time to time, but it is generally done when they have weak parliamentary majorities and need to appease their opponents. Writing into law what the Government will do anyway can be a cheap way out of a confrontation. Noble Lords will know that that is the background to the wording of the Trade Bill that was brought forward by the previous Administration. We are not in that position today. The Government have a solid majority in the other place, which has already rejected similar amendments—and if your Lordships’ House passes these amendments, I would expect a similar response.
There is another reason why these amendments are unnecessary. International treaties have to be ratified using the CRaG procedure, which gives the other place the power to refuse ratification. Amendment 93 contains the equivalent of the CRaG procedure, but I fail to see why we need, effectively, to duplicate CRaG solely for the purpose of agricultural and food imports. If the other place does not like what the Government have negotiated in a trade treaty in relation to food and agriculture, it is open to the other place to refuse to ratify the agreement. Parliament already has the power that it needs by virtue of CRaG. Nevertheless, I have added my name to my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s amendments because, as he has explained, without his amendments, Amendment 93 would not make sense.
Now that we have left the EU, the starting point for our international trade will be the World Trade Organization. I welcome Clauses 40 to 42, which give the Government the necessary powers in the area of agriculture. This means that we should be ensuring that our standards comply with WTO standards; at the moment they do not, because our standards are derived from the EU and are in some respects non-compliant.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 103, which stands in my name; in so doing, I again draw attention to my registered interests. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will hardly be surprised if I do not follow their line on this matter. I support the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, with which my amendment partly aligns itself.
It is not disputed that imported agricultural goods can have both negative and positive impacts for those in the UK agricultural sector. On the one hand, we may rely on certain imports to maintain and improve the viability of our farms, as well as to protect the health and welfare of our animals. On the other hand, goods which may very well meet the required WTO sanitary and phytosanitary standards can nevertheless represent a major threat to the viability of our food producers if they are able to undercut them by incurring lower costs in meeting regulatory standards. Such unfair competition can undermine our domestic food production. It can consequently threaten food security if our domestic capacity is indeed eroded. This is particularly relevant as a consideration at a time when the global pandemic has laid bare our susceptibility to the disruption which extreme events can cause to global food chains.
Just weeks before the coronavirus lockdown, it was revealed that the UK Treasury had been advised that farmers were not needed in the UK, and that we could follow the example of Singapore, which, the Treasury was told,
“is rich without having its own agricultural sector”.
Yet, by the beginning of April, Singapore had announced drastic new measures to accelerate local food production, including desperate plans to grow food on the rooftops of public housing estates, as disruption of global food supply chains started to hit home.
The sort of lower standards that could undermine domestic producers would be ones which allow more lax regulations relating to plant health, animal health and welfare, and environmental standards. Equally important in this regard are employment and human rights issues. We should not abandon our principles in relation to food production, environmental standards, and the welfare of animals or people around the world. This amendment proposes that we ensure that tariff levels and tariff rate quotas are maintained at levels which minimise the risk of there being a back door to our market for those without a trade deal with the UK.
Were a UK Government to lower the UK global tariff significantly, and thereby encourage lower-standard goods to enter our market, they would be threatening the well-being of both consumers and the UK agricultural sector, undermining our rural communities and jeopardising our food security. There is more than one way to tackle this threat; we shall come later to other possible avenues—I am thinking particularly of Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which relates to trade deals. In the meantime, we should take the opportunity afforded by this bank of amendments to write into the Bill the safeguards which consumers need and which may be of existential importance to the future of agriculture in these islands.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made a number of comments when speaking to his amendments, including how he felt that a number of noble Lords have tabled amendments because they wish to stay wedded to EU rules, even though the UK has, theoretically, left the European Union. That may or may not be true, but people in my part of the country do not have the luxury of that choice, because we are left in the EU. That is the brutal reality of the situation.
On 2 October last year, the Government produced a document called Explanatory Note: UK Proposals for an Amended Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. That amended protocol used phrases such as “Border Inspection Post”. It said that products coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would be “exported” to Northern Ireland, and that people moving goods would have to notify the authorities of that fact. It talked about a “zone of regulatory compliance”, which is the 27 EU countries plus Northern Ireland. This is the first time that I can recall a Conservative and Unionist Government proposing a border between one part of the United Kingdom and another. To their eternal shame, the Democratic Unionist Party in the House of Commons endorsed that proposal, describing it as
“a serious and sensible way forward”.
It is neither serious nor sensible.
There are consequences to that. We export to Great Britain the vast majority of our agricultural products, whether milk or meat. Therefore, if the standards with which we are forced to comply begin to differ over time from standards here, our products would become uncompetitive. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, have attempted to communicate to us, by various means, that they wish to retain standards, but they may or may not be in their posts in the future, and we have to look long term. The worry I have, and which I know is shared by many others, is that once you have done a trade deal, if you try to then apply tariffs or to change your own standards and regulatory environment, it will start to break the deal you have done. You can then be brought to whatever adjudication processes are agreed, and no one knows what the outcome will be.
I do not believe we want a situation in which we put up food prices—that is not what I want to see. Other amendments that I put down earlier on Report sought to ensure that people at least had a choice and that the primary producer would, for once, get a decent slice of the cake, so that it was not always left to the supermarkets and processors. However, I fear that if things change over time, and because our farmers will be regulated by whatever the EU decides—which includes state aid, because we will be bound by state aid rules as soon as the Northern Ireland protocol is implemented—in such circumstances, we could very quickly become uncompetitive.
If noble Lords think it is only in my imagination that there is a border in the Irish Sea, I say this. In the first week of July, the Government allocated £25 million to help business deal with the consequences of the additional administrative work that would be required to handle a new situation. By 29 August, that had risen to £355 million. If there is no border, why are we spending £355 million, over two years, to help businesses with the transition?
For us, any diminution of standards in Great Britain is a matter of life and death for our farmers—it is as simple as that. It is a competitive issue. If EU and UK standards remain as they are, or if there is equivalence, that is fine. I hope that that is what happens, because you cannot freeze things in aspic for ever. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard points out, we are not perfect: we make mistakes and there have been examples of these. Nevertheless, if the balance changes over time, our farmers will effectively be hammered. In my belief, it is not in the best interests of the United Kingdom to see one of her four nations left in that situation. Although some of us warned of this in advance, the whole protocol has come about in a way that has the potential to break up the United Kingdom and cause huge damage. It is a very bad idea, but that is a debate for another day.
In Committee, I referred to the FSA and the Scottish equivalent. It is not entirely clear to me how an equivalence in standards would be enforced against the background of international trade deals being done and the fact that we are left in the European Union while the rest of the United Kingdom is not. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Given all these things, and that Northern Ireland’s biggest food customer is Great Britain, we are very concerned. Our farmers are very concerned that they would be left in a hopelessly uncompetitive position.
There are a number of amendments in this group and there will be a sequence of votes. I reserve the right to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House in circumstances where some of the other amendments are perhaps unsuccessful. I have put that on the record and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I am glad that he gave his speech because, with all the either deliberate or inadvertent diversions of the debate on the internal market Bill, the reality remains that only three of our four nations will be covered by elements of this Bill. For the first time in our nation’s history, one of our home nations will be governed by a set of regulations and laws for which there will be no elected parliamentarians with the authority to make any decisions or to hold to account those making the regulations.
The well-argued speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Henig, reminded the House that we have debated this before. I rehearsed an argument in Committee about the merits of why it was necessary. I do not want to repeat that, but I want to highlight elements and remind the House of the debate we have already had and the cross-party consensus that was secured. There is merit in doing so. If the Government had had their way and the Trade Bill 2017-19 had passed, none of these amendments, or this debate, would be necessary, because that Bill had been amended. I do not recall the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, arguing strongly against a government amendment that was in that Bill. I may have forgotten, but I do not recall her making that case.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and to be reminded of our debates on the Trade Bill—it seem so many aeons ago—and the amendment which, as I recall, was not adopted in the other place in its revised form.
I have been reflecting for some time on how, if I was still a Minister, I would deal with the three related and important amendments before us: Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on which I will focus; and two amendments in a later group, Amendment 97 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, who for many years has been a towering figure in farming. They raise some similar issues, and they all have lots of supporters and some detractors, led by my noble friend Lord Trenchard.
I am a supporter of the World Trade Organization and its predecessor, GATT. Having been trained as an economist, I know that trade brings great benefits in terms of world prosperity, as is convincingly explained by the theory of comparative advantage. This is particularly important when we face recession and the shock of the Covid pandemic affecting, I am afraid to say, every corner of the globe. That is a very different background from that when we were debating the Trade Bill. We must support the WTO and have regard to its rules. The Minister suggested in Committee that provisions of the kind we see in Amendments 93, 97 and 101 might be incompatible with them. We could be ushering in a new argument with the WTO and major problems of compliance, which would be particularly unfortunate given the current problems with the WTO—in particular with the Appellate Body, referenced by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. It is not easy to see a way round this, and there is a severe difficulty in establishing equivalence in order to implement the necessary criteria for maintaining standards, so we must tread a careful path.
Since this Bill was first presented in the other place, the Government have come a long way. They have established the Trade and Agriculture Commission, in which Red Tractor is involved—I should again register my interest as its chair. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was kind enough to mention it and the importance of high food standards in the UK, which I endorse. The comments of Henry Dimbleby, quoted by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, were also interesting and relevant.
The new trade commission, which we will discuss later, is a victory for the farming unions who fought for it, as they felt that their interests were being ignored. It has wider value as an excellent sounding board for Liz Truss, the Secretary of State for International Trade, and her teams on a swathe of current trade negotiations. The widely welcomed Japan agreement is the first green shoot and, to pick up the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has not bent the rules.
In closing, I shall revert to my question about what a Minister might do. I would try to address the substantive issues, without coming down in favour of one approach. I would build on what has already been done, by, for example, agreeing to extend the life of the Trade and Agriculture Commission for a few months and by planning some wider consultation to bring in the voice of those who might feel excluded from the commission once it has published first its interim and then its final reports. Among other things, I would do more to reassure, by repeating the promise the Government have made that they are not planning to change food regulations to let in chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef. Such undertakings could not be reversed in the other place, and I rather agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes that we do not always need to make amendments to have concerns addressed. I also agree with her that science and innovation matter a great deal.
The UK benefits greatly from the international order and enduring economic ties, especially free trade. This is the future and we must tread with care. Before there is a vote on any of these important amendments, the Minister may want to comment on whether they could fall foul of WTO rules.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Trenchard and agree with what he, and my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, have said. However, listening to this debate, I have occasionally felt the House has been transported back to the debates on the corn laws in the early 19th century. Then, as now, landowners, supported by their friends—romantic believers in an unchanging rural England—argued that we should prevent the import of cheap food, protect the labouring classes from their predilection for it and require them to eat more expensive food and that if we did not, it would mean our farming industry would be destroyed, our fields would remain untilled and our agricultural capacity would be permanently diminished. We know, of course, that the protectionists lost and the free traders won. Most people look back and think that was one of the great victories for progressive legislation in this country which raised the well-being of the labouring classes, although it may have diminished rents of landowners for a time. I hope we will bear that in mind as we consider these amendments.
It is generally accepted that WTO rules permit us to ban foods based on their risks to human health. So it should, as long as those rules are scientifically based. It is also generally accepted that WTO rules do not, unless in rare and exceptional circumstances, permit bans on imports based on the production processes used if they do not have an impact on human health. That is why the EU ban on US poultry washed in peracetic acid or very dilute solution of chlorine is based on the supposed risk to human health, not on the welfare of chickens. We all know the scientific basis for the allegation of risk to human life is tenuous, otherwise the population of North America would not be so large. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and others, want a standard based on the welfare of poultry, not on the welfare of humans. However, to do so would be contrary to WTO rules. Paradoxically, they are asking us to set aside an international treaty, albeit for specific and limited purposes. There are reasons the WTO has these rules. First, when countries prohibit the import of goods, particularly food, based on the alleged inferiority of standards in other countries, it is usually done for protectionist reasons and not for the reasons they give. Secondly, it is extremely difficult to enforce rules about standards applied in another country, unless you adopt quasi-colonial controls reaching out into those countries from more developed countries, which many countries in the world do not want to see themselves subjected to. The WTO recommends where possible we adopt international standards, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, such as Codex Alimentarius and so on, as long as they are based on sound science.
I hope that the House will think twice before going back more than a century to introduce protectionism, flout international law and do something where the sole purpose is to raise the cost of food.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I should begin by declaring the interests I declared earlier during the passage of the Bill. I shall speak to Amendments 89ZA and 93 and to the gist of the arguments behind others. It is important that UK agriculture and the UK public should be confident about the marketplace for food in this country.
UK farming—using those words in a wide sense—is operating in a global marketplace and needs to be sure that it will be playing on a level playing field not only because of the food implications of its activities, but because of the implications the revenues from food production will have on the delivery of all other public goods, using that word in a general sense, that we have been discussing during the currency of the Bill. That differentiates the debates that we are having from the arguments that pertained at the time of the repeal of the corn laws. I am afraid that as an individual I think that it is invariably the case that reassurances from any Government today are no guarantor of government actions tomorrow. Under our constitutional system, the best guarantor of such things is a specific provision in an Act of Parliament.
From the food perspective, for the entire population the problem is summarised as what has come to be known as the chlorinated chicken issue. It seems to me that chlorinated chicken, which may or may not be disagreeable, is not the issue. The problem is that the place where that chicken originates is so rife with damaging disease and practices that it is necessary to apply those techniques to it. That being the case, it is surely better not to have food from those sorts of places in the first instance. Finally, environment, welfare and other land use factors are important for the globe as well as for the United Kingdom. Encouraging and promoting bad practices elsewhere is something we should be ashamed of doing and we should not do it.
Lord Burnett (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who brings ministerial and practical experience as a farmer to this debate. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I shall speak to Amendment 89ZA and Amendment 93, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Krebs, my noble friend Lady Bakewell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
I spoke on food standards and other matters in my contributions at Second Reading and in Committee. I remind the House that I farmed on my own account for more than 20 years and had the honour of representing the rural constituency of Torridge and West Devon from 1997 until I retired from the other place in 2005. I still live in the constituency. In 2001, the constituency was probably the most adversely affected in the country by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Since 1976, and particularly since 2001, I have observed first-hand the agricultural industry making substantial investments in time and money in improving animal welfare, protecting and enhancing our environment and complying with rightly stringent provisions relating to food safety and hygiene, traceability and plant health. British agriculture is justifiably proud of the high standards it has attained in responding to all these challenges and of its ability to provide to good and safe food for the British people. I am aware that some Ministers have declared that the Government will not enter into agreements with countries that dilute these high standards. At Second Reading I stressed that Ministers come, and Minsters go. I gave other compelling reasons why the British public and the agricultural industry should have assurance of statutory protection in relation to high standards for all the matters covered in Amendment 93.
This was all before the Government took the momentous and deplorable decision to provide, or endeavour to provide, powers to renege on the international treaty with the EU, which they had negotiated and agreed less than one year ago. This has shocked most of us in our House and also the British public. In the past, this country has rightly been respected for our commitment to the rule of law and our compliance with international law.
This proposed legislation—which enables this country to resile from its treaty commitments—is outrageous and undermines the good faith of this Government, whose cavalier approach to the rule of law is the most compelling reason why this new amendment on food standards should be enacted. The British people and the agricultural industry must all have all the protections we can provide. Thank you.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 89ZA, 93 and 103, and I simply ask the Government to honour their election manifesto commitment that
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
Amendment 93 would ensure, on a statutory basis, that import standards cannot be lowered to below equivalent domestic standards as part of free trade agreements. Such agreements cannot be a race to the bottom; environmental, animal welfare and food standards need to be protected and improved over time. Imported products produced to lower standards than required from UK farmers would undermine our farming industry and create unfair competition. Import standards have not been addressed in the Trade Bill, so they need to be addressed here. I do not accept the belief of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the Government can be trusted to stand by their word; we need statutory assurance.
For example, a few weeks ago, I was one of a number of Peers briefed by the Trade Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who said that such standards issues would be best dealt with by differential tariffing against substandard imports. I remain unconvinced that tariffs alone would effectively prevent the import of substandard products. However, I am very interested in Amendment 103 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which would ensure that tariffing, combined with other measures, also worked in the interests of maintaining standards. It would be a useful, but not sufficient, condition.
Others have talked about labelling, but, with regard to standards, this will not work. If you are poor and hungry, cheaper food will be attractive irrespective of standards. To enshrine the Conservative manifesto commitment in primary legislation is, in my belief, entirely in line with World Trade Organization rules, which allow countries to put in place non-discriminatory measures designed to protect human, plant or animal health or a limited natural resource. The Government need to use fine UK ingenuity and leadership to design and justify sensible import restrictions, which could be made compatible with WTO rules; that is what Governments and trade negotiations are for.
We know that the US negotiating mandate for a free trade deal sees harmonising standards as a central objective, and this means harmonising them to their standards. We know that statutory instruments introduced using European Union (Withdrawal) Act powers have already deleted from the statute book considerable amendments governing, for example, antibiotic levels in foodstuffs. That is just one example of what can happen if we do not keep our eye on government commitments.
Once the transition is over, the Food Standards Agency adjudicates on the risks of foods and treatments, but its chief executive officer has recently said that Ministers have the final say on whether food produced to lower standards can make it onto UK supermarket shelves. I think that UK supermarkets will have a view on that. Maintaining high standards is supported by farmers, by 75% of the public and by major retailers across the board, and they are responding to the concerns of their customers. They will not stock produce that they believe their customers do not want to see on their shelves.
I know that the Government will want to maintain wiggle room in the trade negotiations, but, to be frank, the more they wiggle, the more they will reap the wrath of the people they are here to serve, who are committed to high food, environmental, employment and human health standards.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, within this grouping, I support my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s helpful amendments. First, on United Kingdom and EU standards, he corrects a misapprehension or, maybe, he forestalls it before it has time within the Bill to solidify as a regular misunderstanding. For, as he points out, there is no difference between domestic standards and European Union ones. They are identical.
Secondly, what is also insufficiently known—and as my noble friend also usefully observes—in certain respects, the UK and EU are not compliant with World Trade Organization rules. I am in favour of Amendment 103 of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which urges that United Kingdom global tariff rates should take into account the well-being of the agricultural sector and that imported goods must be equivalent to, or exceed, domestic standards.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will make a brief contribution. In fact, I was going to opt out altogether because I did not want to repeat anything that anyone else had said. Certainly, I support the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked at the beginning of the debate and, frankly, I expect the Minister to answer all six of them. They were quite specific.
It is worth pointing out that, unlike Ministers, the Food Standards Agency is actually required to do things by law. I will read out Section 1(2) of the Food Standards Act 1999:
“The main objective of the Agency in carrying out its functions is to protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food (including risks caused by the way in which it is produced or supplied) and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food.”
By law, Ministers do not have that obligation. They think they can hump it away in the Commons, but I have news for them: if they want to take on the role of Food Safety Minister, they ought to have a bit of a history lesson about salmonella, orange juice, BSE and CJD. Then they will realise why the FSA was put there in the first place. It was not a happy experience for previous Ministers without its support.
I will make one further point relating to what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has said about chlorinated chicken. I do not think I have got her wrong, but I do not want to mislead. She said that she could eat it safely because the issue was about animal welfare, not the safety of the food, and she is right. However, published research from the University of Southampton has shown that chlorine washing of food does not take away all the nasty bits. They started off, I think, by washing vegetables, but they have since looked at meat—I am not sure whether this was chicken or other meat. However, the fact is that this is not a solution to the problem.
The other thing that is also worth point out is that, in the United States of America, over 400 people a year die from salmonella. In this country, no one has died—I think there was one case in the last eight years—compared to 400-plus in the United States. I am not saying that it is because they ate chlorinated chicken, but I am saying that it is pretty unsafe in respect of deaths from salmonella in the United States, which seeks to push its food onto us without necessarily labelling it. Therefore, there are some issues here that must be carefully looked at.
As for the Minister, I have not been in my office or at my desk for well over 12 months, but I have a little file up there with at least a dozen quotes from the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, who is a reputable Minister, on food standards over the last three or four years. He has more of a claim than any other Minister to reassure the public and Parliament.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, at this late stage and given all the powerful speeches we have heard, I shall be very brief in my remarks, which are aimed at supporting Amendments 89ZA and 93. I also express my support for the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Grantchester in his opening contribution.
There have been many excellent speeches, but I was particularly struck by my noble friend Lady Henig’s telling analysis of the problems that we are in danger of creating in the UK’s internal market and the consequent political tensions between different parts of the UK if we do not stand firm on our commitment to high food and environmental standards. This danger of disunity has already begun with the Prime Minister’s dramatic U-turn, which resulted in a trade border being established in the Irish Sea.
In addition to listening to us—I know the Minister is doing so but I hope the Government will too—I hope that the Government will respond favourably to the impressive and wide-ranging coalition of farmers, environmentalists, consumer groups and those who have signed petitions, emailed and written to us as parliamentarians on this issue.
Amendments 89ZA and 93 are an effective improvement to the amendment which, sadly, failed in the House of Commons. They are not identical to the earlier amendment and I hope that, as a result, the Government will accept them and translate their stated commitments into proper guarantees in the Bill.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said that we need this provision in the Bill. She is absolutely right. The reason why the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Grantchester and others is so important is that we have put considerable effort and commitment into build up the standards of food, animal welfare and husbandry and, as we were debating earlier, pesticides. It would be quite wrong, inadvertently or deliberately—and we cannot discount deliberately, given the way things are—to allow the commitment with which we have made all these improvements to be rapidly undermined. We need these amendments very seriously.
As a former Defence Minister—albeit long ago—I often remarked that we like to use the phrase, “The primary responsibility of government and Parliament is the safety of the British people”. Here, we are talking about a very real dimension of the safety of the British people, not to mention animal welfare; it is as strong and important as that. I therefore hope that there will be widespread support in the House for these vital amendments.
We get lots of interesting and well researched briefs from all sorts of people who are concerned about the Bill. The strength of feeling about our responsibility at this juncture to put our commitment firmly in place and reinforce it has never been more convincing. I am very glad, therefore, to be able to support the amendments.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I speak in support of these amendments, in particular, the requirement to meet environmental and other standards which are at least equivalent to, or exceed, those which apply to UK-produced agricultural goods.
Noble Lords may recall that I spoke in Committee in support of protecting and enhancing our countryside and of concerns about the pollution being suffered in the catchments of chalk streams such as the Rivers Alre, Itchen and Test, all in Hampshire. In particular, I referenced the activities of the agricultural processing and distribution group Bakkavor in its industrial plant close by the River Alre in Alresford. The abstraction and discharge of water from the Alre has been linked to the rise in pollutants exceeding the levels permitted by the Environment Agency.
I can now advise your Lordships that Bakkavor has since announced its decision to close Alresford Salads in October. The resultant job losses at a difficult time are, of course, a worry, but clearly, Bakkavor and similar businesses can operate their food processing plants from proper industrial sites anywhere, near or far. They do not have to pick sites that threaten the ecology and environment of unique chalk streams with their pollutants, or damage the infrastructure of historic towns with their 40-tonne lorries trundling through medieval streets. As the chairman of the Alresford Society has pointed out in a letter to the Hampshire Chronicle of 3 September:
“The focus now needs to be on what might happen to the Alresford site in the future. The market for ready to eat food, including washed and bagged salad, is large and growing”.
Could the current large water extraction licence held by Bakkavor be transferred to another operator? Could the discharge consent licence be renegotiated in the face of damning scientific evidence? If diversion into a mains sewage system was considered feasible and affordable, the town would still continue to suffer the daily stream of 40-tonne lorries through streets that were built to cater for stagecoaches.
I believe there is an opportunity within this Bill to avoid this. Alresford is just one example. It is on the boundary of the South Downs National Park. The local plan states:
“It will only permit development …. which has an operational need for a countryside location … or proposals for the re-use of existing rural buildings, which should not cause harm to the character and landscape of the area, or neighbouring uses, or create inappropriate noise, or light, or traffic generation.”
Nevertheless, the Minister will be aware that in 2018, the Government announced changes to the town and country planning order 2015, allowing adaptation of agricultural buildings, which could undermine restrictions set out in local plans. Could the Minister assure me that, in such sensitive rural areas, local planning restrictions will remain paramount?
This Bill can provide the means to protect towns like Alresford and surrounding villages, within the chalk stream catchment, from environmental vandalism for generations to come, if only by employing and reinforcing the regulations that are now in place. Unchecked industrial development should never take precedence over the preservation of our rural environment, particularly the unique chalk stream catchments of rural Hampshire. To that effect, I am very pleased to place on record that, following its inaugural meeting, I have become a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Chalk Streams. Its intent, inter alia, is to monitor and hold to account, those agencies whose actions could damage chalk stream ecology and environment.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on moving Amendments 89ZA and 93 and on his excellent introduction. These amendments would ensure that agricultural products could be imported into the country only if they met our high domestic standards for food safety, hygiene and traceability and the protection of the environment and plant health. They are not only important in terms of maintaining and improving environmental public health and food standards and addressing the wider ecological crisis, but they will also protect our farmers and environmental standards, which are vital for all our futures on this planet.
I have listened carefully to the many excellent contributions to this debate and have been convinced more than ever by the arguments in favour of Amendments 89ZA, 93 and 103. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and have sympathy with her Amendment 90. We must ensure that we have fair competition and a level playing field for our farmers. If we allow lower-quality imported foods to undercut our higher-standard national farming methods, we jeopardise not only UK health standards but national food security. We must not undermine our own interests or those of our farmers. The well-being of the UK agriculture sector and small farms is vital for our national self-sufficiency in food. Especially as an island nation, we need a thriving domestic agricultural sector, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, made these points powerfully. We are talking about food, not widgets or cheap clothing imports or grains of corn. This is not the same as the Corn Laws debate. Importing cheap corn is a far cry from importing lower-standard meat or processed foods or risking the protection of the planet.
Following last year’s Trade Bill discussions, I regret that the Government no longer intend to align our standards—or seemingly no longer intend to do so—with existing levels across the EU. This would obviously have been safer both for the problem of the Northern Ireland border and for public health. My noble friend assured us in Committee that existing laws will protect our standards and that these amendments were not necessary. I do not doubt the intent and integrity of my noble friend, who is one of our most dedicated and knowledgeable Ministers, but I share the concerns expressed by so many noble Lords and am finding it pretty impossible to support the Government’s position. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to some of the questions from others—the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Rooker, in particular —including on whether our definition of food standards includes food production and whether Defra still rules out importing lower-standard foods, because it sounds from this debate as if that might not be the case.
Moreover, will my noble friend please explain how aligning with WTO food standards, rather than the higher standards that we have today, would impact the Northern Ireland protocol and the border flows for farmers on the island of Ireland, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Empey? Without reassurances on these questions, I wonder if the Minister, if he is unable to accept these amendments, could undertake to come back at Third Reading with the department’s own wording for a commitment to this effect on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I have added my name to Amendments 89ZA and 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and I thank him, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for setting out so clearly the rationale behind these amendments.
Farmers, retailers, environmentalists and the general public are all concerned about the importation of food produced to lower standards than we currently enjoy, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has already indicated. The National Farmers’ Union’s standards petition has reached over 1 million signatories, and recent polling shows that more than 75% of the public think importing lower-standard food from the USA would be unacceptable. Major retailers have promised not to stock chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef in response to the safety and animal welfare concerns of both their customers and farmers.
The Conservative manifesto promised—and I am sorry that we keep banging on about this—not to compromise high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards in all their trade negotiations. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, rightly said that confidence in this document has waned. While the UK should not rest on its laurels, our current standards are some of the highest in the world and are higher than those of most of the UK’s prospective trading partners. These standards relate to animal welfare, pesticide usage, chemical safety and food hygiene. I appreciate that this presents the Government with something of a dilemma when they are attempting to enter trade negotiations with countries outside of the EU, but a manifesto promise is still a promise.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, referred to sovereignty and taking back control. Safeguards have been promised in the Trade Bill, but so far they have been conspicuous by their absence. The Agriculture Bill is the correct place for these safeguards to be contained. Neil Parish, from the other place, has said:
“We are being led down the garden path”.—[Official Report, Commons,13/5/20; col. 300.]
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has already referred to this. Mr Parish has a long and proud history of representing rural and agricultural communities. He is right: now is the time to stand up and be counted.
Once the transition period has ended, the Food Standards Agency will assess the risks posed by foods and treatments before they are permitted or banned. If a change in practice is approved, the relevant SI will be amended. However, the FSA chief executive recently clarified that Ministers have the final say over whether food of lower standards will make it on to the UK’s supermarket shelves. This is not what the public want. They want to be absolutely sure of the quality of the food being imported and do not want it left to the whim of a Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to this, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, indicated that the powers of the FSA were unclear. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has also referred to FSA advice.
Now, as never before, the public are aware that animals are responsible for spreading diseases to humans. Those animals needing to be given excessive doses of antibiotics are more likely to be living in squalid conditions in which super-resistant pathogens can spread to humans. Imported animal products should not need to be treated with antibiotics, as the animals should have been living in humane, clean conditions.
I listened to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I fear I could find no correlation between the Corn Laws, which I studied during my education, and the amendment we are debating.
My noble friend Lord Purvis eloquently listed the previous debate on the Trade Bill from 2019. Like others, I am at a loss to understand the Government’s change of heart and approach. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Burnett on so excellently setting out the arguments.
I share completely the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I know from recent and previous visits to our family in the USA that it has a very different attitude on animal welfare. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is right that salmonella is rife. The current American Administration have no regard for the WTO. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, accurately set out the difficulties of encouraging the USA to take our farming produce.
I listened carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, especially his comments on the precautionary principle. Rather than lowering UK standards to the level of the WTO, it is better for the UK to take a lead and assist in raising WTO standards, while maintaining our own high standards. It is not true that those who sign this amendment are trying to increase the price of beef and meat out of the reach of consumers. We are trying to create a better-balanced, healthy diet.
Lastly, I return to the words of the honourable Neil Parish. Now is the time to make this change. Eighteen speakers this afternoon have spoken in favour of these amendments, with only five against. I urge your Lordships to make this change and place this amendment in the Bill.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, we have certainly had a fulsome debate on this matter. Whether it was in favour of or against these amendments, the opinion of this House was very clear. As I said, the Government’s manifesto commitment—I am pleased to add further to the record of my remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—is that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise on our high standards of environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.
I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe. I would reply to the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Rooker, by saying that none of the 20 continuity trade agreements signed to date would undermine domestic standards. This demonstrates the Government’s commitment not to compromise on our high standards in trade agreements. I am fully aware that until all the trade agreements have been signed and settled, some of your Lordships simply will not believe that this is the case. I look forward to those noble Lords who are determined that this is not the case at least having the courtesy to say, “Actually, our fears have been allayed”. I set that as a challenge.
I confirm once again that the Government are well aware of the vital importance of maintaining—indeed, enhancing—the UK’s farming reputation, as it serves as an excellent platform to increase demand for UK produce and consequently enhance export opportunities for our agri-food businesses.
On my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s Amendment 90, the Government are dedicated to improving animal welfare standards. For instance, we have committed to a serious and rapid examination of the role of labelling in monitoring high standards and high welfare across the UK market; we will consult on that at the end of the transition period. The animal welfare labelling consultation’s objective is to seek stakeholder views on different possible policy outcomes for improving consumer transparency in relation to the animal welfare standards of produce for sale. This could apply to domestically produced products and those imported from third countries, as well as animal welfare standards on farms, in transport and at slaughter. The Government will consider what possible labelling reforms might be pursued in the light of responses to the consultation, which at this stage they do not want to pre-empt. Changes to how products are labelled will not mean changes to our existing standards for how products must be produced. I also say to my noble friend that marketing standards in England are already very high, as they are consumer and retailer led and often go over and above the current EU standards. We will not use Clause 35 to lower standards for products either produced in England or imported, only to make or amend domestic marketing standards.
On Amendments 89ZA, 93 and 105, as your Lordships know, the Government made an unequivocal commitment in our manifesto not to compromise on our high standards in our trade negotiations. Of course, I understand concerns in this area; they have been aired this afternoon. I have already said that noble Lords’ immediate concerns can be allayed by the example of the 20 continuity agreements. I wish to highlight the risks of duplication and complication in what the amendments present, compared with our existing protections. I will tell your Lordships of the robust processes, bodies and systems in place to protect our standards.
The EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 retains in law our standards on environmental protections, animal welfare, animal and plant health and food safety at the end of the transition period. This provides a firm basis for maintaining the same high level of protection for both domestic and imported products. Any changes to legislation would require these to be brought to Parliament and the usual parliamentary scrutiny processes to apply. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe referred to beef and poultry. Notably, this includes the EU law banning the import and production of hormone-treated beef, which has been transposed into domestic law and will continue to operate in the UK after the end of the transition period, applying in all parts of the UK.
I also reiterate that existing food safety provisions relating to pathogen reduction treatments permitted on poultry carcasses will continue to operate independently in UK law after the transition period. It remains the case in the UK that no substances other than potable water are approved to wash poultry carcasses.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked a number of questions. First, the Government’s manifesto commitment is clear and covers environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. This includes standards applied to the assessment of novel foods, which the FSA will continue to lead. Also, a range of physical and documentary checks will ensure that biosecurity is maintained, alongside protecting animals and plants in public health. Also, the border operating model—I am happy to send it to the noble Lord—has been published with much more detail.
Given not only their experience but the considerable work they undertook, the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Rooker, will know that the independent work of our food regulators—the Food Standards Agency, or FSA, and Food Standards Scotland, or FSS—and rigorous processes will continue to ensure that all food imports into the UK are safe and meet the relevant UK product rules and regulations. This will include imports under new free trade agreements. In addition, the FSA recently announced that its chief executive will develop a regular written assessment, which will provide the FSA’s view on the state of food standards and consumer interests. Regulated food products, such as food and feed additives, enzymes, flavourings or GM food and feed, undergo the FSA’s risk assessment process before being placed on the UK market. This process is rigorous, independent of government and based on robust scientific evidence.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that the process will bring a substantial weight of expertise to bear. The FSA has doubled the number of risk assessors since 2017. It can draw on the expertise of 100 scientific experts and support staff and has recruited 35 additional members to its advisory committees. It also takes wider consumer interests into account, such as the impact on the environment, animal welfare and food security, drawing on appropriate expertise and stakeholders to do so. Moreover, the expertise of other government departments such as Defra, the devolved Administrations and agencies such as the Animal and Plant Health Agency may be brought to bear in the risk analysis process and when considering risk management options.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am encouraged by all the support I have received, and many cogent points have been made. I know that several noble Lords, especially from the Cross Benches, have been unable to speak today, which has been very unfortunate at a very crucial stage of the Bill. Their contributions would have been very worth while.
I thank the Minister for his response. I know from previous meetings that this is a subject that he feels very passionate about, and he has done his best to present the line endorsed by the Secretary of State. I did my best to count, but I am not sure that I heard full cogent answers to the six tests asked by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in his remarks.
Remarkably, this is about the Government being unwilling to enact all of their own manifesto promises, due to their ideological obsession with realigning with a trade deal with the US—a deal which increasingly looks to be in peril, given the recent uproar over the internal markets Bill, which threatens to break international law, and the consequential interventions from members of the US Senate and Congress.
The Minister mentioned that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act carries into UK law the existing safeguards from being a member state. However, these provisions can be quickly and dramatically weakened through secondary legislation, which carries far less public and parliamentary scrutiny and amendment, and I would suggest that the noble Lord and his department are aware of this. If the Government think they can break international law, they will not worry about breaking electoral promises.
The most secure way to protect standards is to put them directly into the Bill. Without that, negotiations are left wide open to pressure for Ministers to agree that a trade deal is good for Britain on balance, while sacrificing what so many hold so dear: how we produce our food. UK standards will not be protected through higher tariffs, to price out lower-standard imports. This will merely invite tit-for-tat tariff wars, damaging UK exports. Stability for food producers and a supply chain are best achieved by certainty, by writing our standards into law.
The National Farmers’ Union has now come out and called for support for this amendment. When it comes to trade standards and taking legislative action to prevent the importing of inferior food products that undermine our own standards, there has been an unprecedented alliance between farmers, consumer groups, charities such as the RSPCA and the National Trust, supermarkets, the Green Alliance UK, and even a previous Conservative Secretary of State for Defra.
I have listened very carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and I do not agree that there is a contradiction between subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) in the amendment. After all, imports should also comply with WTO and SPS agreements. I maintain that our amendment does not fall foul of WTO regulations, and that it stands up.
I wish to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, when she says that the amendment is unnecessary as it is in the Government’s intention: what of other Governments? Her disagreement falls.
The EU directorates on behalf of member states already come to audit and do many of the actions that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, claims are not undertaken internationally—those of inspecting food and denying access to the EU market, which those that do not comply have to abide by. We must be assured this continues. I also thank my noble friend Lord Rooker, with his ministerial experience, for his explanations of the vital work of the Food Standards Agency.
This is a case of delivering on promises made to the British people and preserving the high standards that make British agriculture what it is: that is, among the best in the world. I call on all Members of your Lordships’ House to support the amendments, starting with Amendment 89ZA. I now wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 89A. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions for elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 35: Marketing standards
Amendment 89A
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for the administration of marketing standards of imported wine products, including the digitisation of the information required on Vi-1 forms. ( ) The Secretary of State must—(a) review the need for detailed import certification for wine and consult industry and enforcement bodies as part of this review;(b) should the review under paragraph (a) conclude that specific information about wine imports is needed, not re-introduce any requirement until the information can be exchanged electronically and securely;(c) consult with international partners including the World Wine Trade Group and the International Organisation of Vine and Wine to develop a technologically driven electronic system;(d) determine how any secure electronic system can be included in a wider secure supply chain information system as part of the Government's plans for the 2025 Border Strategy.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for all regulatory information relating to imported wine products to be permitted in electronic form.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this group of amendments. I will speak mainly to my Amendment 89A, but I also give a positive nod towards the other two amendments in this group, not least the one in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, which is clear in its intent and its need. I thank all the organisations and individuals who have helped me with this amendment in Committee and on Report, particularly the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, the WSTA.
What would Amendment 89A do? Effectively, it suggests to the Government that, come 1 January next year, it would not be a good idea to voluntarily introduce paper wine import forms. There is no obligation, regulation, nor even any international law that says we need to introduce this documentation. It is, by design, paper-based protectionism. That is not me maligning it; it is protectionist paper by design. The amendment suggests that a more fruitful route for the Government would be to pause and not introduce this paper-based documentation for the importation of wine. Although the amendment is specific to wine importation, in principle it could apply to the import-export business of a range of other sectors of our economy.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Holmes. He has made an eloquent case against the bureaucracy of new paper-based controls on wine. This is very timely, because Covid makes digital much more appropriate in many areas, and I look forward to hearing what can be done.
I rise to move Amendment 91 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Lindsay—who, unfortunately, cannot be here today—and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. As we are talking about marketing standards, I again declare an interest as the chair of Red Tractor. This is much the biggest of a number of important agriculture assurance schemes; ours covers £14 billion-worth of food and drink, and benefits from regular inspections by ACAS-accredited bodies to enhance food safety, traceability, animal welfare and environmental protection. As I said in Committee, we carry out regular inspections for the FSA—which has been much mentioned today—and the Environment Agency and help to promote export success based on certified standards. We support government endeavour and try to be the flagship of British food and farming at a very difficult time.
Amendment 91 is important because it strikes at the heart of the debate about the use or abuse of powers repatriated from Brussels and Luxembourg now that we have left the EU. We have seen a taster of what can go wrong in the overuse of such delegated powers in domestic legislation in the Public Health Act 1984, which we will be debating prior to the renewal of Covid restrictions next Monday, ahead of the Commons vote on Wednesday.
I should start, however, by congratulating my noble friend the Minister. This is an extremely difficult Bill to steer through our House. Agriculture, food and the environment are issues that excite us all disproportionately. I have therefore appreciated his readiness to listen and to try to get impact assessments back on the right path—which was the subject of an earlier amendment. I know that he also believes in consultation with the farming industry and other stakeholders in developing ELMS and, no doubt, in setting marketing standards, which are the subject of this clause.
My noble friend helpfully confirmed in Committee that there will be consultation on regulations made under this section—although, rather curiously, this is because marketing standards are covered by EU food law, which is being carried over into UK law. The duty to consult is contained in Article 9 of Regulation 178/2002, as the Minister told the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, in Committee. However, the provision is rather too limited for my taste. It says:
“There shall be open and transparent public consultation”—
which is good—
“directly or through representative bodies, during the preparation, evaluation and revision of food law, except where the urgency of the matter does not allow it.”
The bad news here is that consultation with the public can be direct, which is fine, or through representative bodies, which is not, as they have their own interests and axes to grind. Worse is the very wide exemption
“where the urgency of the matter does not allow it.”
This is exactly the sort of provision used in the Covid crisis, in some cases—such as on mask wearing—needlessly, as the debate about that went on for weeks and would have accommodated as well as benefited from public consultation.
In order to withdraw our amendment, my first request is for an assurance that there will be a bias in favour of consultation—open consultation, including engagement with parliamentarians, not just representative bodies, who can take too narrow a view. During foot and mouth, which was not even fatal, I remember that the NFU—which has actually done a lot today—and the food chain of which I was then part dominated consultation. However, they failed to help the Government to spot the disastrous impact on the tourist industry of closing down the countryside.
Our amendment is narrow. That is my fault, but, since I have given notice of this, perhaps the Minister could also comment on the availability and progress of consultation and/or the applicability of Article 9 to Clauses 36 to 39 and Clauses 40 to 42, which I think might fall outside food law.
The second area where I would like an assurance is, I acknowledge, more difficult. The regulation the Government are relying on—as the House of Lords Library has kindly explained to me—is contained in retained direct principal EU legislation. Such a measure can theoretically be amended not only by an Act of Parliament or by a devolved legislature, but by certain delegated powers. So in principle the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018—or, I suspect, the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020—can be used to modify the provisions of the regulation on which we are relying for consultation. The former has already been used on minor BSE, plant-protection and horse-testing regulations. I should add that all of this has emerged since my very helpful meeting with the two Ministers. Will there be public consultation if these two Acts are used to amend the powers deriving from Regulation 178/2002, on which so much weight is being put? If not, the Government should come forward with a short reassuring clause on consultation, as I have been arguing throughout the Bill.
We must ensure that the Executive are not given powers that are too sweeping, or we will get into an unholy mess. To save the agriculture and food area from this fate, I make a plea to the Minister for the reassurance I have asked for and, if need be, for the Government to rethink on consultation and to follow through soon on the very welcome promise last week on impact assessments.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief. I will speak to Amendment 91. My interests are as listed in the register. In addition, I repeat what I stated when speaking to Amendment 18: I chaired the Better Regulation Executive from 2010 to 2015. It is pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, with her in-depth knowledge and experience of the subject matter, and I am delighted to add my name to this amendment. Like the noble Baroness, I appreciated the commitment from the Minister that impact assessments will be undertaken as the Bill progresses.
I fully endorse the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, in particular the risks we face through time pressures to get legislation through Parliament before the end of this year. We have a very crowded programme. There is a sense of significant pressure on Defra in having not only the Agriculture Bill but the Fisheries Bill and the Environment Bill to progress through the legislative process, against the huge diversion and all-consuming concern of the Covid crisis. It would be a huge mistake if, against this pressure, Defra were to short -circuit the consultation process just to get things done. I appreciate the difficulty that the Minister is under on this issue. However, the consultation process is in place for a purpose and it is essential that we adopt best practice. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 92A, which is in my name and enjoys the welcome support of my noble friend Lord Tyler and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.
I am sure that there is common ground across the House that geographical indication schemes, GIs, bring marketing benefits to a considerable number of products. This amendment is very similar to the one that I supported in Committee, tabled by my noble friend Lord Tyler. Although the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, gave some helpful responses on 23 July, I still seek important clarifications.
Protected geographical indication schemes provide rules designed to protect the geographical names of food, drink and agricultural products. As I noted in Committee, the National Farmers Union of Scotland describes the Scottish ones, not least the Scotch beef PGI and Scotch lamb PGI, as being of strategic importance to Scottish agriculture’s output. In speaking to his amendment, my noble friend Lord Tyler referred to the importance of protected GI schemes for Cornish pasties, clotted cream, Melton Mowbray pies and Stilton cheese. I am sure I do not need to remind your Lordships again of their importance to Scotch whisky.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am pleased to be here in person to speak in this debate. I hope that today’s announcement in relation to the pandemic does not reduce the number of Members who decide to come here in person. Due to a technical error, I had to ask my Question this afternoon virtually from across the road. The Opposition Leader said that I sounded a bit fuzzy. I do not like to sound fuzzy; I like to be as clear as possible, and I want to speak clearly in support of Amendment 92A, to which I have added my name, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly said. It would protect the UK’s speciality food and drink products currently covered very effectively under the European Union’s geographical indication scheme.
As Members know, I take every opportunity to speak up for Scotland and, in this case, its treasured food and drink products. They are really important to our economy, our community and our cultural heritage. The EU uses these geographical indications to protect and promote speciality food and drink products across the UK, including Scotland. Scotland’s prizewinning products include, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said, most famously our whisky and salmon, but also the celebrated Ayrshire early potatoes and traditional Ayrshire Dunlop cheese; coming from my old constituency, I have a particular interest in that.
Under the current scheme, the quality of local ingredients, the method by which they are produced and the traditions adopted in certain geographical areas associated with these products are heavily promoted. That has helped the products to achieve competitive advantage and a very strong positive brand identity both domestically and globally.
The UK Government have said that they will put a UK GI scheme in place after we leave the EU but, as always with this current Government, there are still a number of questions and uncertainties over how the scheme will look and whether it will be able to guarantee protections for Scottish and UK producers alike. Indeed, it is not beyond this Government, while negotiating a deal with other countries, to forget about this issue. The EU protected GIs and firmly believed in them; it was strongly supportive of them. However, I understand that the United States is less in favour of such schemes and their protection, which means there is a substantial danger that the Government might be persuaded—or indeed forced—to water down GIs to negotiate a trade deal with the US.
Food and drink producers across the UK face huge challenges anyway because of the pandemic. Their difficulties are enormous, so they require greater certainty. I ask the Minister, and here I reinforce the question put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace: how will the Government ensure that? I hope the Minister, for whom we have the greatest respect, will give us an indication of how the Government will ensure that these products will remain properly protected when we take over the responsibility on 1 January 2021.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. He is not responding so we will move to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who, as ever, spoke so entertainingly.
I shall speak to Amendment 92A, and I echo many of the sentiments expressed by its authors. This is a very vexed area. I recall only too well that when I was MP for what was then the Vale of York, Shepherds Purse Cheeses produced feta cheese that was clearly produced not in “feta land”—Greece—but in North Yorkshire. I think the case went as far as the European Court of Justice, and the upshot was that the company had no protection and had to abide by the EU rules. Imaginatively, the company changed the name of the cheese to Yorkshire fettle, which is a best seller and has won a number of awards. I am delighted that it continues to have success.
The serious point here is that, according to figures from the Food and Drink Federation, the three greatest exports from the UK are Scotch whisky, then Scottish salmon and, lower down the list, chocolates. So this is immensely important to Scotland, but also to North Yorkshire and the whole Yorkshire region. I pay tribute to the marketing facility that was originally Yorkshire Pantry but has been renamed Deliciously Yorkshire. Because of the food cluster in and around North Yorkshire—in fact, in the whole Yorkshire region—the protected geographical indication scheme is extremely important to them. I hope my noble friend will pull something out of the hat to make sure that if we are to have a UK geographical indication scheme, it will be recognised across the EU and the EEA at the very least.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, whose expertise in oenology is certainly far more tasteful than mine. I am devoted to the excellent products of the Camel Valley Vineyard in my erstwhile constituency, although when it comes to imports, my family are more broadminded. He has raised an extremely important point that does not just apply to these particular products and operators. What he described as “paper-based protectionism” has huge implications for a great many exporters and importers, and his point was very well made. I thought that at the end of the Committee debate on 23 July, the Minister had given him an undertaking that he would look at the issue of the VI-1 forms, and I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has not received a satisfactory solution to the problems he has identified.
I also find absolutely formidable the logic of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. The regulations will be of huge practical significance to many British companies operating in this field, so an extensive and effective consultation is surely essential. I recall from my time on the DPRR Committee how often we were faced by the Government saying that something was urgent and expediency would be used as a short cut to prevent effective scrutiny. In this case, it could be used to prevent effective consultation. Again, the noble Baroness made an extremely important point that goes far beyond the powers being taken in this Bill.
However, my primary concern is to speak in support of proposed new clause proposed in Amendment 92A in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness. This is the fourth time that I have supported attempts to obtain a clear, unequivocal and totally realistic ministerial statement from the Government on the future protection of the 88 UK specialist food and drink products which are currently covered by the excellent EU Geographical Indications Scheme. This new clause seeks to secure equal protection for the traditional speciality food and drink products for which the UK is famous and which bring such economic benefits to particular areas.
Members in every part of the House have previously expressed admiration for the scheme, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, did just now, especially since it was extended as the result of an initiative by British Ministers during the coalition Government. A succession of Ministers has kept assuring us that the protection of these products can continue within the UK, but as my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness has emphasised, that is the not the principal issue in question at the moment.
During the Committee stage of the Trade Bill on 23 January last year, I asked the then Minister for trade for an explicit assurance that GI protection would continue on exactly the same terms—that is, outside the UK. I was told that an amendment was unnecessary because it would be secured. But in view of the vagueness of that promise, on 6 March 2019 I tabled an amendment to that Bill on Report and withdrew it only when a slightly firmer assurance was given. However, as my noble and learned friend has reminded your Lordships, during the Committee stage of this Bill and again today, there has been a series of apparently well-informed newspaper reports indicating an admission that the current failing negotiations are putting that future protection at risk. It appears that there is no guarantee that, in the words of our new clause, all of these products
“currently protected under the EU Geographical Indications Scheme are covered by exact equivalent international protection after 31 December 2020.”
Given the No. 10 briefing that a no-deal outcome is both likely and perfectly acceptable, and given, too, the current question marks that hover over the whole withdrawal agreement signed by the Prime Minister on 19 October 2019, what confidence can we have in Article 54.2, which purports to give some legitimacy to the continued cover for GI products? I am, of course, especially exercised by the threat to genuine Cornish pasties, clotted cream and sparkling wine, but my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, are rightly exercised by the effect on world-famous Scottish products. To add insult to injury, we are told that a Trump trade deal, which may now be elusive as a result of the threat to the Northern Ireland protocol, would require abandoning origin labelling, as referred to in a previous debate. From the point of view of consumers, that will make matters worse. This echoes the previous debate on standards that meet UK public expectations. We want to take back control.
At the conclusion of the debate in Committee on 23 July, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, could only assure us that
“the Government are determined to work in support of all the 88 geographical indications from the UK, which will remain protected after the end of the transition period”.—[Official Report, 23/7/20; col. 2465.]
What does the determination amount to if, as seems so very likely now, the UK Brexit negotiators fail to get a deal in the precious few weeks now remaining? What if the EU, understandably bruised by the bad faith of the retreat from the withdrawal agreement, simply removes the relevant entries after we have taken our leave and have no further say in the matter? This was implied as being quite possible in the Government’s response to the GI consultation paper, to which my noble and learned friend referred. Where does this leave these British products, hitherto protected by the EU scheme, when it comes to current and future EU trade treaties with third countries?
In Committee, the Minister claimed he had been very clear. Sadly, and very unusually for him, there is no such clarity. Much as we would all prefer a firm assurance, it would be better to hear an honest assessment from the noble Baroness this evening that the Government cannot now be absolutely sure that long-term, precise and exact equivalence is guaranteed. Then, all concerned would know exactly where they stand.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords who have returned with these amendments from the debates in Committee on provisions in Part 5, Clauses 35 to 37, on marketing standards. Regulations around marketing, labelling, traceability, country of origin and GI schemes remain critical to providing accurate and appropriate information to the consumer.
The complexities behind the list of EU Commission delegated directives cover various product sectors, including wine, and are the subject of Amendment 89A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. These regulations under the withdrawal Act also include country of origin, protection of designations of origin and geographical indicators, and traditional terms are important to facilitate frictionless trade with the EU and enhance the future of UK exports, which have been established so successfully.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, return with their Amendment 92A on the importance of geographical indicator schemes not only for fantastic products for Cornwall but for many artisan food products, such as Lincolnshire Poacher cheese and Melton Mowbray pies. The House also discussed these schemes on the Trade Bill proceedings in the last Session, as spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. The adding of value to local specialisms is a crucial element in encouraging skill, pride and prestige in rural entrepreneurship. We agree that it is of considerable importance that a successful trade deal is concluded with the EU. It is also great that my noble friend Lord Foulkes is able to be with us in the Chamber; his words were gin-clear on the merits of Scottish produce.
These regulations will be subject to the affirmative approval procedure, which should not only contain an impact assessment but be subject to consultation. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, for highlighting the importance of a widespread and exhaustive consultation on their Amendment 91. Alteration of existing requirements should proceed only on the basis of proper and widespread consultation with producers, the supply chain and the consumer to ensure an appropriate balance.
I am sure that the Government appreciate the merit behind these amendments and that the Minister will provide additional reassurances to satisfy the House.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I will start with Amendment 89A. Marketing standards establish detailed rules on the quality of agricultural products and the provision of product information to consumers. They are intended to make sure that products offered to consumers are accurately and consistently labelled and of acceptable quality, and that unsatisfactory products are kept off the market. They are overall in the interests of producers, traders and consumers. They encourage high-quality production, improve profitability and transparency and protect consumer interests. At present, certain agricultural products marketed in the EU must conform to marketing standards and associated labelling requirements set out in EU law. The marketing standards apply at all marketing stages, including import and export.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked why we could not do nothing. We all despise unnecessary bureaucracy, but VI-1 forms are needed until the end of the transition period under the terms of the withdrawal agreement. We will be looking at these rules again at the end of the transition period. I reassure him on digitalisation: the administration of maintaining marketing standards of imported wine products, including the digitalisation of VI-1 forms, is included in the current scope of Clause 35(1). These provisions do not therefore need to be explicitly added into the clause. The scope to replace VI-1 forms with an electronic document is also covered under retained EU law, specifically Article 27 of retained EU delegated regulation 2018/273. Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is already covered. The Government cannot digitalise unilaterally, but it is already an option under retained EU law, and we are looking at introducing it. It is likely that South Africa will be the first partner we seek to do this with at the end of the transition period.
I turn to Amendment 91. Clause 35 will give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations and amend existing EU and domestic legislation concerning marketing standards to ensure that they are tailored to meet the needs of domestic farmers, retailers and consumers. A full review of the marketing standards is going to be undertaken. As part of this, detailed policy thinking, stakeholder engagement and consultations will need to take place. Any changes would be made with the purpose of tailoring the marketing standards to fit the needs of the domestic farming sector.
I can confirm unequivocally that any use of the powers in Clause 35 would be covered by an existing duty to consult. As for the question about the bias towards consultation, I say that the Government’s preference is to consult the public on these matters. We would never rely solely on the views of representative bodies, and we will not bias our consultations towards one group.
Marketing standards are covered by food law, and a duty to consult is contained in Article 9 of regulation 178/2002. This regulation states that
“There shall be open and transparent public consultation, directly or through representative bodies, during the preparation, evaluation and revision of food law, except where the urgency of the matter does not allow it.”
This regulation will become retained EU law via the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
One of the principles of good law making is not to repeat law which already exists, in order to protect the coherence of the statute book. We are aware that there is an exemption for urgent situations in Article 9 of Regulation 178/2002 and I place on record that there are no plans to make any urgent amendments using the Clause 35 power. Urgent changes would usually be made under food law instead. There are specific regulations which cover food information and safety and there is no future intention to broaden the powers in Clause 35 to cover any such areas.
It is standard procedure that a summary of the responses to a consultation be published on GOV.UK within 12 weeks of it closing. Further to this, any statutory instruments made using the power will also be accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum and a proportionate analysis or full regulatory impact assessment where the net direct cost to business is above £5 million. The Explanatory Memorandum will include details on the outcome of any consultations which have taken place. A more detailed analysis of the consultation outcome will also be published on the departmental website at the time the statutory instrument is laid before Parliament. The impact assessment will provide the rationale for government intervention, details of all the options considered and the expected cost and benefits, particularly for businesses. Clause 35 is subject to the affirmative procedure. Any statutory instruments which are introduced must be actively approved by both Houses of Parliament. This procedure ensures that Parliament can properly scrutinise the statutory instrument before it comes into force.
Turning to Amendment 92A, I assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that we fully expect all 88 geographical indications from the UK to remain protected in the EU after 31 December this year. I understand the point made by the noble and learned Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about the relevance of these to the Scottish economy, particularly whisky and smoked salmon. I am not sure I got the reference to potatoes. Geographical indications do not have to originate from EU member states to be protected under the EU’s geographical indications scheme. The EU currently protects products from many non-EU countries such as Japan and China.
If the EU wanted to remove UK geographical indications from its register, it would have to go through the burdensome process of changing its rules. Of course, the Government cannot guarantee what the EU will do, but it has given no indication whatever that it is considering such changes. It would be, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, “capricious” of the EU to try to do so.
If the UK does not secure a new trade agreement with the EU, we will, under the withdrawal agreement, continue to protect EU GIs in the UK. There would therefore be no incentive for the EU not to reciprocate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked me to be more specific on that point. I cannot, because we are in the process of negotiating these issues. The UK is definitely not seeking to loosen its GI rules. GIs are very important to the UK and the Government will establish robust GI schemes at the end of the transition period. All UK GIs will continue to be protected in the UK from 1 January 2021. The Government’s objective in trade negotiations with the EU will be to secure the best outcome for UK GIs and, obviously, the UK economy as a whole.
I hope that I have given enough reassurance, and that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate on these three amendments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, our own little Ayrshire parliamentary potato. I thank the Minister for her thorough and thoughtful response to all the amendments. I am sure that, like me, noble Lords are extremely grateful for the time and thought she put into the detail of her response. There are a number of issues that I would like to pursue between now and Third Reading but at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 92B. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 40: Power to make regulations for securing compliance with WTO Agreement on Agriculture: general
Amendment 92B
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders when making regulations as specified.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 92B, for which I have the welcome support of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering—it is nice to get the support of a Scots advocate for this amendment—I will speak briefly about a matter I raised in Committee relating to Clause 40. It concerns powers for the Secretary of State
“to make regulations for securing compliance with WTO Agreement on Agriculture”.
As presently drafted, there is no requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to consult any parties prior to making regulations under this clause. The purpose of this amendment is to impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders if making regulations under this clause.
As I have highlighted on other aspects of the Bill and previously, it is important to provide an additional layer of scrutiny of the Government’s actions by stakeholders who have a direct interest and a relevant responsibility. This is particularly pertinent, with respect, given the Government’s lack of formal consultation during the ongoing trade negotiations and their seemingly taking action behind closed doors. Incidentally, I wonder what has happened to the joint ministerial committees, which were set up to ensure consultation between the UK Government and the devolved Parliaments and Governments.
The requirement I am seeking, to consult on intended regulations under this clause, will help to ensure openness and transparency and also ensure that any draft regulations are exposed to critical comment from stakeholders. That might actually improve the instrument. Perhaps the Government do not fully appreciate that such scrutiny is not always critical; it can be helpful.
Looking more widely at the WTO provision in the Bill, I understand that the Scottish Government intend to recommend that the Scottish Parliament withhold consent to amended provisions. While I understand that Scottish government officials are content with the amendment to Clause 42, it is almost irrelevant, as the Scottish Parliament’s consent to the whole of Part 6 of the Bill is required. With no more amendments to that part of the Bill, consent is likely to be withheld. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether the Government will now consult the Scottish Government to try to ensure that this consent is not withheld. It would be much better to go forward with agreement than with conflict. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to support the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I point out for the benefit of the House that I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. There is concern in some quarters, not least the Law Society of Scotland —as alluded to by the noble Lord—that there may be insufficient consultation of all the parties in this regard. I welcome the opportunity for my noble friend the Minister, in summing up this short debate, to address the role of the devolved Assemblies and, in this case, the Scottish Parliament in negotiating future trade deals. We will discuss Amendment 97 and others in that group, but the Bill is silent on the role of the devolved Assemblies and the extent to which they will be consulted and involved in drafting and negotiating these trade agreements. It behoves the Government to set out their plans at this stage.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, it seems to me that this interesting amendment bridges very nicely the gap between the last group and the next, because there was some discussion in the last group about the importance of consultation—albeit in a different context—and the next group is about the role of the devolved assemblies and parliaments. This one sits rather squarely in between.
From the point of view of our Benches, there are a couple of points we wish to make. First of all, it is increasingly becoming the case that delegated legislation is rushed and is not always particularly well drafted. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and it is a weekly task to go through imperfectly drafted regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, it is much better to pick these things up earlier rather than later. Therefore, proper consultation and some almost pre-legislative scrutiny by the devolved assemblies could only be helpful.
We need to be clear about how serious it would be if the Government were using these powers. Many of the things we would all support and like about the WTO provisions do not cover agriculture at all, so with the possibility of high tariffs and the removal of quantitative restrictions, the impact on agriculture could be very serious indeed. Therefore, the involvement of the devolved parliaments and assemblies, both in preparing for it and hopefully mitigating some of this, would be important. I am definitely supportive of the principle behind this amendment and interested to hear what the Minister says.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Foulkes for tabling the amendment to probe the process envisaged by the Government when they use the powers under Clause 40, and, in particular, for his suggestion to consult with the Scottish Government and go forward with agreement. Of course, I add that consultation with Wales and Northern Ireland is also necessary.
As we have seen in relation to certain powers within the internal market Bill, the Government seem to exercise, let us say, a degree of discretion when it comes to their understanding of compliance with international law. While the amendment presents a perfectly sensible proposal, there is a serious worry that the Government’s approach to trade matters—and with it the future prosperity of the United Kingdom—is largely driven by ideology rather than evidence from stakeholders. Indeed, in the Commons yesterday, the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, said she would not back the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which contains the provision, and gave a strong warning that it would
“lead to untold damage to the United Kingdom’s reputation”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/9/20; col. 668.]
and threaten the union.
I therefore hope that the Minister can give some indicative examples of how the powers may be used, as well as providing an estimate of how frequently the Government expect to make such regulations. Ultimately, while it is not much of a safeguard and may not be a completely acceptable substitute for meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders, the regulations will at least be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the affirmative procedure.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, as we said in Committee:
“Part 6 of the Bill allows regulations to be made to ensure compliance with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture”,—[Official Report, 28/7/20; col. 130.]
particularly those related to domestic support. The regulations will set out procedures and arrangements to ensure that the whole of the UK continues to comply with existing obligations under this international treaty.
Amendment 92B seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders when making regulations under Clause 40. Relevant stakeholders in this instance are the devolved Administrations, since it is they who will be required to abide by spending limits and work together with the UK Government to classify and notify domestic support at the WTO.
We do not anticipate any direct impact on farmers because the devolved Administrations will retain the freedom to design and implement their own domestic support policies within the overall spending limits. As I outlined in Committee, consultation is already well advanced. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, Defra Ministries work very closely with their DA counterparts through a regular interim ministerial group on agriculture, which I believe is the same body that he referred to earlier. Government officials work closely with all their counterparts from all Administrations to draft the regulations under these powers. I can again report that good progress has been made and that the views of officials from the devolved Administrations have been taken into consideration throughout the whole of the drafting process. In terms of Scottish consent, we have received confirmation that the Scottish Parliament has recommended consent for provisions in the scope of the LCM procedure.
The Government fully recognise the devolved status of agriculture. Indeed, Clause 40(1) is drafted in such a way as to specify that regulations can be made only for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. It is this narrow function of ensuring overall UK compliance with an international treaty that remains reserved for the UK Government and that Part 6 addresses. The UK Government consult the devolved Administrations and all relevant stakeholders appropriately, but it is not efficient or constitutionally proper for the UK Government to be bound to consult on all matters that are reserved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked what functions are envisaged under these powers. In order to ensure that the UK remains in compliance with obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, it will be necessary to collect data on agricultural support schemes from the four nations of the UK in order to classify and report this information at the WTO. Additionally, spending limits will be placed on each country of the UK to ensure that the UK as a whole honours a commitment to limit spending on certain types of trade-distorting support.
Where reserved matters overlap or intercept with devolved areas of competence, the UK Government of course recognise that the devolved Administrations will have an interest. The Government therefore work with those Administrations, as we are currently doing, to accommodate their comments and concerns when we can, to the satisfaction of all those involved. I am pleased that Defra officials have particularly good relations with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations.
We already have a bilateral agreement in place with the Welsh Government on the making and operation of regulations under Part 6, and we have offered to extend this agreement to the Scottish Government and DAERA ministers in Northern Ireland. Additionally, my honourable friend the farming Minister, Victoria Prentis, placed on record in the other place a commitment to consult with the devolved Administrations on the making of regulations under these powers.
Lastly, I understood that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was concerned about how these regulations impacted directly on farmers. These powers allow for a framework of regulations to be made for ensuring UK-wide compliance with existing international obligations. Within this framework and within the boundaries of existing WTO agreements that seek to limit the use of trade-distorting financial support to agriculture, each Administration will still be able to design their own schemes to deliver their policies on supporting farmers and managing the farmed environment.
I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance and that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a very comprehensive and indeed helpful response. I just want to make two points. First, this is one of many debates that I have been involved in in which Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative Members have all raised issues in relation to the devolved Parliaments, the consultation and the roles and responsibilities. That issue comes up more in the House of Lords than anywhere, and it is not always appreciated in the devolved Administrations.
Secondly, I have sat through only a small number of the debates on the Agriculture Bill, but I would personally like to pay tribute to the Ministers and their staff and to the shadow Ministers and their staff for doing a huge amount of work on this very important issue. I hope that that is recognised not just in the parties and in the House of Lords but well beyond this place. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Grantchester
“Requirement for agricultural and food imports to meet domestic standards
(1) Chapters of an international trade agreement that contain provisions relating to the importation of agricultural and food products into the United Kingdom may not be ratified unless the conditions in subsections (2) to (5) have been met.(2) The condition in this subsection is that a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a statement confirming that—(a) the agreement contains an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, and(b) any agricultural or food product imported into the United Kingdom under the agreement will have been produced or processed according to standards which, on the date of their importation, are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to—(i) animal health and welfare,(ii) protection of the environment,(iii) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and(iv) plant health.(3) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State has by regulations specified—(a) the process by which the Secretary of State will determine—(i) that the standards to which any agricultural or food product imported into the United Kingdom under a trade agreement is produced or processed are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to animal health and welfare, protection of the environment, food safety, hygiene and traceability, and plant health, and(ii) that the enforcement of standards in relation to any product under subsection (3)(a)(i) is at least as effective as the enforcement of the equivalent domestic standards and regulations in the United Kingdom;(b) the “relevant domestic standards and regulations” for the purposes of subsections (2)(b) and (3)(a)(i).(4) The condition in this subsection is that the chapters have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.(5) The condition in this subsection is that a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the chapters has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and—(a) the House of Lords has debated the motion, or(b) the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the first Lords sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in subsection (4). (6) A Minister of the Crown may, where the Minister considers appropriate, make regulations amending any regulations made under subsection (3).(7) Regulations made under subsection (3) or (6) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.(8) In this section—“chapters” means any individual section or sections of an international trade agreement;“international trade agreement” means—(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii);“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;“ratified” has the same meaning as in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010;“World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement” means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time);“WTO Agreement” means the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.”
Viscount Trenchard
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the others in the name of Viscount Trenchard to Lord Grantchester's amendment, recognise that domestic standards are identical to EU standards and in certain respects are not compliant with WTO rules, correct the conflict between subsection (2)(a) and subsection (2)(b) as drafted, and ensure that international trade agreements will be compliant with WTO rules.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, in light of the assurances given by the Minister, I will not move my amendments.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 97. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 97
“Trade and Agriculture Commission
(1) The Trade and Agriculture Commission must establish criteria for maintaining standards as high as, or higher than, standards applied within the United Kingdom at the time of import for agricultural goods imported under a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and any other state.(2) “Agricultural goods” under subsection (1) includes, but is not limited to, standards relating to—(a) animal welfare,(b) protection of the environment,(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and(d) plant health.(3) Her Majesty’s Government may not make any international trade agreement that contains provisions relating to the importation of agricultural and food products into the United Kingdom unless the Trade and Agriculture Commission has expressed in writing to the Secretary of State that it is satisfied the criteria under subsection (1) have been met in relation to the draft of the agreement.(4) The Trade and Agriculture Commission may submit recommendations to the Secretary of State for how the draft agreement could be revised in order to meet the criteria established under subsection (1).(5) Where the Trade and Agriculture Commission submit recommendations to the Secretary of State under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must—(a) respond in writing within 14 calendar days, and(b) lay the recommendations and response before Parliament.(6) The Trade and Agriculture Commission may appoint staff and advisers.(7) The Trade and Agriculture Commission may authorise staff to do anything required or authorised to be done by the Commission.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to introduce this group of amendments and speak to Amendment 97. I thank the co-signatories for their support: the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Henig, and my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger.
I will speak briefly to other amendments in the group, but I would first like to set out how developments have taken place since we discussed an earlier version, Amendment 270, in Committee. The most significant development is that we now have a Trade and Agriculture Commission and it has met a couple of times.
The second development is the interim report, which has been published by Henry Dimbleby. Spoiler alert: I have carefully read Amendments 98 and 99 in the names of my noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lady Noakes, and want to dispense with them before I discuss Amendment 97 in depth. They are interesting: Amendment 98 is self-explanatory. However, along with Amendment 99, while they could be seen as fairly innocent or innocuous, they are not. In many cases they touch a raw nerve because this is a contested area of the World Trade Organization agreement. Amendment 99 refers to being
“consistent with the terms of the World Trade Organization Agreement”.
That poses problems for me. It would be far better if it read “considered to be consistent”. This is an issue on which the WTO rules are silent.
The Government clearly stated their commitment to animal welfare in their 2019 general election manifesto. Therefore, I would be surprised if the Minister supported that amendment. Amendments 97 and 101 are not deemed to be strict alternatives. They have been considered by the clerks in the Public Bill Office not to be inconsistent and not incompatible. It is almost a mirror image of Amendment 101, which I am sure those who have signed that amendment will speak to.
What I am calling for here is that we must establish criteria for maintaining standards as high or higher than those applying to imported agricultural goods. I then go on to set out what “agricultural goods” should cover, and obviously I have referred to
“animal welfare … protection of the environment … food safety, hygiene and traceability, and … plant health.”
That relates to Amendment 90 earlier.
The key paragraph in subsection (3) states that the
“Government may not make any international trade agreement that contains provisions relating to the importation of agricultural and food products into the United Kingdom unless the Trade and Agriculture Commission has expressed in writing to the Secretary of State that it is satisfied the criteria under subsection (1) have been met”.
The importance of this is that Parliament will have to decide a number of questions in the context of the Bill. Does Parliament want to have a Trade and Agriculture Commission which winds up its work at the end of December? If so, it would therefore not be permanent and its advice would not be binding, and it would not be a statutory authority, which is currently the case. Or does Parliament believe that there is a need for a permanent statutory body, operating independently of the Department for International Trade, with its own staff, offices and facilities, and whose advice would be binding on the Government, in the sense that they would have to give good reasons to Parliament as to why they did not follow the recommendations?
Subsection (4) of my amendment says that:
“The Trade and Agriculture Commission may submit recommendations to the Secretary of State for how the draft agreement could be revised in order to meet the criteria”
that I set out earlier. In subsection (5) it says that:
“Where the Trade and Agriculture Commission submit recommendations to the Secretary of State under subsection (4)”,
which I just referred to, the Secretary of State will have 14 calendar days to respond and then that response and the recommendations will be laid before Parliament. The key is that those recommendations and the report will be debated in the usual way—it will be for Parliament to decide whether it should be through the Select Committees in each House, most likely the new Select Committee on international treaties.
The reason I put in subsections (6) and (7) is that I would fervently like to see the Trade and Agriculture Commission be independent, have autonomy and operate apart from the Department for International Trade, so that the commission is independently staffed and its press releases are not written by the department, which currently appears to be the case. I have set out that:
“The Trade and Agriculture Commission may appoint staff and advisers … and … may authorise staff to do anything required or authorised to be done by the Commission.”
My understanding is that that is currently not the case.
I have drawn inspiration for this amendment from the Dimbleby report and his recommendations for government. I assume that as the Dimbleby report was requested by the Government, my noble friend the Minister and the Department for International Trade will draw on the report’s recommendations. On page 79, the report helpfully sets out that:
“The Government should give itself a statutory duty to commission an independent report on all proposed trade agreements, assessing their impact on: economic productivity; food safety and public health; the environment and climate change; society and labour; human rights; and animal welfare. This report would be presented alongside a Government response when any final trade treaty is laid before Parliament. Sufficient time must be guaranteed for the discussion of these documents in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and by the relevant select committees.”
It goes on to say that any impact assessment should adopt a “holistic” approach; that it should be “independent”; that the impact assessment should be “performed by experts” and that this function “would be permanent”; and that parliamentary scrutiny would be set out on a “statutory basis”. That is what I have endeavoured to do in Amendment 97—no more, no less.
I am further indebted to other recommendations made in the Dimbleby report. On page 77, it helpfully sets out how trade agreements are scrutinised across the world. We are obviously most familiar with EU trade agreements where,
“The International Trade Committee of the European Parliament reports on the proposed agreement”.
The agreement then has to have the approval of the majority of the members of the European Parliament, and then it passes to the Council of Ministers
“for their agreement by qualified majority (55% majority representing 65% of the EU population).”
I put it to the House that we would not want a situation in which any scrutiny in this place or the other place was less than that which we currently enjoy for negotiating trade agreements through the European Parliament, as has been the case for as long as we have been a part of it. I will not rehearse this in detail, but every other major parliamentary legislator representing countries that we would hope to do trade deals with—Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States of America, Japan and Switzerland—all have some form of advanced parliamentary scrutiny, although none goes as far as a veto.
I prefer my Amendment 97 and would like to hear other voices in the debate before I decide whether to test the opinion of the House. It is for the House this evening, and for Parliament as a whole, to take a decision on whether we want to see the Trade and Agriculture Commission continue in its present form beyond the end of this year. I have tabled a similar amendment but calling for a different body—a permanent international trade commission, for the Trade Bill—and we will obviously consider that at a future date.
I am grateful for this opportunity to set out my stall. I hope that my amendment will find favour. With that, I beg to move.
Amendment 98 (to Amendment 97)
Viscount Trenchard
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other in the name of Viscount Trenchard to Baroness McIntosh’s amendment would ensure that the Trade and Agriculture Commission would establish criteria which would ensure that United Kingdom standards comply with WTO rules.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 98, I will speak to Amendment 99, both of which are amendments to Amendment 97 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh. Once again, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for adding her name in support of my amendments.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh seeks to require the Trade and Agriculture Commission to retain UK standards, which means EU standards. She does not refer in her amendment to the importance of conforming to WTO rules or to the benefits of being free to decide our own regulations.
I believe that standards are not two-dimensional, high or low, but that equivalent outcomes for regulations on animal welfare, the environment, and food and plant safety may be achieved through the adoption of a less cumbersome, more proportionate regulatory system.
My noble friend, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, in his Amendment 101, seek to strengthen the powers of the Trade and Agriculture Commission. I believe that this is not necessary, for the reasons given by my noble friend the Minister on 28 July, when he said that he is
“committed to ensuring that trade agreements do not compromise our high standards and will continue to take into consideration the views of relevant stakeholders across the food supply chain on the impact of trade deals. A range of established stakeholder groups is already in place to advise the development of government policy on trade.” —[Official Report, 28/7/20; col. 197.]
Since then, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade has set up 11 new trade advisory groups, including the agri-food trade advisory group. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that if your Lordships’ House were to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, it would then be amended to require adherence to WTO rules.
Baroness Henig (Lab)
I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I put my name to Amendment 97 and support other amendments in this group because, while I supported the establishment of the Government’s current Trade and Agriculture Commission, I wanted it to be set up on a more permanent basis, rather than simply operate as a six-month ad hoc body. Again, I am listed twice in this group. I am not sure whether this is good or bad, or what somebody is trying to tell me, but “I shall say this only once”. I will, hopefully, be reasonably brief.
I agree 100% with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who said in Committee that a Trade and Agriculture Commission should be established on a permanent basis, that it should report to Parliament regularly and that
“it needs to have its advice acted upon by the Secretary of State.”—[Official Report, 28/7/20; col. 164.]
I very much welcome the considerable detail and structure, set out in Amendment 101, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, regarding how such a commission would operate.
We heard in Committee that similar bodies exist in the United States, Australia and New Zealand, and that such an indispensable, independent voice, which mediates between farmers and consumer interests in their Governments, can advise on trade and agricultural matters and, indeed, on trade mandates and treaties. They have been found to be extremely useful. Why not, then, set up such a permanent body in the United Kingdom? I am only guessing, but perhaps this Government want to keep as much as possible of the decision-making in these areas in their own hands and veiled in secrecy. That is why such a committee, reporting to Parliament, needs to be written into the Bill, and I hope many noble Lords will support Amendment 101, if not Amendment 97. The reason why, in some ways, I prefer Amendment 101, now that I have seen it, is that it is a more comprehensive version of Amendment 97.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talked about food standards in America. It so happens that I have just been reading Bill Bryson’s latest book, on the body, and he has done a lot or research on food standards in America and has gathered a lot of evidence. He describes how food problems and related illnesses in America derive from American food production—he describes it as a hidden epidemic. I have to say to noble Lords that his research into this area seemed, at least to me, to be more comprehensive than that of the noble Viscount. Of course, we may differ on that matter.
In conclusion, I hope noble Lords will resist putting forward superficial historical arguments to oppose these amendments. I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who I regret is not in his place, that one of the central threads of the Corn Law debates was the potential economic gain to be achieved by pursuing free-trade policies at a time when Britain was the workshop of the world and British workers, who were working incredibly long hours for very low wages, needed access to cheap food to keep going. I hope the noble Lord has not given us a vision of the future under this Government.
Perhaps the noble Lord also overlooked the fact that the present Government are actually sacrificing substantial economic benefits by leaving the EU —the destination, of course, I remind noble Lords, of 50% of British exports currently—in their purist pursuit of national sovereignty. This seems to me, as a modern historian, to be very different from the rational economic policies pursued by mid-19th century British Governments. As I might have said to a student in one of my seminars in a former life, “Debating skills, first rate; historical arguments, perhaps rather less impressive”.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. I support Amendment 97, so ably moved by my noble friend Lady McIntosh and supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Henig. I concur with the point my noble friend has already made regarding this amendment: we need fair competition and a level playing field. As we know, none of us, particularly farmers and those involved in food production, wants to be undermined by cheap imports of substandard produce and husbandry from other countries.
The announcement of the new Trade and Agriculture Commission under the Department for International Trade was timely during the previous stage of the Bill. The Minister stated that it will
“shape the future of trade and agricultural policy in our current negotiations and in those to come”.—[Official Report, 28/7/20; col. 198.]
It will also provide advice to help promote our agenda at the WTO and other international fora, including on international standards for animal welfare and environmental protection, and to advance and protect consumer interests and those of developing countries. I add my voice to the calls for this commission to be permanent and to have a legislative footing, rather than be a six-month flash in the pan. It must be both truly independent and accountable, and its recommendations must have weight and be given true consideration by the relevant Secretaries of State. I was also pleased to see that there is a specific working group looking at standards, including animal welfare standards.
In Committee, I mentioned the concerns surrounding stocking densities of meat products and the amount of antibiotics pumped into them to keep them healthy, not just in the US but in other parts of the world where we know even less about production methods. I hope the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 98 and 99, in the name of my noble friend Lord Trenchard. I will not spend any time going into the substance of whether the Trade and Agriculture Commission should be extended in time or scope beyond the arrangements that the Government have already made. I support the Government in this and will not support those amendments. The Government have been clear on their policy, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard explained, and I believe that that should be enough for Parliament.
As with the earlier group—when we debated Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—if we have to have something in this Bill, which I hope that we do not, it should be drafted to reflect our post-EU place in the WTO as a full member again. It is those standards that should be driving international trade of all kinds, including agriculture and food products. The WTO is the place to argue for standards rather than using a parochial approach that might well put us at odds with the WTO, as has happened with the EU. For this reason, I will support my noble friend’s Amendments 98 and 99 if he chooses to press them.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 101 is in my name; it is not dissimilar to Amendment 97, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. My interests are as recorded in the register. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for supporting this amendment. I also thank the Minister for his open door, his willingness to make time available and his helpfulness throughout the passage of this Bill. His graciousness, tolerance and patience are very much appreciated.
I have been reflecting on what UK agricultural history will record in the chapter titled, “Membership of the European Union”. This has effectively now ended after more than 40 years. It just happens to span most of my farming career. One constant concern was what we termed “the level playing field”, which always proved to be rather elusive. We believed, perhaps mistakenly, that other member states knew how to game the system and we were committed to the rules of cricket. We are now entering the next important chapter of agricultural history and we will be trading on the global playing field. The purpose of this amendment is to try to avoid being bowled a googly from an experienced spin bowler to an unsuspecting batsman on a poor wicket.
I compliment the Government for establishing the Trade and Agriculture Commission. It was a very welcome decision and I look forward to the report it has been commissioned to deliver by the end of the year. While we are debating this Bill, the commission are researching the fine print of WTO rules. I absolutely agree that those rules should be what determine our trade policy. They are researching what is possible and what is not and what good trade deals might look like. By the time they complete their investigations and research, we will have established a wealth of knowledge on the subject. My challenge is, why, having established that resource, would one send them all home for Christmas, never to be seen again? The logic of retaining that valuable knowledge—that talent—to scrutinise future trade deals to make sure that they comply with the standards and terms in their initial report is obvious. I am disappointed that the Government have resisted the pressure to give the commission an ongoing role.
This amendment has the wholehearted support not only of the farming unions of the United Kingdom and of the CLA, but of animal welfare groups, the environmental bodies and, very importantly, the British public. Rarely in my limited experience has a single amendment had such widespread support. Many of the comments made in the debate on the group of amendments beginning with Amendment 89ZA, led by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, apply to this amendment.
Let me counter the accusation that this is a protection measure, that this is an amendment that will create a barrier to trade. This is absolutely not the case. We have no choice but to negotiate trade deals. I too am delighted that the Secretary of State for International Trade, Liz Truss, has a deal with Japan over the line. She, together with the Defra Secretary, has already established the Trade and Agriculture Commission to provide guidance on the standards and principles that should apply to imported food. This amendment is to ensure that these are applied and adhered to when the deals are agreed.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD) [V]
My Lords, I very much support the amendment, the purposes of which have been so well articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle; I was pleased to add my name to it. The noble Lord clearly sets out the progress that has been made, and the need to ensure that that is sustained and not undermined.
In Committee, I subscribed to and supported a similar amendment in the noble Lord’s name. On that occasion, I quoted from a letter which the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, Mr Andrew McCornick, had sent to MPs during the passage of this Bill in another place. It was admittedly before the Government announced their Trade and Agriculture Commission; nevertheless, I believe that the sentiments expressed are still relevant and worth repeating.
Mr McCornick wrote
“it is vital that future trade deals do not curtail our ability to grow our reputation as a nation of provenance and quality by undercutting domestic production with imported produce, with which we cannot compete on price and production method.”
This amendment is drafted in similar terms to the one tabled in Committee, but there is a crucial difference. We have heeded the concerns expressed during the debate in Committee about the short life of the Trade and Agriculture Commission which was proposed then. So this amendment proposes a continuing existence for the commission, after producing its important primary report, to make recommendations to the Secretary of State to promote, maintain and safeguard current standards of food production through international trade policy, including standards relating to food safety, the environment and animal welfare. This continuing role may be achieved by the Secretary of State prescribing further functions for the Trade and Agriculture Commission after its initial report is published, and in any event, because the TAC will have a continuing responsibility to report on any trade agreement negotiated by the Government, to consider its impact on the trade of agri-food products and to assess its impact on the ability of the Secretary of State to promote, maintain and safeguard standards of agri-food production, including in relation to food safety, the environment and animal welfare.
The amendment would give the commission an explicit additional duty to advise Parliament on all trade deals and how they would impact on food and farming standards. That is one of the reasons the National Farmers’ Union of Scotland has indicated that it would encourage support for the amendment.
I shall conclude by giving two compelling reasons why this amendment should commend itself to Parliament, and an equally good reason why it should appeal to the Government. While providing for the Trade and Agriculture Commission to make recommendations, the amendment gives a key role to Parliament to consider recommendations as well as to determine Motions on the Government’s response to them—so Parliament would have a direct role.
Secondly, the provisions in relation to the new trade treaties supplement the rather limited role given to Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 in relation to the ratification of treaties. Both bring back more control to Parliament. As for the Government, the amendment would help them to secure their pledge set out on page 57 of their 2019 manifesto:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
It seems to me that this is a win-win situation all round.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in supporting this amendment. Indeed, it is the only amendment tabled on Report which has my name attached to it. I shall be brief.
The point encapsulated in the last two speeches is very important. The National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales, the National Farmers’ Union of Scotland and the Ulster Farmers’ Union, which I worked very closely with when I was the farming Minister in Northern Ireland, all support this amendment. It is also supported by the CLA. That is incredibly widespread support that should enable the Minister to grab it with both hands. It cannot be anything but good for the Government to have the kind of support from the farming community that an amendment such as this carries.
Before I make my other comments, I want to respond to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who was kindly paying attention, or partly paying attention, to what I said in the previous debate. What I said was that in the United States of America, over 400 people a year die of salmonella. You can get the figures from the Centers for Disease Control. I did not say that they all died from eating chicken. What I also said was that nobody has died from this in the UK in the past 10 years. There may have been one case, but there was a dispute about it.
So it is not a question of looking at populations. The number of deaths in America is huge. Per head of population, food poisoning cases in the United States are 10 times higher than in Great Britain—although I did not go into that. People in America die from salmonella, but here it is not a cause of death. That is the difference, and the point I was making.
This amendment is very important for providing the checks and balances for what is a somewhat haphazard Government. I am not criticising the Minister or his team in this respect, or indeed the Bill team, but it is a haphazard Government, and this would provide checks and balances. The Government cannot rely on the existing structure. For example, I do not think that the Food Standards Agency is resourced or has the overall competence to get involved in the details of trade deals, as the proposed commission would. Of course, bodies such as the FSA and Food Standards Scotland would advise the commission, but the commission would have the main role.
It is also quite important that Amendment 101 not just involves but respects the primacy of Parliament, which Amendment 97 clearly does not. As I read that amendment, it seeks to give a veto over trade deals, and that cannot be right. I shall not recite the contents of Amendment 101, as that would be quite wrong. However, proposed new subsection (4)(d) in Amendment 101 is quite useful. In fact, I think that the Minister himself would probably quite like a list of the existing powers of the Minister, as it would be useful to know. Basically, we would like to know which powers they have got that they are not using. The powers are spread throughout a massive amount of legislation and it would be useful to have a list of them so that we could check which ones they are not using. Proposed new paragraph (f), which ties in with paragraph (c), would make the monitoring of imported foods—something that will not be easy—practical and workable.
We also have to remember that the EU does that for us now. The EU, on behalf of the member states, sends inspectors all over the world to check that farms and food factories are safe and of sufficient quality to supply the EU. We will have to repeat all that ourselves, and therefore it is very important that we have a system for monitoring the situation.
On the efficiency of UK agriculture—I am speaking from memory here—I think that the UK is so efficient in producing milk from dairy cattle that, if the rest of the world replicated our systems, there would be less than half the number of dairy cattle in the world. In other words, we are very efficient, and if we could spread that technology around the world, we would have fewer dairy cattle, less methane, less pollution and much more efficient production.
In short, on the idea of a standing rather than a temporary commission, a standing commission would consist of consumers, traders and producers, and it would instil far more confidence than the six-month commission that the Government have set up. The Minister and his team would be very wise to embrace Amendment 101.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I too will speak on Amendment 101, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, to which I have added my name. The previous three speakers have more than adequately spelled out why it makes a great deal of sense, so I can limit my comments.
The Government, through the joint letter from the Environment Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Trade, have assured us that standards will not be compromised as part of trade negotiations. Furthermore, I am reassured by the breadth of experience among the agri-food trade advisory group. However, welcome though these developments are, fundamentally they lack the legally binding requirement that properly guarantees that Parliament will have recourse to ensuring that our standards are not diluted.
We all recognise the value of our agricultural standards in promoting the well-being of consumers, producers and the environment. As part of the Government’s ambition to conclude new trade deals, compromises will be required, but it is imperative that they do not encroach on our standards, which must remain a red line. The amendment seeks to turn verbal and written guarantees into a comprehensive legal mechanism that combines independent expertise with parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that the necessary measures are taken to protect our agricultural sector, the environment and, above all, consumers.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the four signatories—proposers and seconders—to Amendment 101, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. I support this amendment and added an amendment to it because I wanted to ensure that this Trade and Agriculture Commission had full representation from some of the people who should be on it. I notice that my noble friend Lord Naseby has added another amendment. Actually, I am not sure that my amendment is necessary; it was more to point out the lack of representation in these areas.
In the previous Division, I supported, some what reluctantly, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I did not do so because I doubted, even for one moment, the sincerity of my noble friend Lord Gardiner—I have immense respect for him—but I have been around politics for a while now, and I know that all parties can change manifesto commitments and find some way out of them. Sometimes it is more difficult to explain how they have changed them; for example, I remember a Conservative manifesto pledge about the expansion of Heathrow—“no ifs, no buts”—and that soon changed. I will not get on to that hobby horse at the moment, but I am saying that, despite assurances, things can change.
Therefore, I will address this amendment’s extension of the remit of the Trade and Agriculture Commission beyond the short period for which it has been set up. I believe it was set up because the Government needed something to try to quell those who were anxious about where the Government were going. I do not think it went far enough. We just sent something back to the Commons, having agreed the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and—from my 12 years’ experience as a Whip in the other place—I think there is every chance of it being overturned.
However, as has been said, the Government have a wonderful opportunity; as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, put it, what is not to like about this amendment? As we heard, it has the support of the NFU, the CLA, environmental bodies and that well-known left-wing organisation the Mail on Sunday. Therefore, this is not some bearded environmentalist’s amendment; this is something that I think the public would like to see as a matter of reassurance. The Government could take credit for accepting this amendment—or tabling their own modification—to reassure the country that we will not be sacrificing our standards to gain a particular trade benefit. Of course those trade deals are incredibly important, but not at any price.
I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to have a good look at the amendment and to think that if the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, puts it to the House, I will be supporting him. I am sorry to say to my noble friend Lord Naseby that I will not be pressing my own amendment, but we ought to look at some sort of compromise that will sort out this remaining issue.
Most of the time when I have spoken, it has been about the environment and so forth. This is one issue where I am fully supportive of farmers and their livelihoods.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
I agree with my noble friend Lord Trenchard on the question of criteria to ensure that UK standards comply with WTO rules. However, in this grouping my main consideration is the composition of the Trade and Agriculture Commission itself. So far, the suggested membership comprises larger industry representation and experts covering quite a narrow group of issues. It does not take in those for environmental matters, climate, pesticides, food safety and other public interests; nor does it those from small and family farms. Consequently, arising from current proposals for this type of restricted TAC membership, there is the worry that problems raised by the public and farmers’ organisations would not be sufficiently addressed, the public interest thereby becoming neglected and even undermined.
That is why Amendment 104 in my name seeks to broaden the composition of the TAC to make it more representative and effective, hence the proposal that its membership instead should look after a much wider field of public interest. That would include animal welfare; climate; pesticides; food safety; hygiene and traceability; agricultural livelihoods; the protection of the environment, including forests; and fair trade with developing countries. I am sure the Minister would agree that this might be a better way to proceed.
Lord Trees (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 101 in the name of my noble friend Lord Curry of Kirkharle. The Government are well aware of the great concerns shared by farmers, the veterinary profession—of which I am a proud member—animal welfare and environmental bodies and, above all, the public about maintaining standards in food, animal welfare and the environment as we embark on negotiating trade agreements in a global market where standards and prices vary greatly and low prices may correlate with low standards, environmental exploitation and, indeed, human exploitation. We must set a threshold of high standards to our global trading partners and, to use a familiar term, level up where necessary.
I hear the Government’s repeated assurances that standards will not be compromised but assurances, to use an old English proverb, butter no parsnips. I regret to say that I am still unconvinced by the Government's arguments explaining their reluctance to incorporate a commitment to standards in this Bill. I also still wonder at the inconsistency of a situation where there is a determination to maintain a legally dubious ban on chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-treated beef but not to provide our trade negotiators with minimum requirements for much more significant animal welfare, public health or environmental concerns.
That said, the establishment of the Trade and Agriculture Commission is to be welcomed, and the Government are to be commended on this pragmatic step. The commission incorporates much expertise and has been given important goals. But—I am sorry that there is a “but”, and it is a big one—born in July, the commission will be dead by December, which is hardly enough time to grow some feathers, let alone fly. With such expertise at its disposal, as we just begin to negotiate trade agreements—a process that will continue for years in a rapidly changing environment—would it not be wise to maintain the commission until it is clear that it is no longer required?
We understand that other existing bodies will ensure the maintenance of current standards. The Food Standards Agency has a proven track record of assuring food safety and I am confident that our food safety will not be compromised, partly because its independence is guaranteed in statute—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in an earlier debate. But which body or bodies will be monitoring, auditing and inspecting, if necessary in countries of origin, animal welfare and environmental standards in the future? If it is to be the FSA, it will need much enhanced resources and expertise.
The recent trade agreement with Japan is welcome news, and we have been assured, in a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, of 11 September, that
“we have maintained all existing protections for our high standards of … animal welfare”.
But in the World Animal Protection ratings for farm animal welfare legislation, Japan has a G, which is substantially lower than the UK’s rating. Japan has no specific legislation on animal transportation, the rearing of pigs, laying hens or chickens, and still permits sow stalls and conventional battery cages, in contrast to the UK, which prohibits sow stalls, veal crates and conventional battery cages for laying hens, and has extensive legislation on animal transportation. While the UK has legislation preventing the import of meat not slaughtered to UK standards, will that prohibition be maintained for all countries and, if so, how?
Echoing a question from my noble friend Lord Krebs in the debate on Amendment 93, which body or bodies are going to ensure animal products imported from Japan or anywhere else are produced to standards of welfare and husbandry, and with due regard to environmental standards, that are not lower than we demand of our own farmers? In reply to Amendment 93, the Minister said that we will repatriate audit and inspection capability hitherto provided by the EU, but I ask the Minister, who is going to carry out these vital audit and verification functions? Are they ready and fit for purpose? What about their independence?
This whole issue merits continuing oversight of welfare and environmental standards by an independent group of experts analogous to the Food Standards Agency. The BSE and other food crises demonstrated, historically, the need for and value of an independent body to oversee aspects of our food. It led to the creation of the Food Standards Agency. It separated the conflicted interests of Defra, which quite properly supports the producers and suppliers of our food, from the role of protecting our consumers. Surely it is in the Government’s interest and is a basic tenet of good regulatory process that these two functions—supporting providers and safeguarding consumers—be separated.
I have a last question. While the TAC is due to be wound up after it reports in December, the minutes of its first meeting in August show that it is considering the enduring need for a similar group or groups in the longer term. I ask the Minister, if the commission advises that it ought to have a continuing role or that a similar body be created with a similar role, will the Government give that genuine and serious consideration?
In conclusion, I strongly support this amendment to ensure that, for imported food products, there is an independent body of expertise in animal welfare and environmental standards to advise the Government on future trade agreements.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. It ensures that the Trade and Agriculture Commission that the Department for International Trade has established will not be toothless, transitory and a bit of a fig leaf. Your Lordships can hear that I am being rather less complimentary about the establishment of the commission than many other noble Lords. In my view, it defies description that it can be expected to carry out this valuable role in the time it has been given. I will come on to talk about the inadequacies of its composition.
We absolutely need the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Curry, to ensure that the commission has an ongoing, effective role in ensuring standards and holding the Government to account through all the successive trade negotiations, that it has that valuable, essential ability to report openly to Parliament and that Parliament has the opportunity to influence successive agreements.
I also support Amendment 102 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, which provides criteria for appointment to the commission. One of the reasons I am anxious about the nature of the commission is its reporting arrangements. At the moment it reports to the Department for International Trade and is a bit of a poodle body of that part of government.
I know the Minister will tell us that Defra is fully involved and working jointly with the Department for International Trade, but the impression I get is that the environment is very much an afterthought. There is only one environmental member of the commission, and there has been very little discussion of any environmental issues in the commission’s two meetings so far. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has just admirably demonstrated how the arrangements for oversight of issues such as animal welfare and the environment are inadequate in its current construction.
I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, because it clearly lays out the criteria for membership of the commission and would help plug the gap that very much exists at the moment, in that consumer and environmental organisations and experts are, if not underrepresented, totally missing. It would mean that the commission has the right range of skills to go with the full set of teeth that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Curry, would give it. I think we should support both those amendments.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and I agree with her comments on the TAC. This group of extremely important amendments completes our debates on this issue. A large number of your Lordships have spoken knowledgeably and passionately on the subject.
During previous debates on this subject, many noble Lords reiterated the inadequacies of the Trade and Agriculture Commission as currently proposed. It is advisory only; there is no compunction on the Government to follow its advice or recommendations. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked the Minister whether the Government are satisfied with the temporary commission or whether an amendment to make it permanent would be better, so that it had some teeth and would therefore be able to respond to the first Dimbleby report.
There are no members representing the views of environmentalists or animal welfare or consumer groups. Can the Minister say how the commission as set up will inspire and maintain the confidence of the public, given that its chair referred to public concern over chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef as “alarmism”? Making such a statement does little to reassure the public of his independence.
Amendment 101 from the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, sets out how the TAC should be established and operate. This is very specific, and I will avoid making a Second Reading speech. It is bizarre that the Government do not wish the TAC to continue its work into the future. This amendment will not create a barrier to trade. The majority of farmers’ income will come from producing and trading food.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, in his Amendment 102, seeks to correct the deficiencies of membership of the original commission and ensure a more inclusive membership. This is an amendment to the splendid amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has similarly spoken to his amendment on membership of the TAC.
My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness has reminded us of the view of the NFU in Scotland that the standards of our farmers should not be undercut by trade deal standards and should be safeguarded.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans made powerful speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, reminded us that the NFUs of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, together with the CLA, all support this amendment, which respects the primacy of Parliament.
With a few notable exceptions, every speaker is in favour of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which had enormous support during previous stages of the Bill. Ensuring the TAC is independent, representative and has the necessary legislative backing is vital if it is to be successful.
This group of amendments is all about protecting farmers and ensuring that the public can feel confident in the food we buy and eat. I feel certain that the Minister understands the strength of feeling in the House on this issue. I trust that his response to the questions posed this evening will be positive, and that those of us concerned about this subject can be reassured. And I apologise for my croaky voice.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
This has been another good debate on another key issue in the Bill. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments, which cover the key variances of opinion on approaches to food standards for imported product through the mechanism of a Trade and Agriculture Commission.
In Committee, I expressed anxiety about the approach of a Trade and Agriculture Commission, should this be the only way that UK food and production standards could be maintained as future trade deals are negotiated. From these Benches, we wanted to secure the enactment of the UK’s minimum level of food standards by enshrining it in legislation. That your Lordships’ House passed this measure earlier tonight has added to our confidence that the House of Commons is being asked to think again on this issue.
This allows us to approach these amendments with confidence that the Trade and Agriculture Commission could provide valuable insights and independent analysis on all trade deals concerning food standards, which would encompass the equivalents of production methods, welfare standards and environmental conditions that apply in the UK.
There are essentially two amendments from two very eminent Members of your Lordships’ House, although they are subject to further amendments. Amendment 97 is led by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She has come into the House from the Commons, having served as a very successful chair of the other place’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee. I pay tribute to the way she steered that prominent committee.
Amendment 101, also with amendments, is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and others. It has the backing of the National Farmers Union, which has been prominent in discussions throughout proceedings both here and in the Commons. The NFU could not team up with a better proponent for agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, spoke of his reflections on his career in agriculture. Over many years, he and I met at several key moments of agricultural policy developments. They might be designated as crossroads for agriculture. Here is another: he will probably say that he has met me too often.
While I commend the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, we much prefer the reconsidered amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and I am grateful for the remarks of my noble friend Lady Henig in her summary of the situation. We will support Amendment 101 rather than Amendment 97, should that be pressed to a vote.
We welcome the developments that took place over the summer and I can signal that we will approve the amendment, with or without the further amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. Amendment 102 widens the representation on the commission and further enshrines its permanence beyond the temporary nature that was the Government’s very limited concession on this proposal. That amendment provides better clarity on Amendment 101 than Amendment 104 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, puts the commission on a statutory and permanent basis, with key powers to make recommendations to the Government and Parliament on all future trade deals. This key improvement should be taken back to the Commons for reconsideration, underlined by the widespread approval of this House. This key mechanism to adjudicate independently on trade deals is needed for consumer confidence and demanded by farmers, endorsed by all their unions in all parts of the United Kingdom. The NFU has secured the agreement of the British public through a petition signed by over a million people.
The potential loophole that exists for food that goes into the food service sector needs to be plugged by the commission. We would contend that your Lordships should return this amendment to the Commons with a powerful majority. The commission could build up considerable expertise that will be crucial for the future of food standards and an excellent resource in parliamentary scrutiny of future trade deals.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to another thought-provoking debate. I will deal with the amendments as one because they are so interrelated.
As noble Lords will be aware, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 retains in law our standards on environmental protections, animal welfare, animal and plant health, and food safety at the end of the transition period. The independent advice of our food regulators, the FSA and FSS, and the rigorous processes they have developed, will continue to ensure that all food imports into the UK are safe and meet the relevant UK product rules and regulations, including imports under new free trade deals. A range of other government agencies, such as the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, the Health and Safety Executive and the Animal and Plant Health Agency, will ensure that the full range of standards and import requirements within their remits are upheld.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, will remember what I said in response to an earlier group of amendments, but I will repeat it. The FSA has doubled the number of risk assessors since 2017. It can draw on the expertise of 100 scientific experts and support staff and has recruited 35 additional members to its advisory committees. It also takes into account wider consumer interests such as the impact on the environment, animal welfare and food security.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, also spoke about the Japan trade deal. The audit and verification function is currently being developed within Defra and will be in place and operational before the end of the transition period. All existing import standards will continue to apply to the new Japan trade deal, as they will for other trade agreements.
In addition, a range of established stakeholder groups is already in place to advise the Government on trade policy development. These include the DIT’s agri-food trade advisory group, which has a recently renewed membership of more than 30 representatives from the industry who will provide close technical and strategic advice to the Government as negotiations progress. This approach has been welcomed by these stakeholders as a way to input meaningfully into ongoing trade talks. Defra also continues to run various supply chain advisory groups, such as the arable group, the livestock group and the food and drink panel. These groups already provide valuable expert advice to help the Government develop trade policy and they will continue to do so.
In addition to this, the Government listened closely to valuable feedback from Parliament and stakeholders, most notably the NFU—of which I should declare my membership—to strengthen these existing arrangements. In July we established the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which operates under the auspices of the Department for International Trade. Defra is closely involved in this work and Defra officials are part of the commission’s secretariat.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I now call the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I would like to thank everybody who has contributed to this debate, and the small number of noble Lords who have spoken in favour of my amendments. In particular, I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Dundee for seeing merit in my amendments—as indeed I do in his amendment. But I wonder why my noble friend has included the necessity to have representation of the public interest on fair trade with developing countries, without having it on fair trade with developed countries. Many—in fact, all—of the countries with which we are currently in trade negotiations are, I believe, developed countries. But I certainly congratulate him on his thoughts and ideas on that subject.
I also rather regret that I did not put down an amendment to Amendment 101, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, which seeks to do the same kinds of things as the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, but goes somewhat further. That was a missed trick on my part; I had thought of putting down these amendments early in the process, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Curry, had not put down his amendment at that time.
As I said in my remarks, I am of the mind and the opinion that it is unnecessary to strengthen the powers of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, for the reasons that I mentioned. I am also persuaded by my noble friend the Minister’s explanation that the existing regulatory bodies and the new committees are well equipped to take care of the interests of your Lordships’ House in maintaining our high standards and regulations.
I regret very much that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is also silent on the need to conform to WTO regulations, because it is of the most extreme importance that this country should be a strong advocate and ambassador for free trade around the world, and should play a leading part in the WTO. If we start out also as a second outlier, like the EU has become, we will not be able to realise our potential as an influencer of the best emerging trade standards around the world in the future.
In these circumstances, and having heard my noble friend the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I think we have had an excellent debate and I thank everyone who has contributed for their gracious remarks about all the amendments. Those who have spoken and who have put the amendments forward have gone to great lengths to consider the topic this evening and in Committee. Just to put my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s mind at rest—I am sure the Minister will confirm this—I cannot imagine for a minute that any Minister of the Crown serving Her Majesty’s Government would put anything forward that does not comply with World Trade Organization rules. We are, first and foremost, a nation that plays by the rules and abides by the rules and we have a good track record in that regard.
I would just like to express disappointment. I understand from the notes that came round that the Minister is prepared to answer a couple more questions if I raise them at this stage, and, if we are to vote on amendments tonight or at a later stage, I think this would be helpful to know. My noble friend listed again the bodies that look at food safety, but my concern is that we are continuing to confuse food standards and food safety. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has done the House a great service this evening by pressing the Minister on which body will actually carry out the audits and inspections. I want to put that as a direct question to my noble friend, for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, gave. If he is asking the Food Standards Agency to do this work, it is work that it already does when it is food coming in from third countries, as the EU and other countries will be when we have left.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, for the sake of the record, I will repeat for my noble friend my replies to the noble Lord, Lord Trees. I said that since 2017, the FSA has doubled the number of its risk assessors. It can draw on the expertise of 100 scientific experts and support staff, and it has recruited an additional 35 members to its advisory committees. In addition, I should say to my noble friend that it takes wider consumer interests into account, such as the impact on the environment, animal welfare and food security. I also said in my reply that the function of audit and verification is currently being developed within Defra and will be in place and operational before the end of the transition period.
I am not going to repeat my speech about the number and range of trade advisory groups and the people who have been asked to join the working groups on the Trade and Agriculture Commission. I said specifically that the wide inclusion of authoritative figures was a testament to the fact that the Government recognise the need for advice on these matters and will listen. I am surprised at the suggestion from my noble friend that this country does not have within its midst—because it does—people with great expertise in trade negotiations. That is why we want the Trade and Agriculture Commission to have within it people with a range of expertise. The commission was specifically asked to undertake this work in the context of there already being statutory bodies in place, and I think I have given, in very long and detailed responses to both this and an earlier group, details of the capability and the range of work that the FSA and other bodies will undertake.
On the arrangements for a commitment to a transparent and inclusive trade policy, I shall repeat again what I said, so that it is clear. Parliament has a clear scrutiny role under CRaG which provides parliamentarians with a period of 21 sitting days to scrutinise the final treaty text before it can be ratified. Those are the provisions that I set out. I also said that we would be going beyond the statutory requirements of CRaG. I shall not repeat the long passage I set out earlier, but we will set out the way in which Parliament will be informed and updated, and the way in which Parliament and the committees of both Houses will have a very considerable opportunity to opine on these arrangements.
On the national food strategy, I am sorry, but Henry Dimbleby has been asked to do a very thorough piece of work and he has been undertaking that. My noble friend may say that it is not satisfactory that his final report will not be available until the end of the Trade Bill, but I have no doubt that during the passage of that Bill, Parliament will have a lot to say—I am convinced that parliamentarians in both Houses will have a great deal to say. It does not mean that we should stop the Trade Bill because we are awaiting the very important final report from Henry Dimbleby. As I have already said, the Trade and Agriculture Commission has been asked to look into some of the early recommendations in Henry Dimbleby’s report. I have nothing more to say on the matter. I have explained why I think the Government’s bona fides are strong, but I sense that your Lordships will think to the contrary.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 100. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear during the course of the debate.
Amendment 100
“Contribution of agriculture and associated land use to climate change targets
(1) In performing functions under this Act, the Secretary of State must have due regard to—(a) the target for 2050 contained in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and (b) international climate change treaties to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, including the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.(2) Within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations introduce an interim target for 2030 which would provide for agriculture and associated land use to reduce and sequester climate change emissions in a manner commensurate with meeting the target for 2050.(3) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a strategy outlining the policies Her Majesty’s Government will pursue to meet the interim target for 2030.(4) Before fulfilling the requirements under subsections (2) and (3), the Secretary of State must—(a) consult the devolved authorities, and(b) obtain, and take into account, the advice of the Committee on Climate Change.(5) Regulations under subsection (2) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.(6) In this section—“Committee on Climate Change” means the body established under section 32 of the Climate Change Act 2008;“devolved authorities” has the meaning outlined in section 40 of this Act.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for adding their support to this amendment.
Our amendment would require the Government when applying this Act to have due regard to their national and international obligations set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Paris Agreement. It also requires the Government within six months to set an interim target for 2030, setting out how agriculture and land use could play their part in reducing and sequestrating emissions. This would be followed within 12 months by a strategy setting out how this will be achieved. We have additionally required the Government to obtain and take account of the advice of the Committee on Climate Change.
There are very good reasons why these steps are necessary. Climate change is a global challenge, and the UK has an obligation to play its part. The Government’s commitment to net zero by 2050 is welcome as far as it goes, but noble Lords will know that we are way behind in meeting the fourth, fifth and sixth carbon budgets that would make the commitment a reality.
To be successful, every sector must play its part, whether it is energy, transport, housing or, in this case, agriculture, which is currently responsible for about 10% of total emissions. So we welcome the addition in Clause 1(1)(d) of the Bill that financial assistance can be given for
“managing land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change.”
But what does this mean if there is no strategy and no targets to deliver it? As the Committee on Climate Change points out in its report this year,
“the current voluntary approach has failed to cut agricultural emissions, there has been no coherent policy to improve the resilience of the agricultural sector, and tree planting has failed outside Scotland.”
This is pretty damning, and it is why our amendment seeks to deliver legislation and a mechanism for detailed policy design, which the committee recommends is necessary to deliver the transformation that is needed. Even the Government’s own progress report on implementing the 25-year environment plan, published in June, shows emissions of greenhouse gases from natural resources in a downward negative trend, with agricultural emissions remaining stagnant. So overall we seem to be going backwards.
In her response to similar amendments in Committee, the Minister tried to put a more positive gloss on progress, citing efficiency gains in dairy and pork. I am sure that that is good progress and we welcome that. But you cannot cherry pick when the Government’s own analysis is saying overall that there are different trends.
In her response, the Minister also argued for a generalist approach to climate change, saying that we do not have sector-specific targets under the Climate Change Act. That is true, but all the steps that the Government have taken since are focused on actions by different departments—for example, in renewable energy, electric cars and housing retrofit. Despite the criticisms of the Natural Capital Committee for the lack of meaningful metrics, even the 25-year environment plan also aims to have specific targets. So agriculture must step up and play its part in reducing emissions.
The Paris Agreement requires signatories to set long-term climate plans as well as shorter-term 2030 goals. This is why we have included an interim 2030 target in our amendment. Meanwhile, the Committee on Climate Change has written to the Defra Minister, Victoria Prentis, setting out how ELMS could be shaped to meet our climate change obligations. It has identified four important areas that need to be addressed and has offered to support Defra in setting out how climate change risks can be incorporated in the delivery of the ELMS outcomes.
We welcome this offer of help and support, which is why we have specified in our amendment that the advice of the Committee on Climate Change should be taken into account. We believe that the amendment is central to delivering the Government’s aspiration of net zero and ensuring that the farming sector plays its full part.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has laid out the need for this amendment with great clarity, and perhaps I can inject a little bit of the emotion that this amendment gives rise to for me. Earlier, I said that the amendment on food standards was probably the most important one, but in fact, this is of course the most important from a long-term point of view because it is all about survival. I am trying to save the planet and the people on it; even the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is part of the group that I want to save—from itself, really.
We know that farming is a massive source of greenhouse gas emissions, and it is likely to grow as a percentage of our emissions as we decarbonise other parts of the economy. Therefore, it is going to get worse and worse if we do not have a clear plan for how to go forward. For me, this Government have shown no urgency; I cannot convey the urgency I feel when I think about what is happening to our planet and the destruction caused by our burning fossil fuels. The Government have not shown any logical trajectory towards zero carbon emissions; they are just dabbling, with a good idea here and an idea there that is probably not quite so good. There is no coherent vision.
The Government have to start budgeting carbon in exactly the same way that they budget money. I realise that budgets are out of the window at the moment due to the coronavirus, but the fact is that we do need to think about it like that and say that, if we allow one area to have more carbon, we have to decrease it in another. Actually, the Green Party has been calling for a “carbon chancellor”: somebody who can take an overall look at this issue, understand how the systems and the economy work and try to make a coherent plan.
This Bill has been bouncing around for three years now and has been delayed several times. It was written two years before the Government adopted a net-zero carbon emissions target, which means that we need to update it because it does not reflect the new net-zero target that the Government have set themselves. Amendment 100 is a genuinely cross-party amendment and will set British farming on a trajectory towards net-zero emissions. We desperately need it, and I very much hope that the Government will listen.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The hour is late, but it is also late for our planet. While I do not take quite such a pessimistic view of the Government’s actions in this field as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—in fact, they should be congratulated in many respects—for many of us, things are not moving fast enough, and we need to encapsulate some of this in the Bill.
I agree that the NFU has brought forward its own ideas, but there is a lot more to this. For example, I know that Defra is looking at the issue of burning blanket bogs, but surely, under ELMS, we will not be able to give money to land managers who consistently burn peat bogs. That should also be part of the Bill.
I will not detain noble Lords any longer. I support the amendment and I recognise that the Government have taken steps towards it. Perhaps we are too impatient, but we need to get on with it.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, this amendment has been most ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I want to briefly re-emphasise the reasons why I strongly support it. As the noble Baroness said, agriculture has to play its part in meeting our net-zero commitment. At the moment, as she also said, agriculture may account for only some 10% of UK emissions, but by 2050, if nothing is done about agriculture and other parts of our economy play their part, it could account for about a third.
In earlier debates, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to an excellent new book by Professor Bridle entitled Food and Climate Change Without the Hot Air. Professor Bridle expresses the challenge by calculating that, at the moment, the average daily food-related greenhouse gas footprint for each of us in the UK is six tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence. To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, we need to halve emissions by 2030. In other words, if food and agriculture are to play their part, the footprint of every one of us has to go down from six to three tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence per day within 10 years.
We have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that the climate change committee has repeatedly reported that agriculture and land use are not making their required contribution to our greenhouse gas emissions reductions. This leaves an intolerable burden on other sectors, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has already said. I will share a different quote from the climate change committee’s 2020 report to Parliament:
“Agriculture and land use, land-use change and forestry … have … made little progress.”
It concludes that there has been no net change in emissions over 10 years, and no coherent policy framework to deliver change.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, referred to peat bogs. Last Sunday’s Observer reported that there are currently no plans to stop burning peat bogs this autumn. Peat bogs are a major carbon store and burning them releases significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Surely, if the Government are serious about their green credentials and about reducing greenhouse gas emissions from land use and agriculture, they should ban this burning now.
Agriculture is not delivering the necessary greenhouse gas reductions. This Bill is the chance to change that and ensure that the right policies are put in place. The Climate Change Act is, in the argot of the day, an oven-ready framework within which to place both agricultural emissions reduction targets and climate adaptation to make our future agriculture resilient to climate change. That is why we need to support this amendment.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in my capacity as chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership and as a member of the Cumbria Leadership Board, I have recently been involved in debates about carbon in that county. One of the things that concerns me is the debate around emissions which, inevitably, is not quite as simple as one might expect at first blush.
It is clear, however, that any strategy has to begin with where we are now. It must also recognise that it is almost inevitable that those with some kind of an interest are inclined to engage in special pleading. In the case of agriculture, I know that farming contributes; I am a farmer, and I know that my farm does. However, farmers, including myself, have to react and deal with what may be the considerable and costly implications of the appropriate response. As has already been said by one of the Baroness Joneses, the first thing is to have agreed metrics, and then to use them impartially to map the journey into the future, based on the information they give us.
Business accounts are compiled with agreed metrics and standards to present a true picture of the underlying economic activity. The same must be true with carbon accounting. I fear I may sound like a cracked record but, once again, the economic implications and consequences of effecting change must not destroy the agricultural industry and other rural land uses. As the Financial Times pointed out last weekend, the economic future for much of the UK industries in these sectors looks pretty parlous.
In the case of rural land uses, a number of activities are natural carbon sinks and cleaners. Those responsible for the framework of the new world must give proper financial recognition for that. In many cases, what they are doing now is being done for nothing, both for the general benefit of the wider public and the financial advantage of the polluters. Were polluters to actually have to pay, it not only would be a major step towards reducing emissions elsewhere but would help underpin the rural economy, parts of which are pretty fragile and part of left-behind Britain. The short truth of the matter is that insolvent businesses cannot deliver a brave new world in rural Britain. Furthermore, if that happens, a great deal of what we have been considering over the past days and weeks will turn out to have been pure fantasy. It is as simple as that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 100 and echo many of the sentiments in it, but pay regard to the role that farmers, landowners and the landscape have in reducing the challenge faced by climate change and helping to restore biodiversity, much of which has been discussed through the passage of the Bill.
There is a potential role for farmers in ELM schemes going forward. There is a lot more that the natural landscape can do, not least in areas such as national parks. I know that the North York Moors National Park is keen to play its role and is waiting to hear from the Government about how it can do that under the ELM scheme; in particular, what advice it can offer to farmers and rural businesses that can help. There will be opportunities to plant trees and to help carbon sequestration. Pasture-fed and grass-fed livestock will also help.
There are other opportunities in the Bill, which I hope my noble friend will explore in summing up this group of amendments. There are possibilities to adapt to and mitigate climate change. I always get excited about Slowing the Flow at Pickering and the possibility of rolling out other such schemes, working with nature to store water temporarily on the land. We must not lose sight of the fact that many farmers are small or tenant farmers. They do not own the land, so will not benefit from any of these schemes. I hope that my noble friend and the Government bear that in the back of their mind. The Bill already reflects a commitment that helps farmers to manage livestock in a way that mitigates and adapts to climate change. I welcome the opportunity provided by Amendment 100 to discuss those issues.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it really is quite obvious that this amendment is vital, and I congratulate my noble friend on having introduced it.
We talk a good deal about the impact of climate change on farming and all the difficulties and challenges that it presents, but we do not talk enough about the negative impact of farming on the climate and the acceleration of climate change that results from such negative realities. We also know that that need not be so and that a great deal can be done in farming at least to ameliorate the negative contribution but also to find ways of not contributing at all to the negative impact. From that standpoint, I believe it is essential that we have in place real and effective arrangements to measure and monitor changes in agricultural performance, habits and styles to meet the challenge that we are talking about.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. All noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have spoken passionately and knowledgeably on the subject of climate change. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, believes that a real plan for how to move forward is essential, but the Government have no vision on how to achieve this.
Unlike many of your Lordships, I am not an expert, but I can see all around me the signs that the planet is warming, and this is having a detrimental effect on all of us. Farming is often blamed for contributing to climate change, and certainly it does not help, but the blame cannot be laid entirely at the door of farmers. We are all responsible and have our part to play in reducing carbon emissions.
The target of 2050 for the reduction of our emissions is far too far away. In order to monitor our progress as a nation, an interim target of 2030 is essential. Agriculture and the NFU have estimated that they will be able to achieve their net zero target by 2040. It is a pity that the Government cannot follow this example.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, referred to the burning of peat bogs, and I ask the Minister whether such a practice would qualify under the ELMS. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, stressed how important it is to reduce our emissions by 2030, and I am sure we all agree. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, expressed concern around the debate on emissions that farmers need to respond to the problems before them, taking into account the economic consequences. He said that the rural economy is very fragile and that a degree of realism is needed.
As I have said previously, I will not be here in 2050, but my children and grandchildren will, as will the children and grandchildren of the majority of noble Lords taking part today. I will give just two very different examples of the effects of climate change globally.
I am lucky enough to have stood in the Maasai Mara very close to a white rhino. I was absolutely terrified and did not move a muscle. What a magnificent beast it was. Soon, if we do nothing, the 3,000 that are left out of the previous 65,000 will be gone. On a more parochial level, the bullfinch is one of my favourite birds and used to be seen in our hedgerows. This bird has all but disappeared from our countryside, and it is nearly five years since I saw a solitary bullfinch.
UK agriculture alone has not directly caused these two instances, but it has not helped. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, we need to address this and have effective targets. Now is the time to take action; now is the time to set an interim target for 2030; and now is the time to stand up and be counted. I hope that the Minister is able to agree with this amendment and I look forward to his comments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this very important debate on the noble Baroness’s Amendment 100. The first thing I would like to say is that I am most terribly sorry if a letter has not been attended to, but the messaging I have had is that, whatever the noble Lady decides, my door is always open and we can arrange meetings if there are—as I know there will be—continuing discussions on a range of things relating to climate change and agriculture. I want to put on record that I try my best to attend to correspondence and it seems that this one has slipped through the net—so I apologise for that.
This is a crucial matter and, as far as I am concerned, we must all work together on this. In June 2019, the Government amended the Climate Change Act to legislate for a target of net zero by 2050 and introduced carbon budgets, which cap emissions over successive five-year periods. The Government have set these as interim targets on the road to net-zero emissions. I am particularly interested in this matter, and I went through the noble Baroness’s amendment. The Secretary of State is already required to have due regard to the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero as set out in the legally binding Climate Change Act 2008, and in reference to the Paris Agreement on climate change.
The Committee on Climate Change advised that emissions reductions will be needed in all sectors to achieve the UK’s net-zero GHG emissions target by 2050. Targets are set by the Act, but we do not have sector-specific targets under it; this is true across all sectors and departments. The absence of legally defined sector-specific targets ensures that we can meet our climate change commitments in the most cost-effective way across the economy, maximising social and environmental benefits and mitigating damaging trade-offs.
In the United Kingdom, agriculture at this moment constitutes 10% of annual greenhouse gas emissions. I entirely agree that agriculture must—and I underline “must”—play its part in addressing this grave matter. I note, for example, the 2019 report from the Committee on Climate Change on achieving net zero, which says:
“It is difficult to reduce agriculture emissions to near-zero given the inherent biological processes and chemical reactions arising from crops, soils and livestock.”
Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions have reduced by 16% since 1990, with many farms using more efficient agricultural practices. My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised land-use change and forestry: all of these can continue to provide benefits in carbon sequestration. I would be the first to say that more needs to be done, and much more needs to be done.
I am obviously pleased about the ambition shown by many in the sector, including the National Farmers’ Union. Climate change represents a significant challenge. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, quite rightly feels passionately about this matter, so perhaps the words “significant challenge” are a terrible understatement. This is a very grave matter that we need to address. However, I will say that there are great opportunities for the sector, and we will continue to work closely on this issue with the NFU and other leading stakeholders, including through the Greenhouse Gas Action Plan partnership.
Another point the noble Baroness made in her amendment was on the devolved Administrations. Agriculture is a devolved matter, as we all know, so each national Administration is responsible for their own policy to address climate change in the direction of agriculture. The nations are united in a desire to reach net zero and reduce emissions from agriculture. This can be seen, for example, in DAERA’s efficient farming implementation plan, or in the Welsh Government’s Prosperity for All publication that outlines their low-carbon delivery plan. We will work together across the union to ensure we are delivering a solution that will work for the whole of the United Kingdom. This includes agreeing common frameworks, which include a framework on the best available techniques for preventing and minimising emissions.
Defra takes a key role in supporting emissions reduction from agriculture and land use by providing scientific advice and evidence. This includes long-term breeding work to develop more efficient, productive and resilient crops and livestock, as well as research on more efficient feeding strategies for livestock. Such research includes the clean growth through sustainable intensification project, which is due to complete in November of this year. This research has been carried out alongside academics, government officials, stakeholders and farmers, and will outline productivity and land management options, as well as advice on actions and innovative technologies that will reduce emissions from agriculture. These options will be the most effective, best value for money and most feasible for the sector to action. This research has influenced, and will continue to influence, development of future farming policies such as ELM.
I am very pleased that Clause 1(1)(d) of the Bill already enables the Secretary of State to give financial assistance for the purposes of
“managing land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change”.
ELM will be the key delivery mechanism for this and a powerful vehicle for achieving goals set out in the 25-year environment plan, our net-zero target and commitments made in the Clean Growth Strategy. Schemes such as the productivity grant scheme, the Woodland Carbon Fund and the expanded Countryside Stewardship scheme will also contribute to emission-reduction goals alongside ELM. I agree with the point that my noble friend Lady McIntosh made: working with nature will be an increasing imperative and feature of our work.
As set out in the ELM policy discussion document published in February, it is proposed that tier 3 of the scheme should focus on delivering landscape-scale projects that can make significant contributions to national priorities such as net zero. This could include funding for afforestation, peatland restoration and wetland creation. We have proposed that the scheme should also incentivise environmentally sustainable farming through tier 1 and the delivery of locally targeted environmental actions through tier 2.
The provisions of the Environment Bill will bring all climate change legislation within the enforcement remit of the office for environmental protection, also known as the OEP. Under the robust governance framework established through the Climate Change Act, our independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, scrutinise government actions and hold us to account. The OEP will work closely alongside the Committee on Climate Change on climate issues, ensuring that their individual roles complement and reinforce each other.
The OEP is required to monitor the Government’s progress in improving the natural environment in accordance with the content of environmental improvement plans, the first of which is the 25-year environment plan, and—I emphasise—targets. It must produce an annual report on its findings. When undertaking this independent assessment of the Government’s progress, the OEP may consider that the Government could improve progress in meeting one or more of the goals within the 25-year environment plan. For example, this could include a recommendation that additional funding be provided to deliver the purposes set out in Clause 1 of the Agriculture Bill.
Having now been given a sight of her letter, I also say to the noble Baroness that Defra is not the only department responding to climate change. Reducing carbon emissions and enhancing the environment are priorities for the Government. Indeed, there is a new Cabinet Committee on Climate Change to oversee this effort and drive forward action across the whole of government. BEIS leads across government on climate change and net zero, and all departments are working to deliver. For example, DfT published the first phase of our transport decarbonisation plan in March 2020 and MHCLG aims to publish a heat and building strategy later this year. Next year the UK will host the vital COP 26 climate negotiations, and we are determined to use this conference to promote ambitious action to deliver the transformational change required by the Paris Agreement.
I looked very closely at the detail of the noble Baroness’s amendment. I think I have covered all the components of the amendment in terms of what the Secretary of State is already required under law to have due regard to in this matter. I have spoken of our work with the devolved Administrations, which again is imperative because there is no point us all spinning in our own orbits. This will need a collaborative approach.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their support this evening. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, there are a lot of good words and good intentions on climate change but no “logical trajectory”, as the noble Baroness put it. There is a desperate need for more measurement and metrics. It has been an ongoing criticism from the Natural Capital Committee that we are just not very good at having baseline measurements and measuring progress. That issue has run through this debate.
The noble Lords, Lord Randall and Lord Inglewood, rightly said that farmers understood the problems and wanted to help. A number of noble Lords welcomed the NFU’s commitment and ambition for a 2040 target. The good will is there, but support and help need to be provided to make it happen. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, identified famers’ concerns about the economic consequences if they are not given the help to make that transition. There are, of course, economic consequences, which is why it is important that we harness schemes such as the ELMS to help farmers make the transition and enable them to play their part. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
Several noble Lords also recognised that there are opportunities for rewarding the benefits from carbon sinks. The economic impact of this does not have to be just negative. Planting trees, and all the other regreening we are able to do, could have a positive one for the farming community. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that there is a cost to inaction as well. If we do not tackle the negative impact of climate change—extreme weather and so on—that also affects the economies of farming communities. They suffer as well when these extreme events take place. We have no option but to take action on this; the question is how we go forward on it.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the burning of peat bogs. We are all slightly concerned about this. The Minister did not mention it in his response, but it would be helpful to know when the Government are going to introduce a ban on it, which would be a very simple first step.
I welcome the Minister’s offer to work together. I also welcome his understanding of the gravity of the situation we find ourselves in. There is a bit of a contradiction about the term “sector-specific”. The Minister’s initial response was, “We don’t want anything too sector-specific because we need to look across all departments to see what different roles they can play”, but then he referred to other departments working on very specific things. In all honesty, other government departments are moving ahead quicker than Defra and we are getting left behind. That is my real concern.
He mentioned a number of activities taking place within Defra, but the external independent bodies that measure our progress—the Committee on Climate Change is just one—are sounding alarm bells, saying that progress is neither fast enough nor deep enough. Whatever the Government are doing is simply not enough. This is not just me making a political point; it is a more general concern from the experts outside.
We come back to the need for proper metrics and measurement, which is key. The Minister talked about the devolved nations. Our amendment refers to the need to consult them. It is important that we involve them in tackling this issue. I hope, as I am sure he does, that we will work together to reach our own solutions.
There is a lot of good will here. I am very grateful for the tone that the Minister has set, and for his open door going forward. We may well be pushing at it. I hope he understands that, in the meantime, I still feel that it is important to put these issues in the Bill. I would welcome the opportunity to talk but, in the meantime, we would feel more content if the legal responsibilities that he talked about were in the Bill. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Does the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, want to move Amendment 101?
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 101.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Amendments 102 and 102A are amendments to Amendment 101. Does the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, wish to move Amendment 102?
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
“Trade and Agriculture Commission
(1) The Trade and Agriculture Commission (“the TAC”) is established.(2) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the TAC must produce a report making recommendations to the Secretary of State to promote, maintain and safeguard current standards of food production through international trade policy, including standards related to food safety, the environment and animal welfare.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (2) before Parliament on the date of publication.(4) The report under subsection (2) must include—(a) recommendations for the policies and legislation that the Government may adopt, including the necessary processes and institutions, in order to ensure that imported agri-food products placed on the market in the United Kingdom meet equivalent standards to those required of UK producers and that UK law and policy relating to food imports is effectively supportive of high standards, including in relation to food safety, the environment and animal welfare both domestically and internationally;(b) where relevant production standards are not provided for in existing primary or secondary legislation in the United Kingdom, recommendations for the policies and legislation that the Government may adopt, including the necessary processes and institutions (such as testing regimes, assurance schemes and certification bodies), in order to ensure that imported agri-food products sold in the United Kingdom are produced to appropriately high standards in relation to food safety, the environment and animal welfare;(c) the scope of agri-food standards and regulations for production methods and final and intermediate products that are relevant to agri-food products which the Government should aim to maintain in future trade negotiations relating to the trade of agri-food products;(d) identification of existing powers exercisable by a Minister of the Crown for administering, enforcing and monitoring standards as set out in paragraph (c), including import restrictions based on those standards;(e) recommendations about how to ensure effective and transparent comparison of agri-food production standards with international standards, including how different production systems and regulatory approaches might be considered equivalent to those that apply in the United Kingdom;(f) recommendations for how to monitor imports of agri-food products in order to assess and compare the standards as defined under paragraph (c); (g) consideration of exceptions to import restrictions of agricultural products, for instance where a requirement may have negative impacts on consumer interests or on developing countries, and recommendations of how best to manage such exceptions; and(h) recommendations for public and Parliamentary scrutiny of any current or future trade negotiations relating to the trade of agri-food products with a view to agreeing an international trade agreement consistent with the TAC’s other recommendations under subsection (2).(5) In addition to the report under subsection (2), the TAC must produce a report relating to each and any international trade agreement agreed, negotiated or concluded by the Government at any time after the commencement of this Act, prior to such an agreement being signed, considering its impact on the trade of agri-food products.(6) A report under subsection (5) must assess the terms of the international trade agreement under consideration and its impact on the Secretary of State’s ability to promote, maintain and safeguard standards of agri-food production, including in relation to food safety, the environment and animal welfare.(7) The Secretary of State must lay any report under subsection (5) before Parliament on the date of publication, and a Minister of the Crown must move a motion to consider any recommendations in the report in each House of Parliament prior to the relevant agreement being signed.(8) The relevant international trade agreement may not be signed by the Secretary of State or another Minister of the Crown within 21 days of a motion being moved under subsection (7).(9) “International trade agreement” means—(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii).(10) The TAC may create such working groups and commission such research as it deems appropriate to meet its duties under subsections (2) and (5).(11) Within three months of a report being laid under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must—(a) lay before Parliament a response to the TAC’s report and all its recommendations, including how the Secretary of State intends to maintain the United Kingdom’s standards for food production in importing agricultural products in relation to food safety, the environment and animal welfare, and(b) make a statement to Parliament on the Government’s response to the TAC’s recommendations.(12) Ministers of the Crown must table motions for resolution regarding the response under subsection (11) in each House of Parliament.(13) It shall be an objective of the Secretary of State to achieve outcomes consistent with the relevant resolutions passed under subsection (12).(14) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument confer further functions on the TAC after the report under subsection (2) has been published.(15) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the period of three months under subsection (2) provided that such an extension is agreed by the TAC in writing. (16) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (14) is subject to affirmative resolution procedure.(17) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (15) is subject to negative resolution procedure.”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“Apiculture
4A(1) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations modify any of the following legislation so far as it has effect in relation to Wales—(a) retained direct EU legislation relating to apiculture, and(b) subordinate legislation relating to that legislation.(2) In this paragraph “retained direct EU legislation relating to apiculture” includes in particular—(a) Articles 55 to 57 of the CMO Regulation, and(b) retained direct EU legislation made under that legislation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Welsh Ministers to amend retained direct EU legislation relating to apiculture.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“Apiculture
5A(1) DAERA may by regulations modify any of the following legislation so far as it has effect in relation to Northern Ireland—(a) retained direct EU legislation relating to apiculture, and(b) subordinate legislation relating to that legislation.(2) In this paragraph “retained direct EU legislation relating to apiculture” includes in particular—(a) Articles 55 to 57 of the CMO Regulation, and(b) retained direct EU legislation made under that legislation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to amend retained direct EU legislation relating to apiculture.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
““EU regulation”, “EU decision” and “EU tertiary legislation” have the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (see section 20 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendments to insert new Clauses (Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance) and (Retained direct EU legislation).
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the other government amendments to Clause 50 are about the extent to which the Secretary of State and the devolved administrations may make supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision in connection with provisions of the Bill.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, the government amendments in this group are technical. They amend the list of provisions in the Bill for which the Secretary of State and the devolved Administration Ministers can make supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions. We have brought them forward at the recent request of the devolved Administrations—that perhaps pre-empts the question as to why this was a recent request of the devolved Administrations.
The effect of these amendments is that the devolved Administration Ministers have the power to make supplementary and consequential provision to amend primary legislation, either UK or devolved, in all additional areas of the Bill where a legislative consent Motion is being sought.
This is not about filling any legislative gap or changing government policy. These are technical amendments which were needed to ensure that the devolved Administrations have the necessary powers to make such provisions, should it be required. The amendments reflect the slightly different powers each devolved Administration is taking in the Bill. For example, Clause 34, on agricultural tenancies, applies only to Wales.
Officials from the four Administrations have worked closely together on this issue to ensure that the scope of powers under Clause 50 provides all Ministers with the necessary powers, consistent with the devolution settlements. I am pleased the clause has been amended to satisfy Welsh, Scottish and DAERA Ministers. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is no longer speaking in this group, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this group of government amendments, which has been brought forward at the request of the devolved Administrations to give them the powers they each require, given their separate needs. I thank both Ministers for their patience and forbearance during this long process.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for that helpful clarification, and thank him very much for listening in Committee, when devolved issues were given a thorough airing. We certainly were made very much more aware of some of the issues and challenges that we will face on agriculture going forward, in trying to reach agreement between the devolved Administrations.
It was helpful that he clarified those famous words, “appropriate authority”, which seem to be peppered throughout all our legislation and which always leave us with the question of what the appropriate authority is, but he has very helpfully clarified that now. It was also helpful that he clarified that this was a recent request, which explains why this has come back at a fairly late stage.
I thank the Minister; he will be pleased to know I do not have any questions. Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, as this is the end of Report stage, I would just like to thank both Ministers for their enormous patience and courteousness throughout the whole process. Although we did not always agree, I thought we disagreed with particular aplomb and understanding, so I thank them very much. I know that we will have the opportunity to make more formal thanks at a later stage. It has been a long process, and I think it is time to wrap up at this point.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I would just like to thank the two noble Baronesses for their very kind remarks and brief contributions to this debate. I wanted to thank them and all on the Front Bench, including my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, and other noble Lords, for this Report stage of the Agriculture Bill. Our disagreements have always been civilised, and there are many things on which we can agree. I think these amendments are also important because they put into reality the very strong working relationship between Ministers and officials across the devolved Administrations.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(1A) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make supplementary, incidental or consequential provision in connection with—(a) sections 31 to 33, so far as relating to Wales,(b) section 34 and Schedule 3, so far as relating to Wales,(c) sections 36 and 37, so far as relating to Wales,(d) section 43 and Schedule 5,(e) section 44, and(f) section 49 and Schedule 7 so far as they apply in relation to Wales.(1B) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make supplementary, incidental or consequential provision in the law of Scotland in connection with— (a) sections 31 to 33, so far as relating to Scotland, and(b) sections 36 and 37, so far as relating to Scotland.(1C) DAERA may by regulations make supplementary, incidental or consequential provision in the law of Northern Ireland in connection with—(a) sections 31 and 32, so far as relating to Northern Ireland,(b) sections 36 and 37, so far as relating to Northern Ireland,(c) section 45 and Schedule 6, and(d) section 49 and Schedule 7 so far as they apply in relation to Northern Ireland.(1D) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (1) containing provision which could be made—(a) by the Welsh Ministers under subsection (1A)(a) or (b) or (d) to (f),(b) by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (1B)(a), or(c) by DAERA under subsection (1C)(a), (c) or (d).(1E) The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (1) containing provision which could be made—(a) by the Welsh Ministers under subsection (1A)(c),(b) by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (1B)(b), or(c) by DAERA under subsection (1C)(b),only if the Secretary of State has first consulted (respectively) the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers or DAERA.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
“(i) sections 31 to 33, so far as relating to Wales,(ia) section 34 and Schedule 3, so far as relating to Wales,(ib) sections 36 and 37, so far as relating to Wales,”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
“(aa) the Scottish Ministers, for provision in connection with—(i) sections 31 to 33, so far as relating to Scotland,(ii) sections 36 and 37, so far as relating to Scotland, and”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
“(ai) sections 31 and 32, so far as relating to Northern Ireland,(bi) sections 36 and 37, so far as relating to Northern Ireland,”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first government amendment to Clause 50.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(ia) giving financial assistance by the Secretary of State under section (Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to insert new Clause (Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance).
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is partly consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 43, line 29 and also secures that new Clause (Retained direct EU legislation) extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, by virtue of Clause 52(4).
“(3A) Section (Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance) extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only.”Member’s explanatory statement
This provides for new Clause (Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance) to extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(za) sections (Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance) and (Retained direct EU legislation);” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment secures that new Clauses (Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance) and (Retained direct EU legislation) will come into force on the day on which the Act is passed.
Agriculture Bill
Thursday 1st October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (28 Sep 2020)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Agriculture Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 17: Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance
Amendment 1
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(ba) the Scottish Ministers, in the case of an agreement entered into or an operational programme approved in accordance with any provision or provisions so far as having effect in relation to Scotland;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Scottish Ministers to give financial assistance under Clause 17.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to a small number of technical amendments, and I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
These are technical operability amendments and do not represent any change of policy. The Government are acting on very recent legal advice from the European Law Group and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the Government’s primary legislation drafters, on the interpretation of the withdrawal agreement as regards retained EU law, with the objective of ensuring that no doubt remains that these powers to continue EU CAP legacy schemes will operate as intended for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Amendments 1 and 4 relate to the new clause created by Amendment 45, as agreed on Report, “Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance”, and will ensure that the Scottish Government are able to make domestic payments where agreements and programmes are currently supported under an EU programme relating to rural development or fruit and vegetable producers once the funding for the programme has been used up. This amendment has been tabled at the request of the Scottish Government, whose primary legislation has progressed quickly through their Parliament and who do not have, as a result, an immediate opportunity to correct this themselves.
Amendments 2 and 3 have the effect of adding the promotions aid legislation—EU regulation 1144/2014, delegated regulation 2015/1829 and implementing regulation 2015/1831—to the list of legislation which will become retained EU law under the new clause created by Amendment 46 “Retained direct EU legislation”, as agreed on Report. This ensures that EU legislation relating to promotion measures for agricultural products which has a direct impact under the withdrawal agreement in relation to existing programmes will also be included in retained direct EU legislation. We have made these amendments at the request of DAERA, which wants to retain the ability to carry out agri-promotion legacy schemes in Northern Ireland under this legislation after the end of the transition period.
Government Amendments 107 and 110 at Report gave Welsh Ministers and DAERA the power to modify retained EU law for CMO apiculture legacy schemes. Amendments 5 and 6 correct a drafting oversight by specifying the resolution procedure for government Amendments 107 and 110 as agreed at Report, for the Welsh Government and DAERA to make regulations in their respective parliaments.
In line with the Sewel convention, the UK Government have sought the legislative consent of all the devolved legislatures for the provisions that engage the LCM process. I am pleased to report that each of the devolved legislatures has agreed legislative consent for the Agriculture Bill on the recommendation of its respective devolved Administration. The Northern Ireland Assembly agreed to the LCM on 31March 2020; the Senedd Cymru on 29 September and the Scottish Parliament on 30 September.
I would like to make clear again that these are purely technical amendments and were tabled at the request of the devolved Administrations to ensure that the legislation operates as intended. These amendments are consequential upon those tabled at Report to reflect the new European Law Group advice. The Government have not changed their policy. I hope that noble Lords will understand my wish, on behalf of the devolved Administrations, to ensure that these matters are firmly settled before the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words. First, I repeat what I said at Report: I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the way he has conducted this Bill, for his kindness and for the way he explained it and answered questions in such a helpful manner. I thank him and all the Front Benches for their hard work on this marathon Bill. They will be more pleased than anyone that we are now at Third Reading.
I want to ask a question or two about Amendment 1, on providing financial assistance for continuing EU programmes as far as Scotland is concerned. The Minister said this was a technical amendment—if I have got this right—because the Scottish Parliament did not have the opportunity to legislate. I was mystified, however, about why it was not included earlier and why we had to wait until Third Reading—at the 59th minute of the 11th hour—to include it, because the original draft included powers for the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, but Scotland was not included at all. Why has it been delayed? Are there changed circumstances? Will the Minister expand on that? Was it an oversight or have the circumstances changed?
I am a bit worried that sometimes in Whitehall—not through any malevolence, but just through oversight—we provide fuel for the fires of nationalism that are currently burning and that, on all sides of the House, we do not want to encourage. Therefore, it is very important that we get these things right and get them right early on in the process, so that we are not seen to be putting Scotland in as an afterthought.
Agricultural activities are carried out on two-thirds of the land area of Scotland. It is very important and right that the decisions about funding these continuing EU programmes be made as near as possible to the area in which they are taking place. The Scottish Parliament and Government clearly fulfil that objective. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that it was not an afterthought, that it is a technical amendment and that the interests of Scottish farmers, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government were not overlooked, because it is a very important issue. I would be grateful for that reassurance from the Minister.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I thank my noble friend for bringing forward this small group of amendments and will speak in particular to Amendments 1 and 4.
My concerns echo those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. This is a recurrent theme expressed by the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies which we hear of in the EU Environment Sub-Committee, on which I have the privilege to sit. In thanking my noble friend for listening to their concerns and bringing these amendments forward, I note that consent was given by the Scottish Parliament only yesterday, which seems quite late. Would my noble friend use his good offices to keep Parliament informed and update us on continued progress and on how this will impact negotiations and, afterwards, the implementation of the new policy? It is very important that the national Parliament at Westminster should be kept informed on the impact on the devolved Assemblies.
I take this opportunity, as I will not participate on the last stage, to thank my noble friend for his boundless patience, courtesy and tolerance during the many hours of debate. Through him, I thank the Bill team for the outstanding service they have performed to the House. I also thank the Public Bill Office and all who have been involved, including my noble friend’s able assistant, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, who has been utterly charming and patient throughout this process.
As my noble friend Lord Gardiner is aware, I hoped he would have brought forward a government amendment on another issue. The House has spoken; it voted overwhelmingly, by I think a majority of 100, to take forward an amendment to the House of Commons on protecting our standards and ensuring that imported food products continue to meet these standards. I also look forward to my noble friend and his department’s response to the Dimbleby report, which would have been very helpful to have.
We are on a voyage of discovery, as there is very little detail about either the interim SFI or the ELMS proceedings—the sustainable farming initiative and the new environmental land management schemes. But we are at this stage, and I congratulate my noble friend on all the hard work from him and his department to get us here.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the rationale behind these somewhat late amendments. Over the last 18 months, there have been several occasions on which we have debated legislation under the Defra banner which has been amended for a variety of reasons—with the sheer weight of legislation in Bills and statutory instruments, the degree of detail needed and the very short timeframes have meant that unforced errors have occurred. The main thing is that, in this case, the Government have been able to act so that omissions were rectified.
The first amendment, as the Minister indicated, is at the request of the Scottish devolved Administration to ensure that their agriculture Bill could provide the continuing financial assistance that will be needed and give Scotland the same powers as Wales, England and Northern Ireland. The third amendment is consequential on the first. It would have been helpful if the Scottish Administration realised this omission earlier, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
The second amendment, to Clause 18, relates to retained EU law for promotion schemes for agri-foods not to be used in England, Scotland or Wales. Northern Ireland wanted to keep its options open, so we have this amendment.
These are very technical issues, but it is often those that trip us all up. This is, as has been indicated, all very last minute. I understand that this could not be covered later by secondary legislation but would have needed primary legislation to comply with the multiannual financial arrangements.
The last two amendments relate to powers enabling the Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly to enact legislation for bees to be included in the Bill. We have debated on many occasions the crucial role that bees and other pollinators play in ensuring that our crops, flowers and trees flourish and survive. I find it extraordinary that such a vital section of the Bill, on apiculture, should have been left without any means of legally ensuring its continuity. However, the error was discovered in the nick of time. I support this group of amendments.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these amendments. As I know he is aware, it is clearly very frustrating that they have been tabled at such a late stage. As he has explained, several of the changes come as a result of late requests from the devolved nations. It is a worrying sign of the complexity of legislation across the four nations that decisions are being made on different timeframes and with different consequences for the agricultural community. It underlines our view that we need a robust framework agreement within which we can anticipate and plan legislative changes affecting the four nations in an orderly way in future.
It is understandable that Scotland might want the same powers as other devolved nations to provide financial assistance for rural development initiatives, but I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Foulkes on this. When were the Scottish Government made aware that the powers applied to everybody apart from Scotland, and when did they put in their request to add these powers into the Bill? If future requests are made by the devolved nations, would it be possible to deal with them via secondary legislation, since, had this Bill passed, where or how else could these matters have been pursued?
The Minister also explained that there had been a drafting error on the management of apiculture. It needs a resolution procedure for changes, which has now been included in the Bill as a negative resolution. Have these late changes been sent to the Delegated Powers Committee for review? What provisions are available if other drafting errors of this kind come to light once the Bill has been passed? It goes without saying that we hope no other errors appear, but sadly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, reminded us, the department has not been exempt from similar errors in secondary legislation in our recent past. Unfortunately, we have form on this.
Finally, the Minister explained that a small number of changes arise from a change in advice from the lawyers about how sections of the withdrawal agreement should be interpreted. Were the lawyers made aware that this Bill was reaching its final stages of consideration and were they given a deadline for their advice which would have allowed the consequences of it to be introduced into the Bill in a timely way? I know the Minister shares our frustration that these issues have arisen at such a late stage. If nothing else, I hope there can be a resolution from the department to learn from these errors so that the same mistakes do not occur in the next piece of legislation and that we can deal with all these matters in a timely manner.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate on these technical amendments. No one could be more frustrated than I am at coming before your Lordships at Third Reading with new technical amendments. It is not desirable, and I regret it.
However, on the issue with the Scottish Government, I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, and all noble Lords that there was no afterthought. Nothing was overlooked. What I am bringing forward is at the request of the Scottish Government. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that this is why work on the framework, collaboration and working together, although agriculture is devolved, are so important.
We clearly did not want to assume that Scotland also wanted powers and we waited for the Scottish Government to confirm that they wanted the provisions extended to them before assuming that that would be the case. We are in regular contact with officials in the Scottish Government. We understood that they were made aware on 15 September; we gave timings and deadlines, and the Delegated Powers Committee was made aware.
I agree that in the perfect world we would have been able to include these at least on Report, if not before, but they are issues that have recently come forward. As I said, I felt that it was better these were dealt with, as they needed to be, in primary legislation. Given the fact that these were flagged up and that the devolved Administrations sought us to attend to them for them, I thought it would be austere—to say the least—to say, “No, you’d better wait for opportunities within your own Administrations.” That is why, although I am frustrated about it and I recognise that frustration, they have come forward.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their kind remarks. I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering that no one wants to have legislation that is in error in any sense. That is why we have professionals and lawyers bringing forward that expertise. Obviously, what has happened here is that there are some things which the devolved Administrations have looked at and said, “Actually, we would like to have this within our own legislative framework and our own schedules.”
On the point about apiculture, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that bees and pollinators are absolutely essential not only for our crops but for the natural world. This was about ensuring that the regulations in Wales and Northern Ireland, and any changes in them, were to be dealt with by the negative resolution. It was not that there were no regulatory powers; it was to confirm it would be through the negative resolution.
As I say, I wish that these matters had come forward earlier, but—I say this particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised it—I want to get these things right. That is why I have asked your Lordships to accept these amendments. I reiterate that they do not represent any change, they are consequential on those tabled on Report, and they reflect the advice that we need to attend to these for the devolved Administrations at their request. Given the time constraints, introducing them at this stage did at least allow us to ensure that the legislation operates as intended and, very importantly, to the satisfaction of the devolved Administrations. We have had very positive working relationships on the Bill, and more widely as a department. I am very pleased that each devolved legislature has agreed the legislative consent for the Bill on the recommendation of their respective devolved Administrations.
I know that my noble friend Lady McIntosh raised issues separate to the amendments themselves, which obviously I will reflect on. In the meantime, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s other amendment to this clause.
“(6) The legislation within this subsection is—(a) Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal market and in third countries,(b) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1829 of 23 April 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal market and in third countries, and(c) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1831 of 7 October 2015 laying down rules for application of Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal market and in the third countries.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that EU legislation relating to promotion measures for agricultural products that has direct effect under the Withdrawal Agreement in relation to existing programmes will also be retained direct EU legislation.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to Clause 17.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(3) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to negative resolution procedure (unless section 54(5) applies).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the procedure for the regulation making power contained in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(3) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to negative resolution procedure (unless section 54(5) applies).”Member’s explanatory statement.
This amendment sets out the procedure for the regulation making power contained in paragraph 6 of Schedule 6.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, we have come to this final stage of—I think we would say—lengthy deliberations on a Bill which will have a lasting impact on farming and the rural economy. It has been my privilege, coming from a farming background, to have responsibility for the Bill.
It has also presented, if I may say, some challenges from all sides of the House—and quite often from behind me. I am clear that our consideration of the Bill has been full and detailed. My noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist—to whom I pay a very strong tribute—and I have enjoyed the opportunity to discuss with your Lordships these important matters. I think we would all accept that it has been wide ranging, and I entirely appreciate the commitment with which your Lordships have scrutinised the Bill.
In particular, I acknowledge the cordial working relationship we have both had with the noble Baronesses on the Front Benches opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. We all seek a vibrant future for British farmers and the production of food of high quality and to a high standard. Farmers are also custodians of the countryside and our landscapes, and I believe the Bill provides a framework for these two imperatives: food production and an enhanced environment.
I also take the opportunity to thank the Bill team and all the officials at Defra and within the devolved Administrations for their collaborative working, which has made my task not only—on most occasions—straightforward but especially stimulating and rewarding. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind comments. By any measure, consideration of the Bill has been a mammoth task. In many ways, this is not surprising: this Bill is the first major piece of farming legislation for about 40 years, so there was a lot to discuss. We certainly had a lot of discussion.
I feel I know so much more about the personal lives of so many Peers—their favourite butterflies, their favourite trees, their best-loved walks and landscapes, and even sometimes their special hobbies. Their determination to keep talking past my bedtime has been impressive. I have also been genuinely impressed by their commitment to the environment, and indeed to a policy based on nature-friendly farming for the future. Throughout it all, the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, have been the personification of patience and courtesy, and I pay tribute to them both for their professionalism and for initiating the many briefings and discussions which took place around the Bill in an attempt to reach understanding and consensus.
At the end of the day, we have sent only six amendments back to the Commons, and those represent some of the biggest issues where we were unable to reach a consensus. I hope the Commons will understand the strength of feeling from around the Chamber on our concerns, and indeed feel able to reflect on and reconsider its position on those issues. I really hope that it is able to do that, but I suspect that this is not quite the end of the road for the Bill and that it will be back with us again all too soon.
In the meantime, I formally thank both the Minister and the Bill team for getting us to this point. I also thank Daniel Stevens, our legislative officer, for his excellent advice and drafting skills. Finally, I thank my noble friends Lord Grantchester and Lady Wilcox for contributing their expertise with such style and for being such great partners in our team.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his time, patience and wisdom in helping us through the passage of the Bill. We have had a great many amendments to deal with, many speakers and some very late nights. Throughout, the Minister has been thorough in his responses and polite; I am sure, had I been in his place, I would not have remained so placid. I am very grateful to him for his diligence and support.
Like others, I have learned a great deal more about agriculture and the land through the passage of the Bill. I also place on record my thanks to the officials for the numerous briefings we have received over the months since Easter. In some cases, there were over 15 officials on the Zoom calls, helping us to get to grips with the Bill and the many clauses we were attempting to amend.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for their support throughout this process, and those on the Cross Benches who have worked with us to ensure that the issues the public were so concerned about got a proper airing. I agree with her that it will be interesting to see what the Commons sends back to us.
Lastly, but by no means least, I thank the Liberal Democrat whips’ office, without which I would have been floundering with the processes involved in getting to this stage today. This has been a long haul, but we have got there. I again thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, for their guidance on the Bill.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and before her the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Both have contributed enormously to the debates on this Bill. It is a daunting task to be speaking on behalf of my noble friends from the Cross Benches. I could not possibly reflect the depth and breadth of experience and knowledge that resides within the Cross-Bench group. It is a great honour to speak on behalf of my colleagues at Third Reading.
This Bill is of huge significance. I was listening to a presentation yesterday, during which this point in history was once again likened to the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and the 1947 Agriculture Act. It represents fundamental change: a once in a lifetime opportunity to reshape the management of the countryside and how we redesign our agriculture. For myself, and a number of us on the Cross Benches and indeed across the whole House, farming and land management have been our main occupation and our lifetime’s work. So, to have the opportunity of participating in this Bill, trying to shape it to make sure it is fit for purpose, has been a privilege and an incredible experience.
I genuinely believe that the amendments that my noble friends and I have sponsored have improved the Bill. I will not attempt to list them, because I run the risk of missing an important contribution, but I have, once again, been so impressed by the depth of resource, the expertise and the knowledge available on the Benches. To be able to interrogate this Bill line by line and scrutinise with vast knowledge of the subject does demonstrate, once again, the value of this House.
Of course, the job is not finished: I do hope our colleagues in the other House do not dismiss our amendments out of hand, but take them seriously, recognising that they are a genuine attempt to improve the Bill and to cover issues of importance and relevance to the agricultural sector at this great time of change. Also, since this is a framework Bill, we look forward to receiving more detail in due course, particularly as evidence from the ELMS pilots becomes available. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the House will have the opportunity to comment on the ELMS pilots and the plans to roll them out nationally in due course.
Finally, it is my pleasure to thank all those who have contributed to the smooth running of the process in challenging circumstances: the Bill team was incredibly helpful in dealing with endless queries and in the drafting of amendments; the clerks, as usual, in their guidance and organisational professionalism; the many who work behind the scenes have played a key role, particularly the digital team, who successfully delivered a service to us all so we could contribute in sequence—quite remarkable technology. I thank them all very much indeed. Once again, a big thank you to the Front Bench ministerial team for their tolerance, courtesy, patience and the comprehensive way in which they responded to debates. Thank you.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I do not think we have the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, do we? No. Then we will go on to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, we have had a very interesting, worthwhile and civilised series of sessions, discussing our individual, and the Government’s, visions, ideas and plans for the future of rural Britain and agriculture. Clearly there are disagreements, but overall there is a degree of consensus, which I personally much welcome. However, while I do not wish to be the bad fairy at the christening, I do wish to point out that this is an enabling Bill, and without the measures that follow, nothing can result. It is about that that I wish to comment and, at this point, I reiterate my interest as declared in the register and note the agricultural organisations with which I am involved.
I feel I have no alternative but to tell the House that I fear the emperor may have no clothes. I have had no information not in the public domain, and I know that some confidential information has in fact found its way into the press. However, I am quite clear that a number of those who are committed to working closely with the Government and Defra on these matters, and who will not fail to continue to do so—people who come from the practical world of agriculture and the environment—are very concerned that the department is simply not grounded in reality. Farming and land management have to be grounded.
In particular, there are real anxieties about the ability of the Sustainable Food Initiative to act as a bridge between the basic payment scheme and ELMS because, quite simply, there is not enough money. It is as simple as that, and those who say it understand these things. Equally, there is no confidence that working IT systems either will or indeed can be put in place in time. After all, we have been there quite recently. Failure in these respects will certainly lead to significant numbers of farms and rural businesses going bust.
The Minister, as many have said quite rightly, has conducted the proceedings in a genial and constructive manner admired by all around the House, but we must not forget what is happening behind the proscenium arch and curtain in front of which he delivers his lines. If I am right—and, unusually for me, I hope I am not, but I fear it is possible I may be—all that we have been discussing over the past few weeks will turn out to be an agreeable hallucination that will turn into nightmares or worse for many in rural Britain, particularly smaller businesses. Perfectly decent enabling legislation is quite capable of metamorphosing into appalling public administration. Let us all hope and pray that it will not happen in this instance, but the potential for it to do so is clearly there.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I think we can now call the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Is the noble Lord there?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We can hear you: carry on.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I think, perhaps, if the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, cannot hear us, we will have to call it a day. I am sorry about that. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has withdrawn, so I now call the Minister.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Marlesford that I will contact him and hear what he has to say. We have heard from the South Downs, Somerset, Northumberland, Cumbria, and we would have heard from Suffolk—that range of great landscape and food production. I am reminded by the two noble Baronesses talking of late nights that of course there are late nights of harvest as we try to ensure we get as much in before the weather changes or before the moisture rate gets too much. There are also early mornings, which is so much a feature of livestock farming. I know very few farmers who think that late nights are a very good idea. So there has been some stamina about our deliberations, and that is something I admire in this House. We really get stuck in and we take to these things.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, with his very great experience, used the word “reshaping”, but there are some great constants as well. It is essential that we provide good food in this country. It is essential that we have good husbandry of the animals that we are the custodians of as farmers, that provide food as well.
I also reflect on the experience of your Lordships and, as I have said before, being a Minister in the House of Lords is a very different concept to the other place. I know that there are many noble Lords who know far more about the subject than I do. That is not the case, I suspect, in the other place, and it sometimes does help to raise one’s game.
On ELMS, I well understand the importance of the test and trials. That is why I have been very straightforward with your Lordships that across the piece, in every part of the country, with all land tenures and different topographies, the tests and trials are in place so that this works for the farmer and the land manager. Whether it is tier 1, 2 or 3, it is designed to be their scheme too. I look forward to keeping your Lordships involved and engaged in those matters.
I have to warn your Lordships that obviously Defra will bring forward a programme of statutory instruments; I understand that three will arise from this legislation. However, clearly, in the months and years ahead, statutory instruments will be engaged as we move forward, and I look forward to working with your Lordships on them.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that we have of course found a lot of consensus, and where we have disagreed and there have been civilised collisions, I utterly respect the views that have been expressed. I say to the noble Lord that I think I am grounded, and I know jolly well that my ministerial colleagues are. We are acutely aware, as we go through a period of change, that we need to work with each and every farmer up and down the land and to work collaboratively with them, because this is a joint venture. I am not very good with IT systems—I am always nervous of them. I have taken that point and I have already made that point, but it is helpful to have that on the record. [Interruption.] There must be a farmyard somewhere in the House.
We have all worked extremely hard on the Bill and it has been a privilege to serve your Lordships.
Agriculture Bill
Monday 12th October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 12 October 2020 - (12 Oct 2020)
21:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 347 / Noes: 212 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 332 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 344 / Noes: 206 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 3, 4 18 and 30. If any Lords amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendment 18, which would establish a Trade and Agriculture Commission, I am satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 3 February. In accordance with paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 78, the amendment is therefore deemed to be disagreed to and is not available for debate.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The ruling that you have just made regarding amendment 18 will surprise, if not stun, many people outside, who had placed much hope in the Trade and Agriculture Commission. Could you provide the House with any further details of the rationale, because on first reading it is not clear what the financial implications of this particular provision would be? What—if any—other remedies might be available to Members of this House to pursue this matter further?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point of order. As he is an experienced Member of the House, he knows that when Mr Speaker and the Public Bill Office look at these amendments, they do so very thoroughly. Although they do not have to give a reason why an amendment is allowed or not allowed, the statement that I have just made is quite rare in the 28 years that I have been a Member—and I think Mr Speaker has done rather well, to be honest.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not really Mr Speaker I wish to challenge. I just want to say that it was not beyond the wit of Ministers to table a money resolution so that we could have dealt with amendment 18. This has put Mr Speaker in a very difficult position.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am sure that I speak on behalf of Mr Speaker when I say how grateful he is for the hon. Gentleman’s point of order and the way in which he has made it. Those on the Treasury Bench have heard his point.
Clause 4
Multi-annual financial assistance plans
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 2 to 8.
Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 10.
Lords amendment 11, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 13 to 15.
Lords amendment 16, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 17, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 18.
Lords amendment 19 to 46.
Victoria Prentis
I should begin by declaring my interests; my family have farmed near Banbury for many years.
This Bill represents a decisive break with the common agricultural policy, as we move to a system that will deliver both for farmers and for the precious environment for which they care. I was delighted to see the Bill pass its Third Reading in the other place, led by my wonderful colleague Lord Gardiner of Kimble. It has now enjoyed over 100 hours of parliamentary debate in its current incarnation, and, of course, had already passed its Committee stage in 2018. Rarely has a Bill been so scrutinised. Although there remain areas of disagreement, it is heartening to hear the loud support for British farming from all parties at both ends of this place. I will speak to each amendment in turn.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for giving way; I spoke to her before we came into the Chamber.
Last week I had a Zoom meeting with Lakeland Dairies, which is one of the major agrifood businesses in my constituency. The company is keen to understand the complexities of east-west and west-east movement, as well as north-south movement—from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland—for its products, which are milk products in liquid form. It is really important to have clarity on this complex issue. I have asked the Secretary of State for a meeting, because he has had various meetings with me in the past. I just want to ensure that we have a meeting with him so that we understand the process before we move forward.
Victoria Prentis
It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman. I know that the Secretary of State has met him about Lakeland Dairies in the past, and I am sure he will be delighted to do so again. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is a very complex issue.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Victoria Prentis
If I may, I will make a tiny bit of progress, otherwise we really will be here for another 100 hours.
The purpose behind Lords amendment 1 is to demonstrate the connections between this Bill and the Environment Bill. I am pleased to say that these connections very much exist already. Environmental improvement plans will already definitely be taken into account when determining the strategic priorities that sit within the multi-annual financial assistance plans in clause 4.
It is lovely to see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), in her place. She and I work very closely together. Ours is a very united Department, and we view farmers and environmentalists as often very much one and the same. Our future farming policies will be a key mechanism for delivering the goals set out in the 25-year environment plan, but we can take the steps we need to improve biodiversity only if the majority of farmers are firmly on side.
On Lords amendment 9, I would like to reassure the House that work is already taking place in this sphere. We have already commissioned an independent review of the food sector, led by Henry Dimbleby, and his interim report was released in July. We take his recommendations very seriously. We have made a firm commitment to publish a food White Paper within six months of his final report, which is expected next spring. This could well lead to a report sooner than is actually proposed in the amendment.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the Minister realise why some of us would be a little bit sceptical about her reassurances on timescales, given that the Environment Bill has gone missing for the last 200 days? Why should we believe her when she tells us that this is going to come forward shortly? Why not just accept this amendment? It is going in the same direction as she says she wants to go, so she should just accept it, and it would make it a lot easier.
Victoria Prentis
I am currently on amendment 9. I wonder if the hon. Lady was talking about the previous amendment; I am not sure. Nevertheless, I am delighted to say that enjoying at the moment I am what my predecessor referred to as my loaves and fishes week: I have agriculture today and fish tomorrow. I would say that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs legislation is very much front and centre in the business of the House this week. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is looking forward very keenly to bringing forward the Environment Bill, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will have further news on that shortly.
Sir Edward Leigh
On the subject of loaves, can I bring a message from the county of Lincolnshire, which produces 2 billion of them a year? It is the bread basket of England. This is a general point, but I was talking to farmers and I think they just want to be reassured on this point. They are the most efficient farmers in the country, and they want to be assured that when we do free trade deals, our competitors under these deals will be working under the same regulations as our farmers. That is all they want, and that was the whole point of the Lord Curry amendment about a Trade and Agriculture Commission with teeth. If the Minister can just give that commitment, they will be reassured.
Victoria Prentis
My right hon. Friend will be very pleased, when I come on to that section of my speech, to hear the reassurances that I hope I will be able to give him.
Back to amendment 9, and I think the report we have promised within six months of Henry Dimbleby’s report will in fact come sooner than is set out in this amendment.
The response to the pandemic has demonstrated again and again the resilience of our UK food supply chain, and I am really pleased with how well Government and industry have worked together. I would like to thank everyone in the food industry—from our farmers to those in retail and everybody in between—for responding so quickly and efficiently to some very challenging conditions.
It was a real privilege to chair the cross-Whitehall ministerial taskforce, which tried to ensure that food and other essential supplies reached the vulnerable. We worked with industry to smooth the way wherever possible, including relaxing competition laws and drivers’ hours. We have also worked with retailers to massively increase the number of online delivery slots. We are all too aware that many find themselves in food poverty for the first time. As the taskforce, we were able to secure £16 million, which we gave to frontline charities that are directly helping get food to those in need, and we allocated £63 million to local authorities so that they can provide direct support to people who cannot afford food.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently did a covid report, and the £63 million and the £16 million were really important in getting food out to those in society who need it most. May I have an assurance that if it is needed again, we will move very quickly to get it there? Unfortunately, after covid there will be a higher number of unemployed and great pressure on food and food security.
Victoria Prentis
I met the Trussell Trust and the Children’s Society last week to discuss how effective that local authority grant was. I know that my hon. Friend, who has done so much work in this space, has also taken evidence to that effect. I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks right now, but I assure him that I will make sure that those comments are fed through and, if the need is there, that that is seen as one of the options available and a very direct way of getting money to those who are in food poverty. The Trussell Trust is itself preparing a report on how effective that grant has been.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
All the indicators are that food poverty is on the rise, so I ask the Minister, as I asked the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary: why will Ministers not extend the food voucher holiday hunger scheme to the half-term and Christmas holidays?
Victoria Prentis
I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this matter for some time. He has heard what the Department for Education has to say about that. The scheme that I am discussing is the £63 million scheme, which of course did not go just to families with children, although they were heavily represented among the recipients of that scheme. We will pass on those comments and those of the Trussell Trust and, of course, the EFRA Committee when considering how we tackle food poverty directly over the course of this winter. We all know that this is going to be a difficult time for many.
Returning to the Bill, we already have powers in what was originally clause 17, which commits the Government to
“lay before Parliament a report containing an analysis of statistical data relating to food security”
in the UK. We listened to the concerns raised regarding the frequency of the food security report and, through Lords amendments 5 to 8, reduced the minimum frequency of reporting from five years to three years. Of course, we can still report more often than that, and in times of strain on food supply that might well be appropriate.
Turning to Lords amendment 11, I recognise the positive intentions behind the amendment, but I am afraid I take issue with the drafting. The Government are committed to reducing the risks from pesticide use. We have already tightened the standards for authorisation and withdrawn many pesticides from the organophosphate and carbamate classes. Integrated pest management will be a critical part of future farming policy. Under our existing legislation, the use of pesticides is allowed only where a scientific assessment shows that it will have no effect on human health, including that of vulnerable groups.
The amendment, although undoubtedly well intentioned, is far too broad. It extends to any pesticide and any building, and would include pesticides that are important for productivity but pose no danger whatsoever to health. Even worse, it also extends to any open space used for work, which on my reading would prohibit the use of pesticides in fields entirely. I encourage hon. Members to read the amendment carefully before supporting it.
Caroline Lucas
The Minister will know that Lords amendment 11 is based on one that I tabled, which the Lords supported. I think she misrepresents the amendment. It is perfectly clear that it would be possible for the Government to bring forward regulations to specify exactly the minimum distances. It is no coincidence that Lord Randall himself has said how important it is that this amendment is passed to protect human health. That is what we need to do. The Government could go away and design the regulations, but this is the overarching amendment to achieve that.
Victoria Prentis
I am afraid I do disagree with the hon. Lady’s reading of the amendment. My case would be that we already have regulation in place to protect human health from risks, including those in the vulnerable sectors of society, which I mentioned.
Victoria Prentis
I will not just at the moment, but I will later.
I am afraid to say that, despite the considerable thought that has gone into the amendments, we have not yet found a magic form of words that will address all the concerns and avoid undesirable side effects. In asking the House to reject the amendments, I will set out the set of solutions, both legislative and non-legislative, that I hope will allay the fears that Members have expressed. In my view, this range of measures, and constant vigilance on the part of Government and, indeed, consumers, are of more use than warm words in primary legislation.
I will start by reiterating that, alongside my colleagues on this side of the House, I stood on a clear manifesto commitment that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards. As I have said many times, our current import standards are enshrined in existing legislation.
They include a ban on importing beef produced using artificial growth hormones and poultry that has been washed with chlorine. The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 carries across those existing standards on environmental protections, animal welfare, animal and plant health and food safety. Any changes to that legislation would need to be brought before Parliament.
It falls to our independent food regulators, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, to ensure that all food imports into the UK are safe and meet the relevant UK product rules and regulations. The FSA’s risk analysis process is rigorous, completely independent of Government and based on robust scientific evidence, along with other legitimate factors such as wider consumer interests and the impact on the environment, animal welfare and food security.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I want to be very clear: the concerns that people have about the Bill and the Government’s decision not to accept the amendment are not about the quality of food. We understand that the product is not a danger. What we are concerned about is the production and the impact on the producer. If we undermine animal welfare and environmental standards, we may well have quality food to eat but we will damage our farmers and the integrity of our farming industry in the process.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman is partly right. Many of the concerns expressed, perhaps more wildly, in the tabloid press—possibly not by the farming sector—are indeed about the safety of food. I seek to reassure everybody that those regulations are in place, and there is no danger to safety or to the existing standards that we enjoy, and have enjoyed for many years as members of the EU. When we come on to the next argument, which we could perhaps characterise as a more protectionist argument, we need to balance the competing factors of trade deals that we already have, continuity trade agreements and trade deals that we want to enter into in the future, and work out how we scrutinise those trade deals to ensure that our farmers are getting a fair deal. I will go on to set out some of the ways that we hope to do that.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
In the letter that my hon. Friend sent to all MPs on 6 October last week, she wrote that accepting the amendments
“would make it very difficult to secure any new trade deals.”
That is the bit that makes people suspicious. I do not doubt for one second her sincerity. I have known her for years and she is a Minister of the utmost integrity, and I do not doubt anybody in her Department either, but is the view that she has expressed at the Dispatch Box today shared in heart and mind across the whole of Government, including the Department for International Trade?
Victoria Prentis
Yes, those in the Department for International Trade stood on the manifesto that my hon. Friend and I were also proud to stand on. We are absolutely committed to high standards.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend has helpfully set out the very high standards that any imports will be required to meet coming into this country. Therefore, is there any reason why this House should not be given proper opportunity to scrutinise any free trade agreements before they are signed, so that we can ensure that those agreements do not enable produce to come into this country that is lower than those standards?
Victoria Prentis
If my hon. Friend can contain himself, I will get on very shortly to a long section of my speech that details how Parliament will be able to scrutinise future trade agreements. It is important, and I think that we do do that, but I will set that out very shortly.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Just to refer back to the letter that the Minister sent last week, the Government’s response to the Lords amendments is that they would create a vast set of conditions that do not apply to current EU trade deals. Will she explain that a bit further, please?
Victoria Prentis
Yes, I will be getting on to that in a minute, too. Members will see that Lords amendment 16 has a large number of conditions that, were it to pass, would apply to continuity—so, rollover agreements—and to any new agreement that we signed. One of my concerns, just to give the hon. Gentleman an example, is that the amendment would require other countries to abide by exactly the regulations that we have in this country. Those might not be appropriate because of climate, for example, or the way a country is physically. Our hedgerow regulation, for example, would look fairly odd in parts of Africa, but that is just one example.
I will make a bit of progress. We have high standards in this country, of which we are justly proud, and there is no way the Government will reduce those standards. Our clear policy, in fact, is to increase them, particularly in the area of animal welfare, and I hope to be telling the House a lot more about that next year.
It is important that our future trade agreements uphold those high standards. We can ensure that with a range of safeguards, parliamentary scrutiny being one of them. My right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary has today confirmed in a written ministerial statement to the House that there will be a full scrutiny process for the Japan deal and all other agreements that we strike. When it is agreed in principle, a copy of the deal will be issued to the International Trade Committee. It can then report on that, and I know that it will scrutinise the deal carefully.
The Government are committed to transparency and to aiding scrutiny. That includes publishing objectives and initial economic assessments before the start of any trade talks, which has been done to date. We have also provided regular progress updates to Parliament. For example, we recently provided updates on the conclusion of negotiation rounds with the US and Australia, and we are engaging closely with the International Trade Committee and the International Agreements Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee in the other place. That includes sharing future trade agreements before they are laid in Parliament through the process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Today, the Secretary of State set out how that is happening for the Japan deal.
We will always endeavour to ensure the Committees have at least 10 sitting days to read through the deals or potential deals on a confidential basis. We are also sharing a full impact assessment, which covers the economic impacts along with the social, environmental and animal welfare aspects of any deal, and that impact assessment has been independently scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee.
Finally, at the end of negotiations, we are committed to ensuring that the final agreement text is laid in Parliament for 21 sitting days under the CRaG procedure, which will ensure that the House has sufficient time to scrutinise the detail of any deal. I know that there has been some debate in both Houses on the effectiveness of CRaG, but it is the established procedure under our constitution. Our overall approach to scrutiny goes beyond many comparable parliamentary democracies.
Further important scrutiny is provided by a range of expert groups that advise the Government on trade policy. They include the Department for International Trade’s agrifood trade advisory group, which was renewed in July and includes more than 30 representatives from the food industry—I nearly said “heavyweight” representatives, but I would not want that to be misinterpreted. DEFRA also continues to run various supply chain advisory groups such as the arable group, the livestock group and the food and drink panel. They provide expert advice as we negotiate, which is fed directly in to those negotiating.
We also listened carefully to powerful points made by Members of this House and the National Farmers Union, which is why we established the Trade and Agriculture Commission in July. The commission is working hard. It has met six times and set up three working groups covering consumers, competitiveness and standards, bringing more than 30 additional representatives to help with its work. Recently, the commission launched a call for evidence to 200 relevant parties, which asked several questions, including on how standards can best be upheld while securing the benefits of trade. Its report will come before Parliament later this term to be debated.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I hope I am not jumping the gun, but will the Minister look to extend the purview of the Trade and Agriculture Commission to longer than six months? It should be a permanent body that is established to scrutinise our trade deals.
Victoria Prentis
I am afraid that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is not within my gift; it is a matter for the Department for International Trade whether the work and life of that commission is extended. Further to the point of order made earlier about our inability to discuss Lords amendment 18 this evening, there is no need for any amendment to the Bill in order to set up or continue the Trade and Agriculture Commission. It was done without any need for legislation, and it will be perfectly possible and proper for Members to talk to the Secretary of State for International Trade if they wish the commission to continue.
The commission was set up with a fixed term and a tight scope, which was a deliberate decision, to avoid duplication of the work of the agencies and other groups that I have just set out. It was set up in order to feed directly into our trade negotiations with the US, Australia and New Zealand. We remain open to listening to any concerns about the operation of the commission and will continue to co-operate with DIT to ensure that it meets expectations.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is speaking laudably about the Trade and Agriculture Commission but then somewhat passing the responsibility to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is not with us today. What assurances can she give us that her voice will count in those discussions about the Trade and Agriculture Commission? That body is central to the Bill we are discussing, yet the Secretary of State is not here to answer questions.
Victoria Prentis
I must politely disagree. I do not think that there needs to be any amendment to the Bill in order to continue the great work that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is undertaking. It was set up without the benefit of legislation; it does not need that. I have just set out why it was set up in a time-limited way, in order to produce a report that will be debated in the House this term, which is useful, as it will feed into the negotiations. It was set up with that timescale in mind. Whether we want to set it up for future trade agreements is something to discuss another day, but I do not agree that it has anything at all to do with the Bill.
Neil Parish
I accept that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is not my hon. Friend’s responsibility. However, on amendments 12 and 16, if the Government could come forward with a proposal to extend its life or to set up a smaller commission to deal with individual trade deals, they would see off any possible rebellions tonight.
Victoria Prentis
Oh dear. I remain very fond of my hon. Friend, who continues to tempt me, Madam Deputy Speaker, down routes that we really do not need to go down in discussing this legislation—indeed, we are all busily debating amendment 18 as if it were before us.
To return to what we are meant to be talking about, if amendments 12 and 16 remained in the Bill, they could create a long list of new conditions that imports under trade agreements would have to meet. Such conditions do not exist under any agreement that the UK or the EU have to date, and they could also apply to trade already taking place, which we very much hope will be the subject of roll-over deals.
We will drive a hard bargain for access to our market, and existing import conditions will need to be respected. However, trading partners would be extremely unlikely to agree to all the potential new requirements in the amendments. The amendments are also not totally clear on what we would be asking of our partners. For example, what is relevant to protect the environment in the UK will surely not be what is relevant to other countries with different climates or conditions. From rules on nitrates to rules on hedgerows, our standards are sometimes bound to differ from those abroad.
Given that uncertainty, I am concerned that the amendments could jeopardise the 19 currently unsigned agreements that we are seeking to roll over. Trade, of course, already takes place under those agreements, with existing import requirements met. Unpicking those and demanding the numerous extra conditions in the amendments could upset the current deals if partners refused and walked away. In the worst-case scenario, that could affect whisky exports to Canada, worth £96 million, potato exports to Egypt, worth £30 million, and milk powder exports to Algeria, worth £21 million.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I think the hon. Lady said a moment ago that the problem with the amendments was that they would impose conditions that the EU has not sought to apply to any existing trade agreements, but is that actually the case? Is it not true that the free trade agreement between the EU and Chile in 2003 explicitly included a reference to animal welfare—the point made a moment ago—and that when the EU negotiated a trade deal with the Mercosur countries last year, it made the reduction of tariffs on egg products conditional for the first time on the countries concerned, namely Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, keeping their hens in line with EU animal welfare standards? If the EU can do that, why are the Government resisting us doing that when we take back control?
Victoria Prentis
As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, the EU has been able to put welfare standards of various kinds and levels in different trade agreements over the years. That is a perfectly proper thing to do, as long as it is done in compliance with international law. The point I was trying to make—I apologise if I did not make it sufficiently clear—is that it would be unwise, particularly in the agreements we are seeking to roll over in very short form, to add a set of conditions that, to my reading at least, are not entirely clear and that are broadly drafted. It would be difficult to agree with the partners with whom we already trade as part of these continuity agreements a whole new set of conditions and, indeed, a method of assessing those conditions in very short order. That might well put them off agreeing a deal with us. That is my concern.
In summary, the tools we have to ensure high standards are, as I have tried to set out, many and varied. They are strong enough to protect standards, even under pressure. We have existing regulation under retained EU law, which is watched carefully and controlled by the Food Standards Agency. Parliament can scrutinise new trade deals, as indeed the Select Committee on International Trade is about to do for the Japan deal. Other experts, including those on the Trade and Agriculture Commission, can advise us on trade policy. Last, but by no means least, we have the buying power of the British consumer, who is increasingly committed to high standards of animal welfare.
We will carry out a serious examination of the role of labelling in promoting high standards and high welfare across the UK market. We will start to consult on that before the end of this year. That combination of measures will protect producers of high-welfare British food, while allowing us to import when we wish.
Turning to amendment 17 on emissions reduction targets—
Victoria Prentis
I have turned, I fear.
Amendment 17 is another well-intentioned amendment, but it would add an unnecessary layer of complication. The Secretary of State is already required to have regard to the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero under the Climate Change Act 2008. The Government have also introduced carbon budgets, which cap emissions over successive five-year periods. If we are to achieve the UK’s net zero target, emissions reductions will be needed in all sectors. Not setting sector-specific targets allows us to meet our climate change commitments in the best and speediest way. Agriculture has an important role to play in reducing emissions, but we must recognise that planting trees and restoring peatland will take a very long time—probably not my lifetime—to deliver the best results.
We will continue to work closely on that issue with the NFU and others, including the greenhouse gas action plan partners.
Caroline Lucas
Given that emissions from agriculture have not decreased—they have remained static for years—there is every good reason to focus on the role of agriculture in driving climate change. It is not just a question of planting trees, which, as the Minister says, takes a long time. She could start by not burning the peatlands, which is leading to more and more climate change right now. That is the kind of immediate measure that could be in the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
I am sorry if I did not explain myself clearly enough. Of course we are committed to reducing emissions from agriculture, which produces about 10% of emissions, as the hon. Lady knows. It is important to work on that. I commend the NFU, which has set an ambitious target for doing just that. Many measures will be set out in the Environment Bill, which will come before the House shortly. Of course, the Agriculture Bill will be a key part of delivering net zero, as our future farming schemes are a powerful vehicle for achieving that goal.
Richard Fuller
Perhaps the counter-argument to that of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is that farming needs long-term stability and sense. Governments sometimes change, but this target will remain. How does my hon. Friend balance the requirement for the dexterity that she has described in the Environment Bill with the overarching target, which could provide some stability as we achieve some of the goals that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion has asked us to achieve?
Victoria Prentis
That is exactly what I am trying to do. I am seeking a balance between a laudable aim that we are all signed up to and not setting sector-specific targets, for which amendment 17 provides. I do not think that would be helpful. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that we need to do everything we can in the agricultural sphere to work on this important issue.
I will now deal with the Government amendments. Amendment 2 requires all new multi-annual financial assistance plans introduced after the end of the agriculture transition period to be published 12 months before coming into effect. The first multi-annual financial assistance plan, which covers the seven-year agricultural transition, will be published by the end of this year. All subsequent plans will be published at least 12 months ahead of their coming into effect. Those in the other place felt strongly that building in time between the publication of multi-annual financial assistance plans and their coming into effect would allow farmers to prepare for them and adapt to any potential changes. The Government agree and are pleased to propose that amendment.
Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 change the frequency of reporting on food security—to which I spoke briefly earlier—by requiring reports to be published at least every three years. The first report will be published before Parliament rises for Christmas next year, 2021. This report will include an analysis of statistical data relating to the impact of coronavirus on food security in the United Kingdom.
Amendments 10, 13, 14 and 20 to 29 were requested by the devolved Administrations and reflect the positive working relationship that we have with our counterparts there. I am pleased that each of the devolved legislatures has given legislative consent to the Bill.
Amendments 10, 13 and 14 require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the DAs before making regulations within their competence under clauses 32 or 37. Amendments 20 to 29 give the DAs the power to make supplementary and consequential provisions in all areas of the Bill for which a legislative consent motion was sought. Amendment 15 removes the provisions in clauses 42(4) and 42(5), as devolved Ministers have assured us that they are not required in law.
Amendments 3, 4, 19, 30, 31, 45 and 46 are technical amendments that ensure that clauses 14, 15 and 16, as well as their equivalent provisions in the schedules for Wales and Northern Ireland, will operate as intended. The clauses rely on a body of retained EU law being created at the end of the transition period. We have recently been advised that that may be necessary to allow us to continue to fund existing common agricultural policy legacy schemes.
Finally, amendments 32 to 44 enable legislative powers created by the Bill to be exercised on or after the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. This will enable us to act quickly to ensure that there is no gap in the powers required to operate existing schemes and to provide financial assistance to farmers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am sure that colleagues will be aware that this debate must finish at 9 o’clock and there are still two Front-Bench contributions to come. I will therefore set an immediate limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches, although I fear that may have to go down if we are to have any chance of getting everybody in.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments 1, 11, 16 and 17, and on amendment 18 I send my best wishes for a speedy recovery. I declare an interest: my little sister is a farmer in Cornwall. I thank all farmers for their work throughout the covid-19 pandemic.
This is a crucial moment for British agriculture. Today, Members on both sides of the Chamber are given a choice about what kind of country we want Britain to be. Do we want to be a nation that shines as a beacon around the world, standing up for our farmers, for the welfare of our animals and for the environment? Or do we want to throw all that away, just for the vague promise of a trade deal, so that poor-quality food is served to our children, standards are undercut and carbon and animal-welfare responsibilities are exported? I do not want to see Britain be the kind of country where our farmers are forced out of business, decimating our proud rural tradition.
I do not think anyone in this House wants lower-quality food on our plates, but unless the Government show some leadership and back British farmers, there is a real risk that that could happen. Labour has been clear that the Bill must include legal guarantees that our high UK food and farming standards will not be undercut in post-Brexit trade deals, whether with the USA, Australia or any other country. That is because Labour backs British farmers. In calling for food standards to be put unequivocally in law, I wish to speak not only for Labour but on behalf of the 1 million people who signed the NFU’s petition on food standards and, of course, on behalf of British farmers from Cornwall, Plymouth and Devon to the east of England, to Wales and to Scotland when I say: put high food and farming standards into law. Do it now—do it today.
It may seem a long time ago, but less than a year ago the Conservatives made a pledge on food standards in their manifesto. This is how it started:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
This is how it is going: our farmers risk being undercut by cheap imports from abroad within months. If the Government are serious about keeping their manifesto promise to safeguard standards, they should put that guarantee into law. If that promise was good enough for the Conservative manifesto, why is it not good enough for the Agriculture Bill, this Government’s flagship piece of legislation on food and farming? I say to the Minister that refusing to put that piece of the manifesto into law raises the question as to whether thar part of the manifesto was truly meant and whether that promise can be believed.
Sir Edward Leigh
Why does the hon. Gentleman think that so few British farmers vote Labour? Is it because they recognise Labour as a metropolitan elite outfit?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that intervention, because it gives me a chance to say that we back our British farmers. Tonight, they will be looking at the votes cast in this place to see whether Members of Parliament that represent farming communities, be they red or blue—these communities are represented on both sides of this House—support British farmers or choose not to do so. That will be a decision for each and every Member, but let me be clear: farmers are watching what happens in this debate tonight and what votes are cast, and their votes are not secured for the next election. Their votes are to be played for. I look forward to that competition.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman is making a great series of points. I am sure he would humbly accept that in the election last December the Conservatives made gains from his party in many urban parts of Britain because of the characterisation that Labour had taken those seats for granted. Is the same thing not here on the table tonight: large swathes of blue in rural Britain that the Conservatives assume will vote for them come what may? Is it not the lesson of tonight that at the next election many Conservative MPs will be in the same position as his colleagues were in December?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The important thing I have taken away from my discussions with farmers in Devon and on visits to farms up and down the country is that their votes are not guaranteed. The votes of rural communities are not guaranteed and are there to be won, but they need to be won through a strong vision and through delivery. Taking votes for granted is not a good electoral strategy anywhere. We need to look at what farmers will benefit from and what will they not benefit from. I worry that leaving a back door to their being undercut in trade deals is neither a good economic strategy for our country, nor a good political strategy for those people advocating it.
I expect the amendment to strengthen the Trade and Agriculture Commission to be redrafted in the Lords, and I hope it will come back to us soon. Amendment 16, on strengthening the trade commission, and amendment 18, on food standards, are a one-two—they are a classic British double act. I do not believe that the temporary and fragile Trade and Agriculture Commission would be able to stop the International Trade Secretary, Dominic Cummings and the Prime Minister signing a trade deal with America that would include imports of chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef. That is why we need that one-two—strengthened scrutiny of trade deals and protection for our farmers—in law.
Jim Shannon
The agrifood sector is very important to Northern Ireland. We have built up a regulation and a standard that we have sold the world over. I hope the shadow Secretary of State will press Lords amendment 16 to a vote, because it would ensure that our products retained their standards the world over and that they would not be lost in this deal. Does he share my concern?
Luke Pollard
I share concerns about the quality of food that could be imported after a post-Brexit trade deal is done, unless there is a legal lock.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s points about the importance of farming and of a long-term vision to support our farmers. I think that tonight’s debate is significant for us and for the farming sector in the future. Does he agree that consumers are very concerned not only about the quality of our food and the risk of things being done by the back door, but about the viability of our farms?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and I agree with those concerns. British consumers have spent decades arguing for increased animal welfare in our agriculture production, and putting their faith in those brands, supermarkets and products that have higher levels of animal welfare than others. That concern exists.
I want a trade deal with America, but it is really important that we do not pay for that trade deal with the livelihoods of our farmers. That is why the commission needs to be strengthened, providing extra scrutiny of standards, and we will need an amendment that locks those standards into law. I want the commission, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) hinted at in his intervention, to be put on a permanent statutory basis and to produce a report on every trade deal so that this House can vote on it. Our farmers feed the nation. The least they should expect is that their elected representatives have the opportunity to vote on whether to accept a trade deal that could devastate the economy. The Minister is right that a Bill is not required to set that up, but that means that the only thing required is a choice—and that is a choice that the Government have chosen not to make.
Jonathan Edwards
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this is an important point. Increased accountability would actually strengthen the hand of UK negotiators. I remember scrutinising the TTIP deal between the EU and the US in Washington, and one of our last meetings was with members of the food lobby, who told us, “Nothing is going through Congress unless we agree with it.”
Luke Pollard
I agree. At least British Ministers will not have to utter the phrase, “It won’t get through Parliament,” because Parliament has, sadly, voted itself out of having a say, making it one of the few Parliaments in the world that will not have a say on any trade deals with Britain.
Let me address briefly some of the reasons the Minister gave for not supporting the amendments, because it is important that we consider the arguments. Last week I heard the International Trade Secretary say that if we have high standards, that would risk having a crippling effect on agricultural exports from developing countries such as Kenya. I know that Members are concerned about that, but the problem is that it is not right. At the moment, thanks to our membership of the EU, the Government have nine trade deals with sub-Saharan African countries, and so far not a single one of them has been rolled over. We risk losing those trade deals with sub-Saharan Africa if we do not renew them by 31 December. If we care about our agricultural exports, that should be the priority. The Minister also knows that the Government should have a better plan for improving the post-Brexit UK version of the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences, which sets lower tariffs for developing countries in exchange for meaningful protection of human rights, labour rights and the environment.
What else is used as an excuse for the Government not putting their promise into law? The Minister mentioned labelling. I have spoken proudly from this Dispatch Box about the need to buy local. I want consumers to look out for the red tractor and other local accreditations when they are making purchasing decisions. But let us be real: an extra label will not stop lower-quality food being sold in Britain. It offers a meagre apology on the packaging, but only where there is packaging. Ministers know that 50% of our agricultural production does not go into retail. It goes into food service—to cafés and restaurants, food processing and the like—where the origin of the ingredients is, at best, hidden. That is precisely where chlorinated chicken would be sold and eaten first. It would go to big caterers and into mass production—places where consumers cannot tell where their food has come from or know the standards it is produced to. It would go into hospital food and into meals for our armed forces and our schools. The Government claim that the amendment is unnecessary because standards are included in the withdrawal Act, as we have just heard. However, the EU’s import restrictions apply only to products banned on the basis of safety and, as was mentioned earlier, they do not deal with animal welfare or environmental protections, which is what this amendment seeks to do.
There is one more excuse, which has not been spoken about so far, that is absolutely key to the Government’s future trade strategy, and it is about taxes. Could not Ministers just tax these products a wee bit more with an extra couple of pence on tariffs and let the market decide? This is something I have heard and read about in Tory-leaning media, but let me be clear with Ministers, because all those in this place know what the Treasury and the Department for International Trade are planning. Charging a few extra pence on lower-standard food import tariffs while public anger is at its highest will give Ministers a convenient soundbite to offer a nation ill at ease with the Government’s policy. They will then be able to drop those tariffs through secondary legislation when the anger dies down. The end result will be that we still have chlorinated chicken and food produced to lower standards on sale, whether it is for a few pence more or a few pence less. That will not stop those products being sold in the United Kingdom. It will authorise and legitimise it, and it will sign the death warrant for farm businesses the nation over. That is why we want these standards put into law.
In the midst of a climate and ecological emergency, it is imperative that we have a clear road map for agriculture to reach net zero. The NFU has done a good job in its work so far, and I want to thank farmers for the efforts they are making to cut carbon emissions, which are a sizeable chunk of UK emissions. That is why we back efforts to have clear, sector-specific plans that farmers can follow, and we also back efforts including the amendment tabled by Lord Whitty in the other place on pesticides. That matters because of the impact not only on the environment but on human health.
I fear that, in seeking to disagree with these amendments tonight, the Government might be trying to hint at the Salisbury convention, which is that the other place should not interfere with manifesto commitments. However, the Lords are doing something different from that: they are doing a reverse Salisbury. They are asking the Government to stick to their manifesto commitments. In such circumstances, the Salisbury principle does not apply, and the Lords should ask the Commons to reconsider these amendments on food safety and on the Trade and Agriculture Commission again—and again, if necessary. Every time this House votes on these amendments, more and more farmers will be looking at the voting list to see which Members support the farmers and which have chosen not to. We cannot take any votes for granted, and I warn Conservative Members against doing so.
Just last week the Leader of the Opposition and I visited the farm of the NFU president, Minette Batters, in Wiltshire. That was our second meeting with the NFU president in a month, but the Prime Minister still refuses to meet her. I would be grateful if the Minister could pull a few strings to get the PM to meet farmers to talk about this issue.
Victoria Prentis
I believe that the president of the NFU will be visiting Downing Street later this week.
Luke Pollard
Where the Leader of the Opposition leads, the Government follow. I am grateful for that. That visit to Wiltshire was not in vain, I see—[Interruption.]
What kind of country do we want to be? [Interruption.] I do not think that a country whose MPs shout at each other in a debate like this is a country that is good—[Interruption.] I have not heard that from this side and I encourage those on the Conservative side to recognise that as well. There are people watching this debate in farming communities up and down the country. They are tuning into BBC Parliament and parliamentlive.tv for the first ever time, and they should see parliamentarians performing at our best in this debate.
I want Britain to be a nation of quality—[Interruption.] Let me start that again, because the people at home might not have heard me over the chuntering. I want Britain to be a nation of quality, of high standards, of ethical treatment of animals and of stewardship of our landscapes; a custodian of high environmental standards; and a nation that challenges other nations to compete with us fiercely but to do so on a level playing field. I want Britain to be a beacon country with our values proudly on show, not just in soundbites and manifestos, but in our laws, trade deals and behaviours. That is what the amendments on food standards seek to achieve. It is a moral compass that this Agriculture Bill desperately needs.a It is because of that, and because Labour backs our farmers, that we have voted at every opportunity against the Bill, which singularly fails to protect our farmers from being undercut by food produced to lower animal welfare and environmental standards abroad. Our farmers are not afraid of competition but, when we maintain high standards for them but allow potentially food produced at lower standards to be imported, that is unfair. It is not a level playing field. That food would be illegal for British farmers to produce here, but somehow it would be okay to have it through the back door. That cannot be allowed and that is why our food standards must be put into law.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Neil Parish.
Neil Parish
It is great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and to speak in this debate. I say clearly that I shall be supporting amendments 2, 12 and 16 tonight and I will explain why.
This Agriculture Bill goes exactly in the right direction. As we have left the common agricultural policy, we can now move in a more environmental direction. We can bring in much more rotation of crops and go back to traditional types of farming. We can reduce nitrates and pesticides, plant more trees, capture carbon in more grassland, have more grass-fed beef and lamb, and produce poultry and pigs to very high standards. We are reducing all the time the amount of antibiotics used, and we are creating a much greater and better product. Animal welfare is at the centre of our production.
I welcome the fact that our farmers have produced such excellent food throughout this pandemic, and I pay tribute to the food processing industry, which is worth £120 billion to this country. It is the largest manufacturing industry in this country and 60% of the food that is processed is produced in this country under very high standards. So the whole direction of the Bill is right, it has to be the case and I very much support it and the way that we go. It gives us the independence and sovereignty to do it. Likewise, we now have the sovereignty to develop, argue for and produce our own trade deals. So why are we not a great beacon of animal welfare and the environment as we negotiate these trade deals? We have in our manifesto a commitment both on animal welfare and the environment. Would it not be right for the Secretary of State for International Trade to have the armour of Parliament’s backing to say, “I can’t negotiate away that particular part of the deal with you because it is written down in law”?
Richard Fuller
Does my hon. Friend agree with me on the frustration that hon. Members feel that, when it comes to trade deals, we are told at one time, “Well, it can be in that Bill,” and at another time, “It needs to be in that Bill”? Would it not have been helpful if the Department for International Trade had been here today?
Neil Parish
It would indeed. My hon. Friend is right. If we try to amend the Trade Bill, we get told, “That is not the place to put it.” If the Agriculture Bill is not the place to put it either, where is the place to put it? The place to put it is in this Parliament. I will very much support this, as do my hon. Friend and many Conservative Members. We want to negotiate very good trade deals, and not only with Australia, New Zealand and America. Do not forget that this is about not today and tomorrow, but probably several years down the road. What about when we start to do trade deals with Brazil? Brazil has burned down 2.5 million acres of rainforest this year and what do they do? They grow sugar beet and soya, they produce poultry intensively and they destroy the rainforest. When they have destroyed 2.5 million acres of rainforest every year, they will move on to another bit of land. They have destroyed the fertility of that land. They do not even farm the land in the right way. They destroy the environment and the land for farming and if we are not careful, that is exactly where we are going to take it.
Instead of that, we—the British—believe in animal welfare. We believe in the environment. All the signatories to the NFU petition agree on the way forward. So do the Government. I have every respect for the Government and the Minister. But, for goodness’ sake, get the backing of Parliament. Yes, we will get a certain amount of scrutiny of the trade deals when they are done, but the deal will be signed and then presented before Parliament. There will then be the option of objecting to it, or voting it through.
That is why the work has to be done. We do not need the whole Trade and Agriculture Commission; we could have a slimmed down version that could consider every individual deal over the years, as we sign it, to ensure that we do not trade away those standards, and that we improve standards across the world—that we raise the standards of animal welfare and the environment. Surely that is laudable. All of us can support that, irrespective of our political party. I urge the Government: instead of saying, “We’ve got the power. We can vote it down and stop those rebels whatever happens”, we want something really positive from the Government. I support the Minister very much in what she is doing, but let us get this measure in, so that we can actually support trade and trade deals in the future.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who made a passionate speech.
I rise principally to speak in support of amendment 16, although I will have a few words to say about the missing amendment 18. Amendments such as Lords amendments 9 on a national food strategy, and 11 on pesticides, are clearly devolved matters and properly decided by our Government in Scotland. However, in solidarity with our friends in England, I wish to express disappointment that this Government have chosen simply to strike all the amendments down, rather than to amend them and use them to improve the Bill. I cannot understand why they have not taken that opportunity. Regrettably, however, I think I am right in saying that very few—if any—Opposition amendments or new clauses were accepted by the Government throughout the course of the Bill, so perhaps I should not be so surprised.
I welcome Government amendments 10 to 15 and 20 to 29, which mean that the UK Government will have to gain the consent of the devolved authorities in further areas such as organics, but once again I contrast that approach with the bulldozing of devolved competences in the internal market Bill. I wonder if one hand of the Government is aware of what the other hand is up to.
There remains plenty to be worried about in the Bill, and the dismantling of England’s farm support system, to be replaced by some amorphous idea of payments for public goods, must rate high on that list. The issue that causes the most concern to food producers in Scotland, and to Scottish consumers, is that of food standards. The extra scrutiny measures that the Minister has announced are of course useful, but I look in vain for something with real teeth that can quell the very real concerns that we hear from all corners of the House.
One provision that has been inserted into the Bill will do something to address that gap and place the issue of food standards in the Bill, and we should keep that provision. Lords amendment 16 relates to clause 42 of the Bill, as it was bounced back here from over there, and it should be kept in the Bill. It is not perfect but it is serviceable and it offers some protection against what are sometimes appallingly poor standards of food production in other countries.
Shoppers have some idea of the quality of what they buy in the shops because of the regulations in place to ensure the quality of food from farm to shelf. Those regulations—those safeguards—will be dumped if this Government get their way. We know that because there have been plenty of opportunities to put protections and guarantees into legislation. This Bill, the Trade Bill, the withdrawal Bill and the internal market Bill have all been passed up by the Government, denied, done down and refused.
This Government sometimes seem hell-bent on reducing the quality of our food supplies and, frankly, it is not entirely clear why. Some have suggested that it is to secure a trade deal here or there, but that seems too high a price to pay. I am left considering only the possibility that they simply have not thought this through because the alternative explanation is that they intend to drive down food standards and consumer protections. Some say that that is because they have the wealth to ensure sufficient high-quality food for themselves and so give not a jot for the health and wellbeing of others. That, frankly, would seem a strange attitude for elected representatives to have. However, I see few other explanations for the refusal at least to replicate our existing food protections. The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, promised us several times that UK food standards would not be undermined by future trade deals. Here is the best and very possibly the last opportunity for this DEFRA Secretary and his Minister to do something about it.
I must say a few words about the rather hamfisted use of parliamentary tactics by the Government to prevent debate and a vote on Lords amendment 18, which would require the Trade and Agriculture Commission to make a report on recommendations for policies to protect food standards, domestic production, the environment and animal welfare, and the Secretary of State to lay the report before Parliament. It has long been suspected that the Trade and Agriculture Commission was created so that the Government might evade the wrath of their Back Benchers and a likely defeat in this Chamber. Here was an opportunity to create a Trade and Agriculture Commission with some real purpose and strength, instead of leaving us with the weak sop to the Government’s MPs that it is currently. Instead of creating a commission that had the ability to overturn any decisions made by Governments that might threaten the viability of our farming and food and drink sectors, we have a body that is frankly nothing more than a poodle of the International Trade Department. It looks like yet another internal battle between the Department for International Trade and DEFRA has been comprehensively won, or lost, once again.
We in the SNP have repeatedly expressed concern about the body over its lack of any real teeth and the lack of regard for the devolved authorities. These proposals do not go far enough, or did not go far enough, as reports do not provide concrete protections or requirements for the Government to act, but they also do not reflect the reality of devolved competences, and we insist that the devolution settlement be considered and respected in any reports so produced. With all that said, the Tory Government are offering nothing more than empty words as a protection for food standards and a report by the Trade and Agriculture Commission would at least do more than that to protect food standards. However, as we see tonight, even that wee bit of protection has been blocked by the Government.
All Scottish MPs received a letter signed by dozens of farming, health, environmental and social justice organisations recently pleading with us to support higher food standards through these amendments—from the National Farmers Union Scotland, to Citizens Advice Scotland, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland, the Leith Community Crops in Pots, Unite Scotland, Unison Scotland, the Trussell Trust and many, many more. The question for me is: will the Scottish Tories ignore them all?
I note from the most recent survey of Which? on the subject that some 95% of the respondents from Scotland who voted for the Conservatives in 2019 called for food standards to be maintained, with around three quarters of them saying that they were uneasy, first, because the UK Government had not entirely ruled out for good lifting the bans on chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef; and, secondly, because such bans could be lifted with a vote in Parliament. Again, I call on the Scottish Tories to do the right thing by all their constituents—to give them the protection that our citizens look to their elected representatives to provide and vote for this amendment to stay within the Bill. We challenged Scotland’s supine six to do the right thing by their constituents and by the people of Scotland at the time of the Trade Bill debates, but they meekly followed their Westminster leader through the Lobbies once again. Will they finally, this time, do their jobs and represent the interests of the people who elected them to this place?
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interest in the register.
I want to speak in support of amendment 16. I had also hoped to speak in support of amendment 18. I commend the Government for introducing amendments 2 and 5 to 8 in the Lords. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture, which sponsored Lords amendment 275 on improving regulation of gene-editing techniques, I thank the Government for responding positively to this with the offer of a public consultation this autumn, meaning that we do not have to discuss that amendment here today.
Having called on Report for producers to have more time to plan and restructure their businesses under the new agricultural policy, I warmly welcome the Government’s Lords amendment 2 mandating the publication of multi-annual assistance plans at least 12 months ahead of implementation. I also strongly support the Minister on Lords amendments 5 to 8 responding to the calls from me and others on Second Reading for the Government to report on British food security more frequently than every five years. Personally, I would have liked the Government to go slightly further, but the three years that is now proposed is a step in the right direction, and I welcome that.
I firmly back the broad aims of the Bill and believe that the Government have improved it in the Lords in response to suggestions from the sector and parliamentary colleagues. However, I continue to support amendment 16 and will vote for the proposed changes in line with the principle of the amendment. This is an important piece of legislation and we have to make sure that we get it right. Amendment 16 has the same intention on food import standards as the Commons amendment tabled on Report by members of the EFRA Committee, as touched on by its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I believe that our arguments remain now as strong as they were then, if not stronger. Ministers have frequently suggested that this is not a trade Bill, but I would reiterate that the issue of fair terms of trade for high standards in British agriculture simply cannot be separated from farming and environment legislation, which is what we are discussing.
I have listened closely to what the Minister has said, I have been encouraged by her words, and I know that she has worked extremely hard on this, but, as I said, I will vote today to write concrete legal protections into the Bill. I hope that a continued stand on this issue will encourage the Government to put our manifesto commitment to maintain UK standards on to the statute book—something that will reassure consumers as well as the industry on this issue.
Steve Brine
On amendment 16, my hon. Friend—and neighbour on this Bench—is absolutely right. Is not the wider point that we would be sending out a message that we want the rest of the world to change their practices? It is not just about what we do domestically; it is about Britain being a beacon for the right thing elsewhere in the world.
Julian Sturdy
I totally agree with my hon. Friend.
On that issue, it would be helpful for the Minister to address whether the legal guarantee regarding amendment 16 would impact on the UK’s progress towards our climate change and net zero goals. I think it would, and without that guarantee, it would be much easier to bring in Brazilian beef, for example, which would increase the carbon footprint for a family shop—it would be much higher. That does not even touch on the issue of palm oil or the destruction of our rain forests, which have already been mentioned.
I will finish by talking about the fate of amendment 18. I really do think that the Minister should look at strengthening the role of the Trade and Agriculture Commission in the way the amendment suggests. I know that, technically, we cannot vote on it or debate it tonight, but I do think, as she has already heard from Members across the House, that this issue is not going to go away, and it must be addressed.
Hilary Benn
I, too, listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say, and I have to say that I agree with the hon. Members for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), because I do not understand the Government’s resistance to putting these sensible changes into legislation. The problem the Government have is that the more they claim to want to do what the amendment is seeking, but then say, “But we can’t do it”, the greater they raise in the minds of everyone watching—farmers, consumers and others, as well as colleagues on both sides of the House—the idea that something else is going on here. So, let us be honest about this.
We all know how trade negotiations work and the pressure that trade negotiators come under. Let us consider the United States of America—with which the Government, to be fair, are very keen to get a trade agreement, because they have decided to move away from the best trade agreements they have, with the European Union. The fact is that that pressure will exist regardless of who wins the presidential election next month. I think the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) put his finger on it when he read from the letter, in which it appears that Ministers are saying, “Well, don’t do this because it will make it more difficult”. But how is doing what the Government promised to do in their manifesto more difficult—and it is only fair?
The Minister talked about undesirable side effects. I listened very carefully but I heard her give only one example, which was her reference to hedgerows in Africa. I understand the point she was trying to make, but it does not really work when we look at the new clause in amendment 16, because subsection (2)(b) talks about standards that
“are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to”
the areas we are discussing. Furthermore, the very next subsection gives the Secretary of State the power to determine what those standards are equivalent to. The argument made by the Minister, for whom I have great respect, that somehow there will be a fixed process that would lead to absurdities does not really wash when we read what is actually in the amendment that their lordships have put together.
I want to talk about sow stalls, which were banned here in 1999. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the new cruel confinement law, as it is called in California, which not only bans the use of sow stalls in that state, but bans the sale in California of pork produced in other American states that still use sow stalls. I am advised that that includes Iowa and Minnesota. Could the Government please explain why it appears that California is able to ban food products produced by what we regard as cruel means in other states of the United States of America, but that we somehow have difficulty in doing the same in deciding our new rules?
The final point I want to make is on the new clause in amendment 17. Again, I do not understand the Government’s argument. The Minister said that sector-specific targets were not really helpful, but the basic and obvious point is this: if we are going to meet our climate change targets, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pointed out, we are going to need progress in every single sector of the economy, agriculture, land use and forestry included. Therefore, it seems that it would be really helpful to have an interim target to help the farming industry to make the changes that we know will have to come. I am pleased to hear that quite a few Government Members will vote for them, but I urge the Government at this stage to think again.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Farming and the future of the agriculture industry are subjects that I am incredibly passionate about. Before entering this place, I had been involved for my whole life in the farming sector, and I use this opportunity to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is my view that for far too long our agriculture industry and the entrepreneurial spirit that the sector undoubtedly encompasses have been restrained and stifled by the workings of the common agricultural policy. Through the CAP, our agriculture industry has become less competitive through ill-thought-through subsidy schemes that have impeded productivity, stifled innovation and failed to protect the environment as much as we could have. Let me be clear: this is the fault not of the farmer, but of the system they have been constrained by. A change is required and this Bill goes a long way to shaking up the system and achieving that, which is great news.
I will use my time to talk about Lords amendment 16. This has rightly received much attention and I have given it immense thought as I want to ensure that our agriculture industry thrives and is truly sustainable long into the future. However, as we look to adopt new legislation, it is vital that we scrutinise the detail and the anticipated consequences.
Let us be clear about the current position: the Bill does not lower food safety standards. Of course, the amendment goes much further and obligates that any agri-environmental food import must be produced and processed under standards that are equivalent to the UK for animal health, plant health and environmental protection. We must ask ourselves: while the intentions are entirely laudable, in reality, what will the consequences be for the supply of food that we wish to import, such as the vast amounts of tea imported from Kenya, bananas from the Dominican Republic or coffee from Vietnam?
Let us take environmental standards, for example. If Vietnam and other developing countries, such as Ghana and Indonesia, that export coffee beans to the UK were expected to provide evidence that they meet UK carbon emissions targets, I can see that that would have a dramatic impact on the UK retail and hospitality sector, as I suspect that countries would not be able to meet such requirements. Equally, it would not make sense for the UK to require trading partners with certain climates and environmental conditions, which are very different from those here in the UK, to meet our specifications, such as the UK’s requirement for nitrate vulnerable zones, which are specifically adopted to UK conditions. It is vital that that level of detail must be explored and considered at this stage, to see whether it is practical to try to enforce this amendment to a domestic piece of legislation abroad and to see whether it is workable in law. I want to see a thriving agricultural sector.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend’s argument is that we must not put in a standard because we will stop imports from certain countries, so is he suggesting that we just go to a lower and lower common denominator to allow food in from anywhere? When we do a trade deal, we can write this into law. We could actually write this into law with all the least developed countries to give them preference in trade with us, rather than throwing out our trade to Brazil and Malaysia.
Robbie Moore
I believe that a totally protectionist approach is the wrong one for the success of our agricultural industry in the long term. We have a huge opportunity available to us. This amendment would constrain our agricultural food sector’s ability to grow, expand and meet the new export opportunities that will come from our country setting out on the world stage and negotiating new trade deals, which we should be bold and optimistic about for our UK farming sector—for example, expanding whisky exports to Canada, potato exports to Egypt and milk exports to Algeria. I am proud to say that British beef is back on US menus for the first time in more than 20 years, and that market opportunity needs to be explored.
Tim Farron
Let us start with some common ground. I am pretty sure everybody in the House thinks that the paying of public money for public goods is a good thing and that the environmental land management scheme is—in principle, at least—a good thing. Of course, by the Government’s own admission, the environmental land management scheme, or ELMS, will not be accessible to all farmers until 2028. We are three and a half months away from the scheme that it replaces beginning to be phased out, and 85% of the profitability of livestock farmers in this country is based on the basic payment scheme. My first ask is that the Government be mindful of that. They must not take a penny away from the BPS until ELMS is available to every farmer in this country. Given that fragility and that upcoming change in payments, it is all the more important that we do not put British farming at risk as a consequence of the new arrangements for trade.
Paying for public goods is vital. Those public goods are biodiversity, food security, access, education and so many other things, including the landscape that underpins the lake district’s tourism economy. All of them are at risk if we make the wrong decision here. Amendment 16 is so important because it underpins, and prevents the Government from undermining, British values when it comes to animal welfare, the sovereignty of this place in scrutinising and reviewing legislation and trade deals, and the future of farming itself.
What is the USP of British farming’s food exports? It is quality. If we allow the undercutting of our farmers through cheap imports—cheap because of the poor quality of their production—we undermine our reputation and our ability to trade internationally and be successful. It is important for Members to understand that amendment 16 is about strengthening Britain’s hand in negotiations. If our negotiators say to the US negotiators, “We’d love to help you out, but we can’t because Parliament won’t let us,” that is real strength which allows us to get the kind of deal that is good for British farmers, for the environment and for animal welfare. It would strengthen this Parliament. The Minister said that we have spent 100 hours debating the Bill. That contrasts very worryingly with the length of time we will have to scrutinise trade agreements that will last for generations. It will strengthen our standing and reputation as a country if we write into the Bill our determination to ensure that we uphold animal welfare and environmental standards, as so many Members on both sides of the House have said.
The only reason that the Government would resist the enforcement of minimum standards in the Bill is if they wanted to allow themselves the freedom—the wriggle room—to sell out our farmers. In a letter publicised last week, the Minister said:
“Such conditions would make it very difficult to secure any new trade deals.”
In other words, “If you don’t allow us to throw our farmers under a bus, we’ll not get the trade deal that we want.” If we care about not only farmers, animal welfare and environmental protections but the communities that those farms underpin, such as mine in Westmorland, we are letting down generations of farmers and the heritage that they promote and have protected if we allow the Government to throw all that away in negotiations. If Members want to back British farmers, they cannot just wear a wheat badge once a year—they must vote for the amendment tonight.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I rise as a Member of Parliament for a very agricultural constituency, and as the product of a farming family—in fact, I think I still have a place on offer at Harper Adams if this career does not work out—as well as a former Minister for agritech, former trade envoy, and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture.
This is a major moment, when we take back control of our farming policy from the EU after 40 years, and of our trading destiny and sovereignty. It is on a par with 1947—the last great reset of agricultural policy—or, indeed, the corn laws. I welcome the Agriculture Bill, and the work of DEFRA Ministers and officials in setting out a framework that supports commercial British farming—a great British industry that is leading in the world—and recognises that its important environmental work, which involves managing 70% of our land area, requires additional support. In broad terms, I strongly welcome the Bill.
I welcome even more strongly the Conservative party’s commitments, both in our manifesto and over the last 18 months from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the time of the general election. I also welcome everyone who asked about our commitment to ensuring that we do not in any way undermine those standards. The Prime Minister put it beautifully when he said,
“we will not accept any diminution in food hygiene or animal welfare standards… We will not engage in some cut-throat race to the bottom…We are not leaving the EU to undermine European standards”.
He could not have been any clearer.
For that reason, I welcome the comments of my friend and neighbour, the Secretary of State for International Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), her agreement to the Trade and Agriculture Commission and her personal commitment to ensuring that we do not negotiate away any standards. This really matters: to the great industry of British farming and agriculture; to consumers watching today, who want to know that we are looking after their interests; to voters, to whom the Conservative party gave those solemn commitments last year; and, dare I say it, to this party, which I have always seen as a party of the countryside, of stewardship, of rural community, and of high standards in animal welfare and environmental farming. That is what is on the table when we vote tonight. Either we are that as a party, or, in the countryside, we are very little.
This should be a hugely exciting opportunity for us to set out an ambition and lead globally, to use our trade leverage to promote fair trade around the world, to give our farmers a level playing field, to embrace variable tariffs, and to ensure that we support growers around the world to follow the standards that we need them to embrace. We have to double world food production on the same land area with half as much water within 20 years. That is a massive opportunity for our agritech industry. Imagine if we used our tariffs variably to say, “We won’t accept food that breaches our minimum standards. We will lower tariffs on decent food, but we’ll zero tariff food produced in ways we know we need as a global community.”
But there is a major problem: the Government, despite endorsing all of that vision, are today stripping out the proper establishment of the commission that the Secretary of State for International Trade herself agreed to, carefully negotiated in the House of Lords. They are asking us to rely on CRaG—a process agreed decades ago that was not designed for this purpose, and which will mean that this House will not have a say on trade deals—and asking us to rely on the WTO, which specifically prohibits animal welfare and food production standards as a legal basis for any trade restrictions. We are saying that we defend farming and the standards that we support, but denying this House the means to guarantee them.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
What else has my right hon. Friend done about how he feels about this matter? Has he written to anyone about it?
George Freeman
I am grateful to my distinguished hon. Friend. The truth is that we can talk about standards, but if we expose UK farmers and growers to imports coming in at a lower price because they are not fulfilling those standards, they will not be able to compete and we will be throwing away the opportunity of having a great industry that leads the world. Lord Curry, who tabled the amendment in the other place, said:
“Under the current terms, the commission will set up for six months and will submit an advisory report to the Secretary of State, which will be presented to Parliament. It will then be disbanded and disappear into the mist. There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to take its recommendations seriously”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 July 2020; Vol. 805, c. 145.]
If we, as a Government and as a party, are seriously committed to honouring our commitments, I would like us to go further. Why do we not commit to enshrining our standards properly in some form of schedule—the standards that we will not undermine or allow any Minister of any Government to negotiate away? Why do we not give this House the power to ensure that it can scrutinise properly? Why do we not embrace a trade policy that is fit for this 50-year opportunity, which puts the British flag at the top of the mast for standards, and go out into the world and say, “We’ll use our trade leverage and variable tariffs to support the good, benign practices that the world urgently needs”?
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
This is a vital piece of legislation, and it is symbolic. This is the drawing of a new era for the United Kingdom and our agriculture industry outside the European Union, with the ability to shape our own policy on food production, standards, the environment and animal welfare. It is a test, therefore, of what our standards will be, what value we place on our farming and agrifood sector, and how the sector can prosper while we ensure that our environment is protected for future generations.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the focus has rightly been on standards, and I make no apologies for bringing my remarks to standards again today. I welcome Lords amendment 16, which, if added to the Bill, would provide the legislative assurances needed for consumers, farmers, processors and retailers that the Government are committed to protecting the standards that we all value, enjoy and want to see protected, not eroded.
Jim Shannon
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that steps are taken to ensure that food imported into the UK under future trade deals is produced to equivalent standards to what we have been producing in Northern Ireland for the last number of years? It is so important to retain and build upon the qualities that we, in Northern Ireland and across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have had over the past few years.
Carla Lockhart
I agree wholeheartedly. As I said at the last stage, flooding our market with cheap imports and cheap produce will have a disastrous impact on our farmers. We cannot claim to back British farming one day and not protect our farmers in law the next. I am conscious that since the Bill was last before the House the Government have made many verbal commitments on this issue, so why not put them into legislation? What is the justification for saying something outside this House if they will not enable it through legislation within the House?
We, as Members of this House, have a duty to act in the best interests of our constituents at all times. To do that, we must ensure that the food that our constituents eat, from the youngest to the oldest, is of the highest standard and that our agricultural industry—the cornerstone of our society—is protected in law. It is extremely disappointing that Lords amendment 18 was ruled out of scope. My colleagues and I would have supported it on the basis that it would allow this House to scrutinise trade Bills, their impact and the standards being allowed with our new trading partners. This House should be accountable for every food product imported into the UK.
Farmers in Northern Ireland, with a farming model largely based on family farms where the work is hard and the margins are by no means guaranteed, look at the Government’s reticence in legislating on standards with suspicion, and I share such suspicion. For the Government to demand the highest standards of their own farmers, at considerable cost, financially, socially and mentally, but refuse to make it law that importers will face those same demands is just bizarre. I urge the Government to think again. We need the Bill to allow our local Department to administer direct payments from 2021, and, as such, we will support it overall, but we do so in protest, and out of our farmers’ need to receive that much needed financial support.
In closing, let me touch on the amendments and the provision in the Bill relating to environmental standards. The farmers I represent and those I spoke to regularly are wholly committed to the highest environmental standards—standards that will far exceed those in many countries with which the Government will seek to do trade deals. However, in return for a focus on sustainable agriculture those farmers need the Government to recognise that they cannot do it alone. They need the Government to support them, and thus far support has fallen far short. That must be addressed. This House has a choice today. I will stand up for British farming and its world-class standards, and I hope that others will join me.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As I think you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you have often been in the Chair, I have been closely involved with the Bill at each stage of its seemingly interminable progress through the House. I spoke on Second Reading on both occasions, and I served on both Bill Committees, in this Parliament and the last. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak once again today to make the case for rewarding good stewardship of our land—I believe that is what the Bill does, for the most part—and for maintaining high standards in food production. Obviously, we are here to discuss why the Bill falls short on that front.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I am the son of a Berwickshire farmer, and I am proud to represent one of the most fertile parts of rural Scotland. The food producers in my borders constituency are the best in the business; the quality of our produce is second to none. Others have spoken in this debate on both sides of the question, particularly around food standards, and they are all just as passionate about their own local areas.
What this debate has shown more than anything is the consensus that exists across the House, reflecting the views of people across the country, that our high UK standards of environmental protection and food production are the right ones and that they must be preserved. Where there is disagreement, it is about how we can best do that in the years ahead.
I understand why some hon. Members will support these amendments from the House of Lords, and I understand why a number of my constituents got in touch to ask me to do the same, but I will not, for three main reasons. First, I do not believe that they are in the best interests of farmers and producers in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. We are in this position because we have left the EU, and we will soon be outside the common agricultural policy and the common commercial policy. It is worth taking a moment to remember that these matters were settled when we were members of the EU. The EU did not, does not and will not ask its trade partners to adopt all its environmental and food standards, as the amendments would ask the UK to do in the years ahead. The trade deals we now enjoy, which we hope to roll over, were signed on that basis. Making the proposed changes would put the continuation of those trading relationships at risk.
Secondly, the amendments are not necessary. The law already forbids the things they seek to guard against. Chicken washed in chlorinated water is banned in the United Kingdom. Growth hormones in beef are banned. In the last few decades, it was the EU that signed trade deals, and this House had no role in agreeing them. In the future, the House will be a player in that process. The UK Government will conduct the trade negotiations, and this Parliament will scrutinise the Government and hold them to account. In the end, Parliament can block an international treaty if it so chooses.
Thirdly and finally, I fear that these amendments would be harmful to some of the world’s poorest people. Requiring every country we do a trade deal with to match all our rules would make it virtually impossible to reach agreements with developing countries. Those countries might lack the necessary bureaucratic infrastructure to meet all our reporting requirements, or the rules designed for a rainy island in the north Atlantic might just not be suitable for their climates.
I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone supporting these amendments; I simply disagree that the amendments represent the best way forward. They are not in the interests of food producers, they are not necessary to protect food standards and they would be bad for trade. Free and fair trade is what allows us to enjoy food and drink from around the world that our great-grandparents had never heard of. It allows our producers to sell their exceptional quality products globally. It is what is lifting the most vulnerable people in the world out of poverty. Trade is a force for good, and with the high standards that we set in law and the enhanced scrutiny that this House will provide for years to come, we have nothing to be afraid of.
Caroline Lucas
Until the last speech, I was going to say how lovely it was to feel a common view coming from the Government and Opposition Benches. Let me just say why I think the last speaker was wrong. He said that if we adopted Lords amendment 16, for example, we would be imposing standards on developing countries that they could not reach. In fact, the EU has all sorts of arrangements with poorer countries precisely to be able to support them in improving their standards. There is nothing here that would inflict inappropriate standards on some of the poorest countries. The hon. Gentleman also said that our standards are safe, but they are not safe if they are going to be undermined by cheaper imports that do not meet those same standards. That is tantamount to handing a knife to our farmers and asking them to cut their own throats. It is not a sensible strategy.
I want to speak to some of the amendments from the other place and particularly to Lords amendment 9, on the national food strategy. The amendment stipulates what that strategy should contain, including things such as the sustainability of food production and consumption, improving dietary health, reducing obesity, minimising food waste, ensuring that public procurement supports a shift towards sustainable farming, and so on. It is significant that cross-party support for the amendment in the other place was strong.
The letter the Minister sent to MPs last week explained that the Government object to amendment 9 because it would
“impose arbitrary timetable requirements for objectives the Government has already committed to fulfil”.
I hope she will forgive us, but we want to see that commitment in the Bill. We have seen already in the debate that we do not trust vague commitments, and certainly not vague commitments that do not even have a timetable to them, given that, as I said earlier, the Environment Bill is already 200 days late.
Lords amendment 11 is about protecting people from the adverse health impacts of pesticide use. It addresses what crop pesticides are currently permitted in the localities of homes and schools, as well as the exposures, the risks and the acute and chronic adverse health impacts for rural residents. It does not specify the distance required between pesticide use and nearby public space—that is for secondary legislation—but I can tell the Minister that we had a lot of support from the Clerks in both Houses in the drafting of the amendment, and we are convinced that it is an effective amendment to protect human health. It is very significant that Lord Randall, who is a former environment adviser to the former Prime Minister herself, has said how vital the amendment is.
Recent events have revealed that the precautionary principle is one of the most important scientific principles we have, and we should be implementing it here. It does not substitute for the overall shift that we need to see towards agro-ecology, but it would do something to protect rural residents who look out of their windows right now and see farmers in protective equipment in their tractor cabs, protected from the impacts of the crops they are spraying, while those rural residents have no protection whatever. We should be standing up for them and protecting them, and that is what the amendment would do.
The Lords amendment on the climate emergency is vital. It would require the Secretary of State to have regard not just to the UK’s net zero target of 2050, but to the Paris climate agreement and the critical importance of acting now to drive a steep reduction in emissions by 2030. Right now, the Government are showing their world-beating ability to set long-term targets on climate change at the same time as demonstrating a world-beating ability to utterly fail to accompany them with either the policies or the funding required to deliver them. That amendment would put that right.
Finally, as others have said, it was laid down in the Government’s manifesto that they would maintain standards, yet when they are put to the test, they fail again and again. Those standards should not be put on the altar of a trade deal with the US and sacrificed; they should be implemented. That is what the Government promised in their manifesto, and that is what they should deliver.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
After that rant, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I have to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), because I think he gave one of the most outstanding speeches I have heard in this House.
I start by drawing attention to my declaration of interest as a farmer. I have lived with this subject for some 67 years of my life—my father was a farmer. I have a passion for the countryside, I have a passion for British farmers producing high-quality goods, and I have a passion for British farmers managing the British countryside in the way that it is, and that is the way the public want to see it continue to be managed. The Bill gives us an ideal opportunity, through the way we are going to purchase public goods, to continue to raise the standards of British agriculture.
I have been in this House for 29 years. I have not seen a single free trade agreement negotiated by the EU that has damaged British farming standards, and I do not believe that will happen in the future. I have listened to every word that my hon. Friend the Minister has correctly said from the Front Bench. What we do not want to do is jeopardise the 29 or so roll-over free trade agreements from the EU by passing legislation in this House tonight that would do such a thing.
While being passionate about maintaining high standards, I do not think that Lords amendments 12 and 16 are the way to do it. The way to do it, as was so rightly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, is through variable tariffs that make clear to our trading partners that if they do not adhere to our high standards, we will raise the tariffs on their goods. That is the way to do it.
The second way to do it is to beef up the Trade and Agriculture Commission. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government can do that unilaterally without any legislation. They can simply renew the term of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and I urge her to have serious talks with the Department for International Trade to see whether that can be done. It does not need to be put in the Bill. We do not need amendments to the Bill. We might need to look at it in the Trade Bill if the Government are not sympathetic to my arguments, but that is a different matter for a different day, and I might well support amendments of that sort if I do not see progress.
There are lots of things I do welcome in the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Minister has been right to mention them, particularly Government amendment 2, which relates to multi-annual assistance plans for farmers. That is absolutely vital for how we will support our farmers in the 21st century. We want them to be producing more of the food that our British consumers eat. While I have been in this House, I have seen more and more goods imported into this country, whereas if our farmers could start to produce more, all those imports—things such as yoghurt and cheese—could be replaced with goods produced in this country. If we keep up our high standards, we will continue to export more and more to other countries. Recently, we have seen our pork and milk powder go to China and my excellent Cotswold lambs go to France. There is a huge opportunity around the world if we keep our standards up. That is the way we need to go: not dumbing everything down, but keeping standards up.
I am delighted that some of my ideas on food security are in amendments 5 and 6 and will be included in the Bill. That is important and gives our farmers the stimulus to produce more of the high-quality food we want to eat. One thing that the coronavirus lockdown taught us was that the supermarkets, such as Waitrose and even Lidl, that went out of their way to promote British food did best and are now prospering in a way that they had not previously.
The Government should not accept amendments 12 and 16, but they should act through tariffs.
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.
Robbie Moore
Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole House wants to achieve better standards across the board, but we must look at the detail that amendment 16 brings?
Bill Wiggin
I agree not only with my hon. Friend but with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who said he made an excellent speech—he did. Our two largest trading partners would be gone, threatening £22 billion-worth of exports of food, drink and feed—everything we are selling. The EU has already threatened to ban animal products, a trade worth £3 billion, only last year. That should be no surprise. Trade deals with non-EU countries would be gone too: the hard-fought trade deal with Canada and 43 trade agreements with 70 other nations. We think that our food standards are very high, yet we allow religious slaughter, we are gassing pigs in our abattoirs, we do not insist on catering or welfare standards labelling, and we fudge our grass-fed labelling—
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
In 2018, 25% of the sheep slaughtering in this country was done without stunning. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is totally unacceptable and that, before we start preaching about other nations, we should look at our own animal standards after animals have left the farm?
Bill Wiggin
Rightly or wrongly, it would become illegal, if we follow these rules, to bring anything from the EU that did not allow that into this country. My hon. Friend is right to raise that; it is wrong. Food labelling is the solution, and to have a grass-fed label that allows 49% of the feed to be grain is just not right.
We need to be an outwardly global, free trade-friendly but sensible country. These amendments are much more to do with stopping subsistence African farmers rather than Texan ranchers. It might surprise some of the supporters of these amendments to learn that we are already importing illegally produced food through the EU. Supermarkets sell Danish bacon—with English-sounding farm names, to fool customers—from pigs whose mothers are kept in sow stalls, which were banned in the UK in 1999, on the grounds of cruelty.
Neil Parish
Does my hon. Friend also accept that when we banned those sow stalls and tethers, Europe did not, and it decimated our pig industry in the meantime? Therefore, if we do not get the trade considerations right, we will trade away all our food production, like we have already.
Bill Wiggin
I do not get any extra minutes for that intervention. I ask Members also to think about our stocking density for chickens, which is 39 kg per square metre, as opposed to 42kg in the EU. German hop growers use chemicals that would not be allowed in this country, and apparently the French will give a derogation for neonicotinoids so that their farmers can produce oilseed rape. That is outrageous. Where are the objections to buying Danish bacon? Where are the people kicking off to protect our pig farmers? My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) is absolutely right: when we did the right thing, we were decimated.
I want us to achieve everything that my hon. Friend the Minister talked about. We should have proper food standards and better labelling. The people we should be putting our faith in are the consumers. They do not want hormone beef; they want to know that what they are buying is good, clean and proper, and they are grown up enough to make their own decisions.
There is room for everybody. We produce 61% of food eaten in this country and 75% of that which we are able to grow here. The remainder—more than £47 billion-worth—is all imported. We have the capacity to pay our farmers more, import from international markets without substitution for lower standards, and ensure that we produce the best and healthiest food at a cost-effective price.
The Prime Minister has called on us to find the inner, or thinner, hero inside us and shed those pounds. That is spot on. If we can lower the price of healthy food in this country, we could not only see our nation lose weight but address the need for food banks. With better food prices, innovation can progress in the agricultural sector, and we can have what we always wanted: farmers receiving public money for public goods.
I want the Minister to commit to ensuring that farm incomes grow on the back of the environmental land management scheme, and not be diminished. I want the Bill to allow us to protect the environment and produce food, while ensuring that our food producers’ incomes rise, consumers buy healthier food and the need for food banks goes. These amendments will not achieve those goals or what our great farmers, consumers, constituents and future trading partners want: prosperity and a better diet.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. As colleagues will appreciate, there is still a lot of pressure on this debate, and if those who have already spoken intervene again, somebody else will not get in. In view of that, after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Deputy Speaker. On your warning, I will keep my comments brief and focused on amendments 16 and 17.
Colleagues will be aware that amendment 16 aims to protect something that, thus far, the Government have shown very little regard for. Specifically, it aims to ensure that imported food must meet UK animal welfare, environmental and public health standards. Bluntly, I struggle to see how Conservative Members can do anything other than support it. We have all seen the horror stories about hormone-injected beef and chlorinated chicken hitting our supermarket shelves, but those headlines are no longer just desperate attempts by the press to grab our attention. Sadly, without this amendment, that could be the extremely unwelcome reality for us all in the near future.
It is vital that the Government use this pivotal opportunity to commit to greater animal welfare standards. It is clear that there are ways to farm animals ethically. I am proud of farmers locally in Wales and across the UK who are committed to the sustainable, ethical treatment of their live produce.
I want Britain to remain a beacon of high standards in the ethical treatment of animals and environmental protections. The Government talk a good game on climate change, but we are yet to see any solid evidence or change that will have a positive and substantial impact. It cannot be denied that we are in the midst of a climate and ecological emergency. It is imperative that we have a clear roadmap for agriculture to reach net zero, and greater oversight of pesticide use. The Government must commit to an ambitious strategy to achieve that.
When will the Government get a grip, finally take a page out of the fantastic Welsh Labour Government’s book and commit to a consideration of flooding prevention mechanisms in their agricultural policy? In Wales, all new developments are now required to include sustainable urban drainage systems, which are designed to mimic natural drainage by managing surface run-off as close to source as possible. We also need a commitment to active agricultural land management to prevent run-off, which can cause flooding further down in the catchments. Colleagues may be aware that the issue of flooding and surface water is close to my heart, not just because I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary water group, but because residents and businesses in Pontypridd saw their livelihoods decimated by the flash flooding earlier this year. The recovery effort still continues, albeit sadly with no support from the Government, despite the Prime Minister’s promises. The Government can take small steps to support flooded communities by taking the lead and encouraging or incentivising farmers to take flooding-prevention steps as part of a robust climate change action plan.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will accept the amendments on a topic that she must receive many messages about. I urge her to spend just 10 minutes looking at my inbox, which receives hundreds of emails every day from concerned constituents worried about their future food standards. Ultimately, we would be doing ourselves and future generations a huge disservice if we did not uphold our stringent food and animal standards or commit to a robust strategy to meet net zero by 2050.
Anthony Mangnall
It is always a pleasure to speak in debates such as this. I thank the Minister for the time she has spent informing Members from all parties about the course of the debate and for her work with many of the farmers in my constituency.
There has been a huge amount of fear-mongering in the House regarding the importing of chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, and it has to stop. We all know that if SPS standards were to be changed, this House would have a say in doing so. That is something about which the Opposition do not seem to be informing the general public. We have heard that on the Government side but not on the Opposition side. I hope that will be reinforced in the closing remarks.
Since the introduction of the Bill and in my time as a Member of Parliament, I have asked for two things. I asked for a commitment on labelling, and the Minister stood at that Dispatch Box and committed to the consultation. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, there are difficulties around that, but we must not see it as an impossibility. There are opportunities for us to create a labelling system that can promote the “buy local” argument throughout the country. I hope we might see from the Opposition the opportunity to develop that labelling system into something that is internationally recognised and copied.
We have also heard ideas about what scrutiny we could apply to trade deals. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said that the International Trade Committee did not have enough teeth; given the fact that it is led by her colleague, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), if she feels it does not have enough teeth, we should either find another Chair or elect a new Member for it. The whole point is that the Secretary of State for International Trade has now given Parliament an extra degree of scrutiny.
I personally have asked about the idea that we might look at where we operate the trade commission. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport was kind enough to mention me in his remarks, and although I am not sure it helps my career when he does that, we do need to look at extending that commission. If the Bill goes back to the Lords and then comes back to this House, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and I will be looking keenly at extending the remit and length of that commission’s existence. It is important not only for what we say to our constituents but that the House has something that gives an extra layer of scrutiny.
I will support the Government tonight, but I will be looking to see what comes back from the Lords. I hope that we get some assurances from the Minister on the trade commission.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), although I fear I am about to disagree with some of the points he made.
This evening’s debate presented an opportunity for the Government to reassert parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals and to put into law their rhetorical support for UK agriculture. During the course of this debate, we have seen valid concerns about the importance of maintaining a level playing field for domestic producers and about importers given short shrift. It is disappointing that the Government will not support the measures in Lords amendment 16, which would address those concerns, as well as enhance parliamentary oversight of trade agreements.
I understand that we cannot vote on Lord Curry’s amendment 18 this evening, but the Government should nevertheless ensure that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is made permanent. That would improve the transparency of negotiations, give much-needed reassurances that the interests of food producers will be championed in negotiations, and offer some redress to farmers whose concerns have, I am afraid, often been dismissed as mere protectionism—allegations that are, frankly, an insult to the commitment and professionalism of farmers throughout the UK.
The Government have not sufficiently explained their approach to the sensitive matter of standards in trade negotiations or how they will reconcile different production systems. We have heard mention of measures being introduced in the Trade Bill but we have yet to see them in practice. Against such a confused backdrop, this Bill’s failure to require agricultural imports to meet equivalent domestic standards of production should concern all the political parties. If we fail to ensure a level playing field between domestic production and imports, we run the risk of endangering the viability of many of our producers. We need only think of the experience of the UK pig industry to understand the consequences of allowing imports that are produced to standards that would be illegal for domestic production. The Government have tried to claim that such a requirement is unnecessary, as they have no intention of allowing imports of lower standards to enter the UK, but at the same time we hear Ministers claim that such a requirement would tie the hands of UK negotiators. These are irreconcilable claims.
This Government have long talked up the benefits of taking back control and of how, post-EU, we will be able to set the terms of our trade with the world. Those terms should be quite simple: UK market access for imports should be dependent on meeting equivalent UK food production standards. I fear that this Bill fetters the success and the future of Welsh farming. I urge the Government to reconsider their position on amendment 16, as the Bill in its current form misses a golden opportunity to safeguard the long-term success and viability of our food producers.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I feel like a bit of an interloper in this debate, because many Members have talked about their heritage in farming and agriculture, and the constituencies they represent have vast amounts of farms and fields, but I am a city boy and represent a city seat. I have no farms in my constituency. I have two fields and no sheep. I have two horses, which sit at the side of the beautiful Kings Norton nature reserve. To my shame, I do not even own a pair of wellies.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
As a regional MP from the west midlands, my hon. Friend is always welcome to join us in Shropshire, where we have the best farming in the country.
Gary Sambrook
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In fact, my family name comes from Shropshire, so I have a little bit of agricultural heritage.
The reason I am speaking in this debate is that many people across the whole country, in cities and in rural areas, care deeply about standards in food and especially deeply about standards in animal welfare. It makes us proud to be British that we have such high standards, especially towards animals. That is why I was proud to stand on our party’s manifesto, which was incredibly clear in stating:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
Indeed, all the EU food safety provisions, including existing import requirements, would be transferred into UK law via the withdrawal agreement Act, as their removal would require new legislation. That is why I am supportive of the Government tonight. I take the Minister and the Bill at their word, because I feel passionately that we are going to deliver on these things.
Time and again, we hear the same old arguments and scaremongering from the Opposition Benches. To me, this boils down to two things that we regularly hear. One is the hatred of Brexit and the resistance to acknowledging that that vote took place. The other thing that worries me is the growing anti-American tone that we hear seeping through from the Labour Benches, and especially from the Benches of the separatists. That really does concern me. We hear it in the arguments about chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef all the time, yet those things are already prevented by law from being imported into this country. The Bill does not change that in any way. I can reassure my constituents, who care deeply about these issues, that that will not change.
The article that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) wrote over the weekend was an excellent way of describing the situation that we are in today. Are we really going to pass a law that would harm many of the world poorest people? That would be the indirect consequence of these Lords amendments. The EU does not have the levels of protectionism that these amendments are suggesting. Are they really saying that EU standards are too low? I will be supporting the Government today and voting against the Lords amendments.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
You might be surprised to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that one third of the land in Sheffield Hallam is agricultural land, and my husband is the trustee of a city farm. Farming in all its forms is of great interest to me.
The Government have insisted that when we leave the EU, our trading standards will be world-leading, world-beating, the best, the greatest, and the most fantastic in the world. In fact, they have started to sound a bit like the President of the US, and they obviously want to make a sweetheart deal with him. Our farmers are not convinced. I have been contacted about the Bill and the amendments under debate by hundreds of constituents, farmers and producers alike, and every one of them is concerned about the future of our trading standards on food, animal welfare and the environment, as well as the impact of that on their farms and what is on their plate.
That is no wonder, because although Ministers talk about high standards, without the amendments nothing will protect British farmers from being undercut on food and animal welfare standards. The rhetoric about protectionism is reckless; we are talking about people’s incomes. The Minister may say that we do not need to worry about food such as chlorinated chicken because the EU withdrawal agreement has carried over existing standards, but my constituents do not trust the Government on that. We have seen what respect the Government have already shown to this issue, and there is nothing to stop bans on such products being overturned through secondary legislation. If the Government want to set minds at rest, why will they not accept amendment 16 to guarantee that those bans will not be lifted without proper scrutiny in Parliament?
In any case, the EU’s import restrictions apply only to products that are prohibited because they breach our standards on food safety, not those on animal welfare and environmental protection. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said when highlighting the issue of sow stalls in California, it is right to ban such things in the UK. That cruel and inhumane method of producing pork should also be banned from all our imports on animal welfare grounds. We need explicit guarantees on animal welfare, but so far we have none.
Given that UK farming accounts for roughly one tenth of our national CO2 emissions, we need a Bill that enshrines action on climate change. Why the Government are so averse to proposing any obligatory measures to meet our net-zero targets is beyond me. We need the Bill to be more robust, to enshrine the commitment of zero-carbon emissions in the sector, and to support British farmers and the health of our people by protecting food and animal welfare standards. Without the proposed amendments, the Bill will fall well short of that.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s opening speech, which I listened to carefully. It did a lot to assuage the concerns of my constituents in Stafford, which is a rural constituency, and of many farmers across the UK. However, I also understand the sentiments of colleagues about the amendments under debate. I sat on the Trade and Agricultural Bill Committees earlier this year, so I had the opportunity thoroughly to question stakeholders and Ministers, as well as to scrutinise the Bill line by line. I feel that the Bill now provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create an effective agricultural scheme that backs British farmers.
I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Keighley (Robbie Moore) when they said that the previous scheme for agriculture, the common agricultural policy, has been a failure. From an agricultural perspective we have seen sluggish improvements to productivity, poor farm incomes, regressive distribution of funding to the largest landowners, ineffectual rules, and a failure to encourage the next generation of farmers. I believe that Staffordshire farmers deserve better, and this Bill will be better.
Early this year I invited the International Trade Secretary to my constituency, and we held a joint roundtable with local farmers, who directly raised their concerns with her about animal welfare standards post Brexit.
I believe that British farmers have some of the highest food standards in the world, which is something that we should be extremely proud of. From my meeting with Staffordshire farmers and local NFU members just last month, I do appreciate that maintaining these high standards comes at a high financial cost for the producer. British farmers must absolutely not be put in a situation where they are having to compete with lower quality food from abroad. I was very pleased that the Government listened to the views of the NFU, myself and other colleagues earlier this year and have now established that independent Trade and Agriculture Commission, which was referenced in Amendment 18.
Matt Rodda
I wish to declare an interest: I have several relatives who are farmers.
I rise to speak in favour of the Lords amendments. I realise that time is pressing, so I will address the needs and concerns of consumers rather than those of farmers, although I acknowledge the importance of the Bill to the farming community. I would like to mention some of the very serious concerns that have been raised by my constituents in both Reading and Woodley and to call on the Government to listen to those concerns, even at this very late stage.
The central point that has been raised with me is that the Bill as it stands will open a backdoor to food that is produced to lower environmental and animal welfare standards. I wish to address both of these related issues in turn. On environmental standards, it is very important to remember that agriculture is responsible for a significant proportion of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, and that there are also a series of other issues associated with the industry however hard farmers both here and around the world are trying to address them. The same also applies to animal welfare, which has been led by British farming. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said earlier, there are opportunities for us in this country to influence animal welfare standards around the world by asserting our own rights now as an independent trading country.
These amendments would also allow for closer scrutiny of trade deals. Another point that has been made quite eloquently to me by residents in my area is that we should not shy away from having the same approach that legislatures in other parts of the world have to trade deals. As I said earlier, consumers value the hard work and dedication of UK farmers, and they want to see high standards upheld. However, it is important to understand what UK consumers are able to effect and where the Government need to intervene. Consumers do care deeply about British farmers and about maintaining high standards, and they will raise issues with us as elected representatives. However, consumers are struggling to follow a range of complicated pieces of information about food standards already, and they do rely on the Government to intervene in the market and to try to make things clear for them. They rightly believe that the Government should regulate and that Parliament should hold the Executive to account as part of its constitutional role.
I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maintaining high standards is important to our country. Serious concerns have been raised by consumers, and there is an obvious need to maintain proper regulation. Given all that and the needs of the farming community, I hope the Government will now, even at this very late stage, listen to the concerns that have been raised and think again.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this vital debate, much of which has understandably focused on Lords amendment 16. I am sorry to disappoint the House, but being as unoriginal as I am I, too, will be restricting my remarks to that amendment.
I have the pleasure of representing a constituency in Aberdeenshire, which is, as I am sure the House will agree, home of the best beef, lamb, berries and cereals produced anywhere in the United Kingdom. Of course these Lords amendments have given me pause for thought, just as the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) did. I have listened to representations about the Bill—by email, phone, over social media, and in person yesterday at the door of the church—from farmers and food producers in my constituency. I want to put Scottish and specifically north- east farmers first—first in the queue to benefit from the trade deals that we are negotiating right now. In the next 30 years, the supply of food needs to rise by about 50% to meet the needs of a wealthier, growing global population. I do not want anything that would stand in the way of our high-quality, world-leading Scottish products reaching the shelves of consumers around the world.
In attempting to enshrine in law, as this well-meaning amendment would, that food imported to the UK
“be equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations”,
we would put at risk our ability to sell our products overseas and put in serious jeopardy our ability to carry on importing many of the foodstuffs we do at the moment. We already import a large quantity of goods from developing countries. This includes products sold directly to consumers, such as bananas from the Dominican Republic, and goods processed into final products, such as tea from Kenya, coffee from Vietnam and cocoa beans from Ghana. We do all this under existing European Union rules, and as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) pointed out, we should not even get started on Danish bacon.
None of the transition EU FTAs has exported domestic welfare production standards. This amendment would mean that the existing mandate for our European Union trade deal—a deal we all, goodness me, want to see succeed—would have to be altered. No current imports to the UK are required to meet our domestic production standards. It is precisely our high standards and high quality of produce that make our produce so attractive to the outside world. Because of that and because we believe in high welfare standards, the Government have given their commitment that in negotiating these trade deals, we will not allow our domestic welfare production standards to be in any way diminished. We will protect, defend and enhance our food safety, environmental and animal welfare standards, and we will actively seek to export these world-leading standards and our expertise to new partners around the world.
This country is a world leader on animal welfare and food production standards. We are champions, or at least should be champions, of free trade. These two principles are the foundation of what I believe global Britain seeks to be. These are the pillars of who we are. Therefore, for all these reasons, and because I support Scottish farmers and want to see our produce sold and enjoyed across the world, I cannot support the Lords amendments before us.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
This Bill could well be among the most significant pieces of legislation that we debate in this Parliament. It covers our farming practices, environmental protections and food supply chains. If the food shortages in supermarkets at the beginning of lockdown have taught us anything, it is the importance of food security and traceability. Our constituents know this. Recent polling by Which? shows 95% support for maintaining existing food standards, and over 1 million people have now signed the NFU’s petition—yes, the NFU: that radical and dangerous organisation, according to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin)—calling for food standards to be enshrined in law.
The most frequently raised issue recently by Bath constituents has been the Agriculture Bill. They want reassurances about the quality of the food they eat. They care about animal welfare standards and environmental protections. They want to know that British farmers will not be undercut by cheaper, lower quality products from countries with fewer regulations. Like many others, I have been supporting local businesses during lockdown. We are lucky in Bath to have an excellent supply of locally produced food from Somerset, and it will be British families like these who will be left unsupported.
This pandemic has also underlined the importance of healthy eating and good nutrition for our general health and wellbeing, yet we risk exposing hundreds of thousands of families to low-quality food, undermining the Government’s own obesity strategy. We must be mindful, too, of the agricultural sector’s role in getting to net zero. Lower food standards encourage poor production practices, and the result is massive damage to the environment. Unless these standards are legally enshrined, the risk remains that this Government will compromise on environmental protections and food and welfare standards, as they head out in a desperate search for trade deals after Brexit. Just last week, the US Agriculture Secretary said:
“We absolutely will not agree to policies that restrict our methods of production to any other standards outside of this country”—
the US. How can we ask our constituents to rely on nothing more than ministerial assurances?
The Government argue that enshrining food standards in the Bill would undermine trade negotiations. That is not true. This morning, the Future British Standards Coalition published its interim report, with evidence that it is possible to reject low food standard imports, remain WTO-compliant and still strike trade deals. The Government want Britain to be a global leader in trade. Why not be a leader that encourages trading partners to adopt higher standards? I urge Members across the House to support the Lords amendments, particularly amendment 16.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I come from a farming background. It was all I was ever interested in at school. I grew up on a farm where my dad was a farm worker and I had a passion for dairy cows—Holsteins. When I was thinking of future careers, the only green in my life was the grass that the cows ate in the fields rather than the Benches I now sit on. This is something that goes through my veins. Representing a rural constituency like Moray makes it a hugely important issue for me, both locally and nationally.
I want to say from the outset that this debate is not about chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-injected beef, which are banned in this country and will continue to be banned in this country going forward. There have been scare stories in the media and throughout the debate, which I have watched from the office and then, when seats became available, in the Chamber. We have to get past that. This is also about what our Moray, our Scottish and our UK farmers have done for years and through generations in building up their world-leading and respected animal welfare and food safety standards. They have done so much, through generations of farmers, to build up the reputation that we now proudly have as a country.
I know how passionate the Minister is about upholding these standards, as I saw when watching her opening remarks. Indeed, that passion is shared by those right across the Conservative Benches. We were all elected on a manifesto commitment to uphold those standards. I know that every single Conservative Member believes that and continues to believe it, no matter how they vote tonight. For some, it will be delivered through an unamended Bill because, they will rightly say, the Minister has said, and repeated Ministers and, indeed, the Prime Minister have said, that this Bill does not reduce animal welfare or food safety standards. Others on the Conservative Benches and around the House will say that it needs to be enshrined in law and put into the Bill. I do not believe that either is wrong. We all want to get to the same destination, but we could potentially take different routes. Some may choose the unamended Bill to uphold animal welfare and food safety standards, and others will choose to amend the Bill, as amendments 16 states, to call for agriculture and food imports to meet domestic standards.
The passion that we all have to meet that ultimate aim is shared; it is just that the route to get to the destination is different. Having thought long and hard about this, I have decided that the best way to do that—the best way to stand up for my Moray farmers, Scottish farmers, and farmers around the country—is to get this measure into the Bill. I agree with and support amendment 16 because I want to make it absolutely crystal clear to farmers up and down the country—to send them the message—that the Government, and I, as the local MP in Moray, have their back and will support them in continuing their efforts to uphold the outstanding standards that they have built up through years and generations.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
In their 2019 manifesto, the Conservatives promised not to compromise on food standards in future trade negotiations, saying:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
They have not put this commitment into law. The Bill does nothing to prevent British farmers from being undercut in post-Brexit trade deals with countries with lower animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards. The Government argue that all current legal protections have been carried over by the EU (Withdrawal) Act as retained EU law, including bans on chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, but this can be overturned in secondary legislation without adequate parliamentary scrutiny.
Our membership of the EU kept our food standards high, but we are currently negotiating with other countries whose standards are substantially lower than those in the UK. These products include chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef from countries such as the US and Australia. Australia still uses farming methods that are currently illegal in the UK. Hormone-injected beef, for example, is currently banned under EU law due to concerns about public health as well as animal welfare, yet the US and Australia are reputed to be pushing for the UK to accept imports of hormone-injected beef. Chlorinated chicken masks salmonella and E. coli, and causes poor animal welfare conditions in barns and abattoirs. Negotiations are left wide open to pressure on Ministers to use their powers to relax standards. Without a clear and unequivocal guarantee in an Act of Parliament, the Tories’ manifesto promise is worthless. The US and other countries have made it clear that they will expect the Government to accept lower-standard foods currently banned in the UK and the EU such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef.
The temporary Trade and Agriculture Commission that the Government have established in response will produce only one advisory report and not a continuous assessment of individual trade deals. Its terms of reference should be widened so that it is able to review all trade deals, in a meaningful way, and its recommendations should be made subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I support Lords amendment 18, which would put the commission on a statutory and permanent basis.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I want to discuss Lords amendment 17. Although I believe it has good intentions, it is ill-thought-through and unnecessary, and would unfairly burden farmers who are already doing fantastic work to reduce carbon emissions.
The amendment would force the Secretary of State to introduce an interim climate change target for 2030, and make the Secretary of State commit to that target through regulations within six months of the Bill gaining Royal Assent. Although I agree that farmers should play their part in tackling climate change, I believe that the amendment is designed as a throwaway political point rather than something necessary.
First, the amendment would set a net zero target for farmers, but it provides little detail on how that could actually be achieved, despite its demand that regulations be introduced within a short 12-month timeframe. How could that be done? As has been highlighted in other debates in the Lords, unless there is a miraculous scientific breakthrough within a year, farmers will have no option but to produce less food in order to meet this new target. I do not understand how limiting the amount of British food on our shelves would be of any benefit, as it would negatively affect both farmers and consumers.
Secondly, the amendment would prevent the Government from focusing on other ways in which we can reach net zero. By having non-sector-specific targets, the Government can reduce our greenhouse gases in ways that are efficient and that mitigate any negative trade-offs. This amendment would unfairly punish farmers by making them reach a net zero target 20 years before other industries, many of which are more polluting than the agricultural sector. I do not understand the logic in that, and I am sure that farmers across the country will see it as deeply unfair, as agriculture is responsible for only 9% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. It should also be highlighted that the National Farmers Union has its own 2040 net-zero target, so the demand that it should somehow be reached by 2030 is not backed by either scientific evidence or our farmers.
I would like to end by reminding this House that we were the first major economy in the world to establish a net zero carbon target, and we can be proud of that. Let us also not forget that from 2010 to 2019, UK CO2 emissions fell by 29%, while our GDP grew by 18%. Although there is more to do, let us celebrate our achievements and continue to support sensible legislation which will ensure that we remain a world leader in reducing our carbon footprint.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
I have received hundreds of emails from residents in Leicester East who are gravely concerned about the future of food quality and environmental protections after we leave the EU. It is therefore crucial that this Bill includes legally binding guarantees that high UK food standards will not be cut in post-Brexit trade deals, whether with the USA or other countries that produce food to lower standards.
Despite their own 2019 manifesto commitment, the Government have so far refused to do that. The Government have repeatedly said that they will not weaken food standards as part of any trade deal, but they are refusing to make a legal commitment that would guarantee that. They insist that bans on lower-standard foods such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef have been carried over into UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, but the fact is that those bans can easily be overturned in secondary legislation without proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Government know that, and they are already under pressure from new trading partners, including the US, to allow lower-standard imports in trade deals.
It is all very well the Government opposing the lowering of food standards in the realm of hypotheticals, but when faced with a concrete opportunity to enshrine that in law, they refuse to act. As with NHS privatisation, the Government are repeatedly asking the public to blindly trust their promises, despite passing up the opportunity to support legal regulations to achieve their aims, rather than flimsy incentives. Based on the Government’s track record of privatisation and prioritising corporate profit over public health, I do not see why my constituents should believe them on this occasion.
I support amendments 1, 9, 11, 16, 17 and 18, which would strengthen the Bill in crucial areas such as food standards and environmental sustainability. I urge the Government to adopt those reasonable amendments, which are in line with their own stated aims. Otherwise, the Government must make clear today the reason why they want to drive down food standards and not support British farmers. During a climate and ecological emergency, it is imperative that we have a clear road map for agriculture to reach net zero carbon emissions, yet there are no targets in the Bill for the agriculture sector to achieve that. Across the board, this legislation fails to protect our food standards, our environment or the health of residents in Leicester and across the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the last speaker from the Back Benches, Ruth Cadbury.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Unlike many Members here, I have just one small farm in my constituency, but a large number of constituents have written to me expressing great concern about the implications of the Agriculture Bill, particularly if the Lords amendments are not incorporated. My constituents expect Parliament to scrutinise the detail of all trade deals, but Parliament is yet again to be cut out of full scrutiny and agreement on trade deals—a trend that is becoming something of a habit for this Government.
After listening to some Government Members, I really do wonder about their understanding of the dynamics of trade deals. Many of my constituents fear that the Bill and the Government’s approach to trade will open up our consumers to chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-impregnated beef and so on. The Minister said at the start of the debate that we should not worry about standards falling because British consumers will choose good-quality food, but as consumers we do not see the labels for much of our food, because almost half the food we eat is made up of processed ingredients or is catered and therefore hidden from consumer vision. As many Members have said, cheap imported foods with standards lower than the EU’s threaten the viability of many British farmers.
If the Government actually believed in the climate and environmental emergency that this Parliament declared a year ago, the Bill would set a clearer path for our farmers to reach net zero. Why do the Government not accept Labour’s amendment 17, which would set interim net zero targets for the agricultural sector?
If we do a trade deal with the US that has no conditions on animal welfare, our farmers will be at risk, because they will have to compete with low-cost agricultural mega-corporations, such as those US pork farmers still using sow stalls. To prevent the cruelty of practices such as sow stalls, we need a law which says that, in all trade deals, any imports must meet the same standards of animal welfare that British farmers are required to meet. Britain has historically often led the world on food standards, but sadly, this Bill means that our food quality is at risk, our farmers’ future is at risk, our environment and our climate are at risk, and the welfare of farmed animals are at risk. I support the Lords amendments.
Victoria Prentis
We have had a treat this evening—we have had Cotswold lamb, mince and tatties, Aberdeenshire beef, and berries and all sorts of other things. I, for one, have particularly enjoyed hearing farming voices this evening. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, who is basically in favour of the Bill. He was able to explain clearly how it would help the farmers of the future. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who very much enjoyed growing up with fields green with grass. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who both spoke in quite quiet, but experienced, passionate farming voices about how the trade of the future was going to help others in the industry.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and we had perhaps the quote of the evening from my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who said that farming is not a religion; it is a business. I would like to reassure him that I see a bright future for British farming under our new agricultural policies. Productive, environmentally sustainable food production—that is what we are going to support, and businesses.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), and I am looking forward to a glittering career for him at Harper Adams. I think we will all benefit from what he learns there. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). I was pleased to speak to him a great deal about gene editing earlier in the year and I am glad that we will be consulting on that. These were experienced farming voices, passionate about trade.
There have been other speeches of note, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), who was proud to say that he does not earn a pair of wellies but he cares about standards, and about trade. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke), who has served on the Agriculture Committee, and who spoke thoughtfully about the cost of production and the work that she had done to take the Secretary of State for International Trade to her constituency to speak to her farmers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) is right: the fear-mongering must stop tonight. We are not going to be importing chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-treated beef. That is the law of this land. [Interruption.] There is no question of “Not yet”. This Government are not going to change it under any circumstances. We have said very clearly that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise our high environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards.
We have a range of tools to protect us. We have the existing regulation. We have parliamentary scrutiny, which I detailed earlier, including the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which I, for one, think is significant. We have other experts feeding in, including the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which many Members have spoken about. It was designed to be helpful, to feed into the trade negotiations we are conducting at the moment. There is nothing to stop it being stood up again if it was felt that that would be helpful. There is absolutely no need to put this in the Bill. I am very happy to take as an action from tonight that I will discuss this with the Secretary of State for International Trade. Given what she said in her written ministerial statement to the House today, I am not anticipating that she will be surprised by that conversation, but I undertake to conduct it.
I also think that consumer labelling is important, while understanding that, of course, a lot of products are not directly labelled at the point of consumption. I think, however, that our consumers are canny and that they can make many of their own decisions. We also heard one other tool discussed this evening in favour of differing tariffs—my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Norfolk and for The Cotswolds both spoke about that—and that is something that we should perhaps think about in future.
You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that children play mummies and daddies or going to the shops. They tend to ape what the adults around them do. Well, my sisters and I played going to NFU meetings, because that was what the adults around us did. I welcome the work that the NFU has done to get consumers talking about standards, but we do not need primary legislation to have a Trade and Agriculture Commission. Amendment 16 does not enshrine these standards in law; rather, it obliges the Government to impose a wide and, in my view, slightly ill-defined set of conditions on new and roll-over FTAs. And if Labour Members truly are champions of farming, they should not support amendment 11, which bans the use of any pesticide in any field.
This Bill is great. The future of agriculture in this country is great. I commend it to the House.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As Mr Deputy Speaker informed the House earlier, Mr Speaker has given careful consideration to Lords amendment 18, which would establish a Trade and Agriculture Commission. Mr Speaker is satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue which is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 3 February. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, Lords amendment 18 is therefore deemed to be disagreed to.
Lords amendment 18 deemed to be disagreed to (Standing Order No. 78(3)).
Lords amendments 2 to 8 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 3 and 4.
Lords amendment 10 agreed to.
Lords amendments 13 to 15 agreed to.
Lords amendments 19 to 46 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 30.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18.
That Victoria Prentis, James Morris, Fay Jones, Gary Sambrook, Luke Pollard, Gill Furniss and Deidre Brock be members of the Committee;
That Victoria Prentis be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I ought to have mentioned before the withdrawal of the Committee that in order to observe social distancing the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
Agriculture Bill
Tuesday 20th October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 141-I Marshalled list of Motions for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (16 Oct 2020)
17:07 - Division conducted remotely on Motion C1 - Ayes: 158 / Noes: 260 - Motion C1 disagreed.
18:51 - Division conducted remotely on Motion E1 - Ayes: 282 / Noes: 244 - Motion E1 agreed.
19:06 - Division conducted remotely on Motion G1 - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 200 - Motion G1 agreed.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Motions C, C1, F and F1. At this juncture, I should declare my farming interests, as set out in the register.
I start by once again acknowledging the work of your Lordships in the scrutiny of the Bill. These debates have provided a valuable opportunity to clarify the Government’s agenda of reform for agriculture in this country.
Turning to Amendment 1, I agree wholeheartedly with the intent behind the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. The strategic priorities of multi-annual financial assistance plans drawn up under Clause 4 will most definitely consider those objectives and those of future environmental improvement plans.
I turn to Amendment 11, and Amendment 11B proposed in lieu by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in Motion C1. The exacting process of scientific assessment applied to all pesticides specifically addresses the situation of those living near to where pesticides are applied. The Health and Safety Executive is the regulator covering the safety of chemicals, including pesticides. Staff working on pesticide assessments are scientists who specialise either in one part of the risk assessment, such as the fate and behaviour of pesticides in the environment, or in interpreting the specialist findings to reach conclusions on a product’s safety. No pesticide is allowed on to the market unless these scientists are satisfied that it poses no threat to the health of those living near farmland where it might be applied. This assessment process applies to all new pesticides, and the safety of existing pesticides is regularly reviewed.
Some noble Lords are concerned that the Government could face a gap in powers at the end of the transition period. I want to reassure your Lordships that that is not the case. We have the powers needed in this area. Section 16 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 allows the Government to make regulations that prohibit the use of pesticides in certain specified areas. Section 17 of the same Act allows the Government to make codes of practice providing practical guidance on pesticide use. Other powers include Article 6 of Regulation 1107/2009, which allows the designation of areas where the use of plant protection products containing a particular active substance may not be authorised.
A wide range of monitoring activities takes place to ensure compliance with legal requirements, and intelligence- led enforcement action is taken where problems are identified. The Official Controls (Plant Protection Products) Regulations 2020 provide additional powers to enable the responsible bodies to operate proactive controls, targeting enforcement where it is most needed.
I turn to Amendments 17 and 17B, and Motion F1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. The Paris Agreement was ratified by the United Kingdom in 2016 as a sign of its continued commitment to climate action and reductions of CO2 emissions across the world. The Government are bound by it as an international environmental law treaty. The Climate Change Act 2008 set targets in domestic law, which were strengthened to include an obligation for the Government to ensure that the net UK carbon account is 100% lower than the 1990 baseline by 2050.
In previous debates, the Pensions Bill has been given as a precedent for the inclusion of a reference to climate change on the face of a Bill. I looked into this, and the duty is placed on trustees or managers of occupational pension schemes, not the Secretary of State, who is already bound by these obligations. On Thursday 15 October, the Government published their response to the Committee on Climate Change’s Reducing UK Emissions: 2020 Progress Report to Parliament.
Amendment 16B requires the Secretary of State to lay a strategy outlining policies that will be taken towards net zero. I am therefore very pleased to confirm that our response to the Committee on Climate Change includes a new commitment to publish a comprehensive net-zero strategy ahead of COP 26, which will be a wide-reaching and cross-departmental document, making the most of new growth and employment opportunities across the United Kingdom. This will raise ambition as we outline our path to hit our 2050 target. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I oppose the Commons deletion and commend Amendment 11B, which proposes a revised version of what was Clause 38 in the Bill as it left this House.
I thank the Minister for his explanation, and for his courtesy, throughout this discussion and when meeting me yesterday, but I am afraid that he has not yet convinced me. I appreciate that many in this House do not regard this issue as important enough to be dealt with at this late stage in the Bill’s passage, but the Bill will define the future practice of agriculture in this country. We are dealing with agriculture’s relationship with nature, the environment, the food trade and so on, but it also must be about its relationship with those human beings who live and work in our countryside alongside that agriculture. Too many of those rural inhabitants have had health effects from exposure to pesticides, which have been and remain a serious threat to their physical quality of life. They deserve at least the limited and straightforward protection which my amendment provides by requiring the Government to regulate the distance between them and pesticide operations.
There have essentially been only three arguments from the Government against this principle. The first is what the Minister has just said: that the EU authorisation process nowadays ensures that even repeated exposure to the application of legally authorised pesticides cannot lead to serious health effects. I regret to say that medical reports and evidence from rural residents, some of which noble Lords will have seen, suggest substantially otherwise. Noble Lords will also recall the powerful speech on Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on the medical issues that residents and others affected by pesticide poisoning have suffered.
I accept that there have been significant changes in EU pesticide authorisation, but they are not sufficient. One of the easiest and most obvious ways to prevent such exposure from causing health effects is to ensure that the exposure to crop spraying is at a prescribed minimum distance from where people are most likely to be: in their own homes, their children’s schools, and so on.
The principle of my original amendment continues to be supported by many in this House, if not all, including my original co-sponsors the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, of the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, of the Conservatives, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb for the Greens, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. However, perhaps it was phrased a little loosely. The main objection in the other place by the Defra Minister, Victoria Prentis—she used slightly overstated terms—was that it would close every field to pesticide application. That was never the intention, so we have deleted the wording which gave rise to that objection and taken out what was originally subsection (1)(b). The only open spaces referred to now are those that are part of education or healthcare facilities. That should deal with the substantive objections that were made from the Government Benches in the Commons.
The other objection, repeated by the Minister just now and in the wording of the Commons reasons, is that Ministers already have these powers. I have two comments on this. There is a key word in my amendment —“must”. If Ministers did have these powers, they have not used them. This amendment would require them to produce draft regulations and to submit them to the usual consultations, and then to both Houses. At the last stage, and in correspondence, Ministers argued that they had possessed these powers since the EU directive in 2009 and the transposition of that in 2012. The Minister has just said that they have actually had these powers since the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. There is no specific reference there to distance or to residential property—there is a brief reference to healthcare facilities—but even if Ministers are right, and they do in general terms have the right to prescribe distance, why have they not done so in the eight years since the transposition of the EU regulation, and in particular since that 1985 Act? If they are claiming that they already have those powers, they must explain to the House why they have not used them. If we do not pass my amendment indicating that they must introduce such regulations, we may have to wait another 35 years for rural residents to be protected.
I give notice—I should have done so at the beginning —that, unless I hear something different from the Minister, I intend to press this amendment to a Division at the end of this debate.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 17B, which would create a new clause for a strategy to reduce emissions from agriculture, having regard to our national and international obligations, and requiring an interim strategy for 2030 commensurate with meeting our 2050 net-zero target.
This is a clearer and simpler version of Amendment 100, which we passed by a 49-vote majority on Report. I have since had a further opportunity to reflect on the Minister’s detailed response to my amendment, and I am also grateful for the meetings that he has arranged before today, and the promise of a future meeting. I have also read with interest what the Minister in the other place, Victoria Prentis, had to say about our amendments.
At the heart of our disagreement is whether individual government departments should be required to spell out how they are going to meet their share of the obligation to deliver net zero by 2050. In the debate on the Bill last week, the Commons Minister said:
“If we are to achieve the UK’s net zero target, emissions reductions will be needed in all sectors. Not setting sector-specific targets allows us to meet our climate change commitments in the best and speediest way.”—[Official Report, Commons, 12/10/74; col. 74.]
Of course I agree that emissions reductions will be needed in all sectors, but I fail to see how this can be achieved unless you precisely set sector-specific metrics and outcomes. If not, you end up with precisely the criticisms levelled by the Committee on Climate Change, which said that the voluntary approach in agriculture has not worked, and that there is no coherent approach to emissions reductions in agriculture at present. The result, as noble Lords will know, is that our agricultural emissions have stayed static, at about 10% of the total, when we should be playing our part in driving emissions down. Given that the Climate Change Act was passed in 2008—12 years ago—we have quite some catching up to do. This is why our amendment introduces the concept of a strategy to be published for staged progress to be delivered by 2030. Given that we seem to have made little progress in agriculture in the first 12 years, this interim strategy seems all too necessary, otherwise we risk getting close to 2050 and realising it is too late to take deliverable measures to meet our target.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Krebs. I will call them in that order. I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I wish to speak briefly on Amendments 1, 11A, 17 and 17B. I have a question for the Minister on Amendment 1, to which the Commons has disagreed. In Committee and on Report, I stressed that it is extremely helpful to have some guidance on what the environmental objectives are going to be, particularly as I understand we only heard very late in the day what the interim arrangements will be from January 2021. This gives farmers quite short notice as to what the new objectives are going to be for claiming
“financial assistance during the plan period.”
Therefore, if my noble friend is not minded to support the amendment to which the Commons has disagreed, it would be very helpful if he would set out what benchmarks farmers are being asked to observe in the new payments scheme, which will be until such time as the new ELM scheme comes into effect.
I still have the difficulties that I rehearsed at earlier stages about Amendment 11B, and I hope my noble friend will clarify matters in summing up. My understanding is that all new and existing pesticides are very heavily regulated, but this amendment does not have regard to the fact that railways and many other transport systems rely heavily on the use of pesticides, which do not come close to being dangerous to human or public health. If adopted, this amendment would prevent them being used as they are. My noble friend referred to this in summing up the debate on the original amendment to insert after Clause 34 the new clause on pesticides. It would be very helpful to understand that.
The problem I have with Amendment 17B—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has gone to great lengths with it—is the underlying assumption, also inherent to her introductory remarks, that it is farmers who are causing the problem. I would like to have much more regard held for, and tribute paid to, farmers because they are part of the solution, not part of the problem, as I think Amendment 17B indicates.
I emphasise the role that farmers and landowners can play, in a very big way, in sinking carbon under the new financial assistance schemes by rolling out projects such as the Pickering Slowing the Flow scheme. That will, I hope, have private funding from water companies as well as farmers, landowners, the Environment Agency, Defra and other bodies. I am quite excited about these new possibilities and a little conscious that this amendment seems to blame farmers rather than recognising the positive role that they play.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, In the other place, my honourable friend the Minister, Victoria Prentis, criticised some of our amendments because they were badly drafted. That shows a huge weakness in the Government’s argument. Our amendments are not necessarily badly drafted; we produce them, they are agreed by the House and, if the Government accept the principle of them, they get redrafted properly. That is the function of this House; it is not our function to be lawyers. However, the Government are being unnecessarily obstructive and intransigent on this Bill, and that is a huge sadness because they are alienating a lot of farmers and those who live in the country who see them as unnecessarily reluctant to accept any improvements to the Bill.
The Minister thanked us for our work, but our work has counted for nothing—despite the many hours we spent on this Bill, there has been just one small movement by the Minister. It seems to me that our work is not appreciated, or, if it is appreciated, it is certainly not acted upon.
My noble friend waxed lyrical about our scientists and their control of pesticides. How we miss the Countess of Mar. Many times, I listened to an Agriculture Minister on the Front Bench in this House, telling her that the scientists had said that sheep dip was safe, when clearly it was not. The Countess finally won her battle on this. So, I say to my noble friend, it is not surprising if one is a little sceptical of what the Defra scientists are saying.
As rightly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, some pesticides, fungicides and insecticides, applied wrongly by farmers, are a hazard to health. The briefing that I have received says that the Government do not wish to accept the amendment because they have an integrated pest-management policy which will be a critical part of a future farming policy, giving farmers new tools to protect their crops. There is absolutely nothing in there about the health of human beings. I have talked to a lot of farmers who spray fields; they are not all in the same category as those on the farm of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. He made excellent points at an earlier stage, but there are those who spray in the wrong conditions, who are rushing to get a job done and not carrying out the work as they should. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is absolutely right. If the Government have these powers, why have they not been used? That is a critical question, which my noble friend has to answer.
I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on climate change. It is not blaming the farmers. Farmers have a hugely important role to play. In fact, the Scottish Government entered into consultation today with Scottish farmers and crofters to tackle this precise issue of climate change. There are huge opportunities in the way that one can feed stock, for instance, that would reduce methane emissions. This is not having a go at farmers but wanting to work closely with them. I rather like what the noble Baroness said, asking the Government to “turn good intentions into policy”. That is all this amendment is asking; I hope it succeeds.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my agricultural interests as set out in the register, together with my membership of the National Farmers’ Union. I want to speak against Amendment 11B on pesticides, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. This is a very broad and vaguely drafted amendment. It would be extraordinarily damaging to agriculture in this country and would add nothing of value to the existing regulatory regime; I urge its rejection.
As we have already heard, and according to some 100 experts at the HSE and the Expert Committee on Pesticides, the UK operates one of the strictest regulatory regimes in the world and pesticides are licensed only after extensive research. There is already a strict code of practice and incidents of harm and non-compliance are investigated. If there is a complaint, it is investigated. Operators must have the appropriate qualifications, and equipment is regularly tested under various protocols and assurance schemes.
Banning or limiting the use of pesticides would have devastating implications for food and crop plants, massively reducing the volume and quality of UK food, making large parts of farming economically unviable and thereby encouraging imports of food grown by overseas producers using the same pesticides that we are trying to ban or limit.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of Amendment 17B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. She referred to the government response to the Climate Change Committee’s latest annual report, published earlier this month. I took a close look at it this morning to understand what the Government said about reducing emissions in agriculture. It comes in two parts. In the main body of the report there is helpful reference to various strategies and plans—for example the ELMs, the clean growth strategy, the 25-year environment plan, Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy and the clean air strategy. That all looks very promising: plans are in place to tackle the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. However, I am afraid that the annexe, containing the detail of Defra’s response on agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions, looks as though it was drafted by Sir Humphrey Appleby. Let me quote a few phrases. The Government are: “looking at ways”; “considering a broad range” of options; “investigating mechanisms”; and “establishing expert groups”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said she hoped that the can was not being kicked down the road. The brief example I have just quoted from the Government’s response to the Climate Change Committee’s report highlights the danger that we will always be setting up groups and considering options. As far as I can see, the response does not give a single example of a concrete thing that the Government will do right now to meet the 2050 net-zero target, including the contribution from agriculture.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Does anyone else in the Chamber wish to speak? No? I call the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. In my view, both are vital to our own safety: to the protection of our countryside, our health and our environment. As we know, pesticides are not benign. They are applied to our crops to kill insects and any other creature that might be around at the time. It is natural behaviour—if you deny the natural world its own food source. However, pesticides do not just kill the creatures that are feeding on the crops. They also damage us. Numerous studies document the associations between exposure to pesticides, increased incidence of respiratory problems, cardiovascular and renal diseases, as well as the ageing phenomenon, not to mention many cancers. If you are an ordinary member of the public who happens to live near a field, or a school kid in a playground that borders a field that is being intensively farmed, you are open to being occasionally sprayed by pesticides.
Let me give a tiny example. I used to live with my husband in a house that bordered an intensively farmed field. One day at the end of the year, when it was being sprayed to kill the cover crop, the wind changed. I kid you not: within an hour, the entire herbaceous border on to which the spray had come was lying in a muddy heap. It was completely destroyed. Any thought I had that there was anything healthy about these products vanished at that point.
Some 22,000 chemicals are registered and in use in Europe. In December 2018, high quality checks had been completed on 94 of them; half were declared unsafe. There are many large out-of-court settlements involving Bayer, the company that has taken over Monsanto. This leads many people to believe—cynically, some noble Lords might say, but I do not think so—that it is suppressing evidence of the chemical links between lymphomas and other common cancers. We have to protect the population from these serious and damaging chemicals. Without a doubt, we need strong mandatory levels for the areas in which they are sprayed.
I believe—and this takes me straight on to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—that farmers have very little choice at the moment in the way that they farm. The common agricultural policy, which thankfully we are coming out of, has paid people per acre, and therefore the striving has been to produce as much as possible, probably of monocrops. The result has been, since the “green revolution” after the war, the incredible use of more and more pesticides, insecticides and fertilisers. These have had the result of weakening our soil to the point that the World Health Organization has said that, across the world, we probably only have 60 harvests left. The soils are now working only if they are given chemical additives. The amendment from the noble Baroness is therefore vital, because there are many other ways to farm. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I found when we were doing our Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and Environment, a more healthy way of farming is also a more healthy way of eating.
Climate impacts are being felt across the world—you have to be blind not to see it—and our food supplies are going to be affected. We cannot keep our heads in the sand about it. Here, we have seen soil erosion, more flooding and coastal land inundation. We have also seen extreme weather—we have had it in the last year. We really cannot afford to wait. The proposed new clause provides that, by 2030, we have to start reducing emissions from agriculture, first, through better care of the soil, lower livestock emissions and reducing fertiliser; and also, crucially, by storing carbon in the land—so we need to plant trees. Soil sequesters carbon much better than anything else if left to its own devices. We must protect it, along with peat bogs.
There is so much that farmers can do if they are given the right incentives and the direction. However, we must have a target to ensure delivery. If we are to meet our Climate Change Act target for 2050, we have to get to 50% by 2030. If we do not, it will be too much for the world to take on. That means that the policies that we need must be laid down in this Parliament and the next—but primarily in this one. This amendment will complement the existing clauses in the Bill for financial support and for climate mitigation and adaptation, and it will confirm the Government’s commitment to strong action, at a time when we will be hosting COP 26 next year.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for re-tabling his Amendment 11B as Motion C1, with some modifications. This is a really important issue. Unless they are extremely foolhardy, those who are spraying pesticides have protection in the form of personal protective equipment and respirators, and they will be in filtered tractor cabs during their work. Rural residents and communities have absolutely no protection at all from the cocktail of toxic chemicals sprayed on nearby crops.
We have in past years not acted on harmful substances being used in agriculture until it is too late for some people who have suffered extreme health problems. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for mentioning sheep-dip, and to the noble Countess, Lady Mar. Now is the time to make this change. The other place did not feel that it was necessary, saying that existing legislation was protection enough. I do not agree. The 2009 European regulations on pesticide use have not yet all been implemented. Those relating to dwellings are not scheduled to be carried over after 1 January next year. The Government are now quoting the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 to deal with the gap. That legislation is 35 years old and had not been referred to during previous stages of the Bill, nor in discussions with officials. At the same time, there is evidence of serious harms from pesticide chemical exposure resulting in out-of-court settlements due to cancers.
This proposed new clause is crucial for securing the protection of rural residents and communities from agricultural pesticides, especially the most vulnerable groups, such as babies, children, pregnant women, the elderly and those who are already ill or disabled, none of whom should ever have been exposed to these toxic chemicals in the first place. The petition to the Prime Minister and the Defra Secretary calling for this proposed new clause to be included has over 12,000 signatures, the majority of which are from affected rural residents. The petition has been supported by several prominent figures including Hillsborough QC Michael Mansfield, the Prime Minister’s own father Stanley Johnson, Jonathon Porritt, Gordon Roddick and the Defra non-executive board member Ben Goldsmith, among others.
All the arguments have been made previously. I remain convinced that this amendment should be on the face of the Bill as the only way to properly protect the public. If the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.
I turn now to Amendment 17B proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, in Motion F1. Again, the ethos of the amendment has been thoroughly debated in all previous stages of the Bill. This is a matter which has moved rapidly up the political and non-political agendas. The country has signed up to the Paris Agreement, and the Committee on Climate Change has thrown its weight behind moving towards achieving the country’s 2050 target. As I have previously said, an interim target of 2030 is vital to monitoring progress and ensuring delivery. Agriculture has an important part to play in reducing emissions.
I have not yet read the Government’s response to the Committee on Climate Change, but I am very disappointed by the news that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has brought to us about what it says. It is not just we unelected Lords who are concerned about this; the public are very concerned about climate change and the effect it is having on our land and shores. Sir David Attenborough wants us to act; the Duke of Cambridge wants us to act. We must act to give a strong message to the Commons that they must act now—not in 40 years’ time, but now. This amendment should be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to cover these important points in a little more detail. It has been a very interesting debate. I start by referring specifically to Amendment 11B. I have already set out that the Government have the powers we need to maintain and develop appropriate regulations. I raised the 1985 legislation only because there was concern in your Lordships’ House that there was a gap. I have made it very clear that there is no legislative gap, and indeed there is scope for the Government to act through that legislation. I thought it was only responsible to raise that as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, had suggested in a meeting that there might be a gap. I was doing what I thought was my best endeavours to advise your Lordships that there was no legislative gap.
Before answering some of the questions, I should also say that the Government are committed to the continued development of the regulatory system for pesticides. We will therefore be consulting later this year on a comprehensive update of our national action plan. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, was seeking reassurance on that point. There is continuing work. I say to noble Lords that I think the work undertaken by the noble Countess and others is the reason why certain pesticides which were previously used are no longer authorised. That is the point of the system. I was surprised to hear my noble friend Lord Caithness refer to Defra scientists. The Health and Safety Executive is an independent regulator with over 40 years’ experience. Those are the people who we rely on. I am not a scientist, and I think that we all rely on that specialism. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned, no pesticide is allowed on to the market unless the scientists are satisfied that it poses no threat to the health of those living near farmland where it might be applied. I repeat that that assessment process applies to all new pesticides and the safety of existing pesticides and is regularly reviewed.
I should also say, because I have looked into pesticide monitoring, that there is very considerable monitoring, including the National Poisons Information Service and the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme. The pesticides usage survey monitors the use of each pesticide chemical on each crop. Those schemes collect and consider information on possible incidents. In particular, the National Poisons Information Service collects inquiries and reports from medical professionals and reports its findings. Those are considered by the Health and Safety Executive and the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides to see whether there are implications for particular pesticides or for the regulation of pesticides in general.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, we come to Motion B. There is a mistake in the Marshalled List, but not one that affects our proceedings. Lords Amendment 9 was not after Clause 3; it was after Clause 17. I call the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble.
Motion B
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
The amendment raises the important issue of creating a healthy, more sustainable food supply chain. The Government have this aim in mind, and the Bill as drafted will allow us to reward farmers and land managers for adopting environmentally sustainable food production methods, and to support them to produce food in ways that make more efficient use of resources. Put simply, we are already doing this. The Government have commissioned an independent review into the food sector led by Henry Dimbleby. His interim report was released in July this year, and in the coming months your Lordships can expect a cross-departmental response to his report. It will include a full discussion on healthy food and the transformation of the food system.
The Government have made a firm commitment to publish a White Paper on food within six months of the final Dimbleby report, which is expected in the spring. This strategy will set out proposals that will aim to ensure that the food system delivers healthy, sustainable and affordable food for all. My officials have already established a cross-Whitehall working group for all relevant departments to discuss the development of the White Paper and to respond to the independent review. This will be overseen by a Defra director-general. We want to ensure that there is sufficient time to consider the findings and secure cross-government agreement.
I heard noble Lords loud and clear in earlier debates on this subject when they stressed the importance of creating an integrated policy on food. As your Lordships rightly warned, the problems that we face are urgent. We fully recognise this, which is why we are already working with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that improvements to public health are a core objective of government policy. On 27 July, the Government launched their new obesity strategy to set out practical measures to help to get the nation fitter and healthier, to protect people against Covid-19 and to protect the NHS. A coalition of partners is supporting delivery of the strategy through the Better Health campaign, which aims to encourage adults to change their lifestyle in order to attain a healthier weight.
On the availability of food, we already have under Clause 19 a duty on the Government to report to Parliament on the crucial subject of food security. The Government listened to the concerns raised in your Lordships’ House and have committed to a three-year frequency of report and to publishing the first report on or before the last day before Christmas Recess 2021.
The report will provide analysis on the subject of household food security under Clause 19(2)(d)—“household expenditure”. It will analyse the ability of consumers to access and afford a healthy diet for themselves and, most importantly, for their children. It will draw on guidance such as the Government’s own Eatwell Guide and from data sources as wide as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN and our own national statistics in the Living Costs and Food Survey and the Family Resources Survey. The latter will include for the first time in the 2021 publication data from the responses to a group of questions from the Food Insecurity Experience Scale, a world-recognised measurement of household food security which the UK Office for National Statistics will also use for reporting under sustainable development goal 2: zero hunger.
I hope that those points, in which I have registered the essential work of the Dimbleby report and, candidly, all that we need to do across Whitehall to address an issue that we are seeing starkly in our country today, will persuade noble Lords not to press their amendments. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
“National Food Strategy
Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy that will set out proposals that will aim to ensure that the UK food system delivers healthy, sustainable and affordable food for all.””
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this debate and for two very helpful meetings that we have had during the past few days. I also thank the Defra officials who attended along with the Minister and the Secretary of State, who was at one of the two meetings.
On this matter, I think that we are landing in a good place. My original amendment on Report, Amendment 58, which passed with a majority of 62, set out in detail what a national food strategy should include. The much shorter version which we are debating today simply sets out the key aims of the strategy, which are to ensure that, through the functioning of the UK food system, everyone in this country has access to a healthy, sustainable, affordable diet. The Minister has accepted these aims by repeating them in his introduction, so I am delighted with that and thank him for it.
Such a strategy, if implemented, will put an end to food poverty in this country, ensuring that the poorest people are able to eat healthily, which at the moment they are not. It will ensure that the shocking burden of dietary ill health, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and obesity, is reduced or perhaps even eliminated. It will ensure that our food system is environmentally sustainable, so that we can enjoy our food knowing that its production has not silenced the song of the skylark, destroyed wildflower meadows, polluted rivers and heated the planet.
Of course, the devil will be in the detail. Will the food strategy really deliver the rosy vision that I have just painted? I do not expect the Minister at this stage to be able to commit to any detail, but I want to flag up three questions for him to consider. First, we already have a good idea about things that work and things that do not. We know, for instance, that healthy eating messages on their own are not enough. The 5 A Day campaign has not altered fruit and vegetable consumption one iota over the last decade. On the other hand, the soft drinks industry levy has had a dramatic effect on altering consumption of sugar in soft drinks. I hope that when the strategy is published it will learn from past failures and successes and not shy away from tough interventions where they are appropriate.
Secondly—and the Minister referred to this—the strategy will require co-ordination across many government departments. Past experience indicates that this will work only if led by a high-level ministerial group. The Minister said that the cross-departmental group would be led by a director-general from Defra, who I am sure will be an outstanding individual who will do his or her very best, but the Government should recognise that, if this is really going to happen and if there really is to be cross-departmental collaboration to deliver a national food strategy, it needs a ministerial lead.
My third and final point for the Minister’s consideration is on how we are to scrutinise and assess progress in delivering the national food strategy. I think that we would all agree that the Government should not simply mark their own homework, so they should in due course lay out exactly how we will be able to judge whether the food strategy is doing what it claims to do to deliver healthy, environmentally sustainable, affordable food for everyone. One possibility, for example, would be for the Government to produce an annual report debated in Parliament; another might be to give the job of scrutiny, assessment and making recommendations to an independent body as does the Committee on Climate Change in relation to the Climate Change Act. With those thoughts for the Minister to ponder on, I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on bringing forward a shorter amendment—I am always in favour of shorter amendments, as they leave less scope for interpretation. The noble Lord calls for a national food strategy within 18 months. I would like to see a response to the Dimbleby report before then and want to take this opportunity to urge my noble friend to produce such a response, even if it is informal.
Part 1 of the Dimbleby report has been extremely helpful in preparing for this Bill and the Trade Bill. It would be incumbent on the Government, even if it were just two departments—the Minister’s department of Defra and the Department for International Trade—to respond to the Dimbleby report in so far as it relates to obesity and the food strategy that Henry Dimbleby and his team, including the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who has played a sterling role in this regard, have set out. It would be important to hear from those two departments before this Bill and the Trade Bill left this place. I wonder whether there is any opportunity for my noble friend, even by way of a letter, to respond to the helpful conclusions of Henry Dimbleby.
I am slightly confused, because the reason that the Commons gave for disagreeing with the original Lords Amendment 9 is that
“it is inappropriate to impose a duty to publish a National Food Strategy.”
I thought that, in about 2010, the incoming coalition Government published something along the lines of a national food strategy—I forget what it was called—that was extremely well received and helpful. Is it not timely to have another stab at this within 10 years of the original?
I finish with a plea: that we do not wait 18 months from the day of passing this Bill before the national food strategy is presented. I commend the work of my noble friend’s department, Defra, in this regard; I commend the work of Henry Dimbleby. We owe it to Dimbleby and his team to come out with an interim acknowledgement of and response to his proposals.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I served on the House of Lords Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—the Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Committee. Many things struck me when we received evidence. Perhaps I may mention just two of them.
The first was how reluctant were some in the food and drinks industry to give us any evidence, which makes one entirely suspicious of their motives. They were reluctant to come to the table to discuss the problems and found every excuse not to co-operate. That came out pretty clearly in the evidence we received. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has just said, it is only where the Government have taken firm action that the industry has made significant changes. I say to my noble friend the Minister, who I know has advocated, supported and encouraged this industry, as I do, that a very black cloud hangs over it with regard to this issue. He will have to kick it hard to get it to co-operate in the way that it should.
The second point that struck me was the need for a cross-departmental response. We took evidence from the Minister for Health and Social Care. She—or rather the department—has been sitting on reports and consultations for some considerable months, and blamed their lack of implementation on Covid. I therefore asked the Minister what would have happened if there had been no Covid. We received the reply, “I shall have further consultations”. Let us have some action. The noble Lord and his department may well be taking an active role, but I am not at all convinced that the Department of Health and Social Care is doing so. That is why I support what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said about the need for the cross-departmental analysis to be done at ministerial level. It is all very well doing it at official level but if it can be kicked into the long grass, I am afraid that it will be. This has to be driven politically by Ministers at the highest level, and probably chaired by someone such as Michael Gove as head of the Cabinet Office. That sort of impetus is needed.
I should say to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that 18 months is too long—I agree with my noble friend Lady McIntosh on that. We need a speedy reply. My noble friend the Minister has reassured me to some extent, but he has a much more difficult job than he anticipates, given the need to take the other government departments such as health, education and the Home Office with him on this matter.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is wonderful to hear that a food strategy will happen and be reported upon following Henry Dimbleby’s initial reports. I too urge the Government to respond in less than 18 months; we really do not have time to waste.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and other speakers, I believe that the strategy needs to be tough. The industry has had its own way for a very long time: it has been run on the politics of the supermarket and we have seen the chaos that this has caused, not just to our health and eating habits but to our agriculture, as we have just been discussing. I urge toughness, joined-up government, a strong position of leadership and a willingness to tread on some commercial toes as we start to look for other ways in which to grow and eat our food.
I am pleased to hear from the Minister that action on food security will include household food security. I thank him for the meetings that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I have had with him in the past few weeks. I am glad that the issue of household food insecurity will be pegged to something, and that that something is the Government’s Eatwell plate. Today, the poorest 20% of households would need to spend 39% of their disposable income on food in order to eat the diet that we recommend for people to be healthy. We all know that that will not happen. If you are in a rich household, it will cost you 8%. This is a really big issue and it would be pointless for household food security to be judged on whether one was getting access to enough sugary cereals and sweets. So I am very pleased to hear what the Minister said, in the Chamber, in front of everybody.
It has been a delight to work with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on this. I am very pleased to have witnessed this day, because I have spent most of my life working on food policy and, quite frankly, as I have said before, all I have done on the whole is put bits of Elastoplast over the bleeding wound. There is now a chance to reshape the food system for the better.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)[V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. A national food strategy is not something that it might be nice to have; it is essential.
Like others, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and support for a food strategy. As we enter the inevitable second wave of Covid-19 infections and a possible second lockdown, food security is at the top of everyone’s thoughts. Children affected by lockdown are struggling. Ensuring that they have enough to eat has become a national cause. The Welsh Government have announced that free school meal provision will be extended through every school holiday until Easter 2021. The vouchers provided to be exchanged for a meal must be for healthy food. The other nations in the UK should now follow the Welsh example. I can think of nothing worse than a child in the UK—one of the richest countries in the world—being hungry while others are overeating with the resultant health problems. During the national regimes of the 1940s and early 1950s, obesity and diabetes were hardly heard of. I am not suggesting that we return to those strictures.
I recently listened to an interview with a Durham University student who was in a unit with five other students. They had all paid for catered meals. Due to lockdown, they were virtually imprisoned in their accommodation, with a kettle and a toaster. They were provided with food boxes that contained “junk food”—the student’s words, not mine—of Pot Noodles, crisps, snack bars and three apples, the only healthy food. The next box, supposed to last for 11 days, contained no fruit at all but the same selection of junk food. Never was it more obvious that a proper food strategy was essential in order to protect these students.
The other place has indicated that it wishes to wait for the final report from Henry Dimbleby and that the Lords amendment is unnecessary. I hope that our prodding will ensure that something is done, and done quickly, once that report is published. The grass appears to grow faster than we would like, and 18 months is far too long, as other Peers have said.
I fully support all the comments previously made on a national food strategy and am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for their expertise and perseverance in this important matter. I look forward to the Government’s consultation once Henry Dimbleby’s work has been completed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that monitoring the outcome will be essential.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for pursuing this issue, which had considerable cross-party support when it was debated here on Report. Sadly, the Commons did not give it the prominence and attention it deserved last week. MPs obviously had other concerns and were focusing on the international issues around a food strategy, which we will consider later. Nevertheless, this remains an important issue for the health of our nation and needs to be integrated with the policies for growing food that are more clearly set out in this Bill.
Our concern all along has been that the work carried out in the Dimbleby review should be anchored and regulated by this legislation in order that it does not become just another worthy report. That is not to prejudge the outcome of the review but to ensure that a food strategy built around the considerable piece of work that Mr. Dimbleby is doing will result in guaranteed action. It has never been more important that we deliver healthy, sustainable food for all; the health challenges were well explored in our earlier debate, and I will not repeat them here. I am therefore pleased that the Minister had a constructive meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
I agree that 18 months is too long and the Government’s commitment to a White Paper within six months of the final Dimbleby report is welcome. Of course, that will still need to be followed through into legislation, but it gives us a strong platform on which to argue for the necessary changes.
It is also helpful to have clarification about the scale and depth of the three-yearly food security reports, which again will provide ammunition for the action that is necessary on food poverty and food insecurity. I welcome the challenges that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, raised with the Minister this afternoon and look forward to his response on those issues. In time, I hope that this work could provide the foundation for a national food Bill to improve the health of the next generation. In the meantime, I welcome the assurances made and am pleased that the Minister repeated them for the record today. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for another insightful debate. I say immediately that although Defra has the lead responsibility for food, many departments across government have a strong interest in this matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, recognised and as I did my opening remarks. The team is engaging across Whitehall as well as with partners across the whole food system—including academics, farmers, businesses, civil society and the general public—to develop the recommendations from Henry Dimbleby’s independent review.
I am fully seized of the point that, in the end, Ministers will need to be fully engaged on this because this will be a cross-Whitehall, cross-departmental consideration. What I was really saying is that work is already under way in the department, with a director-general leading it, so that we are absolutely ready with a White Paper. I would not want the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to think that this is it; there is much more to do, which is why I emphasise that work is already under way.
The noble Lord’s amendment raises important issues. I repeat what I said in my opening remarks, particularly those to my noble friend Lady McIntosh: the Government will reply with a cross-departmental response to the interim report released in July this year. I cannot tell precisely in which month that will be but, as I said, in the coming months, there will be a cross-departmental response to the interim report that will include a full discussion on healthy food and the transformation of the food system.
These are hugely important matters. In this short debate, we have all recognised that this is clearly a matter of supreme urgency and seriousness. As I said before, Defra is committed to producing a food strategy White Paper setting out proposals that will aim to ensure that the food system delivers healthy, sustainable, affordable food for all. We have been clear that the Government will publish the White Paper within six months of the final report from the independent review being published and—this is another point for the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—as with all White Papers, it will be available to Parliament and we can expect much debate in your Lordships’ House and the other place on its contents. The Government have already asked Henry Dimbleby to review progress on the White Paper 12 months thereafter; obviously, that is an important feature because action is what is required, not a report—however worthy.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and your Lordships find these further remarks helpful.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister so I call the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful response in summing up. I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. I will be brief; I want to make a small number of points.
First, I apologise for putting 18 months in the amendment; clearly everybody thought that I was being too generous. This arose because the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said on Report that 12 months was too short. I thought that I would give him a bit of extra time but clearly I was wrong, so I apologise for that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, spoke about Henry Dimbleby’s report. As everybody has said in this debate, the amendment builds on the fantastic work that Henry Dimbleby is doing. As the noble Baroness does, I hope that today’s debate and the Minister’s response have ensured that Henry Dimbleby’s final report will not gather dust in a filing cabinet, as so many reports of this kind have done. Now we have a firm commitment from the Government to develop a food strategy based on Dimbleby’s work.
On leadership, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and my noble friend Lady Boycott, I was very pleased to hear the Minister say that although the DG in Defra is leading the preparatory work, the Government and the Minister recognise that this will need ministerial oomph to get the thing done and deliver results.
Finally, on the review, the news that after 12 months Henry Dimbleby will mark the Government’s homework on his exam, so to speak, is very welcome. However, I hope that the review process will carry on beyond 12 months because rethinking our national food system will not be completed by then. I hope that we will see early signs and green shoots of something new coming up, but I hope also that the Government will think seriously about how they can ensure that, on a long-term and regular basis, those of us who are concerned about the food system—not just people in the Chamber and Members taking part remotely but a large proportion of the population—can repeat the review process and have transparency on the progress being made.
With those comments, I thank the Minister and the noble Lords who took part in the debate, and I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.
“Application of pesticides: limitations on use to protect human health
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision prohibiting the application of pesticides for the purposes of agriculture or horticulture near—
(a) buildings used for human habitation; and
(b) public or private buildings and associated open spaces where members of the public may be present, including but not limited to—
(i) education and childcare nurseries; and
(ii) hospitals and health care facilities.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify a minimum distance from any of the locations listed under subsection (1)(a) and (b) to be maintained during the application of pesticides.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.””
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak also to Motions E, E1, G and G1.
It is entirely right and proper that your Lordships should sometimes ask the other place to think again about a given issue. However, the House of Commons has voted on this matter twice already. An amendment with a similar effect to Amendments 12 and 16 was rejected by the other place in its earlier deliberations on Report, and its view on the noble Lord’s amendment has been made equally plain more recently.
We have looked very carefully at Amendment 16B in lieu, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, which seeks that we ask trading partners to demonstrate equivalence across a range of policy areas. The intention here is well understood, but this amendment still amounts to seeking additional, and potentially expansive, conditions from trading partners. Conditions such as these are not a feature of any other country’s trade policy. I was very struck by this when I took further advice—because obviously this is not my specialist area. I repeat that conditions such as these are not a feature of any other country’s trade policy.
Demonstrating and agreeing equivalence of rules is a complex, technical and resource-intensive task. For example, agreeing equivalence of a range of animal health and food safety rules with New Zealand has taken years. So, in theory, it is possible. However, we believe that doing so in the manner set out here would be disproportionate and in practice would likely mean adding years of such processes ahead of any ratifications. So this amendment could result in pressure to pursue an unrealistic negotiating objective.
On Amendment 18 and Amendment 18B in lieu—Motion G1—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, like Amendment 16B, this raises the subject of parliamentary scrutiny. Once again, I make it clear that, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, trade deals under negotiation now and in the future must be laid before Parliament. As was confirmed by the International Trade Secretary in a Written Ministerial Statement on Monday 12 October, there will be a full scrutiny process. I have now read it in full, and I urge noble Lords to read it after this debate, because I thought it was a very comprehensive statement. This includes publishing objectives and initial economic assessments prior to the start of talks, and providing regular progress updates to Parliament; updates on the conclusion of negotiation rounds with the United States and with Australia are recent examples.
We will share a full impact assessment covering the economic, social, environmental and animal welfare aspects of each trade deal. This will be independently scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee. We will also engage closely with the relevant Select Committees and will endeavour to ensure that they have at least 10 sitting days’ advance sight of all agreements, on a confidential basis. The final agreement text will be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days, giving Parliament time to scrutinise deals.
I am also pleased to be able to say that the Government are already conducting extensive consultation beyond Parliament, with a range of groups in place to advise on trade policy. These include the Department for International Trade’s agri-food trade advisory group, which was renewed in July and which includes over 30 representatives from the food industry, and Defra’s supply chain advisory groups. Of course, this scrutiny is enhanced by the Trade and Agriculture Commission. Recently, the commission launched a call for evidence to 200 relevant parties, covering several questions, including how standards can best be upheld while securing the benefits of trade.
Finally, I should also mention the important role that the FSA and FSS play in regulating imports. Indeed, I concentrated on some of this at a meeting last week with the chair and others in the FSA. The FSA draws on the expertise of 100 scientific experts and support staff and has recruited 35 additional members to its advisory committees. It also takes wider consumer interests into account, such as the impact on the environment, animal welfare and food security, drawing on appropriate expertise and stakeholders to do so.
I can therefore confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, that the approach envisaged in Amendment 18B is already under way. With these remarks, I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
First, my Lords, I apologise to the House that I was not present at Third Reading; I was engaged in Committee on the Trade Bill. I would also have liked to have thanked the Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for the patient and receptive way in which they guided the Bill through the House. I also pay special regard to Nathalie Sharman and her Bill team for the excellent advice they gave us on the many calls the Minister facilitated to fill in the gaps in our appreciation.
We are now down to the final key issues on which the future of British agriculture must be built. Once again, I declare my interests as having been in receipt of EU funds, and with interests as recorded in the register.
I thank the Minister for his introduction to this group of amendments and for explaining the Commons’ reasons why it has chosen not to agree with your Lordships’ House. However, the reason given is to misunderstand the amendment. I do not consider the amendment to create new requirements for imports to meet particular standards. Is that really the right answer, when the Government claims that the withdrawal Act puts into UK law all the present standards inherited as a previous member state? Of course, they can no longer claim that, as future standards can be changed through technical statutory orders. This reveals the direction of travel the Government wish to take in agreeing to a US trade deal. We seek to put in primary legislation what the Government have claimed is in the withdrawal Act. The answer comes back, “Why do you wish to legislate for what the Government have no intention of doing?” Well, that is the stated intention. We are all warned of unintended consequences, and it is not the intention of the previous amendment to be misinterpreted. So we have drafted the amendment in lieu for your Lordships’ consideration.
It is clear that the amendment does not exclude cheaper products. It is open to other countries to sell food to the UK, provided that it meets the same legal thresholds in standards that presently pertain in the UK. Certainly, we can raise standards in time, but we cannot lower them. Price is for the market and for consumers to consider.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and I thank him for his support. I speak to Amendment 18B in lieu. My interests are as recorded on the register.
As has been noted already, it is deeply regrettable that Amendment 18 was unable to be tabled in the House of Commons last week, due to it being considered a breach of financial privilege. I very much appreciate the Minister giving me the heads-up that this would be a possibility. During the debate, many MPs expressed their disappointment at being denied the opportunity to debate the proposals contained in Amendment 18. As a consequence of that decision, I am now tabling Amendment 18B which, I am assured by our wise officials in this House, should be compliant.
The purpose of this new amendment is to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on each international trade agreement, which, importantly, confirms that the agreement safeguards our standards of production for food safety, the environment and animal welfare, and if it does not, why not? The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to consult widely on the merits of establishing a body, a trade and agriculture commission, to provide the said report and advise the Secretary of State. The options could be to extend the existing commission, which, as we all know, is destined to be binned at the end of this year, when it has completed its work and produced a report on the principles and standards that should be embedded in international trade deals. In addition, the Secretary of State could take the opportunity to review the composition of the body and consult on a revised membership and remit. There would be real merit in doing that.
I have listened carefully to the explanations from the Minister on why the previous amendment, Amendment 18, and this one are unnecessary. He has taken an enormous amount of time and has shown great patience, which I very much appreciate. I have also had conversations with the Secretary of State for International Trade who has tried to convince me that there is already enough rigour in the system; that is, that the existing bodies have been given an extended remit to scrutinise trade deals and report their findings, as the Minister has just reported. I remain unconvinced and I am not reassured. To bolt on additional responsibilities to a number of agencies in a piecemeal fashion is no replacement for a dedicated, independent body providing oversight with in-depth knowledge of the entire sector, a body that is able to measure up new trade deals against the principles and standards that will have been laid out in the report from the existing Trade and Agriculture Commission at the end of this year. What could be simpler?
Let me repeat briefly what has been stated during earlier debates on the Bill. The fear of cheap imported food undermining our standards of production as a result of trade deals that have not been adequately scrutinised has united all the key stakeholders from the entire farming community, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has stated. They range from the NFU and the CLA, to vets, chefs, environmental bodies including Greener UK and Sustain, and to the general public. Over 1 million voters have signed a petition. All of them are deeply concerned, and I cannot understand why the Government continue to resist this pressure and have not responded accordingly. That is fundamentally a bad ambition in relation to our aspirations as a country—a country trading in the global market outside the European Union. We have an opportunity to set the bar and to position ourselves as a global influence with a reputation for high standards in animal welfare and food safety, along with a commitment to continue to reduce dependence on antibiotics, to restore biodiversity loss, to be the first past the post in achieving net-zero ambitions if possible, and so on.
In addition to providing consumers in the UK with what they deserve and expect, we are much more likely to succeed in export markets if these are the characteristics that mark our ambition and underpin our products. The alternative is a race to the bottom which will completely destroy that ambition and many businesses in the process. This is a crucial moment in our history and the Government’s response to this amendment will either give hope and confidence to the entire sector that they share its ambitions, or create further suspicion and deep concern that those ambitions risk being sacrificed in the urgent need to compromise in order to agree trade deals. I will reserve the option of moving this amendment and testing the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I now have a list of Members who wish to speak. They are the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lords, Lord Trees, Lord McCrea and Lord Empey, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Lansley. I will call them in that order.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my agricultural interests as detailed in the register. I support the new amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, which has just been presented to us so eloquently. I am sure that he was as surprised as everyone else that his original amendment was ruled inadmissible. This one has been carefully drafted so as not to involve a charge on public funds. The earlier amendment, which was carried in this House with a very substantial majority, sought to establish a permanent statutory commission. Interestingly, the Commons reasons for rejecting that amendment refer only to it involving a charge on public funds and offer no further reason. All the other amendments that we are considering were rejected by the Commons for a specific reason. That is rather significant.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 16B and 18B. I am somewhat perplexed. As a party, we went into the election last year on a manifesto commitment to maintain high standards of food production in terms of animal welfare, health and hygiene, along with environmental protection. That will mean nothing if we have cheaper imports that undercut us. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, will remember, I tabled an amendment at an earlier stage that would have gone further than this and would have been totally in keeping with what the World Trade Organization dictates: in certain circumstances you can have higher standards. That is something that my noble friend the Minister must accept is happening in certain agreements now. Indeed, it is already reflected in some of our fair trade deals, in that we buy products from certain developing countries on those grounds.
It is extremely important that we differentiate between elements that my noble friend tends to couple together, but which I think it is wrong to do. He has repeated that the Food Standards Agency for England and Food Standards Scotland keep up standards of food safety; I applaud the role that Heather Hancock and her team have played in the agency. We have now established in debates on both this Bill and the Trade Bill that those safety standards, which I fully support, can be amended by the stroke of a pen through secondary legislation. We do not even need the Government to come back with primary legislation in the form of a Bill. The standards can be amended and removed by statutory instrument. That is why I believe that Amendment 16B should be adopted. I did urge my noble friend to bring forward an amendment to this effect on behalf of the Government.
The reason given by the other place for not supporting the earlier amendment in this regard is:
“Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate to create new requirements for imports to meet particular standards.”
These are not new requirements; they are requirements on which I believe the Government stood and won so convincingly last year. We cannot set high standards in this country and accept imports that might undercut them. Why? Because a Conservative Government did precisely this in the mid-1990s by banning sow stalls and tethers, only to be undercut by cheaper meat produced using sow stalls and tethers in countries where doing so was still perfectly legal. The public voted on price. I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said on labelling and the campaign that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has been running. Regrettably, I believe there is a need for Amendment 16B. I urge my noble friend to think again.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, for persisting with his campaign, which I entirely support, with his redrafted Amendment 18B. As my noble friend the Duke of Wellington said, the reason given—
“Because it would involve a charge on public funds”—
is unacceptable. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Grimstone for his reply in Oral Questions last week, which set out the budget for the Trade and Agriculture Commission as it currently exists, and for the Trade Remedies Authority. It begs the question why we need the Trade Remedies Authority to be on the face of the Trade Bill, but we do not wish to see the Trade and Agriculture Commission in statutory form.
I actually wish that the amendment went further. I pay tribute to what the Minister said in summing up the debate next door. My honourable friend Victoria Prentis recognised that there might be a need to extend the current remit and tenure of members of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, but I believe in the advice of Henry Dimbleby in his interim report. He has done us a great service by saying that the Government should consider a stand-alone, purpose-built international trade commission, such as exists in so many of the other jurisdictions with which we seek to trade in this brave new world, having left the European Union.
I will move a similar amendment in Committee on the Trade Bill. I believe there is scope for the Trade Bill and the Agriculture Bill to reflect each other in this regard. I cannot believe that the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s existing budget does not enable acceptance of this modest amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, which, as I said, I wish went further. I will support it if he presses it to a vote.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendment 18B in the name of my noble friend Lord Curry. The issue of maintaining animal welfare and environmental standards is of huge concern, as has been mentioned by many noble Lords. We have previously received a number of assurances from the Government, which are undoubtedly sincere, but there is legitimate concern to see that assurances are turned into deliverable action to create systems and mechanisms that provide a degree of independent advice and scrutiny to government.
As the UK starts negotiating its own trade agreements as an independent sovereign state, we have a chance to clearly demonstrate by actions, not just words, that we will negotiate on the basis that equivalent animal welfare standards and suitable environmental standards apply to the food we import, just as they apply to that which we produce ourselves. This is not about protectionism but giving our farmers a level playing field to compete on, and setting out a global exemplar position on animal welfare and the environment.
Last week, I had the pleasure, coming back from our local town, of passing a field of beef cows, with their well-grown calves at foot, contentedly grazing amid the woods and hills of Perthshire, all in a lovely wildlife-rich, biodiverse environment. Are we going to risk exchanging that for feedlot cattle that live their life on bare earth and are fed soya; or, worse, cattle reared not on natural grassland but on cleared rainforest? The UK is rightly proud of its climate change commitments, but what is the point of trying to reduce our agricultural carbon emissions if we import beef from cleared rainforests?
The creation of the Trade and Agriculture Commission was a welcome step and it will set out a framework for future trade deals, but it will cease to function by January. I submit that there will be a need for continuing advice and scrutiny. Why would any Government not want a readily available, very affordable pool of independent expertise to consult? For imported food, to protect our food safety, there is the Food Standards Agency. To protect animal and plant health there are the international sanitary and phytosanitary protocols. There is a deficit in independent oversight for animal welfare and environmental standards on imported products.
The amendment proposes that Parliament and a continuing Trade and Agriculture Commission should provide that oversight. If the Government object to this revised amendment, will they consider bringing forward their own suitable amendment in the other place? That would go a long way to assuage the very real concerns of the public—let us not forget the NFU petition which over a million people signed—and the legitimate concerns of the welfare and environmental bodies, the veterinary profession and our farmers. What is there not to like?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 16B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and Amendment 18B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. We have the opportunity through this legislation to shape future policy on food production, standards, the environment and animal welfare. Surely it is imperative that we do so, ensuring that those who produce our food to the highest standard are protected from unfair competition.
The rejection of the previous amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Curry, was a blow for UK agriculture and consumers. I appreciate that the Government have on several occasions repeated their commitment not to lower food safety standards, which are presently safeguarded under UK law, but I cannot understand why they are so hesitant to strengthen their arm in putting this clearly down in legislation. Flooding the UK market with cheap imports, with lower standards, would have a serious and detrimental effect on our farming industry and place UK food and farming in serious jeopardy. It surely cannot be right to negotiate any international trade agreement without securing clear food, food safety, hygiene, traceability, and animal health and welfare standards.
Verbal commitments are insufficient and can be easily set aside, as we witnessed during other recent negotiations. We need to set the parameters without ambiguity. What happened in the other place was a missed opportunity and we must do our best to rectify it. There is absolutely no excuse for us not granting Parliament a firm and coherent role in any future trade deals. For the Government to demand the highest standards from their own food producers, with all the considerable cost implications, while not demanding the same rigorous standards from those importing food to the United Kingdom, is unacceptable. The House must endeavour to press the Government on this issue by supporting the amendments. They are not wrecking amendments; they are constructive and deserve our support. They would permit a level playing field for all food producers and grant the necessary protection for the consumer.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I wish this Minister were Secretary of State. If that were the case, I think most people in this House would be content and happy with the way of things. I hope that by saying that, I am not doing him any harm.
The Minister has gone out of his way on a number of occasions to tell us about standards in this country. He has referred both publicly and privately to the FSA and the Scottish equivalent, and I get that. However, I want to tell noble Lords of a little experience that I had a few years ago as a member of the TTIP all-party group, which concentrated on transatlantic trade. This happened in the year of the referendum but before it took place. The group was led by John Spellar from the other place, and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and other Members of this House were on the delegation.
We went to Washington DC and had a meeting with all the representatives of the US food producers, ranging from the cattle people to the grain people. There was a whole roomful of them, and they all have very powerful organisations based in Washington. I will spare the House: we came to the chap at the end of the row and he said, “I have 46 Members of Congress in my pocket. There’ll be no deal done unless I say so.” Are we seriously suggesting that we do an international trade deal with the likes of America, although it could be somewhere else, and then say, “You can bring your food in here but we’re going to put a tariff on it if we don’t like the cut of it”, or are we going to ignore it in a specific and limited way?
This is the problem that many of us have. Yes, we have good standards and we want to maintain them, but equally we do not want to see the hands of the Secretary of State for International Trade completely tied behind her back when doing international deals. However, to all intents and purposes some of us, in my part of the United Kingdom in particular, are left in the EU. The Prime Minister came over a year ago and said, “If you get pieces of paper, tear them up and throw them in the bin.” On 1 July this year the Government allocated £25 million to help us fill in those pieces of paper. By 29 August that had risen to £355 million. That is a lot of paper.
The first point I am making is that if we have already have sufficient powers to maintain standards, how can we do trade deals? Why are we not saying specifically that we do not want this in the Bill because it might tie the hands of the Secretary of State for International Trade? You cannot have your cake and eat it. Either we have those standards or we do not. The difficulty that my part of the United Kingdom is left in is that we have no choice and no say, and will have no say, in what regulations we have to maintain. I cannot imagine the US or anywhere else doing a trade deal and then meekly lying down and accepting that we put tariffs on their products. That is the antithesis of having a trade deal. You do your deal, and that is what the deal is.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, made the point about equivalence: it does not have to be the same. If it were equivalent then that might be a way around, but if we just say bluntly, “We can bring in cheap food but we’ll put a tariff on it”, there is no point in doing a trade deal because no one is going to agree to it. I can say, from having seen these people in the US, that there are no circumstances in which they are going to be dictated to. Forget about the politics of it; it is the reality of Congress and the people who come from the rural areas. They know which side their bread is buttered, even if we do not. I think we are living in a fool’s paradise.
My second point is that I was quite upset that the House of Commons decided to hide behind a money measure in dismissing the original amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. Yes, we have to be careful of the barriers between the two Houses, but that seemed an unnecessary way around it. They could have stated why they were opposed to it—a point made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. But to hide behind a money issue, when what we were talking about was trivial in comparison, was unfortunate.
The Minister and his colleagues have been exceptionally patient with, and helpful to, us all. But he must remember that for some of us, this is the difference between having and not having an industry. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, this is our largest single industry, it has the largest manufacturing, and of all the companies in Northern Ireland, the top five or six are all based around the agricultural sector. That is why these amendments are important, and that is why I hope we can give the House of Commons another chance to look at this.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I would very much like my noble friend Lord Gardiner to be the Secretary of State, but I have to disagree with him that it would make any difference. I think the die is cast; the Department for International Trade is against these amendments, as is No. 10. They do not get farming in this country, and it would not matter if my noble friend was Secretary of State. I think we are batting our heads against a brick wall. But let us continue to bat our heads against the brick wall, and we might finally get a crack in the brick wall.
Amendments 16B and 18B seek to increase the resilience and sustainability of UK food and farming, and that is to be welcomed. On the sustainability of UK farming, I would like to go on a quick tangent, because, as my noble friend the Minister knows, I am concerned about the sustainability of farming, and I think a lot of English farms, as a result of this legislation, will be turned into theme parks. My fear of that was heightened when I listened to “Farming Today” last week. I do not know whether my noble friend listens to “Farming Today”, but it was an interview about what was going to happen as a result of ELMS coming in. It took place with a Defra representative in Cumbria, and she said a farmer could take his sheep to a show, and he would be able to get a grant for that because that is engagement; it is under the heading of “heritage, beauty and engagement”. This is not farming; this is taking it to the extreme. So I ask my noble friend: if a farmer is going to be able to get an ELM grant for taking his sheep to the show—and good luck to my noble friend Lord Inglewood—would the farmer be able to claim the same engagement by taking his produce to the harvest festival service? There, in the church, everybody would be able to see his grain, his potatoes, his leeks; that is engagement of the highest kind, so surely the theme park managers will be able to benefit from that.
Let me return to the amendment. Again, in the committee I sat on, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, it was quite clear that the hospitality industry is keen to buy the cheapest food at the cheapest price and sell it at the cheapest price, regardless of where it comes from and what the quality is, let alone the animal welfare standards. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—and I am happy to support him once again on his amendment—told us how much of the food we consume in this country comes from the hospitality side. That is a major concern. I have already described how difficult it was to get evidence from some of these people, but what evidence we did get did not fill me with any confidence for the future of farming and animal welfare standards in this country.
My noble friend the Minister, when opening, said that these amendments were disproportionate. If they are disproportionate, it means that the current system is adequate, and the current system is clearly not adequate, because we have heard of the bolt-ons that are going to be necessary and which are taking place. Surely, much the cleanest and best thing to do is to persuade the Department for International Trade and No. 10 that Amendments 16B and 18B should be included in the Bill.
It is absolutely right that there should be independent oversight of these trade deals, and that that body should report to Parliament through the Secretary of State. I have been in the Minister’s position and, after a cross-party defeat—and, so far, the Minister has no supporters, and the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Curry, have six each—I went to see Viscount Whitelaw, who was Leader of the House, and apologised for getting heavily defeated by a cross-party amendment. He looked at me and said, “Malcolm, perhaps they were right.” I wonder whether my noble friend could take that back to his Secretary of State.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare once again my farming interests, as set out in the register. I am extremely pleased to be able to support Amendment 18B, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. As we all know, the amendment has widespread support in this House and nationally, and, as it has returned in a slightly different format, it can be discussed accordingly.
I will make two very short points. I understand why the Government do not want to see their hands tied by a specific standards clause, as it would be wrong for trade deals to fail if one sector alone, accounting for a small proportion of GDP, has an implied veto. This amendment is a very sensible compromise, in that it enables a committee of experts to report to Parliament before a deal is signed, and then the pros and cons can be decided.
Secondly, other countries, notably the United States of America, have independent trade commissions that report to their assemblies, so no precedent is being set.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, first, I apologise for intervening on our consideration of the Agriculture Bill at this stage, having played no part whatever in any previous consideration of it. But I intervene today because I have played a part in the consideration at every stage of the Trade Bill—and, indeed, the previous Trade Bill, in the last Session. So I come as an emissary from the Trade Bill discussions.
Before I come to Amendment 16B, I will just say to my noble friend the Duke of Wellington that I have sat in a Reasons Committee in the House of Commons, and when such a committee is presented with a Lords amendment that breaches financial privilege, custom and the Standing Orders effectively require that it presents just that one reason. So he should attach no weight to the fact that no other reasons were presented. That is the form of how it is done.
On Amendment 16B, I start from the same place as my noble friend. We have a manifesto that commits us to the highest standards of environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. However, I do not agree with her that we require Amendment 16B in order for this to happen.
I am a member of the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee of your Lordships’ House. We are looking at the trade agreements as they come through. At the moment we have only the Japan agreement to look at as a new, as opposed to a rollover, agreement. Of course, these issues have not arisen with the rollover agreements. The Japan agreement would be covered by this amendment, because it relates to agriculture and food—there are provisions relating to tariff changes and so on. Are we really suggesting, as a consequence of this amendment, that the British Government will now not enter into a trade deal with Japan on the grounds that the Japanese Government will not—I am sure that they will not—accept that UK standards should be applied in Japan? Their view may well be that their standards are equivalent, but they will not sign an agreement that says that they are committed to that.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, how very excellent it is to get back to something like the old House of Lords, where you do not have to put your name down for—and decide you are going to have an opinion on—a debate days in advance. I came in this afternoon to listen, but I have been moved to get up on my hind feet and say a few things because we are debating a crucial issue. I do this for two or three reasons.
First, like my noble friend Lord Lansley, I owe the House an apology. I took a fairly active part, as some noble Lords may remember, in Committee on the Agriculture Bill. I was here for most sessions and spoke a number of times—not quite as often as my noble friend Lady McIntosh but nevertheless a few times. Sadly, in September I was rather messed up by a couple of cataract operations and had to be in and out of hospital, so I did not play much part—two small speeches—on Report. However, I believe the issue we are debating today is of central and crucial importance.
My noble friend Lord Lansley made a very good point about the admirable amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that has been dismissed by the Commons. We will have a Report stage on the Trade Bill, which I have not yet taken part in, which would perhaps be the right moment to reintroduce that amendment. I am one of those who believe that the House of Lords has not only a right but a duty to ask the House of Commons to think again, but if it thinks again emphatically, one has to be very careful indeed before indulging in another round of ping-pong. I am very conscious that I said something different last night on a very different Bill, on which we will be wholly justified in engaging in some very serious ping-pong. I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Lansley nodding a degree of assent.
The amendment placed before us by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is in a different category. My noble friend Lord Lansley is of course right about Reasons Committees and there is nothing strange or novel about the reason given being that it fell outside the financial parameters. Fair enough. However, the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has taken note of that and presented a very different amendment in emphasis and degree; I really think the Commons should have an opportunity to reflect on it, because a number of MPs expressed dissatisfaction—some expressed downright annoyance—that they were not able to debate it. They should be given that chance by your Lordships’ House.
I was very taken last Thursday by a letter in the Times from one of the most admirable presidents the NFU has ever had, Minette Batters. She said she had had a cordial meeting with the Prime Minister the previous day and hoped he now recognised certain things—we do not know yet whether or not he does. There is a woman who is giving outstanding leadership, who was responsible for this petition, signed by a million people expressing their concern about food standards.
We know there is a danger—my noble friend Earl Caithness put it humorously tonight—of the “theme park farm” developing. What farming is about, and I made this point myself several times in Committee, is producing food for our people—food of a high standard and quality, produced in a way that recognises the livestock and does not seek to fill them with artificial hormones or to do other things. We are not exactly right, and I have referred before in your Lordships’ House to those terrible scenes on the Wye earlier this year, when the effluent from intensive chicken farming destroyed, for a time at least, one of the most beautiful rivers not only in England but in the whole United Kingdom. We have to recognise that.
Minette Batters wrote in her letter to the Times that we just do not want the situation whereby things that would be illegal if produced in the United Kingdom were sold here and undercut our own farmers’ produce. It was a powerful letter, but that is the fundamental, underlying concern of farmers in this country. I say that having represented a farming constituency for 40 years and living now in my native county of Lincolnshire, which is perhaps the greatest farming county of all.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I knew that would arouse a few barbs, but it is a very serious and important farming county where, this year, they are battling in the wake of the worst harvest in half a century. We have a duty to these people, and a duty to encourage them to produce food and not regard themselves as theme parks. If that is true of the United Kingdom as a whole, it is particularly true of Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Empey knows so much more about Northern Ireland than I will ever know, but I was chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place for five years and I travelled there a lot. I got to know and love that part of the United Kingdom very much, and all I can say is that everything that my noble friend said tonight about farming in Northern Ireland is, if anything, an understatement; we have to take that into account.
So I will support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, so that the Commons has a chance to think again. However, in order not to make my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have a very real regard, be too cross with me, I close by saying that I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Empey said about my noble friend Lord Gardiner. Would it not be a very good thing to have a Secretary of State, another Cabinet Minister, in this House? Would it not be particularly appropriate if the portfolio that that Minister held was for agriculture? I would like him to be, in the old way, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Does any other Member in the Chamber wish to speak? If not, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, this has been a really excellent debate. I find it quite astonishing, however, at the time of a huge public health crisis—not just in our country but across the world—due to poor diet, as well as an environmental crisis, that we would ever consider importing into our country food that was of lower standards. It worries me, because I agree with all the words that have been said by the Minister—I wish he were higher up the food chain, as it were—and I also sincerely accept his words that these standards will be maintained, somehow or another, but if that is true, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, pointed out, it was part of the manifesto, what precisely is the real objection to writing such a clause into the heart of the Bill?
We have worked, in the food industry and, indeed, through outfits such as the FSA, once chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and it has taken 20 years of UK public policy just to achieve clear front-of-pack labelling, yet right now we are considering doing trade deals with a country, the USA, that says it is concerned that
“labelling food with high sugar content … is not particularly useful in changing consumer behaviour”.
Would anyone say that about the way we market cigarettes? Would anyone in this country say that sugar is not a primary cause of obesity—or, indeed, the primary cause of under-12s going into hospital to have all their teeth out?
As has been mentioned, including by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, 40% of the food we eat is eaten outside of the home. In most cases, of course, it means that we as consumers have absolutely no clue about how the food gets to us and what it is. Who remembers the horse meat scandal, which showed that the meat had travelled from some 10 destinations throughout Europe before finally ending up in burgers in well-known supermarkets? I do not see any way, unless it is written into the Bill, for us to stop this cheaper food coming here. Sadly, we know how often price affects the way people buy.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks, and for his briefings and those of his officials. I support the contributions from the Floor of the House asking to elevate him to the role of Secretary of State for Agriculture in our Chamber.
We have heard some excellent contributions this afternoon. In his Motion E1, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, laid out the arguments for Amendment 16B, which addresses how the UK’s animal welfare, food and environmental standards will be protected in the negotiation of future free trade agreements. FTAs permit imports to be subject to conditionality based on animal welfare. We are nothing if not a nation of animal lovers. The Government have set themselves the goal of having the best animal welfare standards in the world. This is laudable, but action will need to be taken to ensure that this happens.
Earlier, we debated the previous incarnation of the Trade Bill, when the Government themselves proposed and passed an amendment ensuring that UK animal welfare and environmental standards would be protected in trade agreements. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has referred to how standards can be changed during the statutory instrument process, and I agree that labelling is going to be vital. A broad range of NGOs and bodies representing the UK agriculture sector believe that the Government must protect our farmers and standards by requiring that imports meet UK standards. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, which assists the Government to meet their stated aim of healthy, sustainable food for trade and communities, as he has indicated. There is a minefield to be negotiated here.
I now turn to Motion G1 and Amendment 18B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, whom I congratulate on his introduction. I was dismayed that the Government did not allow his previous amendment to be debated in the other place due to a technicality regarding the use of public funds. At no point during our deliberations in Committee or on Report was this raised as an issue. When the debate on the Lords amendments took place in the other place, although this amendment was not on the order paper, many MPs expressed support for its aim, as other Peers have said, including the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, has altered its wording, so let us hope that it will find favour with the other place and get an airing there.
British farmers work the land and stock; their animals are well looked after and the high standards that pertain here ensure that those purchasing home-reared products can have confidence in their produce. This amendment does not take away any of the power of the Government or the other place; in fact, the opposite is true. Sadly, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that the Government do not really “get” agriculture. The National Farmers’ Union fully supports this measure, which protects farmers from poorer quality—and, possibly, cheaper—imports slipping in under the net of protection that British farmers operate under. The NFU’s petition has attracted over a million signatures, as others have referred to.
While we welcome the Government’s move to set up a Trade and Agriculture Commission, this had a very limited life and no legislative basis at all. It was not independent of government and had no teeth to implement its findings, as others have so eloquently said. It would also have reported long before the move from the basic payments scheme to the environmental land management scheme had become fully operational. The transition of farmers from one scheme to the other is a source of anxiety among the agricultural community. The pilots that are currently running under ELMS have yet to be assessed, and farmers are unsure what the future holds for them.
Amendment 18B would require the Government to report to Parliament on the impact of trade deals prior to ratification, looking specifically at how food imports will be addressed under those deals and whether food produced to different standards will be allowed under their terms. This is important to ensure that our farmers are not undercut. It would set up the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a permanent basis, instead of as a non-statutory body, currently due to be disbanded in January 2021, and it will require the Government to consult fully on these powers.
What we have before us is a compromise, but it is a fair compromise, ensuring we safeguard our standards in future trade deals. It will not impinge on the primacy of the Executive in negotiating trade deals. It gives parliamentarians an important say on whether those final deals are in the interests of the British people before they come into effect. Surely, this is a key role of Parliament.
If we are to enter into trade agreements that do not meet the Government’s manifesto commitments on environmental standards and animal welfare, where are we? When the noble Lord, Lord Curry, divides the House, the Liberal Democrat Benches will be supporting him fully.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a far more extensive debate, in terms of numbers, than I had imagined. It adds to the many other debates that we have had on this matter over the past months.
Some noble Lords could get me into considerable trouble, so I say, emphatically, that I work for an exceptional Secretary of State. Obviously, I do not take these things personally. Like many other Ministers with farming interests—I should also declare my membership of the NFU—I understand agriculture, because I come of farming stock. I understand the mindset of so many farming families and communities at this time. My noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Cormack I hope knocked on the head the issue of financial privilege. I mention particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that this is the procedure. My noble friends who were in the other place know this. I do not want any noble Lord to think that the points raised were not of interest, but simply to understand why it is as it is.
I get the mood of the House and, I imagine, the mood beyond it, but hope that some of the detail in my opening remarks and in what I say now will ensure that whatever the differences, we are all in agreement about the necessity and desirability of maintaining standards. I will not repeat, as I have on other occasions, the legal import requirements that we already have. We have import rules on antibiotic growth promoters in domestic law. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, knows that, but the implication was that this may not be part of our domestic law. To put the record straight, it is, and therefore the points that she made would relate to our import rules.
We have yet to explore fully the opportunity of trade across the world for British agriculture and horticulture. When I say “British”, I mean across the United Kingdom. England has a very strong agricultural sector, but my goodness, it is very strong in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland too. I say this to the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord McCrea.
My noble friend Lord Cormack rightly mentioned producing food at home, but when I speak to my noble friend Lord Grimstone, the opportunities for producing British food and drink across the United Kingdom for export are what he is so keen to grasp. As I have said before, some of the debate that we have had in this House has, on balance, been determined that everything will be grim, whereas I see considerable opportunities for British agriculture and horticulture.
I set out the range of rigorous processes that ensure full input into trade deals and to allow them to be effectively scrutinised. Our overall approach to scrutiny goes well beyond that of many comparable parliamentary democracies. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, referred to a key role of Parliament. Parliament has enormous input and scope to say “No”. All treaties that require ratification are subject to scrutiny procedures under the CRaG Act 2010. Any legislation required to give effect to our FTAs must be scrutinised and passed by Parliament.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 16, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 16A.
“Duty to seek equivalence on agri-food standards in relation to future trade
(1) When negotiating any international trade agreement containing provisions relating to the importation of agri-food products into the United Kingdom, it shall be a negotiating objective for Her Majesty’s Government to secure terms that provide for equivalence with standards applicable to domestic producers in the areas of—
(a) animal health and welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health.
(2) Before an international trade agreement can be laid before Parliament under section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”), a Minister of the Crown must lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement confirming—
(a) that Her Majesty’s Government has, in the Minister’s opinion, fulfilled the requirement under subsection (1),
(b) whether equivalence with domestic standards has been achieved,
(c) any exemptions provided for individual products, and
(d) in relation to subparagraphs (b) and (c), the Minister’s reasons for this being the case.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply if—
(a) the international trade agreement is a continuation or revision of an agreement to which the United Kingdom was a party prior to IP completion day, whether as a direct signatory or by virtue of membership of the European Union, or
(b) the international trade agreement is with one or more least developed countries and, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, seeking equivalence on standards would present an unfair impediment to trade for the country or countries.
(4) In addition to the requirements under the 2010 Act, chapters of a relevant international trade agreement may not be ratified unless the conditions in subsections (5) and (6) have been met.
(5) The condition in this subsection is that the chapters have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.
(6) The condition in this subsection is that a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the chapters has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and—
(a) the House of Lords has debated the motion, or
(b) the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the first Lords sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in subsection (5).
(7) In this section—
“chapters” means any individual section or sections of an international trade agreement;
“international trade agreement” means—
(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—
(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii);
“least developed countries” means any country on the United Nations Committee for Development’s List of Least Developed Countries, as amended from time to time;
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
“ratified” has the same meaning as in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.””
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 17A.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 18, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 18A.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
At end insert “but do propose Amendment 18B in lieu—
“Trade and standards
(1) The Secretary of State must produce a report relating to each and any international trade agreement agreed, negotiated or concluded by the Government at any time after the commencement of this Act, prior to such an agreement being ratified, considering its impact on the trade of agri- food products.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must—
(a) assess the terms of the international trade agreement under consideration and its impact on the Secretary of State’s ability to promote, maintain and safeguard standards of agri-food production, including in relation to food safety, the environment and animal welfare; and
(b) include a register of all agri-food products—
(i) that are provided with preferential access to the UK market, at any time, under the international trade agreement under consideration, and
(ii) that may be produced to lower standards of food safety, animal welfare or environmental protection than those that are in force in any part of the UK at the time the report is laid under subsection (3).
(3) The Secretary of State must lay any report under subsection (1) before Parliament on the date of publication, and a Minister of the Crown must move a motion to consider the report in each House of Parliament prior to the relevant agreement being ratified.
(4) The relevant international trade agreement may not be ratified within 21 sitting days of a motion being moved under subsection (3).
(5) The Secretary of State must consult on the merits of the establishment of a Trade and Agriculture Commission to undertake the duties in subsections
(1) and (2) on their behalf.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament containing the outcome of the consultation conducted under subsection (5) within two months of the day on which this Act is passed.
(7) In producing reports under either subsection (1) or (6) the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) the general public;
(b) the devolved administrations;
(c) representatives from—
(i) the farming sector;
(ii) the food industry;
(iii) consumer and public health groups;
(iv) environmental organisations;
(v) animal welfare organisations;
(vi) farm assurance and certification bodies; and
(d) any other individuals or organisations the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(8) Reports under subsections (1) and (6) must include summaries of the submissions of the consultees listed in subsection (7).
(9) “International trade agreement” means—
(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—
(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii).””
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
I beg to move and I wish to test the view of the House.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, the House will now adjourn until 7.30 pm when we will return to hear my noble friend Lord Bethell answer questions on the Covid-19 update.
Agriculture Bill
Wednesday 4th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 4 November 2020 - (4 Nov 2020)
17:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 331 / Noes: 272 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 16B.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Lords amendment 18B, and Government motion to disagree.
Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments 16B and 18B.
Victoria Prentis
I should start by declaring my farming interests and the fact that I come from a farming family, but that is not the only reason hat I think this is one of the most exciting Bills before the House this year. This Bill matters to everyone who sees a great future for British farming as we leave the EU and the confines of the common agricultural policy. As we have seen from the huge amount of public interest in it, this Bill matters to everyone who is interested in what we eat and in where and how it is produced. Food standards are important, particularly as we forge new trade deals around the world.
This Bill has been much improved during its passage through this place, and I must thank Members on both sides of both Houses for their assistance, starting with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Lord Gardiner and the Minister for the Environment, with whom I am working closely on future farming policy, and our marvellous Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), who is a strong voice for her farming community, as is Emma Pryor, our Spad. I should also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), Lord Grantchester and Lord Curry of Kirkharle.
I thank the many Members who voted for previous incarnations of the Bill, voicing their concerns privately to me and believing, rightly, that it would come right in the end. We must recognise that a large number of people outside Parliament have been involved in the debate on standards, including the National Farmers Union and the many members of the public who signed its petition, and many British farmers.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It would be remiss of us not to thank the Minister for the way that she has engaged in this process, listened to farmers and their representatives and got the Bill to such a good place. May I put on record my thanks to her?
Victoria Prentis
That is very kind. We should also thank the farmers, who are rightly proud of the food we produce.
It has proved very difficult to find the right form of legislative words to protect our standards. It is important that we comply with World Trade Organisation rules and that we do not impose impossible conditions on future trading partners. I feel that, following the gargantuan efforts of many people, we have got to a sensible compromise. My concern about amendment 16B is that it would cause problems for our negotiators and impose burdensome administrative measures on our trading partners. Demonstrating equivalence of standards is a complex and technical task that involves delving deeply into the cowsheds, chicken huts and legislatures of other nations. I feel that our amendment in lieu is a better way to achieve the goal.
We stood on a clear manifesto commitment that in all our trade negotiations we would not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards. As I have said many times before, we need a range of tools to help us achieve that goal. The first tool is legislative. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 transferred all exiting EU food safety provisions, including existing import requirements, to the UK statute book. These include, as I have said several times before, a ban on chlorine washes for chicken and hormone-treated beef. Any changes would require new legislation to be brought before this Parliament, and I do not see any appetite for that.
The second tool is the regulatory body, the independent Food Standards Agency, and Food Standards Scotland. The third tool is consumer information. Earlier this year I committed to a serious and rapid examination of the role of labelling in promoting high standards and high welfare across the UK. We will consult on that at the end of the transition period, so very shortly.
The fourth tool is Parliament, which plays an important role in scrutinising our trade policy. The Government have provided a great deal of information to Parliament on our negotiations, including publishing our objectives and our scoping assessments before the start of talks, and we also work very closely with the relevant Select Committees. However, during the passage of the Bill it has made it clear that further parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals is desirable. That is why we have tabled an amendment requiring us to report to Parliament on the impact of new trade agreements on the maintenance of our food, animal welfare and environmental protection standards. This proposed new clause would add a duty on the Secretary of State to present a report to Parliament before or alongside any free trade agreement laid before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 procedures. The Secretary of State for International Trade has said that the Government will find time for debate. If Parliament is not satisfied, it can delay ratification through the CRaG process.
Turning to Lords amendment 18B, the Government will in fact go further than is proposed. We are putting the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing, with a provision to review it every three years. This will be done through a Government amendment to the Trade Bill, which has finished in Committee and is about be considered on Report in the House of Lords, where the amendment will be introduced. That will ensure that our trade policy is examined in detail by key experts. This House asked for parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals, and I am delighted to provide it.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Can I take the Minister back to amendment (a), because she moved on before I got to make my point? Subsection (5) of the proposed new clause provides that any report would have to be laid before Welsh Ministers and Scottish Ministers. Can she outline what would happen if those Ministers, or indeed Northern Ireland Ministers, disagreed with the content of the report?
Victoria Prentis
The whole purpose of the reporting mechanism is that it will not just be for Parliament, or indeed any of the devolved Administrations, to object to the report; it will be publicly available and, I suspect, widely scrutinised—we have all seen how interested the public are in these matters. In those circumstances, I am quite sure that we would find a way of discussing the matter in this place, so that the views of the Commons could be tested in the normal manner. Were that situation to arise, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would find a way of making his views and those of his constituents clear.
Victoria Prentis
I will not, because many Members wish to speak and I have been asked to be as quick as possible.
We are putting the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing. The House asked for scrutiny of trade deals, and I am pleased to provide it. Parliament will have the reports from the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and it will have time to study the texts and specialist Committees in both Houses to examine them in more detail. It will be the lawful duty of Ministers to present both Houses, and indeed the devolved Administrations, with the evidence they need to scrutinise future trade agreements.
I believe that the Government amendment provides a comprehensive solution that really gets to the heart of this important issue. I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendments 16B and 18B and to accept the Government’s amendment in lieu.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the spokesman for the Opposition, I warn Members that there will be an immediate limit on Back-Bench speeches of three minutes. We obviously have very little time and many people wish to speak, so the shorter the better. I remind Members that brevity is the soul of wit.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 16B. Like the Minister, I declare an interest: my little sister is a sheep farmer in Cornwall. I thank all farmers for their work throughout the covid-19 pandemic and the work they will be undertaking during the second lockdown.
We have been here before, and we may yet be here again. I welcome the Government’s adoption of large parts of Labour policy since the last time we spoke about the Agriculture Bill. I have to say to the Minister that we are not quite there yet, but we are nearly there. The vote on food standards today is being followed by people in all our communities. It is a decision about what type of country we want Britain to be. I want Britain to be a country of high standards that respects the welfare of animals and ensures that environmental protection is baked into our food chain. We therefore continue to press Ministers to put our high food and farming standards into law.
I turn to the Government’s concessions and the amendment in the Minister’s name, which puts them into action. I am glad that, after voting against attempts to strengthen the Trade and Agriculture Commission a short time ago, the Government have changed their mind and listened to farmers, the National Farmers Union and Labour, in particular, on strengthening it. I thank Ministers for their efforts, and in particular the Farming Minister for her personal effort in trying to reach a compromise on that. I am grateful for all the work she has done. In particular, I thank Lord Grantchester, Baroness Jones and the Lords Minister, Lord Gardiner, for what has taken place. It has been a team effort, and it has included the work of the National Farmers Union and Minette Batters.
The Minister was up against a hard deadline to pass this Bill because of the Government’s decision to oppose an extension to the powers in the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, which Labour proposed when we discussed this on 21 January. We suggested that Ministers take an extra 12 months of power so that they would not be up against a deadline, and I recall Ministers saying that that would not be necessary. It turns out that a bit of forward planning is a good thing. I encourage Ministers to look at such amendments the next time we introduce them, rather than arguing against them simply because of where they came from. It is important that farmers are paid.
Working side by side with our nation’s farmers, we have helped to secure two key concessions from Ministers. The first is that the Trade and Agriculture Commission should be put on a statutory basis, renewable every three years. That will happen in the form of an amendment to the Trade Bill. That amendment has not yet been published, so we cannot see the words, the meaning and the effect that it will have. When will we see the Government’s Trade Bill amendment on strengthening the Trade and Agriculture Commission so that we can understand how it will work legally with the new clause in this Bill?
We know that the International Trade Secretary and the Environment Secretary have not always agreed on food standards. The truth is that I do not trust the Department for International Trade not to break any promises once this Bill is passed. It is clear that despite having one Government, we sometimes have two competing food agendas. Will the Minister confirm that discussions about the wording of the amendment will take place with the Opposition and will involve DEFRA and DIT Ministers?
Will the Minister also give a commitment on the membership of the Trade and Agriculture Commission? Although it is broad at the moment, we feel it could be strengthened by an enhanced consumer voice, and with trade unions being part of it. I know that there is a proposal for trade unions to sit on a small union sub-committee, but having unions—a voice of the workers in our food sector—as part of that main body would be important.
The second concession that the Minister accepted was to enhance the scrutiny of trade deals, in recognition that the proposals put forward previously were inadequate. Strengthening that is supported on both sides of the House. There is more that can be done here. That is an argument that the shadow International Trade Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), and I have been making consistently, but I feel that we can go a wee bit further.
I welcome that the Government will require a report to assess any trade deals against the standards of animal welfare, environmental protection and plant health, but this is extra scrutiny; it is not a vote on this matter. That is what we agreed and I think what should happen. The amendment the Minister has tabled only proposes that the report will be laid before parliamentary Committees and not to the House itself. It will not be subject to an automatic vote; only to a circuitous and fragile route. The House will know that, for a vote to happen, the CRaG process requires that the Government, in their generosity, would award the Opposition an Opposition day to challenge the trade deal if that trade deal falls below the standards we expect, regardless of what the TAC report may say.
Luke Pollard
I will carry on for just one moment, if I may.
The Minister says that a deal can be prayed against, but what we need is a proper system of parliamentary scrutiny, not a reliance on the benevolence of any Government Minister to afford the Opposition an Opposition day. To avoid any further ping-pong, I would be grateful if the Minister could guarantee now, and furthermore say in a published ministerial statement, that the Government will not unreasonably refuse an Opposition day for that purpose, in particular when it comes to a vote on any food standards in any future trade deals.
I want to press the Minister on the wording in Government amendment (a). We have spoken about this and I hope she will be able to give some clarity. The wording “consistent with” is used in relation to our own standards. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out where that has the same legal meaning as “equivalent to”. Many Lords had a similar concern about that and I would be grateful if she could set out the difference around what that means. I also think there is a logic to using production standards as one of the areas. I know the Government can ask the Trade and Agriculture Commission to look at things beyond what is in primary legislation, so I would be grateful if the Minister could look at whether production standards could also be used in relation to that.
Will the plans for parliamentary scrutiny include deciding negotiation objectives, consultation, access to texts during negotiations, and a statutory role for the relevant Select Committees as well as the TAC? The duty in the Government’s new clause is to report to Parliament on to what extent commitments in new free trade agreements relating to agriculture products are consistent with maintaining UK standards. Will the Minister explain if that will allow deals to let in imports of those products, provided that it is merely reported to Parliament, or will that provision enable goods produced to lower standards to be stopped from entering the UK?
Jim Shannon
One important factor for us in Northern Ireland, and especially in my constituency, is the milk sector. It is very important that the high standards we have in our products which are sold across the world are maintained. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that under the Bill the high standards we have will be maintained by every other country in the world that will have a chance to bring their products into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening. I think that is a point the Minister should address in her remarks as well. We should be a beacon for high standards. As the Minister herself moved an amendment to the Fisheries Bill on seal protection precisely to enable our trade with the United States, which had higher legislative standards on seal protection—not on other things, perhaps—we need to make sure that that works on both sides of the Atlantic. That is a good principle that I hope the Minister will adopt.
I am mindful of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so will quickly run through this. We need to put our food and farming standards into law. Farmers have a genuine and widespread concern about that, and I think it is still missing from where the Government have moved to. The movement from the Government is welcome. It showed that the arguments the Government whipped their MPs to support could be further improved, an argument made by Conservative Back Benchers, as well as Labour. I believe there are further concessions that could help to undo the final concerns on this matter. I want to see farmers paid. I want to see the Agriculture Bill put into law. I expect that many of these issues will return to us when the Trade Bill comes back to this House.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to rise to support the Government amendments this evening. I am sure the Whips will be delighted to hear that. I thank the Prime Minister for his involvement in getting us to this solution. I also thank the Secretaries of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for the Department for International Trade, and I thank the farming Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for all her hard work in bringing us all together. I believe that this is a very good day not only for agriculture and food, but for the environment and animal welfare in this country and across the world.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman knows that his opinions are very well regarded in Ulster by many of the farmers there. What would he say to the farmers in my constituency? Does he believe that the Bill, with the amendments that he is supporting, now addresses the concerns that have been expressed by farmers and consumers across Ulster about food standards, and are they now properly protected?
Neil Parish
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I believe that it does, because it brings us the opportunity to have the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory basis for three years. That has to report on every individual trade deal and it will give us that opportunity to scrutinise them, but it will be up to all of us Members in this House to make sure that the Government do stand up to the high standards. That is what I would say to the farmers of Ulster.
The work that the Government have done to bring this forward over the weekend has been very welcome. We have recognised the need to put our manifesto commitments in law and give everyone confidence that our standards are a priority and will not be traded away. This new Government amendment to the Agriculture Bill, along with extending the Trade and Agriculture Commission in the Trade Bill, is very welcome and I will be voting for the amendment.
Our Lordships—I pay particular tribute to Lord Curry—have rightly kept the pressure up with their amendments and helped to bring this about tonight. Government Members, along with the National Farmers Union and others, have been working very hard to find a way that we can show our commitment to the highest standards of food production in law. The Government amendment to the Bill is not quite perfect, but I accept that it is very hard to put these things in legislation, and they have moved a very long way from where we were. I am very grateful for the fact that we are here tonight and I think that all my Government colleagues can very much come together on this. We all know that trade deals are a tough business. Every country wants the very best for its business and its people.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I think the hon. Gentleman is right. There is no reason why we would wish to reduce our food standards in the United Kingdom, especially since we export all around the world on the basis of our high food standards. Has he any concern that the role of the commission will be to look at trade deals and make recommendations as to their impact but that it will not have the ability to change the regulations if the Government should decide to go down the route of changing them?
Neil Parish
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his intervention. The commission will not have the powers to stop proposals but it will have the powers to bring them to this House. Therefore, it is very much for us to make sure that we raise that and drive this through. The measures will also make it more difficult for the Secretary of State for International Trade to sign away animal welfare in a future trade deal because of the commission.
I have said from the start that I am pro-trade with any country, but we do need fair trade. We also need to make sure that we have good negotiating teams that will gather years of experience in negotiating, because it is absolutely essential that we get good trade deals. We need to use all our experience and expertise in Parliament, Government and across the industry so that we are wise to the challenge that new trade deals can present. I want deals that deliver for British farmers and help them to sell more brilliant produce across the world, such as lamb and cheese—dare I say it, from Devon, but also from the whole United Kingdom—into America and Scotch whisky to India, and I know that the Government are really keen to ensure that this happens. Let us use organisations such as the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which has a levy paid into by farmers, to get our market open in developing markets, with a high British standard of food and with us presenting it well across the whole of the world’s markets. We need to back British food and get it out into those markets, because until people have actually tasted our great British food, they will not realise how wonderful it is, and the moment they have tasted it, they will want more of it. We really can do this.
I very much welcome what Ministers are doing and the beefed-up Trade and Agriculture Commission. We need fair trade, not just free trade; they are compatible. I believe that we will see good trade deals in the future but we will maintain standards. I assure the Minister that all of us on the Government Benches, and I suspect those on the Opposition Benches too, will hold the Government to account, and I look forward to us delivering these good and fair deals in the future.
Deidre Brock
My inbox has been full of messages from constituents looking for food standards to be maintained. I know from conversations with colleagues that their inboxes have been filled, too, and we know from comments that we have heard already today that other Members have had similar experiences. If Ministers will not protect those standards in legislation simply because it is the right thing to do, perhaps they will consider doing it because there is huge public pressure for it.
Throughout the passage of this Bill and in other debates, we have never been given an adequate reason why the Government are so determined to keep food standards off the face of legislation. We were told that they should not be in this Bill but in the Trade Bill; come the Trade Bill, we were told that they should not be there but somewhere else. We have been told to trust the Government to deliver, and that future deals could be scrutinised by Members. Indeed, we have just heard that from the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish).
We are always being told, “Not here, not now,” but we have never been told why exactly the Government are so opposed to putting food protection in legislation. The EU manages it and other countries manage it, so why not the UK, particularly in view of the overwhelming support from the public and our agricultural communities? I would be happy to give way if any member of the Government wanted to let us know what the thinking is there, and why the standards we are told will be insisted on are not written into law. It is an issue that causes grave concern to food producers and consumers, because the guarantees that help to protect farm businesses also help to protect the health of people who pick up their food from the shelves of supermarkets.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The hon. Lady says she has received a great many emails about this from her constituents. I hope she has gone back and told them about the triumvirate of checks and balances that are now in place from CRaG, the Trade and Agriculture Commission and the International Trade Committee. The Government have put in place the mechanisms to scrutinise all that. That is the solution to this situation.
Deidre Brock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but of course he is talking about scrutiny in the face of a Government with a nearly 80-Member majority. We have no way of pushing that forward if we disagree with whatever comes up in whatever trade deal comes before this House. The Government’s majority means that those of us on the Opposition Benches will be completely overruled. That argument is spurious, frankly, and I am afraid that many in agricultural communities, and certainly many of my constituents, simply do not believe the Government.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Deidre Brock
No, I am going to get on for the moment —and I can see that Madam Deputy Speaker is encouraging me to do so.
Lords amendment 16B is a watered-down version of those protections, not the gold standard that people were hoping for, but it is what we have. Surely, it is something that Ministers can accept, given their repeated insistence that food standards will be respected in trade deals. Similarly, Lords amendment 18B would be a tiny imposition on ministerial life but, likewise, a little reassurance that is worth having. I recognise, however, that it will fall in the face of the Government’s amendment in lieu.
I am afraid that the Government’s amendments fall far short of offering us any reassurances or any meaningful way forward, and that the future for high-quality food production and consumer confidence in the end product is in danger. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) chuntering from a sedentary position about the National Farmers Union Scotland. Just today in the Scottish Affairs Committee, we heard from the NFUS on its concerns about the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—the potential for a dive to the bottom in food standards that comes with it, and its relationship to what happens in trade deals on the back of the Agriculture Bill and the forthcoming Trade Bill—so the NFUS still has its reservations.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Like the hon. Lady, I have had many emails from constituents raising concerns about this. Does she agree that part of those concerns stems from the time it has taken the Government to come back and the fact that they have repeatedly issued confusing messages about this matter? There is deep concern that the way the Government have responded has not really dealt with it.
Deidre Brock
I absolutely agree. That is basically what I am attempting to get across. I feel very much—the contact I am receiving from constituents across agricultural communities indicates that this is also how they feel—that this is a sop, really. The Government are encouraging Back-Bench MPs to vote for the Bill and ensure that it gets through, but this House will have no meaningful way to stop anything that endangers food standards in future trade deals when they come before us. I suppose it is a step forward that reports have to come before the House, but it is not enough. The future of high-quality food production, potentially animal welfare rights and consumer confidence in the end product are in danger.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. I thank Ministers—in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis)—for the work that they have done and for listening to the concerns that we have all expressed. I also thank Minette Batters, the president of the NFU, for her tireless work with the EU this year, and Lord Curry, Lord Grantchester, Lord Gardiner and their other lordships for their work and for listening and putting the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing, as we have all been asking for.
This is a good moment, and not just because Government Members get to honour our manifesto commitments, which were sincerely made and taken by the public. It is also crucial for us to make Brexit a moment when we take back control of trade so that we can protect UK standards, ensure a level playing field for our farmers and go further by using our market leverage as one of the great markets of the world to promote UK leadership in modern farming: low carbon, low water, low plastic, low input, high productivity farming—the very farming that we need to be exporting around the world. To that end, we need to be looking in the Trade Bill at the use of variable tariffs to promote the export of British agricultural leadership around the world.
This battle now goes to the Trade Bill, where I will be pushing for three key things. First, I want a proper impact assessment for all trade deals, including the impact both for this country and for the third party. I congratulate the International Trade Secretary on renewing our trade arrangements with Kenya, which is an interesting and important market for us. I would like to think that we might be able to go further in due course and have a trade deal whereby we in this House could understand what it means for Kenyans as well as for agriculture in this country. After 15 years, we have lost the architecture for assessing the impact of trade deals, and we need to put that back in place so that this House can understand exactly what it is voting on.
Secondly, I want us to explore variable tariffs. What I mean by that is a world in which, yes, it is wrong that the EU imposes a 40% tariff on food from Africa—I am pleased that will be moving away from that—but also where we rightly do not accept food that is unsafe. I want us to imagine a world where we put a basic tariff on food that is safe but not produced to the standards that we would like to encourage, and zero tariffs on food produced in the way in which we need the world to produce it—with less carbon, less water and less plastic—and to use that to help drive our exports.
Thirdly, I would like us to put in place proper parliamentary scrutiny that is better than the CRaG process to ensure that we hold Ministers to account on the aims of trade deals and on the final terms, so that the House can show that we have used this moment genuinely to protect UK farmers, to make sure that they have a level playing field and to show our support for the best of British farming and all that it stands for.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I rise in support of the amendments from the other place. In recent days, the Government have moved to address some of the concerns that I and other Members have raised in this House, and we welcome that progress.
Let me make it clear that I do welcome the announcement by the Trade Secretary that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is to be placed on a statutory footing with an extended remit. It is good news, and it is of some comfort to the industry and to consumers. I would echo the sentiments expressed by the Ulster Farmers Union that it is a step forward and a win for those of us who have lobbied hard for enhanced protection for our agriculture industry. However, right now, as I see it, this is not enough.
Right now, with what we know—and I recognise amendment (a) tabled by the Government—I see no reason why Members who want to protect our standards and who really believe this must be done would disagree with the amendments from the other place. Indeed, if the Government’s good intentions are genuine, they ought to support these proposed changes to the Bill, legislate today and remove any question mark over the commitment to protecting our industry and our consumers.
The remit of the Trade and Agriculture Commission still does not go far enough. It does not have the legislative power to stop the imports of food that do not meet the demands we place on our own industry. Yes, we can be told by the Trade and Agriculture Commission what to do, but it is advisory, and for that bar there is no legislative blockage. For me and my colleagues, that is simply not enough. It is not that cast-iron guarantee that legislative protection will be given.
In the election campaign one year ago, the Conservative manifesto stated that, in exchange for future funding, UK farmers
“must farm in a way that protects and enhances our natural environment, as well as safeguarding high standards of animal welfare.”
The message was clear: “If you farm in the UK and want to benefit from financial support, we have certain demands of you that must be met. Make the standards or derive no public funding. Make the standards or we will not do business with you.”
A huge burden is placed on our own industry, and it is a burden that it embraces at considerable cost, so why are this same Government unwilling to go further and legislate to place the same requirements on those outside this country? Why not legislate today, and remove any doubt? Today provides an opportunity to provide the absolute clarity our farming industry needs to say that we have its back.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
In putting the environment at the heart of our new system of farm support, this is one of the most important environmental reforms for decades. I was proud to be the one to introduce the Bill to Parliament in my previous role as Environment Secretary.
Dismantling the common agricultural policy is, of course, one of the key benefits of Brexit, but there is no doubting that this legislation, although not a trade Bill, has been overshadowed by trade matters. Like the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), I warmly welcome the significant concessions the Government have made on trade. Setting up the Trade and Agriculture Commission, extending its duration and putting it on a statutory footing will toughen up scrutiny of our trade negotiations in this country. It will also provide invaluable support and an invaluable source of independent expert advice for this House. It will strengthen our ability to hold Ministers to account on trade and farming issues, as will the requirement in Government amendment (a) to report to Parliament on how any future trade deals impact on food standards.
I welcome the statement at the weekend from the Trade and Environment Secretaries that the bans on chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef are staying on the statute book and will not be lifted, even if our negotiating partners ask us for this. Real progress has been made, which is why I will vote with the Government this evening, but this is not the end of the campaign on trade and food standards. This Government were elected with a stronger commitment on animal welfare than ever before. We must use our new status as an independent trading nation to build a global coalition to improve animal welfare standards.
Many countries use trade agreements to impose conditions on their partners. Even the US has fought lengthy battles in the WTO over protection for turtles and dolphins. It is possible, so while the debate on the Bill is drawing rapidly to a close, the task of scrutinising UK trade negotiations is really only just beginning and will require continued vigilance by all of us in this House. We must ensure that our negotiators stand firm and refuse to remove any of the tariffs that currently apply on food unless it is produced to standards of animal welfare and environmental protection that are as good as our own. The UK market for food and groceries is around the third largest by value in the world. Greater access to it is a massive price for any country. We should not sell ourselves short.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I rise to support the Lords amendments, but I acknowledge the progress that has been made in putting the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing. I do not think that I am being churlish when I say that the Government were dragged kicking and screaming to do this; I am just stating the blindingly obvious.
The progress that has been made is testament to the campaigning prowess of the NFU, Minette Batters and, indeed, the whole farming community; otherwise this matter would not have come to this place a few weeks ago, would it? So it is blindingly obvious that the Government’s heart is not in this. Nevertheless it is a step—[Interruption.] Government Members grumble from the Benches opposite. Why did they not fix this a fortnight ago if they meant it?
The reality is simply this: we support free trade and fair trade, which is why we are deeply concerned that, still, this Government amendment, which is an act of progress, will finally be subject to a scrutiny process that culminates in a CRaG procedure. In other words, it is take it or leave it from a Government with an 80-seat majority. We know what matters to this Government—the getting of a deal not just with America, but with other countries. Let us make sure that we remain healthily sceptical, as I know every single farmer in the country will be.
There is a reason why we think that fair trade as well as free trade matters to British farmers: we fear the undermining of the very unit that makes up British farming, makes it special and, indeed, underpins the animal welfare and environmental protections of which we are rightly proud, and that is the family farm. I just want to draw to the Minister’s attention something that she could mistakenly do in just a few weeks’ time that could do as much damage as an unfair trade deal. It is the phasing out of basic payments in just eight weeks’ time, which is seven years before the new environmental land management scheme will come into force. That is 60% of the revenue of livestock farmers that will begin to be phased out from January. It is between 5% and 25% of their BPS incomes from January.
I am simply saying that we want our family farms to survive through to ELMS being available. We support ELMS by the way, but we cannot surely take away people’s major income and then make them wait seven years until the new one comes in place. If the Government are committed to maintaining and protecting family farming and the benefits that it brings to our landscape in the lakes and dales, to biodiversity, to food production, to tackling climate change and to preventing flooding, they need to keep those farmers in place in the first place. I respectfully ask the Minister to look again and maintain the basic payment scheme at its full level until ELMS is available for everyone.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
There is a quote that says, “There are two things that you should never see made—laws and sausages.” We are in a unique position today to be discussing a law that will help to make sausages. The reason that quote is said is all this bartering that we see going on back and forth, with ping-pong from our unique position here in the UK Parliament.
Following on from what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said in the previous speech, we can discuss how we got to here, but surely we celebrate the fact that the Government have listened to the Opposition parties, to those of us on these Benches, to the NFU and to the NFU Scotland. Minette Batters has been mentioned many times in this debate, but I want to pay credit to Andrew McCormick, the president of the NFU Scotland, and his leadership team—his vice-presidents and his policy advisers Clare Slipper and Jonnie Hall—who have constructively worked with the Government to get to the stage that we are at today. That is positive for the way that we do politics in this country and for the way that we can improve legislation going through this Parliament.
It was not an easy decision for me to oppose the Government a couple of weeks ago, but I supported the amendments at that time because there were no alternatives on offer from the Government. Tonight, the Government have brought forward a positive alternative, and even those on the Opposition Benches, through gritted teeth, have accepted that the Government have gone a long way to meet the demands of Opposition parties, and all those who have contributed to negotiations on the Bill. I think that is welcome, and we should celebrate a Government who are willing to improve their legislation to deliver the needs of MPs and the campaigning groups that engaged with us. We will have a better Bill as a result of that, and I am therefore pleased to support the Government tonight.
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—
Joy Morrissey
I am wrapped up. One more thing I would say is that I am grateful that chlorinated chicken will not grace these shores.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Much of the debate on this significant and ambitious Bill has homed in on animal welfare, food and environmental standards as part of our future trading relationship as we leave the EU. It is fair to say that this has been a difficult issue that has caused tension and concern, meaning that at times it has been easy to forget that we all want the same thing—namely, not to compromise on the UK’s already high standards in each of these important areas. Indeed, my objective has always been to ensure that Cheshire farmers are at the heart of a trade policy that maximises opportunity and does not undermine those standards.
That is why—as those on the Front Bench know very well—I have pressed upon Ministers the need to widen the remit and increase the length of the Trade and Agriculture Commission so that it has the real teeth that we now see in the amendments. Those amendments before us and those to future Bills will go a long way to enabling many of us to support the position we have now reached. I think they also reflect well on the work that has been done by the NFU—including NFU Cheshire and its chairman, Richard Blackburn—and many others to get us to this position. By putting the commission on a statutory footing and ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny of all trade Bills, we have reached a sensible, legally sound template for ensuring the maintenance of our animal welfare, food and environmental standards, which will put us in a strong position to export our standards and our great British goods and produce further and wider across the world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We have more time than I thought. I call Wera Hobhouse to speak for two minutes.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Goodness—two minutes! I will just rush though this. The Lords were absolutely right to try to strengthen the Bill. They are listening to British farmers and British people, and this House should, too. My constituency of Bath is home to one of the first farmers’ markets in the UK, where local producers sell directly to local people who can be reassured that they are buying quality food produced to high standards. Our city’s UNESCO world heritage status is strongly linked to our green surroundings, and our fields, hedges and trees are all symbols of our agricultural heritage. Many towns and cities across the UK are the same. They are home to small family-owned farms that are run by people who want to farm and who know farming.
I have watched this Government slowly renege on their promises to British farmers, telling them to compete internationally or die. Are we to subsidise them to run their farms as public parks for the recreational benefit of city dwellers? Can the Government not understand why this is causing a great deal of anger? One million people signed the NFU’s petition to protect the British food standards, and this issue is not going away. The Government say that the Trade and Agriculture Commission will have teeth and that there is therefore no need to enshrine British food standards in law, but teeth for whom? Concerns about chlorinated chicken and hormone-produced beef have been dismissed as alarmism, and attempts to protect British food standards have been brushed off as protectionism disguised as self-sufficiency. The Government are not the people who will stand up for British farmers; we on this side are. Instead, they will force farmers to lower their standards in order to compete. That is not good enough, and we will support the Lords amendments.
Victoria Prentis
The Bill has been much improved by more than 100 hours of debate, and I do not mean to give it much more. On the trade and agriculture amendments to the Trade Bill, we will work closely with DIT throughout the drafting of this amendment, and we will together agree the final version. Union reps have been involved in TAC roundtables, and I am happy to ask DIT to explore what more can be done. I do not know who the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) thinks NFU Scotland, NFU Cymru and the Ulster Farmers Union represent if it is not farmers from the devolved Administrations. All those bodies are represented on the Trade and Agriculture Commission at the moment.
The report that we promised today would be laid before Parliament, and it would be public. If standards in a future trade agreement were lower than ours, there would rightly be a public outcry. We would expect the Government to give time for debate, whether as an Opposition day or otherwise. The situation in the last Parliament has undoubtedly left us scarred, but it was, thank goodness, very unusual. It would be extraordinary, in the circumstances of the Government laying such a report, to refuse all requests to provide time. I have had a meeting with Clerks from both ends of this building to discuss that and they confirmed that that was the case.
Agriculture Bill
Monday 9th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 148-I Marshalled list of Motions for Consideration of Commons disagreement and amendments in lieu - (6 Nov 2020)
16:43 - Division conducted remotely on Motion A2 - Ayes: 130 / Noes: 290 - Motion A2 disagreed.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Agriculture Bill, has consented to place her prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Motion A
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 16B and 18B, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 18C and 18D in lieu of Lords Amendments 16B and 18B.
“Reports relating to free trade agreements
(1) A free trade agreement that includes measures applicable to trade in agricultural products may not be laid before Parliament under Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the Secretary of State has first laid a report complying with subsection (2) before Parliament.
(2) The report must explain whether, or to what extent, the measures referred to in subsection (1) are consistent with the maintenance of UK levels of statutory protection in relation to—
(a) human, animal or plant life or health,
(b) animal welfare, and
(c) the environment.
(3) In subsection (2) “UK levels of statutory protection” means levels of protection which, at the time the report is made, are provided for by or under any legislation which has effect in, or in any part of, the United Kingdom.
(4) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State may seek advice from any person the Secretary of State considers to be independent and to have relevant expertise.
(5) When the Secretary of State lays the report before Parliament the Secretary of State must also provide a copy of it to—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the Welsh Ministers,
(c) DAERA, and
(d) any Committee of the House of Commons or the House of Lords or any Joint Committee of both Houses that appears to the Secretary of State to have an interest in the subject matter of the report.
(6) This section does not apply in relation to a free trade agreement if—
(a) each party to the agreement (other than the United Kingdom) is a member State or the European Union, or
(b) the following conditions are met—
(i) the negotiations for the agreement were concluded before the second anniversary of IP completion day,
(ii) each party to the agreement (other than the United Kingdom) and the European Union were, immediately before exit day, parties to another free trade agreement which includes measures applicable to trade in agricultural products, and
(iii) the other free trade agreement was, immediately before exit day, in force for, or being provisionally applied by, each party to that agreement.
(7) In this section—
“agricultural products” means products of a kind which, at the time this section comes into force, is listed in—
(a) Annex 1 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
(b) Annex 1 to Regulation (EU) No 510/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2013 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 1216/2009 and (EC) No 614/2009;
(c) the first two columns of Annex 2 to that Regulation;
“free trade agreement” means an agreement that is or was notifiable under paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time);
“legislation” means primary legislation, subordinate legislation or retained direct EU legislation;
“the WTO Agreement” means the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A. At this juncture, I should declare my farming interests, as set out in the register.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for the time and thought he has spent on Amendments 16 and 16B. The Government have listened and come forward with an amendment requiring a report to be made to Parliament on whether, or to what extent, provisions in new free trade agreements relating to agricultural goods are consistent with maintaining our existing levels of statutory protection in relation to human, animal and plant life and health, animal welfare and environmental protection. A report must be laid before any new free trade agreement is laid before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act procedures. An FTA containing measures applicable to trade in agricultural products may not be laid unless a report has first been laid. The report will explain whether and how FTAs negotiated by the Government are consistent with our ability to maintain our domestic standards, materially enhancing transparency during the ratification process and accountability for what has been negotiated.
The Government have also carefully considered Amendment 18 on the Trade and Agriculture Commission, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. The Government will go further than the noble Lord’s amendment and put the Commission on a permanent statutory footing, subject to review in three years. We will implement this by tabling an amendment to the Trade Bill on Report. We are preparing the terms of reference for the prolonged commission, and there will be more detail shortly when the amendment to the Trade Bill has been tabled. The commission will complement existing scrutiny provisions, ensuring Parliament is amply equipped to hold the Government to account.
I will turn to Amendments 18E, 18F and 18G, with which I will also discuss Amendment 18H. As I have explained, the Government’s new clause will enhance scrutiny by ensuring that Members have clear information on each FTA and its impact on our standards to inform their actions under the CRaG procedure. Moreover, the Trade and Agriculture Commission will be able to feed into these reports, as seeking independent, expert advice in this manner is provided for under subsection (4) of the new clause. Parliamentarians will therefore have a range of sources of evidence to enhance their scrutiny of FTAs under CRaG. These include reports under the duty I have described, reports of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, reports from the relevant Select Committees of both Houses, and of course any other reports produced by our expert bodies, such as the Food Standards Agency. Together, these reports will shine a spotlight on the negotiation of agri-food products in FTAs. Any concerns raised by these reports will inform the decision by Parliament on whether to ratify a treaty under the CRaG procedures.
I should be clear that the Commons already has the power to block ratification of an FTA indefinitely, if the majority of its Members vote to do so. If the Commons resolves against ratification and the Government lay a statement indicating that they still wish to ratify the FTA, a further 21 sitting day period is triggered from when the Government’s statement is laid. During this period the Government cannot ratify the FTA. If the Commons again resolves against ratification during this 21 sitting day period, the process would need to be repeated in order for the FTA to be ratified. It is also important to stress that any FTA would almost certainly require some form of implementing legislation to be made before it is ratified, providing further opportunities for debate.
Amendments 18E and 18H would narrow the scope of our reporting through requiring reporting on equivalence. Our new clause allows us to consider equivalence where relevant, but, importantly, it requires the Government to look at measures applicable to trade in agricultural products in the FTA in the round, along with their impact on our ability to maintain our standards. This means that reports under the new clause as drafted could consider further issues relevant to UK levels of statutory protection, such as the impact of the FTA on our right to regulate, which focusing only on equivalence would miss. We believe this matches our manifesto commitment not to compromise on standards, which was similarly wider in scope than just equivalence.
Furthermore, Amendment 18H would in practice set the Government the task of seeking to negotiate equivalence across all agri-food standards in order to satisfy the requirement of the amendment for the Government to confirm that this is the case. As we have noted before, this is unrealistic to negotiate given the complex and time-consuming nature of making determinations of equivalence.
Seeking, and then reporting on, consistency with the maintenance of our standards is a much more pragmatic approach and ensures that we can secure trade agreements with a wide variety of countries. For example, it may be immensely challenging for developing countries to prove that all their agri-food standards are equivalent to or exceed our own. This is due to matters outside their control, such as differences in our respective economic situations, climates and environment. However, lack of equivalence across all standards with such countries does not automatically mean inconsistency with the maintenance of UK standards and, as such, we believe equivalence is the wrong concept on which to judge this.
I should say that I think the Government have listened very carefully indeed not only to your Lordships but to others, and it for those reasons that I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Grantchester
At end insert “and do propose the following amendments to Amendment 18C—
“(a) the Secretary of State has laid a report complying with subsection
(2) before Parliament, and
(b) the House of Commons has approved that report by a resolution on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, the Agriculture Bill is before your Lordships’ House once more. We do not apologise for that, as food standards remain a clear priority for the great British public. I declare my interest and my farming background as recorded on the register.
I start by thanking the Minister and the Minister in the Commons, Victoria Prentis, for the extensive discussions conducted with me and my colleagues, my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the shadow Defra Secretary of State Luke Pollard and the shadow Minister for Food and Farming Daniel Zeichner, which were conducted immediately before the tabling deadline for amendments in the Commons. They were difficult discussions because the Government would not share the text of their amendment with us, as well as deeming it non-negotiable. We all know that Governments do not conduct negotiations. It was a bit like wandering around in the dark looking for a bag to be able to release the cat. When the full light of day came, there was no cat to be found. However, those discussions identified what the cat should look like, and it was very disappointing to discover that the amendment did not resemble what we thought had been agreed between us.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his time, and that of his officials, in briefings. I will speak to Amendment 18H. I welcome the Government’s concessions, which are extremely helpful and go a long way toward meeting the concerns of this House. However, I regret that they do not go quite far enough for the Liberal Democrat Benches. I agree with the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and support many of his comments.
The Government’s amendment suggests that they may be able to permit imports of products that do not meet our stringent standards, when they merely report to Parliament that they have done so. This measure therefore falls substantially short of the protection of British standards that animal welfare organisations, farming bodies and the British public expect the Government to guarantee, as they committed to in the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto.
I am concerned, in particular, with labelling, which can be misleading at best. I support the need for trade with developing countries and countries that do not currently have the same standards as we have in the UK, but it must be clear to the UK consumer where the produce has come from and what its journey has been. If I buy a bunch of roses, I want the country of origin to be clearly labelled. I may choose to buy a more expensive bunch of UK-grown roses over one flown in from a warmer country. Once they have reopened, we will shortly be seeing poinsettias for sale in the shops. I will want to buy a poinsettia that has a plant passport attached; the House debated this issue last year.
The UK has detailed, species-specific legislation on pigs, hens, broiler chickens and calves, to protect their welfare on the farm and at slaughter. Many nations have regulations that are, generally, substantially lower than those of the UK; this can have a detrimental effect on our farming community. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to the importance of equivalence. The dictionary definition of equivalence is
“a state of being essentially equal or equivalent … ‘on a par with the best’”,
but this does not give the whole picture. It should be a negotiating objective for the Government to secure terms that provide for equivalence with standards applicable to domestic producers. Does the Minister agree?
It may well be that imported agri-food products will be equivalent in quality to those produced in the UK, but they may have been produced under very different conditions. I refer to the Danish pork industry, where sows are kept in crates and are not free to roam and grub around in the soil, as they are in the UK. Danish pork is currently imported and processed into sausages in UK factories, then labelled at the point of sale as being British pork sausages. There will, of course, be other similar examples but, in the interests of brevity at this stage of our deliberations, I will not bore your Lordships with a long list. I am sure that neither the Government nor the pork processing industry is deliberately attempting to deceive the British consumer, but our amendment seeks to address this type of practice.
Some 21% of UK-produced eggs are used as ingredients in various products, often in the form of whole egg powder. Would the currently proposed arrangements undermine the UK’s egg producers, who would find demand for their egg powder being replaced by cheaper imports? The government amendment before the House would apply to each of the free trade deals signed by the Government from 2021 onwards, but what of those that have been signed before that date? Setting the TAC on a statutory basis under the Trade Bill is a positive step forward, but it will fail to protect farm standards if the wider issues are not better addressed.
I realise that I am trying the Government’s patience but I hope that the Minister will be able to give reassurances. If he is unable to do so, I regret that I may well divide the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Lansley. I call the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I congratulate the Government on tabling Amendments 18C and 18D in response to the earlier Lords amendment from my noble friend Lord Curry. It is very welcome that the Government have listened to the arguments in your Lordships’ House about trade and standards of food and have accepted the principles debated here. However, I also recognise the importance of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I very much hope that the Minister will respond to those points; they are important and I support them.
It may seem churlish to keep banging on about food standards after the Government have made such a major concession. The transparency that will be introduced by requiring the Secretary of State to explain whether and to what extent new trade agreements ensure that we do not import food produced to lower safety, welfare and environment standards is very welcome. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, said, it does not guarantee that lower-standard food will not be imported; it simply guarantees that there will be a report.
I do not want to go on at length because we have discussed these things so many times, but I want to reiterate one point that I made earlier in the debates on this matter. It concerns the practicalities. Let us assume that we are committed to not importing food of a lower standard with regard to the environment, welfare and food safety. Who is going to ensure that? The Minister has repeatedly said that we have advice from the Food Standards Agency, Food Standards Scotland, the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. That is fine but there will also be a role for local authorities which, through their environmental health officers and trading standards officers, will be checking the food in restaurants and shops. My concern is that we may have high hopes of ensuring that these standards are maintained but then not have the resources, either in the national bodies, such as the Food Standards Agency, or the local bodies, to ensure that these promises are delivered on the ground.
This question of resources has been highlighted already—without the additional responsibilities of new trade deals—by the chief executive of the Food Standards Agency, Emily Miles. On 22 October, she told the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health:
“I want to be clear to the relevant parts of government that there simply isn’t enough funding available for local authorities to carry out their duties on food safety”.
The question of practicality is still unresolved. I very much hope that the Minister will comment on this and reassure the House in his summing up.
My close colleague, the late Lord May of Oxford, used to quote to me the refrain from an Australian country and western song: only the hard yards get you home. We are now on the way home and these last few hard yards are ones that we have debated. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response in finally bringing this home.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, as always, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I fully agree with all his points. I thank the Government very much for how much they have moved on this issue and how open they have been in discussion. Again, I rather wish that the Minister sitting here was going to be across the Trade Bill because, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, this is not necessarily guaranteed.
I know that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is not in the Agriculture Bill. I have been in your Lordships’ House for a little over two years and food standards have become a very big issue. You can see its popularity across the country. I am grateful to the Government for having, over the weekend, agreed to feeding kids through the winter, but this should not have happened because of pressure from a footballer. It should have happened anyway. We should never have been in that position. If we do not get some things right now—in the last hard yards, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said—we may be looking at problems again in the future. I thought the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about Danish pigs was very salient. We say that we have high standards of animal welfare, yet we are prepared to have Danish bacon and Danish sausages. Danish pigs, along with Polish pigs, are the worst-treated pigs this side of Asia. I do not know a lot about Asian things, but those standards are appalling.
I ask the Government first, on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs: how will all this be administered and how much will it cost? I also make a plea that public health, in terms of how goods and food are brought into this country, is given a high priority. Covid has shown us, and indeed the whole world, that too much unhealthy food—that is, obesity—has dire impacts on the nation’s health. If we do not somehow regulate the food coming into this country, we risk a race to the bottom and getting a greater preponderance of unhealthy, cheap, calorie-dense and nutrition-poor food. It will end up with the poorest people, probably many of those who will be in receipt of the Government’s current generosity with the Marcus Rashford campaign.
It seems naive in the extreme to imagine that a country—whether Australia or America, both of which consider that labelling food high in sugar is not useful in changing consumer behaviour—will not somehow try to jump into our marketplace unless we have some strong regulations. One of those could be the presence of public health in the TAC.
The other issue that worries me—I would love to be told that I should not worry—is how this will be rated. How will the voices in the TAC be heard? It is going to be a casting vote. What happens when it is a decision between taking Tim Tams—the Prime Minister’s current snack from Australia—or something healthy and nutritious? Will one vote count for more or will they all be equal? It seems really complicated to put all these decisions into the hands of a group of people, however fantastic they all are, and expect them to make easy and clear recommendations if issues of public health are not right at the top of the list.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I warmly thank my noble friend and congratulate him on his role, as I do the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the environment, food and rural affairs next door. It may be a little late, but we have got to a very good place and I thank him for his role in this regard. I want to echo some of the concerns voiced around the Chamber. It is important that these are addressed at the next stage of the Trade Bill.
I ask the Minister to reconsider his stance, as given today, on equivalence. There is scope in the World Trade Organization for equivalent standards. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Krebs, have set out—as we have on previous occasions—why it is important to maintain our high standards of animal welfare, animal health and environmental protection.
I am extremely cautious on the role of labelling. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, in a speech in the Commons on 4 November, at col. 386, placed great emphasis on labelling. That did not help our pig producers when a previous Conservative Government unilaterally banned sow stalls and tethers in this country. Consumers went and bought—in supermarkets I must say, not in butchers—the cheaper cut. It may have been labelled as British but they bought on price.
I commend my noble friend for the fact that the role of the Trade and Agriculture Commission will be statutory, that its tenure will be extended to three years so that it becomes more permanent, and that it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. As there will be appointments to that body, including maybe a new chairman, will he ensure that we in this place or Select Committees in the other place have a role in scrutinising them—particularly the appointment of the chairman, if there is to be a change of chairman at some point—so that Parliament has a role?
In terms of parliamentary scrutiny, which I welcome, can my noble friend clarify that 21 and 21 equals 42, so there is not a great deal of difference between the amendments before the House this afternoon and what my noble friend is suggesting? However, we ought to keep this CRaG procedure under review.
Finally, I pay tribute to the government adviser, Henry Dimbleby, who has been outstanding in his contribution to this debate. He has captured the mood of the country, and that has been reflected in the Government’s position on both free school meals and food standards, which I also commend. I thank my noble friend for his role in arriving at where we are today.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, on his determination and persistence in pursuing this amendment. He was ably backed by Minette Batters and the NFU, NFU Scotland and the British Veterinary Association, among others, but it was the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and this House who, I think, managed to shift the Government.
I said at an earlier stage that we were beating our heads against a brick wall, but, however bruised our heads are, at least the wall has cracked to some extent on this amendment. Therefore, I thank my noble friend Lord Gardiner. I have no doubt that he understood the mood of the House and helped persuade the Secretary of State that this really needed to be taken seriously.
I have no doubt that Defra would have accepted this amendment on Report if it had been in total charge of the Bill. I still have very severe reservations about the attitude of the Department for International Trade on this matter. We have not seen the amendments to the Trade Bill that will be brought forward. I sat in Committee with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, when we discussed the agriculture side of it and we met a very strong brick wall on that occasion. Let us hope that at long last there is a bit of light in another department, because the attitude so far has damaged Defra’s reputation with the farming community. Defra will always get blamed for anything relating to agriculture, even though it did not have ultimate control of this issue.
I strongly welcome the fact that the TAC has been put on a statutory footing, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, it is the amendments to the Trade Bill that are key, and we will keep a very wary eye on those.
I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Boycott, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh said about labelling, although I slightly disagree with my noble friend, because I think that labelling is hugely important. I do not think that it is good enough now, and that is why we had the problems with Danish pork and sausages—they were not labelled properly. Unless food is properly labelled and there is a traffic-light system for health and food safety, we will not get anywhere. That was highlighted by the Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, chaired and on which I had the privilege of sitting. When we get around to debating that report—whenever that is allowed—it is no doubt a subject that I will bring up again.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned enforcement and checks, and I agree with him. I thought that everything would be all right until I saw the recent reports about the funding of the Environment Agency and how there was an increase in pollution due to farming and industry. The Environment Agency was not doing enough checks and there was not enough enforcement. If that is followed through into the Food Standards Agency, a lot of the hope that we have that things will improve will disappear. We will have to watch that. Meanwhile, I have much pleasure in thanking my noble friend Lord Gardiner for the enormous amount of work behind the scenes that he has done to get us this far.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, in politics you never get everything you want, but this is a very good illustration of the workings of your Lordships’ House. It shows how justified was the terrier-like insistence of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, over many sessions in Committee and on Report, and how justified those of us who voted for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and who carried on ping-pong were in supporting that. But most of all it shows that if you have a sensitive and listening Minister who is prepared to say quite openly and honestly what this House will put up with and what it will not—there is an enormous amount of agricultural experience here—you can make real progress.
I thought that it was rather appropriate and, in its way, delightful that the Minister handling these things in the other place was Victoria Prentis, the daughter of our much-loved colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho. I am sure that he is tuned in but I think that, if he were here today, he would be very proud of the constructive part that his daughter played, along with my noble friend on the Front Bench, in bringing this matter to a pretty desirable consummation—one “devoutly to be wished”, as the great playwright would say. However, obviously we are not completely there yet. It depends on the wording of the amendments to the Trade Bill. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We have to have a Trade and Agriculture Commission with teeth, and people of the calibre of Henry Dimbleby have to be kept in office. Of course, we have all been assisted by the indefatigable Minette Batters, president of the NFU, who has proved an outstanding leader at a very difficult time.
We are, as they say, where we are, and we are in a much better place than many of us feared we might be in just a couple of short weeks ago. The overwhelming credit for that must go to my noble friend Lord Gardiner. I thank him for his behind-the-scenes negotiating skills, his willingness at all times to talk to anyone who wishes to talk to him, and clearly his very constructive relationship with his colleagues in the department and in the other place.
Therefore, this is, I think, a good day for your Lordships’ House, because it shows how our sometimes apparently cumbersome machinery really works. I am delighted to be able to thank and congratulate my noble friend and his colleagues, and all those in all parts of the House who played a part in making a Bill that had its deficiencies very much better than it was when it came to us.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak after my noble friend Lord Cormack, because I agree wholeheartedly with everything that he said. I especially express appreciation of the role played by my noble friend Lord Gardiner, the Minister, and our honourable friend in the other place, Victoria Prentis. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for what he has done.
I just want to add one point, which I consider to be important. I participated in the Trade Bill discussions this time and on the previous occasion, in the last Session, when the Bill was in this House. Of course, on Report we will look at the Government’s amendment on the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and I look forward to that. However, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs: the issue is not enforcement; it is what is in the domestic legislation, and enforcement follows from that.
The point I would make to my noble friend is that, while he said correctly that it is the Government’s practice not to ratify a treaty before it has been implemented in domestic legislation and before a debate has been concluded, not least in the other place, which might have the effect of withholding approval for ratification, neither of these things are required under CRaG. CRaG, in my view, is not yet sufficient, and when we look at the Trade Bill on Report, I will suggest that we have a report from Ministers on an international trade treaty that shows what the domestic legislative implications would be of such a treaty, which of course would embrace any changes that might be required on agriculture and food standards in this country, and would highlight that point, but might also cover environment and sustainability issues, health and related issues. So there is a more general issue about understanding that, if a treaty requires changes to our domestic legislation, we need to know what they are.
Secondly, the CRaG would require that Ministers should not ratify a treaty before the implementation of domestic legislation unless there are exceptional reasons, which the later sections of CRaG allow for. Unless there are exceptional reasons, they should not do so.
Thirdly, if there is a report to either House from the relevant committee—in our case, it would be the International Agreements Sub-Committee, on which I have the privilege to sit, and in the other place, the International Trade Select Committee would be presumed to be the relevant committee—that calls for either House to have a debate, then Ministers would be required to extend the 21-day period until such a debate had taken place—which is not what the CRaG currently says.
I am sorry, I am slightly advertising what I think we need to do on Report on the Trade Bill. I hope my noble friend will forgive me; what he said was indeed the Government’s practice, but it is not what CRaG says. I think it is important that it does say it, because that will further reinforce the parliamentary scrutiny aspect.
I could not vote for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, because, as she admitted, it trespasses again into turning the legislature into the Executive, by trying to mandate what are in the Government’s negotiating objectives by virtue of legislative provisions. The other place has repeatedly resisted such amendments, and it would be unrealistic to take such an amendment back to it again.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as recorded in the register. I begin by congratulating the Government on recognising the importance of Amendment 18B and for their response. As I said previously in debates on this Bill, the weight of public opinion on the issue of food standards and the scrutiny of trade deals required a response, and it is reassuring that, even with a large majority in the other place, the Government have been willing to listen to reasoned arguments. I thank the Minister once again for his valuable help and patience in this matter, and for his open door—I fully endorse what others have already said. It is much appreciated.
The progress that has now been made with the tabling of this amendment is evidence once again, if we needed it, of the value of this House as a revising Chamber. Despite the fact that there remains huge uncertainty around many aspects of the Bill and how, as a framework Bill, it will be translated into policy and implementation, there is no question that it is now a better Bill as a result of our endeavours in this House. I am, therefore, very happy to support this new amendment. I had planned to comment on the issue of equivalence, but others have done so articulately.
In endorsing the Bill and this amendment, I am very aware that this is, as has been stated already, just one side of the coin. To change the metaphor: if this is the belt, the braces will be contained in the Trade Bill. The joint announcement by the Secretary of State for International Trade and the Secretary of State for Defra that the Trade and Agriculture Commission will be established on a statutory basis, and that that will be included as a clause in the Trade Bill, is of huge importance, as has been stated a number of times already.
I—and others, I am sure—will want to study the text very carefully when the Trade Bill arrives back in this House, to ensure the remit and the scope of the TAC are appropriate to the task. It is essential that in establishing the TAC on a statutory basis, its composition—its membership—is reviewed to make sure that it is more representative of stakeholders and that it has the appropriate skills and experience to scrutinise trade deals. Even though these two clauses are tabled in separate Bills, it is essential they are complementary.
It is also vital that the first report that the existing TAC has been tasked with producing is seriously considered. It is unfortunate sequencing that we are having to sign off the Agriculture Bill and will have to agree clauses and amendments in the Trade Bill before we have sight of the conclusions of the TAC’s initial report—which, I understand, may well be in March next year. It would be helpful, for example, if it said something about equivalence. It will hopefully provide essential guidance and recommend the principles that should inform free trade deals. It will be crucial that the Trade Bill wording ensures that the conclusions of the TAC report can be taken into account and embedded retrospectively within its future deliberations.
Can the Minister also reassure the House that we will have the opportunity to consider the report of the TAC when it is released—in March or whenever? I am grateful not only to the Minister, as I have stated, but to the many Members of your Lordships’ House who have supported my amendments, including the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and, in particular, my noble friends on the Cross Benches. I shall also take the opportunity, as others have done, to express my personal appreciation of the National Farmers’ Union and, in particular, Minette Batters for her help and support throughout this process.
This is one of the most important moments in the history of agriculture in Britain. Under one guise or another, I have been privileged to be involved in agricultural policy development for over 30 years, so it is a great honour to be able to participate in this Bill. I look forward to an exciting new era in agricultural history. With those comments, I conclude.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I want to thank all noble Lords who have spoken. It is always embarrassing when one receives such generous comments, but I want to record my strong appreciation for all that has been said. I also say that the Government have listened closely to this House and its views on trade standards and on other matters raised over—my record says—90 hours of debate on the Bill in this House alone. I want, therefore, to record the tenacity of your Lordships. Many of the principal protagonists are in the Chamber, but there are others whom I would like to record as well who have done so much.
I think that the Government have made significant undertakings to ensure that trade deals are subject to ongoing, informed scrutiny by Parliament. Obviously, this is the beginning of a journey, and I have no doubt that your Lordships are going to keep that, in turn, under close scrutiny.
I acknowledge the campaigning of Minette Batters, the president, and the whole team, of the National Farmers Union—particularly as I am a member of the NFU, so it is good they have done so well, is it not? I was pleased that they acknowledged and welcomed our proposals and—yes—our concessions as a victory for them. I am also pleased that the chair of the EFRA Select Committee, Neil Parish, was pleased about these matters.
I was also very pleased by the comments of a noble Lord who is so experienced in agriculture, the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. I was touched also by the points made by my noble friend Lord Cormack about my ministerial colleagues. I should mention the Secretary of State and my honourable friend Victoria Prentis. A lot of comments have come my way, but I must absolutely tell your Lordships that those two ministerial colleagues have been, in their hearts, very interested and wanting to do what I would call the right thing.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I now call then noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, to press or withdraw Motion A1.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 18H as an amendment to Amendment 18C—
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response and for his many comments. I do agree that the Bill is in a much better state than it was when it came to us. The Government have made very significant amendments and I congratulate the Minister as well as the NFU and Minette Batters on the work that they have done to improve the Bill and food standards.
However, the point has already been made that we have not seen the amendments in the Trade Bill, and there needs to be a very close tie-in between the Agriculture Bill and the Trade Bill; the two Bills should complement each other. I have to say that, before we sign off the Agriculture Bill, it would be really helpful if we could see the amendment that is to be tabled in the Trade Bill.
I thank the Minister for his comments on equivalence, and I support trade with developing countries, but we need to make absolutely certain that that will not be at the expense of our own farmers, many of whom do not have large incomes but live on the breadline. We do need to get this Bill on the statute book as soon as possible; nevertheless, I am very concerned about the effect on some of our farmers and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Royal Assent
Wednesday 11th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 149-I Marshalled list of motions for Consideration of Commons disagreement and amendments in lieu - (6 Nov 2020)