Agriculture Bill (Tenth sitting)

Ben Lake Excerpts

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Deidre Brock]

We do not need a schedule inserted into the Bill. We do not need anyone to legislate for us on devolved matters. We have been producing our own legislation in such areas since 1999, when there was devolution to the Scottish Parliament. In terms of rushing into making legislation, I would have thought the hon. Lady would share my concerns about the views expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords on the Bill. It clearly demonstrates what happens when we rush into making legislation. The Scottish Government knows that it does not legally have to do it. They would much rather take their time, consult all the necessary organisations within the sector and arrive at stability and simplicity, which is of course the name of our document.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

My hon. Friend is making a very important point, which is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that the Welsh Government themselves have concerns about the schedule that they are trying to address, which they must do through this Committee, over which they have no direct control.

[Deidre Brock]

That is a perfect point and well illustrates my point, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.

I have already commented, in my reference to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, on the difficulties with thinking that a schedule to a Westminster Bill will protect devolved interests. The amendment I referred to came not from the Welsh Government or the UK Government, but from three Back-Bench MPs, so relying on a schedule for absolute protection is trusting to luck.

Although the Bill extends to Scotland in great part, it does little that would support Scottish agriculture. I will seek to amend and improve it where I can—much of it so far has been subject to the English votes for English laws process, meaning that I am unable to vote on it—but there is no amendment that will make it completely fit for purpose for Scotland. That will be a running issue in Scottish farming and for all the support mechanisms devolved to Holyrood. The flexibility of the EU support mechanisms gave some room for manoeuvre to allow support for Scotland’s farmers, but that is missing in the Bill, and I expect that Members representing parts of England are also a little concerned about that apparent rigidity. It will not come as any surprise that the Scottish National party would far rather all responsibility and power for managing Scottish agriculture rest in Scotland, but we are here and I will be looking to improve the Bill where I can. We will be back for the rest.

I turn to clause 22 and new clause 5 and amendments 56 to 64. The clause strays into devolved territory and could do with a bit of tidying up, just to save DEFRA Ministers having to deal with Scottish issues down the line, which would be tiresome for them. Amendments 56 to 64 would amend clause 22 to require that applications for recognition of producer organisations be made to the appropriate Administration. In other words, an organisation operating in Scotland would make its pitch to the Scottish Government, rather than leaving DEFRA to deal with it. That would save work for DEFRA officials and Ministers, but also has the virtue of respecting the devolution settlement.

Agriculture Bill (Eighth sitting)

Ben Lake Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

I confess that when the Bill was drafted that particular bit about creating offences jumped out at me too, and I discussed it at some length with our legal advisers and officials. I can confirm that we seek only to replicate powers that already exist.

The Common Agricultural Policy (Control and Enforcement, Cross-Compliance, Scrutiny of Transactions and Appeals) Regulations 2014 already provide for offences, and there has always been the ability to provide for criminal offences under EU regulation and the enforcement regulations, which are in secondary legislation.

The idea was always that those offences could include such things as intentional obstruction, the deliberate failure to give required assistance or information or knowingly to provide false or misleading information. I reassure the Committee that, during the time we have had those powers, the RPA has never brought criminal sanctions. It has never needed to, because other interventions have been sufficient.

A number of important points have been made, and I listened carefully to those raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby and my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow and for North Dorset. The hon. Member for Ipswich also raised the legitimate point that there is already alternative legislation to deal with fraud. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud, for not pushing the amendment to a Division today.

Given the representations from my hon. Friends behind me and from others, I am certainly willing further to discuss this issue with Government colleagues, and perhaps to come back to Parliament on Report to give it further consideration. We are clearly going into a changing world and a changing situation, and it might not be necessary to bring across all the sanctions available to us under the CAP scheme. It might be that the many other provisions—including being able to disqualify people from entering schemes in the future, penalties, an ability to recover or withhold moneys and so on—alongside existing criminal powers, are sufficient. We will undertake to look at that.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

On that point, will the Minister clarify, either today or on Report, the status of the power to create offences granted to Welsh Ministers under paragraph 3(2)(h) of schedule 3? Does that also mean amending criminal offences and creating new ones?

[George Eustice]

The power to create new offences is in the Welsh schedule. It is a decision for the Welsh Government whether they wish to change that as the Bill progresses. That is clearly a decision for them, and I will not give any indication about what they might do.

Agriculture Bill (Sixth sitting)

Ben Lake Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Colin Clark]

I rise to speak in support of the amendments in my name, but for the sake of time I will not go over the points already made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow.

I have stated on the record my belief that the Bill should address food and farming. I have been open about my registered interests, my involvement in food and in conventional and organic farming, and the fact that I receive the single farm payment from the Scottish Government. On that point, I should note my disappointment that the Bill does not include a schedule about the Scottish Government, because it is important that Scottish farmers have clarity, too. If the Bill is trying to achieve anything, it is a framework to give farmers greater clarity. Through the Bill I hope that we can achieve a common framework with the Scottish Government, as well as the authorities of Wales and Northern Ireland. We have to protect the unitary market, because we have shared values in farming and agriculture, and it is important that we continue to protect them. I embrace the opportunity to design UK agricultural policies. I listened closely to the hon. Member for Darlington, and I sympathise with her desire for clarity for the farming industry, so I would like to hear from the Minister that farming will have a clear shared priority, with public money for public goods.

I passionately believe that we should make farming in this country more productive. As someone who has been involved in the agriculture industry for 30 years, I know that productive farming and the environment go hand in hand, and I have seen leaps and bounds from the darker days on the 1970s. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how farming and the environment will continue to go hand in hand, which is certainly the ambition of Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and English farmers.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

I will keep my remarks brief, but I must speak against amendment 90, tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I appreciate that it is not dissimilar to his amendment 89 to clause 1, but it relates instead to schedule 3, which outlines the powers that I understand were requested by the Welsh Government. Those powers should not be amended or in any way interfered with by the Committee, or indeed by this House.

I oppose amendment 90 on a point of principle because it should be for Welsh Ministers to formulate proposals for Welsh agricultural policy and for the Welsh Assembly to give or reject its consent. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire will know, my colleagues in the Welsh Assembly are vociferous in expressing reservations about some of the Welsh Government’s proposals for agriculture policy. However, it is unacceptable for the Committee to consider any amendment that would omit the requested provisions in schedule 3 or interfere with their operation in any way.

I will not return to the argument that we had this morning about the distinction between “must” and “may”. I will say only that I am not entirely sure what purpose the amendment serves in stating that assistance “may only be given” to certain persons, other than restricting the Welsh Government’s ability to pursue and operate their own policy preferences. I am not sure how that would do anything to enhance the powers currently set out in schedule 3, which states that the Welsh Government “may give financial assistance” for a broad range of purposes.

I recognise that amendment 90 is probing, and I appreciate the opportunity it presents to think again about UK-wide common frameworks, as the hon. Member for Gordon said. The agricultural industry is inevitably closely intertwined across the United Kingdom. The circumstances by which we remove ourselves from the European Union’s CAP make us go back to the drawing board on how this common UK market will operate. I have raised this matter on previous occasions and I make no apology for being quite a broken record in that regard. Where common frameworks are concerned, they need to be drawn up, agreed to and implemented upon the agreement of the three devolved Administrations and the UK Government. In that regard, I am not inherently averse to the alignment of agricultural policy across the United Kingdom—far from it. I am making a point of principle that it is for the Welsh Government, in conjunction with the UK Government and the other devolved Administrations, to decide on that alignment, and not for this Committee or, indeed, this place to act unilaterally.

I attempted to spell that out in new clause 11, which I acknowledge will not be debated, but I am sure that we will have further opportunities to discuss the need for common frameworks, and I know that Members on both sides of the divide are concerned about them. Just for the record, unless amendment 90 was something that was requested in any way by the Welsh Government, I am struggling to see how, as it stands, it enhances the powers of schedule 3 and why it would be in any way necessary for the schedule’s effective function.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Davies]

There are many faults with the common agricultural policy. The hon. Gentleman seems to be well versed in the written word, but we on the Government side of the Committee understand how it is implemented. There are many farmers on these Benches who completely understand how the agricultural world works. There are many issues with the CAP. These amendments do not state that we should have direct payments to farmers. They are probing amendments that clearly state that farmers should be part of the package and part of the discussion as we go forward, and I am happy to support them.

I class the hon. Member for Ceredigion as an hon. Friend, even though he is on the other side of the Committee, and he and I agree on many things. My constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire shares a boundary with Ceredigion, and our farmers cross that boundary regularly. We have similar faiths, meanings and needs—certainly for our agricultural and rural communities.

On schedule 3, we agree on most things, but it is important, if not vital, that the framework enables the devolved nations to work exceptionally closely together. I fear that it will have to be led by one particular region, with everybody coming to a consensus rather than a clear agreement, and I would like to see it led by Westminster. I share a border not only with the hon. Gentleman in Wales, but with England, and it is clear that we need a common framework for cross-border farming, whether it relates to Wales and England, or to England and Scotland, so that everybody works together in the same direction. We have one market and one new agricultural policy, so it is vital that the four devolved nations work together closely and in the same way for the benefit of agriculture throughout the United Kingdom.

[Ben Lake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, for giving way. I wholeheartedly agree that we must ensure that the internal UK market functions effectively, particularly for our farmers and for agricultural produce. One of the reasons why we need this discussion now is because the overarching framework of the EU CAP will no longer exist. I wholeheartedly agree that we need such co-operation, but we will have to agree to disagree about how we get to it.

[Chris Davies]

Bringing my thoughts to a conclusion, I reiterate that these are probing amendments, and I am sure the Minister will take them on board.

Agriculture Bill (Second sitting)

Ben Lake Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

Q It is an interesting point. The additions in the Welsh schedule could be read both ways. If you are worried about an active farmer test, then arguably you would not want that.

Huw Thomas: They can be. The powers throughout the Bill are pretty broad, enabling powers. There is always an element of risk with such powers as to how they are utilised by Ministers. A lot of policy discretions are conferred upon Ministers, including financial discretions. The devil will be in the detail, as always, but there is not much detail in the Bill. It has to be read in conjunction with the consultation and the further policy statements from the Welsh Government next year, as well as the direction of travel they are wishing to take. It is difficult to say at the moment, but I do take your point.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Q I have two questions, if I may. You have already mentioned the powers granted in the Bill to UK Ministers. Do you have any thoughts about the impacts that some of these powers might have on Welsh Government, and their ability to formulate agricultural policy? Are there any aspects that you welcome? Are there any aspects about which you have concerns?

Huw Thomas: I think the part 7 clause 26 powers around the WTO, for example, could be concerning, because potentially they will artificially constrain the type and level of support that a devolved Administration might be able to pay because of considerations around the WTO. That may be one issue where there is potentially something that risks becoming contestable or contested in the future between the UK and the devolved Administrations.

John Davies: Obviously a UK framework is vital, not by imposition but by agreement. We need to get to the dispute resolution part of that, and clearly work out how those issues might be resolved. At the present time there is not that much clarity.

Huw Thomas: It is a proposal to take powers into the centre. It is not the common consent common framework that we, as NFU Cymru, always envisaged and espoused. We always said that we recognised the need for common frameworks, and that limits needed to be set on certain things, but they need to be decided by common consent, not imposed from the centre. With respect to the WTO provisions in part 7, the UK Government and the devolved Governments need to get together and agree between them, rather than having this quite heavy-handed approach that involves proposing to take these powers into the centre, and accepting the Secretary of State for DEFRA as the ultimate arbiter of who gets to do what.

[The Chair]

Dr Fenwick, Hansard cannot record nodding, but I take it you are agreeing.

Dr Fenwick: I have nothing to add; I agree entirely.

[Ben Lake]

Q In that sense, are you surprised that there is not more in the Bill? Is there something that you would have liked to accompany the Bill in terms of progress made on these common frameworks and how they might be agreed upon in future? What strikes me is that not only will you have the initial discussion about how the original of the first new frameworks will operate, but there will inevitably be a need for these things to be renegotiated at a future date. Is it something that you would have liked to have seen?

Huw Thomas: I think there was an expectation that there may be more in the Bill about common frameworks and how they might work. There was agreement in the spring around 24 identified areas that would require some sort of common framework, whether a statutory common framework or a memorandum of understanding between Governments.

I do not feel that we have moved forward enormously from that point. We need to get these things in place if we are to preserve the integrity of the UK single market and ensure that we are not distorting between the home nations. I was perhaps a little bit surprised that there was not provision. We perhaps had not moved forward a little bit from the position in the spring around the 24 identified areas.

Dr Fenwick: I agree entirely. We absolutely need those mechanisms and systems to arbitrate, to work out what is right and wrong. That is something that we have argued for the past two years. We certainly welcomed the announcement in recent weeks that there will be a review of how money is allocated between the devolved nations, and that is absolutely needed. It is a contentious issue—there is no denying that—but it had to be addressed.

We also need almost a parallel process to look at how countries agree on frameworks—whether it is through memorandums of understanding, rather than nations feeling or knowing that things are being imposed on them, against the spirit of devolution.

[Ben Lake]

Q The Minister might remember my raising this question last week. Recently, a review was announced into the way in which payments will be allocated across the four countries of the United Kingdom. Would it be fair for that to include an element that looks at the future frameworks and how any disputes are arbitrated, and when reallocations come along in several years’ time, how they then come to be decided as well?

Dr Fenwick: It may be opportune to extend the remit of that Committee. We always hope it goes the way that we would like it to go. It certainly needs looking into because we worked for so many years with a council of Ministers. We now have a void, a vacuum, where there is potentially a free-for-all, and countries or nations could move in very different directions and cause market distortions internally, without anything to do with WTO. There could be internal market distortions that are not in anyone’s interest.

[Trudy Harrison]

Q I represent a Cumbrian constituency that is made up of English Lake district upland farms and coastal lowland farms. My sheep, beef and dairy farmers inform me that they receive about £70 for a lamb, £50 for a sheep and just 90p for wool per head and 29p for a litre of milk. Is that enough? What assessment has been made of what a fair price is? Does the Bill enable farmers, through innovation, through the reduction of supply chain, through enabling better local markets, to receive a fair price for their public goods?

John Davies: There could be more in the Bill in terms of how we get a fairer share of the retail price, because we are at some historical lows, once again. Milk is slightly better than what it has been, but we are close to breaking even in nearly all of those commodities.

We need to take responsibility as well, mind, to become more efficient. The biggest factor is within my own farm gate; we do not shirk that responsibility, but we need to find ways in the Bill to ensure that other people are operating to similar standards. If we compete on a level playing field, we have an opportunity to do that. We have a higher welfare aspect and environmental aspect and that is a cost that has to be taken into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

Q I have a quick question about the consultation that the Welsh Government are conducting at the moment. Does it include proposals around the capping of payments?

Dr Fenwick: Only with regard to the capping of basic payments during a transition period in order to move money over to a public goods scheme. If I recollect correctly, there is no reference to the capping of payments, which is something that we have raised repeatedly. Indeed, some have told us that there should be no cap on payments, which is a huge concern because we saw capping as a great movement forward in terms of the reputation of what is currently the common agricultural policy and in terms of the reputation of the industry.

Sadly, when we see headlines in newspapers about millionaires or racehorse owners getting huge payments, we are all tarred with the same brush. People do not realise that in Wales they took the progressive move back in 2014 to cap agricultural payments. We appreciate that the CAP legislation was not designed as well as it could have been in terms of making it possible in every country; we appreciate that England had problems from that point of view, but it is a massive backward step not to have capping.

[Ben Lake]

Q Another quick question. We have spoken a lot about what is in the Bill today. Is there anything you would like to see that is not there? I have in mind the meat levy. There was some discussion in Wales about the possibility of including that in the Bill. Do you have any views on that particular omission and is there anything else you would like to see in the Bill?

Dr Fenwick: Certainly, there has been a lot of discussion about how this could have been an opportunity to take account of the fact that Wales is currently losing money through the red meat levy legislation. We appreciate that some moves have been made to address and correct that, but it is far from ideal. We lost hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds when a single slaughterhouse closed a few years ago, and that hamstrung our meat marketing body hugely in terms of how it could market its meat, whether in England or on the continent. So it absolutely needs addressing. Certainly an opportunity has been lost there.

In terms of other elements, I am afraid I am more concerned about what is in it than what could have been in it.

John Davies: We want to see agriculture in the Agriculture Bill. We want to see a real, strong focus on the active farmer and how that comes through in terms of a sufficient degree of self-sufficiency. That would be useful. We see food security as a public good or a public right. That is vital. So there are a number of issues there. We want a safe and traceable domestic food supply. We want equal standards for imports and a level playing field, so that needs to be tightened up. There is an opportunity around public procurement. There is a real, strong opportunity around better labelling. It is vital that consumers are properly informed about their purchasing decisions. So there are a number of places there where we can see room for tightening and more detail. It is broad enough. We just need to focus in on that.

[Chris Davies]

Q You probably heard the talk earlier about how there could be a compounded payment in the transition period. Do you think that would work in Wales and would it be a benefit to many of our senior farmers who were looking to retire? Do you see it as a benefit or not?

John Davies: We would have some concerns around that in terms of the active farmer. We do not accept that it will be the correct and proper time to transit out of direct support or a level of direct support, so obviously we would not agree with that. That option has not at the present time been flagged up strongly in the consultation, so we need to focus more on that, with the membership, but initially we would say no, we would not be supportive of that.

Dr Fenwick: I am afraid I was on a train, or on a tube train maybe, when that was raised, so I did not hear the discussion around it, but I agree with John Davies that it is a concern. We would have preferred to see some proactive moves to encourage young farmers and a transition from the older generation to the younger generation, with greater succession, etc., rather than moves which potentially leave vacuums, but are done for all the wrong reasons rather than being something that actually ensures that there is an incoming generation that probably is more deserving of any moneys.

Agriculture Bill (First sitting)

Ben Lake Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

It would perhaps have been a good idea to have representatives from the devolved Administrations, given that the Bill will inevitably have an effect on each of the industries in turn.

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

Does that mean, Chair, that when Scotland produces its Bill it will ask for evidence from English farming organisations? Is that the logic of what is proposed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Talking of public goods, we have been talking almost exclusively so far about environmental enhancement, but there is one public good that many members of the public would like to see: better public access. That can of course produce conflict, particularly with some of the environmental objectives. Indeed, one of the best bird habitats that I have seen was the oil refinery at Immingham, where not only were there lots of things for the birds to perch on, but the public—and their dogs in particular—were excluded. Do you think we can get the balance right? Do you think public access should be part of this, or if we are to encourage ground-nesting birds such as curlews, do we need to ensure that we do not have as much public access as some would perhaps wish?

Patrick Begg: We live and breathe this every day. This is at the heart of what the National Trust does. It is always a balance, and there will always be trade-offs. There is no blanket policy that you can apply here, but I think we would all agree that more public access that allows people to get the spiritual and physical refreshment that our countryside offers is absolutely critical.

The Bill is incredibly welcome, in that one legitimate area for public investment in future will be increased public access. I could not agree more strongly with what has been done in the Bill on that. Sometimes we can find small examples of disturbance where people and wildlife do not match up very well, and think that it is a universal problem. I think it is not universal. Our experience is that there is a large amount of open countryside in which people can happily co-exist with wildlife. There will have to be some careful thought put into how we make sure that the interface between people and livestock works. Dogs and livestock can be problematic—let us be honest. Again, we have methods for dealing with that. There is public education. It is interesting that the countryside code has gone off the agenda and no longer gets talked about. That can be revitalised, and people can be made to feel engaged in their countryside and feel that they have a shared responsibility for what happens out there, not just as users, but as people invested in it.

Martin Lines: On public access, it is good for people’s health to get out into the countryside, but it needs to be managed because of dogs and the health and safety aspects of people walking around on farms. This is also about access to information. Hopefully, we can deliver environmental land management plans to let the community have that knowledge and make it publicly accessible. The community around me can access what we are delivering as farmers, and put it on their community pages, so when they use the countryside and the footpaths, they understand what we are delivering.

As an industry, we can communicate positive messages, and talk about some of the trouble and hassle we get from public access, how people can use the landscape, and the food and public goods that we produce. That should connect back to society, because much of society is disconnected from what the landscape is used for, the food and animals that are used, and the threats that can come from wandering around nesting habitats or letting your dog run free.

Thomas Lancaster: Access is a good one to talk about, in terms of thinking about how you can have a holistic approach to securing public goods and food, with a solid regulatory foundation. We would not want farmers and landowners to be paid to keep rights of way open. That is a legal requirement, so you would not pay for that through public payments. What you might do is to pay for permissive access where it makes sense to join up rights of way, and where there is a real desire to connect one part of the local community to another part, but currently there is no path to do so. The farmers we work with are almost always passionate about educational access. They really love the support for it that they get through current schemes and agreements.

There will be instances where access is not suitable for biodiversity reasons, or on a Ministry of Defence firing range or whatever. That points to the need to have really good advice and guidance when we develop future schemes, to enable whoever is putting together the land management contracts to do so in a way that balances all the public goods and secures the best net outcome from any given farm or area of land.

Gilles Deprez: My knowledge is not good enough for this question. It is important to have public access. From what I have seen, we have a lot of public footpaths in Cornwall, for example. It is not always easy, to be honest. If you have a public footpath that goes across the middle of your most productive area of land, it is not easy, but we are already doing it today.

[Ben Lake]

Q Some organisations have questioned the legality under World Trade Organisation rules of schemes that would pay for the delivery of public goods, as opposed to those that compensate farmers or other land managers for costs incurred and income forgone. Do you recognise those concerns regarding, I think, annexe 2 of the agreement on agriculture? Quite simply, should we also hold those concerns?

Thomas Lancaster: Generally speaking, we are of the view that the World Trade Organisation agreement on agriculture provides pretty much all the flexibility that you would want to develop pretty much any public payment system that you would want. Some of the concerns that have been expressed are about whether paragraph 12 in annexe 2 of the agreement, which limits payments for environmental programmes to costs incurred and income forgone, limits the ability to provide a fair return, but even within the common agricultural policy, there are examples of other member states that have gone much further and have paid more for those environmental benefits. That is within the CAP, in which the Commission sets some stringent guidance about how member states’ managing authorities can calculate those payments. When we move away from the CAP, there is nothing in the agreement on agriculture that stipulates how you should interpret costs incurred.

In hill farming operations, the income is very low. Some people have expressed the concern that that would mean that payments for environmental benefits would be low. Actually, if a whole hill farming operation is loss-making and a cost to an individual, you can interpret that as a cost incurred, and you can effectively pay to secure that ongoing management, and then tweak that management to secure specific environmental benefits for curlews, water quality, flood risk management or other public goods that you might secure from an upland farm. We are of the view that there is huge flexibility in that.

Even if you were to declare your public payment scheme as green box, and you have done some pretty imaginative interpreting of the rules, you would still have the aggregate measure of support—the amber box—sat there as a sort of hedge against any challenge that might come from another member of the WTO. It has been blown up into an issue, but is a bit of a red herring, really, in terms of how we might go about developing future payments and providing an adequate incentive for the public goods that the Bill lists.

[The Chair]

We have 10 minutes left, and three more Members want to ask questions. Unless anybody really wants to say something, we will move on.

Martin Lines: WTO rules are for DEFRA and the Government to deal with, not farmers. It is your problem. If you are going to design a scheme that will not work because of the WTO, do not do it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Lake Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We have just had a reference to water, so we have to hear from Ben Lake.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Will the independent review into the allocation of domestic farm support, which was announced this week by the Government, also consider processes by which future financial frameworks will be agreed? To that end, would the formation of a dedicated intergovernmental body be something that the Government could explore?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman has made this point before, and it is a very fair one. I know that the Welsh Government have an opportunity to nominate a member of the panel, and I hope that that panel member will have an opportunity to talk to the hon. Gentleman about that matter.

Agriculture Bill

Ben Lake Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Agriculture’s economic contribution to rural areas has already been emphasised this afternoon. It applies to Wales, and in particular Ceredigion, just as much as the other countries of the UK.

The structure of the Welsh agricultural industry is, at least for the time being, rooted in the family farm. In Wales, the average size of holdings is 48 hectares, which is significantly less than that in the UK, and the industry’s share of total employment in Wales is three times the UK average. It is important to note that, as a result, agriculture is of not only economic importance, but cultural importance, sustaining the Welsh language and the fabric of rural life.

I do not intend to go into detail about what a new agricultural policy for Wales should look like or how it should work, for such matters are rightly beyond the scope of the Bill and will be determined in the Senedd in Cardiff. While policy decisions relating to the future of Welsh agriculture are devolved, their funding ultimately is not, so I wish to concentrate my remarks on that.

Much has been said in this debate about the importance of direct payments, and in particular ensuring the viability of the agricultural sector. The industry in Wales is heavily dependent on the support it receives through the CAP. In 2017, for example, payments represented 107% of the total income from farming, compared with 68% in Northern Ireland and 52% in England. Any changes to the overall level of funding for UK agriculture will therefore have a particular impact in Wales, and as farmers manage around 80% of land in Wales, ensuring their viability is essential if other outcomes of agricultural policy are to be realised.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is not enough for Ministers to wax lyrical about farmers being the stewards of the uplands. They must also recognise that, in Wales, a living countryside as we know it is dependent on farmers’ ability to be certain of a living wage in the future.

[Ben Lake]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

On that point, the UK Government have committed to guarantee current levels of funding until 2022, but it is unclear how future levels will be decided or how funding will be allocated across the four countries of the UK. The farming Minister may recall a discussion at a session of the Welsh Affairs Committee some months ago about the fact that these are questions of not only how the cake will be shared, but how big the cake will be in the first place.

Giving as much clarity and stability as possible to the industry must be a priority, and any future funding framework should be based on a seven-year cycle. Ministers have suggested that decisions about future funding will be taken by the UK Government, subject to the Treasury’s budgetary cycle and comprehensive spending review. That would not afford the industry the same certainty as under the present multi-annual financial framework. I appreciate that Ministers are hesitant to make unilateral funding decisions that would bind successive Governments, but if they were to make such a framework subject to the consent of all four countries of the UK—perhaps by means of a dedicated intergovernmental body—they would be at greater liberty to make such commitments to maintain funding for agriculture in the UK and to deliver the support and stability that the industry deserves.

Such an approach would also assist with the inevitable headaches that will emerge about how any funding is allocated across the UK. In fairness, both the Secretary of State and the farming Minister have confirmed that the Barnett formula will not be used to determine allocations. That is to be welcomed, particularly in Wales, but a question remains about how the allocations will be decided. The Secretary of State referred earlier to an imminent review of this process.

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ben Lake]

I will not as time is against me.

What role will the devolved Governments play in the process? How will future disputes be resolved? Only if financial frameworks are developed jointly by all four countries will they be sustainable and reflective of the needs of each. The Welsh and UK Governments believe that policy areas can be managed through non-legislative intergovernmental co-ordination, but I fear that that approach is unrealistic for questions of funding.

I would argue that an intergovernmental body is necessary to address any market distortions that may arise from policy divergence, which is not unlikely when we consider that on direct payments, for example, divergence looks possible between Scotland and Northern Ireland on the one hand, and between England and Wales on the other. Each nation should decide its own agricultural policy, but an intergovernmental body is required to address any issues that cause an imbalance in the market or unfairly disadvantage one country over another. The existing structures are not fit for that purpose.

I conclude by reiterating the need for any future financial frameworks to be agreed, built and maintained in co-operation between the four nations. When the Minister responds to the debate, perhaps he could assure farmers that such decisions will be made on the basis of shared governance and that the unique characteristics of the industries in each country will be supported accordingly. I am afraid to say that, at present, such an assurance is lacking.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Lake Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It seems only right, in Environment questions, to call someone called Mr Ben Lake.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Diolch, Mr Speaker.

What consideration has the Secretary of State made of ways in which the UK Government might intervene to alleviate the pressures faced by farmers across Wales as a consequence of the recent dry weather, particularly the pressures on the already dwindling fodder reserves?

[George Eustice]

We will hold discussions with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations on those issues. Only a few months ago we sought and achieved a derogation from the EU linked to wet weather. I am now aware that in many parts of the country, including England and Wales, there are issues linked to dry weather, and we are considering seeking derogations from certain schemes to take account of that problem.

Leaving the EU: Upland Farming

Ben Lake Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

We will ensure that we have the new schemes in place by the time those agreements start to run out.

As I said, this area is devolved. It is recognised by everyone that there will be a need for some UK frameworks, particularly when it comes to delivering international obligations such as our obligations to the World Trade Organisation, which I will return to, but also in ensuring integrity in the UK single market. We are taking two approaches. There will be areas where things may be reserved—for instance, where they are directly attributable to international trade and international agreements that we have entered into. There will be others where we can construct frameworks through memorandums of understanding. There is already a lot of quite detailed work being done in that space.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr asked about our working with the Welsh Government. I reassure him that we are in regular dialogue with Ministers from across the devolved Administrations and that, at an official level, there has been incredibly close working on developing, for instance, the statutory instruments that we all need to bring forward in our various legislatures under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. There is a lot of close working on that. We have also done some quite detailed work on what future frameworks would look like, looking policy line by policy line at where we think a memorandum of understanding would work, what we think can be fully devolved and what we think should be reserved. That work is at an advanced stage.

We should be positive here. We can look forward to a future where we all have far more power. Under current schemes, we are told the minimum and maximum width of a hedge, what width a gateway is allowed to be, what types of crops someone can grow and whether they can claim that a cabbage is the same as a cauliflower or winter wheat is the same as spring wheat.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) raised the issue of the frustrations regarding countryside stewardship schemes. I agree with him. Farmers should be able to enrol on those schemes in any month of the year, but get this: we used to be able to do that, under the old schemes. The European Commission proposed that we change to a common commencement date for everyone. The UK opposed that vociferously, but the EU ignored us. As a result, we have an administrative nightmare, trying to put all these schemes in place on the same start date. We can leave all that behind and no longer fret about disallowance risks.

We had a consultation earlier this year on future agricultural policy, in particular as it relates to England. We have had over 44,000 responses. We are clear that there will be an agriculture Bill in this Session of Parliament, but we have also made a few other things clear. In our manifesto, we committed to keeping the budget the same in cash terms for the duration of this Parliament, out until 2022. We were clear in our manifesto that we would replace the common agricultural policy with the future funded scheme, to be rolled out thereafter.

We have also been clear that we think we can spend the money better, focusing it on the delivery of public goods and environmental outcomes, rather than on arbitrary payments based on how much land people own or control, which clearly makes no sense if we are seeking coherent policy. Finally, we have been clear that we recognise that there is quite a lot of dependency on the basic payment scheme and area-based payments. We will make changes gradually, over an agricultural transition period running for a number of years. We have invited suggestions on that in our consultation.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Before the Minister moves away from discussing the funding arrangements, could he assure me that, in designing a future funding arrangement, the Government will look at ensuring there is a period of similar length—perhaps five or seven years? That gives certainty to farmers that a shorter period simply would not.

[George Eustice]

There have been a number of representations about how long that period should be. Most people have suggested that somewhere in the region of five years or possibly a little bit more makes sense. As the Secretary of State has indicated for illustrative purposes, something in the ballpark of five years seems to make sense and seems to be where the consensus is.

We also recognise that we need to help businesses prepare during the transition. We recognise that we may need to take account of the less favoured area status of some areas, particularly the more financially vulnerable upland areas, and of the impact on those rural communities. We are certainly willing to do that, and we flagged the potential need for it in our consultation.

However, there is more than one way to approach this. We could continue with something similar to what we have now, but a number of organisations representing upland interests have actually said to me that they see great opportunities in the principles and the approach that we advocate. For instance, the Uplands Alliance told us that it was very keen to move to a system of payment for the delivery of public goods. It makes a powerful point, because at the moment the uplands, and particularly the moorlands, get less area payment because they are deemed to be disadvantaged areas on less productive land. That could not be more upside down.

In fact, they potentially have the opportunity to deliver more by way of public goods, in terms of public access, flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, peat bog restoration or improvements in water quality. There are many opportunities for the uplands to deliver those public goods, and several people are starting to say that, if we are serious about payment for the delivery of public goods, they see a vibrant, profitable model for upland farming.

We also set out, in an annexe attached to our consultation, ideas about the type or flavour of the options that we might offer. We have about 30 years of experience in various environmental land management schemes. For instance, even in the current schemes there are options for enclosed rough grazing, the management of moorland, the protection of native breeds and the shepherding supplement. We also have grants for stonewall protection, hedgerow restoration, the maintenance of weather-proof traditional farm buildings in remote locations and haymaking. There are many options within those existing schemes, and we have a lot of experience of making them work.

I will turn to some of the points made by hon. Members. The sheep sector is very important for Wales. There are 10 million sheep—around 30% of the UK total —and some 14,000 holdings with sheep, many of which are in disadvantaged areas. It will be for the Welsh Government to design a policy that works for their own farmers and their own circumstances. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr mentioned how closely we are working with the Welsh Government. As I pointed out earlier, very detailed working is going on. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) highlighted some of the great work being done on Exmoor, and I very much agree with him. I visited the mires project, run by South West Water and other local partners on Exmoor, and some innovative policy thinking is going on there.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) raised a number of issues relating to trade. I do not accept that we need a customs union, but we need a customs agreement. That is exactly what the Government seek—a comprehensive, bold free trade agreement with no tariffs and agreed customs arrangements. I do not agree that we need absolute uniformity on regulations. It is possible for us to recognise equivalence, since our starting point is that we are departing the single market; we are not a country with a very different regulatory tradition.

The hon. Lady also asked about the WTO. We believe that we should treat this as technical rectification, and we are working with the European Union to split our WTO schedules, both on tariff-rate quotas and aggregate market support, which is the ceiling on market support and subsidies that can be paid to farmers. Those will simply be divided based on historical use, which we do not believe will provide us with any problems.

Finally, on future trade deals with other countries, we have been crystal clear that we have standards and values that we will not abandon, and we will not abandon or compromise our standards in pursuit of a trade deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Lake Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely brilliant point. Recently, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been negotiating with devolved Administrations to ensure that, as we leave the European Union, we can have a successful internal market in the United Kingdom. Agreement has been reached with the Welsh Government. Mark Drakeford, the Labour Minister, has shown a degree of flexibility and taken a constructive approach, which is in stark contrast to that of the Scottish Government and the First Minister of Scotland, who has put a narrow ideological pursuit of separation ahead of the interests of the people of Scotland—and not for the first time, either.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Many agricultural unions in Wales have expressed concern about clarity relating to the future arrangements for common frameworks. Do the UK Government intend to apply the Barnett formula to any funding allocated to Wales in the future?

[Michael Gove]

We want to make sure that, as is the case at the moment, farmers in Wales—indeed, farmers under all the devolved Administrations—receive more money than would be strictly the case under the Barnett formula. It is appropriate that they should continue to do so, because of the unique nature of the landscapes they farm.