Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The Secretary of State for International Trade will, I think, be giving a statement later. The Government have now published the key components of the agreement in principle, and some analysis of the impacts of this agreement has already been cited. Australia is a very important partner of ours, and it is important that we get a trade agreement with it. It is, of course, a smaller economy and the opportunities are therefore not as large as they would be with a larger economy, but nevertheless, Australia is an important ally and this is a good agreement between us.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I hardly need to explain to the Secretary of State the level of disbelief and anger that there is as the betrayal of British farming unfolds this week. The level of detail is unclear, but The Daily Telegraph helpfully reports a major win for the Secretary of State for International Trade—doubtless briefed by her. The key losers in this situation are British farmers. Given that we now know that there is going to be a huge increase in the amount of beef and lamb coming in from Australia—produced to lower standards at lower cost, disadvantaging our farmers—will the Secretary of State tell the House what he is going to do to help our farmers meet that challenge?

[George Eustice]

We secured some important mitigations to help the farming industry, including the fact that a tariff rate quota will stay in place for the first 10 years on both beef and sheep, and for the subsequent five years there will be a special agricultural safeguard that means that if volumes go above a certain trigger, tariffs immediately snap back in. We have put in place mitigations through the quota for the first 10 years and through that safeguard.

Draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations, Tariff Quotas and Wine) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone.

When this statutory instrument came up, I immediately thought that there was something familiar about it. Not only were the words in a slightly different order, but it struck me that we have discussed much of this before—and of course, we did, with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, back on 2 November 2020. That led me to search my office to find my notes and accompanying speech from that time. I was delighted to find that the previous debate was largely about the errors that were being corrected in the measure that we were debating then. So we are now correcting the errors that were made in correcting the original errors. On one level, that is slightly amusing, but of course it is serious as well.

I noted that in the Minister’s typically very clear account, her speechwriter delicately suggested that there was an ambiguity. Actually, the person who wrote the explanatory memorandum was slightly less generous, because that says:

“this instrument fixes an error”.

It does not just correct but “fixes an error”.

In the debate in November, I remember gently teasing the Minister because it seemed to me that there were layers and layers of meaning being uncovered; I even suggested that it was a bit like a detective novel, although it was not clear who the villain was. Well, this time it is all too clear, and the Minister is named in the explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 3.1 clearly details the previous instrument, which the Minister agreed, but goes on to say:

“Due to an error in the commencement provision relating to Part 4 of the Agriculture (Payments) (Amendment, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, there is doubt as to whether Part 4 of that instrument, purporting”—

“purporting” indeed—

“to amend retained EU legislation, took effect.”

Quite clearly, something went badly wrong and we are here today to correct it.

You will be delighted to know, Mr Hollobone, that we will not oppose this correction, because we want things to work, but there are some questions to ask. It would appear that since our discussion last year, there has been a fault in the legislation, so it is not unreasonable to ask what have the Government been unable to do between now and then as a consequence of that fault? I ask because these instruments give the Government powers to do things, so what has been the impact of the fault?

I have never got the sense that the Government are particularly keen on many of these programmes anyway, but have fruit and vegetable organisations been disadvantaged? Have checks been carried out to ensure that the payments have been made correctly? If they have been, without the correct legal basis, what is the consequence? I recall the discussion last time. I think that the Minister told us that there are 33 such schemes. I assume that the problem would really have come out if there were new schemes to be established. I suspect that that probably has not been the case; otherwise, we might have heard complaints.

Given that this does seem to be a slightly hypothetical legal argument, I wonder why we get to spend time on this measure, which does not appear to have much real-world impact, but—I think the Minister knows where I am going—we have spent more than a year trying to get a satisfactory answer about how things such as suspending and restoring competition law in the food chain came and went. I imagine that, in the end, it is because the Government do not really want us to talk about it and the Government have control of the procedures.

As the Minister said, and as is explained in paragraph 2.9 of the explanatory memorandum, this SI also allows export tariff quotas to be opened up and administered. The Minister gave some extra detail—I was listening closely—but what has been happening in the first six months of this year? Have we had that ability, or have we not? What have been the consequences?

I have to reflect, perhaps slightly cheekily on the cusp of a rumoured Australian trade agreement, on what has been given away in return; perhaps we will come back to that later in the week. Finally, in paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum, there is talk of transnational producer organisations. Last time in discussion, we established that there might be four of them. Do we know the impact of the changes on them?

In conclusion, I do not think that we need to take the full hour and a half to discuss the draft regulations. We agree that these are sensible changes, but I will be grateful for the ministerial response to the few questions I have asked.

Draft Plant Health etc. (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 Draft Plant Health etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2021

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie.

Here we are again, this time with two statutory instruments. I note that one has already been discussed by the Lords, who spent some 45 minutes debating it. I suspect we will be quicker, but there are some important questions to ask. As ever, the substance has been explained carefully and eloquently by the Minister, and the Committee will be reassured to hear that we will not oppose the regulations. We do have questions however.

I start by drawing attention to the strong comments from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on which, if memory serves me correctly, the Minister has served. The members of that Committee are not an incendiary group under normal circumstances, but they say in point 41 of their report:

“It is disappointing, however, that the Department did not provide some analysis of the expected financial impact, given that the businesses affected did not have to pay these fees in the past, and that the Department found it necessary to phase in the fees to give businesses time to adjust. We regard this as poor legislative practice and note that DEFRA has previously not provided financial information when this would have assisted Parliamentary scrutiny: both the Agriculture and Fisheries Bills were introduced into Parliament without Impact Assessments.”

“Poor legislative practice” is a definite yellow card offence for DEFRA in my view.

More importantly—this is the serious point—what will be the actual additional cost to industry, and inevitably to consumers? I am grateful to the Horticultural Trades Association for its advice. I was told that the industry is worth more than £24 billion in GDP, supports more than 568,000 jobs, and raises around £5 billion in tax revenue for the Exchequer each year. The HTA was very diplomatic in its representations, saying that it was

“disappointed that the Government have not carried out an impact assessment on the implications of fees on our sector”.

The HTA estimates that the costs run into the thousands and request that the introduction of import inspection fees for ornamental horticulture be delayed until 1 January 2022. I would be grateful for the Minister’s view on that and, more particularly, the Department’s assessment of the costs, if any assessment has been made. If it has, what is it? If, as I suspect, none has been made, that is definitely a second yellow card as far as I am concerned.

If the horticultural sector has an issue, so do those at the Agricultural Industries Confederation, to whom I am again grateful for their advice. The AIC represents the agri-supply industry, which has a farmgate value of over £8 billion. It is concerned that fees will apply per consignment—the same cost for a truck load or a single bag—which could disproportionately affect decisions on small sales and the flexibility of choice. The confederation notes that most imported seed comes from the EU and that

“the seed industry has had to take on new costs following EU exit”,

and it highlights a number of non-tariff barriers. I hope the Minister will bring those comments to the Prime Minister’s attention, because he memorably claimed that, as a consequence of his agreement, there were no non-tariff barriers. He was completely wrong of course. The AIC says that

“non-tariff barriers include a generally increased cost of haulage due to haulier concerns over potential delays”

and that

“exporting GB seed now requires a phytosanitary certificate, an Orange International Certificate, and to be International Seed Testing Association sampled; seed exported from the EU into GB requires the same”.

The Prime Minister may live in a fantasy world where none of this exists, but our businesses do not, so can we have a proper assessment of the costs?

Of course, there are potential benefits. Biosecurity matters to us all. As my noble Friend Baroness Hayman pointed out in the Lords, the Royal Horticultural Society tells us that UK imports of live plants have increased by 71% since 1999, so there may well be advantages in having extra checks—although is an accidental by-product of our changed relationship. What work has the Department has done to assess the best level for checks to be made, as well as the relative costs and benefits? Who knows, for instance, whether moving material from Oxfordshire to Cambridgeshire has attendant risks? They do some strange things down in Oxfordshire. Is Holland to Kent riskier than Cornwall to northern Scotland? Does anyone know? I suspect not, but we now have additional checks, which is probably good, but we also have extra costs, and no one seems to have assessed the relative benefits.

Baroness Hayman also asked what the Government are doing to increase public awareness of the plant health and biosecurity risks. I would appreciate the Minister’s view on that. My noble Friend also queried the capacity of ports to carry out inspections, and I echo that query. We have discussed border control posts before; what assessment has been made of capacity and what additional resources have been provided to ensure effective and timely delivery of the new checks?

I noted that in the debate in the Lords, Baroness Gardner noted that Amateur Gardening has stopped attaching free seed packets to its magazines that head over the Irish sea. She said that continuing the practice would cost £1 million in the necessary health checks and certification, which is astonishing. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? In his reply to the debate in the Lords, the Minister spoke of

“a UK plant health post-transition period operational readiness board”,—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. GC221.]

which is said to meet weekly. Will the Minister tell us more about that? How will all this work with the devolved Administrations? Who is involved? Does the board issue minutes? The Minister clearly leads an exciting life, and we would like to know more.

Let me turn to the second instrument, which deals with the complexities introduced by the Northern Ireland protocol. Again, we do not oppose it, because we do not want unnecessary obstacles placed on the movement of materials within the UK. We recognise that without those changes there would be additional costs to businesses carrying out trade within the UK, but it does prompt a question, because that material will presumably come from the EU into GB via NI, bypassing the checks we already discussed. That makes it clear that none of this is about biosecurity. Will the Minister confirm that?

In conclusion, we all want strong biosecurity, but there is inevitably a trade-off between how often, when and where checks are made, and the costs incurred. The measures are not driven by those considerations; they are driven entirely by the need to sort out the mess created by the Government’s inadequate and rushed agreement on our relationship with the EU. Horticulturalists, readers of Amateur Gardening and the agri-supply industry are all being left to pick up costs.

[Victoria Prentis]

I do lead an exciting life, never more so than when on the JCSI, which I have enjoyed serving on for many years. I am pleased to be able to answer the hon. Gentleman’s points. I refer him, politely, to the schedules to the statutory instrument, which set out the fees for individual categories of commodities, and will give him a pretty good idea of where those fees will be placed.

We continue to provide support to help businesses. We ran an extensive communications campaign, provided one-to-one support to the largest traders, hosted webinars for thousands of small businesses and provided £84 million to expand the customs intermediary market before bringing forward these SIs. We have listened to the concerns of industry to ensure that the new requirements are practical and proportionate, as well as risk-based. The import controls on plant health EU-regulated goods are being phased in over 14 months from 1 January this year, in order to minimise disruption wherever we can.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am sure we have all read the schedules in detail. As fascinating as they are, they do not come to a conclusion about the overall cost. There may be an indication of the individual licensing costs, but we need to know how much is done to get any sense of the overall cost to industry.

[Victoria Prentis]

I will come on to that in due course. Briefly, I reassure the hon. Gentleman, while I am on the subject, that we carried out extensive consultation and work with industry before bringing in these fees; we discussed a great deal with the trade and had a formal consultation throughout 2020. The British Society of Plant Breeders and the Agricultural Industries Confederation, which he mentioned, were both fully involved with this.

Information on fees was published on gov.uk and the plant health portal in December last year, and DEFRA emailed all businesses that we had contact details for through our arm’s-length body, the Animal and Plant Health Agency. That was followed up in March this year with a more detailed breakdown of the new fees, which was also added to the portal.

On the impact assessment, the answer is simply that the result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 was of course that we left the single market, and the amendments in the draft instruments reflect that change. They arose as a direct consequence of the terms of the 2019 Act and do not in themselves reflect any change in plant health policy. We have therefore not felt it necessary to provide an impact assessment formally. However, we carried extensive consultation with industry, as I think was proper, during the course of last year to prepare for the draft instruments.

Physical inspections of high-priority plants and plant products will move from places of destination to border control posts from 1 January next year. Physical inspections of lower risk plants and plant products will start from March next year. We are doing and have done a great deal of work to get ready for January 2022. We will identify any ports or authorities with residual concerns and ensure that any response is pragmatic, tested and can be operationalised. On the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about biosecurity, we acknowledge the difficulties facing those who export regulated goods to the EU or move them to NI, and we will continue to engage with the European Commission to ensure that we develop helpful, practical arrangements that take into account biosecurity to contain the threat.

As I described, the draft instruments make necessary amendments to our fees and charging regime and ensure that trade between England and NI is not subject to additional costs. I therefore commend both instruments to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT PLANT HEALTH ETC. (MISCELLANEOUS FEES) (AMENDMENT) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2021

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Health etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2021.

British Meat and Dairy Products

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this timely debate. These are vital industries that are crucial to our food security, to tackling climate and nature emergencies. They proved remarkably resilient through the pandemic. I pay tribute to all those involved: farmers, processors, retailers and shop workers. But I think one or two contributions have been a touch rose-tinted, because it is really tough out there.

Last week, I joined the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) in launching Labour’s rural review, on a family farm in Cambridgeshire. Thanks to the excellent organisation by the National Farmers Union, we heard from a real mix of farms. It is very hard out there. With the changes to farm support, it is obvious that some—perhaps many—will not survive. We have repeatedly warned that that is exactly what the Government’s Agricultural Act 2020, allied with the refusal to rule out undercutting through lower trade standard imports, was designed to do. We will fight that all the way. We are delighted to support Great British Beef Week.

I must point out just how interconnected but we still are with the European Union. EU countries have accounted for 70% of meat exports, 77% of dairy exports, as well as 83% of meat imports and 99% of dairy imports. Sadly, the rushed botched deal at the end of the year has left us facing really serious problems, not least in achieving carcase balance. The latest statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that exports of food and live animals were down about 31% on January and February 2020. In absolute value terms, exports of meat and meat preparations to the EU were particularly affected—down 52%. That is a systemic issue.

The British Meat Processors Association has warned that the industry is now facing a potential permanent loss of up to half of its exports. For dairy, exports remained at drastically low levels in February, according to recent figures published by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. The figures, drawn from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data, show trade with Europe down more than 90% for certain products compared with a year earlier. Cheese exports were down 75%, whey 83%, milk powder 86%, and butter exports were down 89%. Be in no doubt that it is tough for many. We know it is particularly hard for small independent producers. If it is hard to sell to the EU, meat and dairy farmers face a challenge to their incomes.

The Minister and I have been discussing changes to farm support for a long time. A new analysis by the Labour party shows that rural England stands to lose more than £255 million this year alone. That translates to as many as 9,500 agricultural jobs, and that will only get worse year on year. Of course, the schemes are still being designed, tested and piloted, as we have discussed on numerous occasions, but farmers are rightly concerned by the gap between the existing basic payment scheme being phased out and the environmental land management scheme. According to an analysis of DEFRA data by the Country Land and Business Association, 75% of farming enterprises are currently unprofitable without direct payments. According to a recent survey of landowners and farmers by the CLA, 76% fear that the new payments will not be sufficient.

It is hard to sell into the EU, support is being withdrawn and, frankly, British meat is still open to being undercut in trade deals. As we have repeatedly said, the Government should have put the protection of food and farming standards into law, but they have not. Without re-rehearsing the arguments made today, deals are currently being negotiated. UK campaign groups have raised repeated concerns over meat production in Australia and New Zealand, and the Government’s consultation on a prospective UK-Australia deal highlighted concerns about Australia’s farming practices, such as hormone injections in beef, excessive use of antibiotics in food production, high rates of food poisoning and lower standards of animal welfare, including continued use of sow stalls. Just last week, however, the Secretary of State for International Trade was lauding their high standards in the main Chamber. Frankly, it should be obvious that British farming will be sold out. The Trade and Agriculture Commission, which the Government conceded under pressure, has reported that there has been no response from the Government. Can the Minister tell us when we will get it, and will they adopt the recommended standards framework?

There is much more to be said, but let me move on to one of the potential solutions: public procurement. Supporting British farming means buying more British produce, which means looking at the public sector and the £2.4 billion a year spent on catering, and thinking about how more can be spent with British farmers. Government Buying Standards for Food and Catering Services, or GBSF, provide helpful guidelines, but these are not being applied in too many parts of our public services. That is hardly surprising, given the cost pressures that they face, but that is why leadership is required.

In such circumstances, who better to turn to than the EFRA Committee? As usual, its Chair, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), made his thoughtful and well-considered contribution earlier, but the Committee’s recent report urged the Government to update their buying standards for food into the new decade, address outdated standards on nutrition and animal welfare, and close loopholes in the current rules. The report also expresses disappointment that the Government do not use the GBSF as a mechanism to promote buying British within the public sector, as is the norm within public bodies in countries such as France.

Let me say a word about two specific sectors. There is insufficient time to do justice to lamb and poultry, but there are a range of issues affecting dairy. We all hope that the new dairy code of conduct will be successful and ensure the fairness that many people feel has been lacking. We will be watching closely, but I fear that it may have to be revisited yet again. There are also workforce challenges. A recent survey by the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers has revealed that almost one third of dairy farmers would consider leaving the industry due to a lack of labour, with 63% of dairy farmers struggling to recruit in the past five years. On their behalf, can I ask the Minister whether DEFRA is considering supporting the inclusion of dairy technicians in the next review of the Migratory Advisory Committee’s shortage of occupation list?

I turn now to the pig sector, which has had a really hard time. It is not all the fault of the Minister on this occasion—there is African swine fever in China, a surfeit of cheap pork in Europe and skyrocketing feed costs—but it is disappointing to hear that the percentage of British pork on the shelves has fallen in two of our major supermarkets, which is not helpful. Alarming figures suggest that specialist pig farms are expecting to see an 80% decline in average income between 2019-20 to 2020-21. The National Pig Association has described it as a perfect storm.

Some of the problems were indeed down to the post-Brexit export problems caused by the Government, but at its peak, a backlog of 100,000 pigs awaiting slaughter were housed in temporary accommodation on UK farms, which pushed up carcase weights and led to swingeing price discounts imposed by processers. I understand that the pig sector has approached the Government to call for sector-specific support, as was delivered to dairy farmers at the start of the pandemic, and I would be grateful to hear what consideration the Minister is giving to that request.

Let me finally mention our biggest challenge of all: climate and nature. We very much welcome the National Farmers Union’s commitment to reach net zero by 2040, and we want to see more support for farmers to reduce their emissions. That is why it is so important that we get ELM right and make it accessible in good time. British agriculture has to be on the front foot and continue to demonstrate positive progress. We will work with farmers to do anything that we can, and we recognise the efforts that are being made. Be it the dairy road map or Arla’s climate checks initiative, we can see people working hard throughout the farming and processing sector to get the advances that we all need.

There are indeed many paths to a sustainable future. A report from the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission in January made a powerful case for an agroecological approach that many will find attractive. Finally, we await part 2 of Henry Dimbleby’s report with keen interest. The country should not have gone without a food strategy for a decade. It will be fascinating to see how palatable the Government find his recommendations. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect it?

We believe that the meat and dairy industries, with the right support and help, will play a key role in achieving the necessary climate and nature targets in the future. I look forward to working with everyone in the industry to achieve that. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to take part in this important debate.

Draft Food and Drink (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Food and Wine Composition, Information and Labelling) Regulations 2021

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I apologise for my near-lateness and the anxiety that it might have induced in colleagues—we do need the lifts in this place to work.

It seems no time since we were discussing our last SI, some 16 hours ago. I enjoyed the Minister’s introductory comments, which were elegantly presented, as always, on the technical issues that could not be resolved before the end of last year because they ran out of time. Of course, we are seeing the consequences now.

This SI is largely about labelling, or “minor ‘real world’ effects” as the explanatory memorandum imaginatively explains. We are not convinced that the effects are quite as minor as all that. Of course, there have been two attempts at this SI. The sifting Committee felt that the subject was sufficiently sensitive to be upgraded to the affirmative procedure so that it could be discussed, so we are grateful to it. The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as eagle-eyed as ever, noted that meat, excluding beef, will be labelled as “non-UK” rather than “non-EU”—that does not preclude a specific country, as the Minister said. When we think about it, that actually reduces the information available to consumers.

The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee stated:

“We note that, as consumers will no longer be able to tell whether meat (excluding beef) is from the EU or not after the adjustment period, this may have the potential of reducing key information that is available at present about the origin of a product and therefore about the associated food standards.”

That might be an unintended consequence of this change, but I think it is worth exploring. I would say—as ever, I will put it more crudely than their lordships—that many people might like to know that the origin is the high-standard EU, rather than, to pick a random example, chlorine-washed America. I know the Minister is particularly keen that we keep repeating that familiar example. Why should consumers not have that additional piece of information? It is not as if the EU has ceased to exist, much as some Members on the Government Benches might wish that to be the case. The EU is still an important partner and we will still be able to purchase its produce in our shops, so it would be good to know.

There is one part of the UK that will still be applying those very same EU rules. As the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out:

‘We also note that after the adjustment period, different requirements will apply in GB and Northern Ireland (NI) where EU requirements will continue to apply as a result of the NI Protocol. Defra told us that “further steps will be taken to continue unfettered access for NI food products to the GB market”.’

I therefore have two questions for the Minister. First, why not allow consumers to know that the produce is from the EU? Secondly, what are those further steps to continue unfettered access for Northern Ireland food products to the GB market?

Similarly, the changes to wine labelling also seem to wish away the European Union. As the Minister knows—I pointed this out a couple of weeks ago—the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, despite the happy consultations referred to in the explanatory memorandum, is not particularly happy. The explanatory memorandum, in paragraph 10.7, suggests that there has been “regular contact”, so perhaps she could tell us how often and when. Given that the various consultations mentioned in paragraph 10 took place back in 2018-19, perhaps it was a while ago. The key point of difference here might be that there was contact at official level but possibly not at ministerial level.

I would be very happy to convene a meeting with the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and the Minister, perhaps even with that bottle of wine I mentioned the other week, wrapped in red, white and blue tape. I am sure that she will have read the excellent briefing that the association has provided for us today, which argues that under these changes it will no longer be possible to use one label for both EU and UK markets. As the briefing explains at some length, that will increase costs and complexity, which I would have though is undeniable. Sadly, of course, that has been the experience over much of this post-Brexit period.

The Opposition strongly urge the Minister to work with the industry to see whether a solution can be found before the labelling grace period ends in September 2022, which I am sure we all agree would be to everyone’s mutual benefit. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that, as well as perhaps a commitment to join Labour in promising the early end of the VI-1 form, which I have not mentioned since the SI before last.

Finally, let me say a little about honey and provenance issues, because these make headlines quite frequently, with consumers rightly concerned about what they are actually buying—I looked at a jar of honey in my cupboard this morning, and it was not entirely clear to me. I am grateful to the Food Standards Agency for briefing me on these complex issues. I think that a similar point to that made by the Lords on meat may also apply to honey of EU designation, because the distinction between the EU and rest of the world is important.

I am told that it is really quite difficult to test for added sugars in honey, which is one of the difficulties with the cheaper honeys available. At the moment, the test is done best by German laboratories that use a database made up of references that are predominantly European and have been built up over time. It is an historical accident that it has built up that knowledge, and in the past we had access to that, but now we are having to do it differently. The Food Standards Agency is working with retailers and trading standards officers to get the supply chain assurances that we would like, and I am told that good progress is being made. For consumers, however, being able to distinguish between the EU and the rest of the world seems to me to be of some value. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. Again, why not allow consumers to know and allow them to make that informed choice?

In conclusion, we do not oppose these changes, but we suggest that the ‘real world’ effects may not be quite as minor as suggested.

Exiting the European Union (Animals)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Well, here we are again, perhaps unsurprisingly, with yet more statutory instruments needed to correct the entirely foreseeable problems created by the Prime Minister’s rushed job over Christmas, the consequences of which I fear will be with us for some time. Let me start by saying that we will not be opposing this SI. It has, after all, been in effect for nearly a month, and we acknowledge that it had to be done, because quite simply, the processes that needed to be in place, whether physical or information technology, were not there. The Government simply were not ready, so now they have come back asking for more time —well, not really asking, but telling—even though they promised in early discussions that they would be ready.

I am sure the Minister remembers, in introducing SI 2020/1631 on 20 January, saying:

“ From July this year, we will have controls in place for all imports of EU SPS goods.”—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 20 January 2021; c. 4.]

Today, the Government tell us that we will not have such controls, in most situations, until next year. They cannot say that they were not warned; I had previously warned them about this. The following week, in a debate on another of our sequence of SIs, 2020/1661, I said:

“My fear is that there will be a lot of bridging in the months and years ahead”.—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 25 January 2021; c. 5.]

And here we are, exactly as predicted. Going back to that first discussion on 20 January, I recall pressing the Minister quite directly on the potential for delay, and particularly on the likelihood of border control posts being ready. I am sure she remembers. She told us:

“The Animal and Plant Health Agency tells us that the building is progressing and it is confident that they can be ready by July.”—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 20 January 2021; c. 8.]

I entirely understand the problems of the coronavirus epidemic, but this was at a time when I think we could have been aware of the potential problems.

It is therefore reasonable for us to be slightly sceptical about the current promises from DEFRA in response to a query from the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to which I am sure we are all very grateful. The Committee was told by the Department that it expected the

“infrastructure to be ready as required to deliver each of the revised phases of increased SPS checks in October 2021, January 2022, and March 2022.”

Well, let us hope so, but I have to say that the saga of the row over the border control posts in Portsmouth bodes ill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) for his campaigning to get a fair deal for Portsmouth on this issue.

Sadly, it is not just the physical buildings that are late. The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also rightly queried the readiness of the IT systems. It was told by DEFRA that the import of products, animals, food and feed system—IPAFFS—is working for imports and that the Department

“continues the development of the new exports IT system (formal name to be confirmed in due course).”

As a former IT person, that did not fill me with confidence. I suspect that staff trying to deal with these things may have a few suggestions for names for the aforesaid system.

Even more alarmingly, the Department cites working with a small group of used agricultural farm machinery exporters to develop the system. That is an important sector, but I am not sure that it is entirely typical. The Minister may have seen the recent story in Farmers Weekly about an East Sussex machinery dealer who has stopped shipping abroad because of what he describes as the “lunacy” involved in obtaining the plant health certificates required since the UK left the European Union. Let us hope that the team working on the computer system and their colleagues can make things work more smoothly for him and others. Will both the physical border control posts and the necessary IT systems be ready this time, or will we be back here again having yet another discussion on further extensions?

Although at first the SI looks deceptively simple, making a few date changes, there is more to it than that. A much longer transition period has consequences, and as businesses change their practices to adapt, there may be real costs and risks. Can the Minister tell me what analysis has been made of the potential for smugglers and fraudsters to take advantage of the lack of checks for an even longer period? Frankly, it is an open door. It has even been suggested to me that goods coming into the EU bound for the UK are being waved through because it is no longer of consequence to the EU. If we are not checking either, who knows what is actually coming in? What safeguards are there?

While extending the time kicks the problem further down the road, what progress is the Minister making on encouraging the EU to be ready in time, to ensure that the imports we need will be able to flow smoothly? We are well aware of the problems that UK producers have encountered with exports into the EU—the extra costs for export health certificates, the pressure on availability of vets and the problems with groupage. It is highly likely that the same problems will occur the other way, with European suppliers perhaps having less pressure to get things in place, being able to turn to other European markets. How is the Minister using the extra time secured by this SI to ensure that the problems we may have been facing in a few weeks are not just put off for a few more months?

Given that we may still face problems with supply, can the Minister explain why the Food Resilience Industry Forum has been shut down? A member of the forum quoted recently in The Grocer says:

“Government has kicked the can down the road with various grace periods which will come to an end, and at that point there will be a greater need than ever for the industry to come together with Defra. It’s short-sighted of the government to be cutting these meetings short.”

They are spot on. That is the consequence of this statutory instrument. Can the Minister explain why this decision was taken and what the Government have got against working with the food sector to keep food supplies secure?

The SI changes some dates, but there are wider consequences. After difficulties at the border for British food exporters, with meat left rotting in lorries and the fishing industry thrown into chaos, the Government have now been forced to delay import checks on goods coming in from the EU to allow businesses and port authorities more time to prepare. The Government have left themselves with no alternative but to continue to allow check-free imports for many more months, but it did not have to be this way.

Instead of sticking their head in the sand, the Government could have worked with industry to get ready. They could have focused on practical action to support businesses—measures such as recruiting and training the 50,000-plus customs agents we knew were needed to help with checks. Instead of delivering a limited deal at the last possible minute, they could have rolled their sleeves up and gained more for our country around the negotiating table. Due to the Government’s last-minute scramble to extend the deadline on import checks, this legislation had to be made so hastily that it has been left incomplete. As I think the Minister confirmed, yet more SIs will inevitably be needed to implement fully the planned timetable for import checks.

Labour has a very different vision for a post-Brexit Britain. We want businesses to thrive and for the gaps in the deal that are piling up paperwork and red tape to be properly addressed. We want an end to these stopgaps and real engagement with our European neighbours, to ensure that our complex and interrelated food systems can operate effectively and efficiently and not be undermined by Government incompetence, which risks disadvantaging UK producers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis]

I know that the hon. Lady shares my desire that the world will be in a much better place for our children, and may I congratulate her on the birth of her recent grandchild? The Government are therefore completely committed to reducing chemical pesticide use. Protecting pollinators, for example, is a real priority for the Government. They are an essential part of the environment and play a crucial role in food production. As I said, we are analysing the many responses—probably some of them from her constituents—to our recent consultation and we will set out our proposals in due course.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

There was widespread relief this year that the colder weather meant that the risk of aphids spreading virus yellows was reduced. Before that, the Secretary of State had authorised a neonicotinoid pesticide to be used, and he has indicated that that will be the same again for the next two years. What is worrying is that the expert advice has been hidden from us—it took freedom of information requests from Friends of the Earth to get it. The Health and Safety Executive recommended refusal, so will the Minister explain why the advice was overruled? At a time when the UK is being looked to for global leadership on the environment, hiding that expert advice is not a good look. Who was pressing the Government to overrule that advice and will they do better in future?

[Victoria Prentis]

The Government are committed to the neonicotinoid restrictions that we put in place in 2018, and to the sustainable use of pesticides. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was a signatory to the letter that we answered in January this year. As we set out in our letter, when making decisions on pesticides we took advice from the HSE, from the expert committee on pesticides and from DEFRA’s own chief scientific adviser. The specific exemption that the hon. Gentleman has referred to was for a non-flowering crop that is grown only in the east of England, to protect against possible aphid predation, which we were very concerned about at the time. I share his relief that it was not necessary to use neonics on that occasion, and I would ask him to welcome the fact that the authorisation was strictly controlled. We put in place a reduced application rate and a prohibition on growing flowering crops afterwards. I am pleased that it was not necessary to use it on that occasion.

Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Wine) (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2021

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.

I hope that I will not need to take us to 6 o’clock, because at first sight the Committee is considering a simple change correcting a previous error, which the Minister has elegantly explained and for which no apology is required. An honest mistake was made, but it was spotted and corrected. I have to say that I am rather pleased that I was not involved with the previous SI. Looking at paragraph 7.1 of the explanatory notes, it is clear that there is no way that many of us would have noticed the issue. As I have observed before, there is a huge level of complexity and detail in these regulations that, frankly, most of us do not have the capacity to work through. We are very reliant on civil servants and grateful to them for doing that.

I should also like to note the importance of geographical indications in general, and for our domestic wine industry, which we all wish to see go from strength to strength. I can assure you, Mr Hollobone, that the Opposition will not oppose the instrument, but—of course there is always a “but”—there is an issue on which I will be slightly less gracious, on which we have touched before when SIs relating to wine are discussed, and which I suspect that the Minister may have anticipated. The VI-1 may sound like a horrible warhead, but it is actually a horrible form, and it is exercising many people. It was the main issue raised when the SI went before the Lords last week. I certainly found Lord Moynihan’s contribution very telling and powerful.

I shall briefly remind the Committee of the issue, which is about wine import certification and the blue tape with which the Government are currently strangling parts of the British wine industry. The Government have chosen to roll over EU rules on wine imports that require a detailed import certificate in addition to standard customs paperwork, the VI-1 form, for all wine imports from third countries. These detail how strong a wine is, what grape it is made from and how many containers are being sent. Each different type of wine in a consignment must list all these details and the form requires a stamp from customs officials, presenting a significant logistical challenge and cost burden for wine importers in the UK.

While a slightly simpler version of the VI-1 form has been negotiated in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement for wine imports from the EU, this still requires a customs stamp, which will delay transit through ports and place a significant burden on our importers. The Government have delayed the introduction of these new forms twice, but as it stands they are still going to be introduced at the end of the year. The British wine industry is quite frankly at a loss to understand why the Government are so set on introducing this import documentation at all.

The EU’s rationale for having an import document that is effectively a technical barrier to trade is, in reality, to protect its wine industry. For the UK, which is a net importer of wine, it makes very little sense for us to maintain rules designed to disadvantage our imports; we import over 99% of the wine we consume in this country, and around half those imports are from the EU.

As I said, we want our own wonderful wine industry to flourish and grow—there are great English and Welsh wines produced in this country, which is why we support the correction to ensure that geographical indications work properly. In terms of volume, however, we remain a significant importer. The Minister will know that we also have a vibrant export industry based on this trade, with the UK acting as a major wine hub for the rest of the world and wine being our sixth biggest food and drink export in 2019. So this is important.

Yet the Government seen happy to wrap these vibrant industries in blue tape. These forms are a measure that will be significantly damaging to our UK wine importers, who already have to deal with a raft of new barriers to trade as a result of leaving the EU. It will disproportionately damage SMEs, particularly independent wine merchants like Cambridge Wine Merchants in my constituency, as well as pubs, bars and restaurants, for which a wide selection of niche and interesting wines is a unique selling point. It will be damaging to UK consumers, who could see cost increases and decreased product choice, and to the Government themselves, who could see a loss of revenue to the Exchequer and are committing themselves to carrying out yet more form stamping at the border due to the customs stamp requirement.

Daniel Lambert, who will probably be well known to the Minister and who imports up to 2 million bottles of wine a year for 300 retailers including supermarkets, has been vocal in the media about the situation he now finds himself in due to the Government’s decisions. He has likened the impact on the sector to a

“multiple pile-up in the fog”.

He is not happy and neither are others. Yet again we see the Government’s incompetent Brexit deal wrapping ribbons of red tape around the UK’s wine sector for no good reason whatever.

As the Minister said, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association has been clear that, as far as it can tell, the additional bureaucracy is unnecessary. There is no customs requirement for it and no safety issue involved. Wine is already heavily regulated by rules such as the geographical indications to ensure quality control and no other alcoholic drink requires a similar form, so will the Minister clarify the Government’s practical reasons for introducing the forms? If there is no real consumer protection purpose for them, the Government must have another reason for their introduction.

I understand that it has been suggested that maintaining wine import certification rules will level the playing field for wine from the rest of the world. I am sure that the Minister recognises that there are two different scenarios here. I am reliably informed by the Wine and Spirit Trade Association that the supply chain for wine imported from third countries thousands of miles away, often moved in bulk, is very different from the supply chain for wine imported from the EU, which is often imported by SMEs. Importing 25,000 litres of Australian wine in a flexitank with one VI-1 form is much less burdensome and costly than importing 20 wines in bottles from the EU that require 20 additional pieces of documentation.

Rather than imposing a requirement on all imports, the Government could just as easily create a level playing field by not introducing a requirement for import certificates for EU wines and scrapping the current requirements for non-EU wine imports. The only explanation for the Government’s action—Lord Moynihan made the point powerfully—is that it is a negotiating ploy in ongoing trade negotiations with third countries. I am sure that the Minister will deny it, but in my view, the Government are using the British wine industry and particularly British small businesses as pawns in a bigger trade game and happily leaving them endure extra bureaucracy just for extra leverage. Small wonder that Ministers are so reluctant to respond to the sector’s concerns. I am told that repeated requests from the Wine and Spirit Trade Association for a meeting to discuss the issue have been ignored.

At a time when the Government are already having to delay the introduction of mandatory customs procedures, it makes no sense to introduce additional controls if they are non-essential. As a minimum, it would be far more sensible for the Government to delay the introduction of the forms until an electronic version can be established, but the British wine industry is clear that it would be far better to scrap the unnecessary forms. It is entirely within the Government’s gift to do that.

The Government have a perfect opportunity to put their money where their money is, scrap the red tape and support British businesses. Will the Minister explain why on earth they are choosing not to do so when they have been given the chance—a Brexit benefit, no less?

Will the Minister commit today to meet me and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association at the earliest opportunity to discuss the issue further? If not, I fear there will be an empty chair, perhaps occupied by a bottle of wine wrapped in red tape, or even red, white and blue tape. We do not oppose the statutory instrument but we are cross about the Government’s continuing failure to engage.

Draft Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions and Simplifications) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 Draft Agricultural (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley, for what I think is the first time, and, of course, a pleasure to continue the ongoing dialogue with the Minister. As ever, she has laid out the measures clearly. As she would expect, I have a critique of them, although I can assure her that we will not be opposing the SIs, because we have no desire to bring an unnecessary number of people into the Committee Room. However, we do have some concerns. We are, as she rightly said, a year on from the discussions on the 2020 Act. We now finally have the tables of reductions that we were considering over a year ago in the legislation, which is a start.

I am interested in the fact that both measures relate to England—paragraphs 3.2 to 3.5 of the explanatory memorandums for these regulations make that clear. I think the wording is quite interesting: it almost lays down a challenge for devolved institutions to follow. Of course, different strategies are being adopted in different parts of the United Kingdom, and English farmers might well feel that they are immediately put at a disadvantage and might wonder why, especially in a week in which Sainsbury’s has followed Tesco in demanding lower prices from suppliers. With all the problems facing people at the moment, some might feel that they are not so much being squeezed as strangled.

However, perhaps the key point in the Minister’s opening comments, as is now clear from the documents, is that this is the 2021 scheme year—that is, one year only. The Minister will remember discussing what I used to describe as my favourite document. I still have a dog-eared copy here, from a day I will never forget: the rushed-out photocopied versions to give the Secretary of State cover at the Oxford farming conference, as I recall.

In that document, we had the implications for, or what would happen in, subsequent years, and, as the Minister has rightly said, late last year we saw the figures for subsequent years. I wonder why we are doing this one year at a time. The EU used to have a seven-year budgeting period. It seems to me that we are in danger of regressing to annual short-termism, which I do not think is welcome, so I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that—other issues permitting—we will be back here this time next year discussing the 2022 figures, and I suspect in subsequent years, too.

However, that is only half the story, because this is about the reductions. What many people want to know is where the money is going, and how it is to be used. Will all the money being saved go to farmers? I note that the Minister’s words were, as ever, carefully chosen, in that it would be used within this Parliament. That is an interesting point, because she is probably much more expert than me on how departmental budgets are managed, but is there a roll-over facility, and if so, where is it? Can we see it? Can we question it? How much do we expect to be spent this year, and how much to be carried over into following years? That matters, because if the money is not spent, I fear that in the current financial climate there may be eyes in the Treasury looking to recoup some of it. The Minister shakes her head knowingly, but I suspect that there are.

Part of the reason I am concerned is that when the SFI was announced last week—I think that was the latest announcement—a few hundred pilots were suggested. A few hundred is very different from the 80,000-plus who receive basic payments. The Country Land and Business Association tells us that, using DEFRA’s own figures, 75% of farming enterprises are unprofitable without direct payments. The problem seems pretty clear to me: there is a major mismatch.

What was also disappointing about last week’s announcement is the fact that those on stewardship schemes at the moment do not seem to be eligible to apply for the pilots. While that is perhaps not a departure from a specific promise—clearly, they will be able to transition at some point—people could rightly feel disadvantaged. I worry about where the money might be.

I want to be clear that we want the environmental land management scheme to work. We understand the need to do pilots, and to learn, but it seems very slow and I must remind the Minister that I asked many of the questions I am asking today a year ago. A certain amount of vagueness at that point might have been reasonable, but we need to move on. I hardly need tell her that farmers have to make decisions. The cycle is long, and people need to look ahead, but it is hard to make business decisions when they are uncertain about levels of support.

The Minister might remember that on one or two occasions I was quite cross about some of the language used in my favourite document. I thought that we had got past that, but on the policy background, paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum to the direct payments regulations contains this assertion:

“Direct payments are untargeted, can inflate land rent prices and can stand in the way of new entrants.”

All that is true, but it could also be said that they are universal, relatively simple to administer and a vital lifeline for tens of thousands of farmers, with key knock-on benefits for many rural communities. Would it really be so difficult for those who draft such points to acknowledge, when other things are also true, that the issues are complicated?

The document also says, revealingly:

“Phasing out Direct Payments will free up money to support agriculture in different ways, including paying farmers to improve the environment.”

Why “including” when the word could have been “by”? It is reasonable to suggest that there are questions to be answered. Has there been a casual oversight in the wording, or does the document, as I suspect, suggest that money will leach out, away from farmers? Quite possibly it will be well spent, but farmers deserve to know.

May I query why the 5% reduction with respect to payments over £150,000 is being omitted? How much money will that save, where will it go and what will it be spent on? The suggestion is that it is complicated to do the calculation, but I am sure that the Department has a spreadsheet somewhere that could do it. I wonder whether there will be an effect on the overall amount that others receive, because my recollection is that calculations start and work back from the overall financial ceiling. That may have an impact.

Wales and Scotland used capping to divert funds to environmental and rural development measures. We have had that discussion before, and I gently remind the Government that when they were criticising the EU scheme for failing on environmental grounds there was the opportunity to use those mechanisms, but they chose not to do so.

The Minister frequently accuses me of being too gloomy, so I should say that there are some positive things. Clearly, simplifying the overpayments system and doing calculations in sterling make sense, as does changing the percentage to calculate young farmer payments to reflect the changes already made with respect to the removal of the greening payment. However, I must draw attention to the phrase

“no…significant…impact on business”

at paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum. Really—when money is being taken away? Maybe that is now the Conservative line. I look forward to the Conservatives taking the same view when Labour redistributes resources in future. I suspect that there is an impact, and we all know it.

The second SI is, I think, more straightforward. It concerns measures to ensure that there is proper oversight of financial assistance. I have to say that this is interesting: where is the environmental equivalent? Perhaps the Minister will tell us, because it looks as though the integrated administration and control system and cross-compliance system are being gradually dismantled. It is telling that it is the money, not the environmental concerns, that seems to be the priority. Yet again, this measure is England-only. We really are becoming a very disunited kingdom.

Four schemes are outlined. I quite understand that, but it seems that we may have different rules applying to different schemes. This seems to be only for the environmental land management scheme pilots, so presumably it will have to be revisited at the various stages of ELMS, and we will probably have a countryside stewardship system running alongside the current EU countryside stewardship system. So, there is quite a lot of complexity. I am sure farmers will welcome advance notice being given on some of those checks, but where is the assessment of potential downsides? We all hope there is not abuse out there, but are we sure? This is quite a lenient approach. Given that enforcement is already an issue, is there some naivety here?

The virtual inspections sound intriguing and could be a good model for the future. It would be interesting to hear a little more from the Minister about how they will work.

I have a query about paragraph 10.5 of the explanatory memorandum, which says:

“Land Management Plans… will not be published.”

I recognise that that might be a response to representations made, but as I asked during consideration of the Act, where is the public voice in that? I think taxpayers and local residents have a role. I am disappointed and would like to hear the reasoning behind that.

Finally, the plan outlined remains through to 2027. Frankly, when we were discussing it in this room a year ago, no one could have anticipated the year we were about to have, and there is a question whether we plough on regardless or move at a pace that reflects the difficulties of the past year.

The schemes were all supposed to be about simplification. I was talking to someone the other day who pointed out that CAP effectively had three schemes, but, by their reckoning, we are already up to 14 and counting. We might well need a new dictionary for our conversations as we sort our ELMSs from our SFIs and our ATPs. It is all getting very complicated.

I reflect on the fact that this country has many virtues, but self-knowledge is useful, and we sometimes tend to over-complicate and over-bureaucratise. In the past, we blamed that on Brussels. It is now down to us, so my plea is, can we ensure that these schemes are simple enough to deliver the outcomes we all want? In particular, we do not want funding being taken from farmers and going not to the environment—we do want funding there—but ending up in a sea of bureaucracy.

[Victoria Prentis]

I, too, enjoy our ongoing dialogue on the future of agriculture, and I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being too gloomy. As I listened to him, I wondered whether he would like to visit one of the tests and trials. There are some near his home.

There is a good wildlife trust test and trial in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire that demonstrates well the significant environmental benefits that we think will come from our future agricultural policies. From memory, the trial involves farmers working together, and it is a good model of our mid-tier schemes. That is not precisely what we are discussing, but I think it would give the hon. Gentleman an idea of the iterative and careful process that we are going through in creating our new policies.

We have about 3,000 farmers involved in our tests and trials. The pilots we launched last week for the sustainable farming incentive are slightly different from the tests and trials in that they look to pilot the whole process, whereas the tests and trials are there to deal with specific issues and questions that we have asked farmers to test for us.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I would dearly like to come to see one of those—that is part of the problem of the past year—but, while I understand that those engaged in the process are probably positive about it, my worry is not for them, but for the huge number who are not engaged. That is where my concern lies.

[Victoria Prentis]

We are undertaking policy as we go; we are testing and trialling it as we develop it. That is innovative and not usual for Government, but I remain convinced that it is the right way to go about making these significant changes to our agricultural policy, which will affect not only how our food is produced, but what our environment looks like, is, and produces over, I hope, many years to come. It is important that we do this slowly and carefully, which is why we are testing everything so carefully as we go along.

The pilots we launched last week are there to test how the administrative aspects of the process work, whereas the tests and trials are there more to test individual aspects of the land management. With the enormous amount of outreach done by DEFRA—oh boy, have we embraced technology to do that over the past year—and the vast number of meetings and Zooms we have had with farmers, much more widely than those involved in our trials, we hope for and see all the signs that the industry is coming on board with these new policies. This is an exciting time for farming, and the more people outside the industry we can get to understand the value of that, the better, in my view.

Yes, the SI deals with payments for one year only. We did that with our eyes open, in order to retain flexibility. We know the overall envelope, and we set in November last year the direction of travel and the reductions farmers could expect. That gave them the ability to plan, but there will be further opportunities—many further opportunities—for Parliament to debate future reductions. I accept that we will be back here repeatedly as the policies develop, and I do not apologise for that, because it is right that this is an iterative, piloted process and it is right that we develop it carefully.

All the money saved will be going to farmers. The Treasury has demonstrated again and again that it is keen to support farmers in this, and I am convinced of its backing for these new schemes. The environmental element is the priority in what we are doing. We want farmers to produce food, but we want them to do so in a way that is more environmentally friendly than has been encouraged under CAP.

It is true that a large number of farmers—probably about 30%, who own about 60% of land—are already engaged in extra environmental schemes. I for one am keen always to conflate the idea of a farmer with that of an environmentalist in many cases. All we are doing is enabling, encouraging and training farmers who want to help the environment to continue to do so.

I do not think this is the place to rehearse the shape of our new agricultural policies. We are here today to talk about the financial aspects and some of the more enforcement-like aspects of the policies, but we have a clear structure, set out in many different documents. We will continue to inform both the public and the industry, slowly and carefully, as we learn from our tests and trials and our pilots.

Countryside stewardship is a critical part of what we do at the moment. We have simplified it drastically over the past year to make it a much more attractive offer for farmers to get involved in. I would say to farmers who are considering an environmental scheme but are sadly not able to be in the pilot, as not everybody can be, that they should join up to a countryside stewardship scheme. I undertake that the transfer for anybody who joins up with a countryside stewardship scheme into the new policies will be as painless and automatic as possible.

Indeed, one of the changes we are making is that there will no longer be any penalty for coming out of a countryside stewardship scheme early. We will ensure that those who are in an existing environmental scheme are not penalised, and we will make the transfer as smooth as we can.

On land management plans, one of the learnings we took from last year’s consultation was that, while they are a very useful tool, we and those we consulted with did not feel the need for them to be published. We will find many different ways to ensure that the general public are aware of what is happening on farms and where their taxpayer money is being spent. Access is a critical part of our new policies.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT AGRICULTURE (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) REGULATIONS 2021

Resolved, 

That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021.—(Victoria Prentis.) 

Draft Fertilisers and Ammonium Nitrate Material (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 General Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to continue our discussions once again, Mr Robertson; I am sure you enjoy them as much as we do. I thank the Minister for her introduction, although I am not sure I am quite as optimistic about this as she is. I will explain why.

We will not oppose the draft statutory instrument today. We consulted the Agricultural Industries Confederation, and I am grateful for its advice and reassurance. It tells me that it is in the interests of fertiliser suppliers and UK farmers for the SI to be approved as it will allow detonation resistance test, or DRT, certificates to be accepted if they originate in the EU for EU-sourced products, meaning that imported fertilisers will not have to be detained and re-tested in the UK, incurring additional costs to importers and suppliers. The AIC also points out that that is significant because there is currently only one laboratory in the UK that can undertake these tests—HSL Buxton, which it tells me has at times been subject to closure due to covid-19—and that this lack of UK capacity underlines the urgent need for the SI to be passed.

The AIC also says there has been concern in the industry that the Government were seeking to use only UK laboratories to pass ammonium nitrate DRTs. The SI changes that position, which the AIC welcomes, as being unable to use EU laboratories would represent a major impediment to importing ammonium nitrate fertilisers, the predominant nitrogen fertiliser used in the UK, which would of course have a knock-on effect on farmers. The SI will extend the use of EU-sourced DRTs until the end of 2022.

The AIC also asks the Government to look at the entire regulatory strategy for fertilisers now that we are outside the EU, which it says would be welcome as it will allow a new look at DRTs and their position in primary legislation. It also asks that any new legislation should permit any International Organisation for Standardisation laboratory to conduct DRTs, rather than limit that to one UK lab or a limited selection of EU labs. It also wants to look at ways in which the industry can be less reliant on a handful of laboratories. I am interested in the Minister’s views on that.

Effectively, the SI allows for the continued application in Northern Ireland of the European regulation on the EC fertiliser regime. Since under EU law there can be a dual regime for fertilisers, as the Minister explained, UK fertilisers, so labelled, are able to be marketed in Northern Ireland, which means that there will be a UK-wide regulatory regime for the marketing of UK fertilisers, and that manufacturers in Great Britain can market their products across the UK, both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. EC fertilisers can still be marketed in Northern Ireland alongside them.

We are basically producing yet another tweak to the Northern Ireland protocol. I have to say that it seems to me increasingly obvious that, given that we seem to be having endless discussions on further amending legislation to meet the NI protocol, there are some fundamental problems with it. That was highlighted in the excellent discussion in the House of Lords two weeks ago. As ever, full answers were given by Lord Gardiner of Kimble, the Minister in the Lords, but only where possible; it seems to me that, given the fundamental and fatal internal contradictions, some answers were not forthcoming. I do not blame the Minister for that, because in some cases there are no answers to be given, but it is my duty to put the questions again, to expose some of these problems.

One example followed some probing questions from my colleague, the shadow Minister in the Lords, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, on how we might deal with divergence in the future, given that EU rules will still apply in Northern Ireland. She said:

“We accept that it is important that UK manufacturers can trade products across GB and Northern Ireland using the same label. Can the Minister clarify that the existing regulatory standards will remain the same in GB and Northern Ireland?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 2021; Vol. 809, c. 161GC.]

She also said:

“The Minister has explained that we are in a period of transition regarding controls over future fertiliser policy and that a consultation is being drawn up. Although it goes beyond the scope of this SI, we would welcome such a review and an opportunity to ensure that the regulations are fit for purpose. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and other noble Lords have said, there is clearly potential for modernisation, based on the best science available, together with a greater understanding of the need to protect and enhance our soils. Can the Minister reassure us that any new proposals will maintain our commitment to the precautionary principle and to our high environmental standards?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, Tuesday 26 January; Vol. 809, c. 161 GC- 162GC.]

In the elegant reply given by the Minister in the Lords, he avoided dealing with the first conundrum. Of course, if EU standards change in future, we will not automatically follow them. Or will we? Perhaps the Minister can explain. Baroness Jones also asked about the precautionary principle being applied. I am afraid there was no answer to that either. Again, there was an elegant answer outlining a move to a risk-based approach, which I see as being the laxer American approach, as opposed to the more cautious European approach. Can the Minister tell us which one we will be adopting in future?

There are also questions about paragraph 7.3 in the explanatory memorandum. A number of noble Lords highlighted it, and I spotted it too. It says:

“Manufacturers who market EC fertilisers will need to be Manufacturers who currently market ‘EC fertilisers’ in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland will need to be established in the EU to continue to market ‘EC fertilisers’ in Northern Ireland after the end of the Transition Period.”

I studied closely the exchange between Baroness McIntosh and the Minister in the Lords, but I am not sure I am any the wiser afterwards. Again, it was a very skilful response, but it seems to me that there will inevitably be some duplication, which must lead to additional cost. To market EC fertilisers, a base will be needed in the EU to continue to market EC fertilisers in Northern Ireland. The “UK fertiliser” designation helps, but it still means there will be duplication. Ultimately, that must lead to extra cost. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister can provide clarification.

In conclusion, we do not oppose the regulations, but I echo many of the concerns raised in the other place, particularly around ongoing problems faced by importers into Northern Ireland in general. I can anticipate the Minister’s response. I am sure she will tell us that the Government are doing all that they can, but I would point out that it is a mess entirely of the Government’s own making. It did not have to be like this—there were other options—and the Government bear a heavy responsibility for the problems facing both Northern Ireland and the Union.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has been in touch with the Agricultural Industries Confederation, which is of course the body that is most involved in this area. We work with it very closely as a Department. I will deal first with the detonation resistance test issue. We have passed legislation that allows the DRTs to be accepted, if they originate in the EU, until December 2022. That should give us time to conduct our reviews, and I will briefly set out a bit about where we intend policy to go.

We feel that the existing domestic regulatory regime for fertilisers in both GB and NI is outdated and in need of some modernisation. Leaving the EU and the current modernisation of regulation that the EU is conducting at the moment, which I think is due to be published in July 2022, gives us an opportunity to undertake a full review of our domestic framework. I would enjoy talking further to the hon. Gentleman about that outside the Committee.

Although I do not speak with the elegance of the Minister in the Lords, I do not think we will necessarily be following the American model or the EU model. We will go for the UK model in future. As I said in my opening speech, fertiliser regulation is quite unusual, because there has always been both a domestic set of regulations and an EU set of regulations. In many ways, perhaps it can provide a model for other types of regulations that are open to us in the future, so I do not think there is any need to take either one path. What is important is that we work with the Agricultural Industries Confederation, farmers and growers, and that we make the best regime for us in the future.

New powers relating to fertilisers in the Agriculture Act 2020 mean that we are now well placed to take forward the new work. We are starting the process of engagement with growers at the moment. We will of course undertake a public consultation to inform our views of where the legislation should go.

We began the process of review by considering how to use the provisions of the fertilising products regulation that became retained EU law to put in place a conformity assessment framework for fertiliser manufacture in the UK going forward. New policy will be informed by the findings of the nutrient management expert group, which has been tasked with identifying evidence-based options for reducing diffuse pollution by fertilisers, for example. We aim to have done a full consultation on the options by the end of this year. The final framework should become fully operational in the next few years.

I was asked about divergence specifically. I have dealt with that partially, but I will say that we will work with growers and other stakeholders and then consult on our new regulations. That will take into account any potential risks and impacts of divergence from EU rules. Any potential divergence is likely to be connected to some of the very detailed and technical requirements around fertiliser content and guidance on usage. As I said right at the beginning, there has always been a level of what I call divergence, for want of a better of word—a level of difference—in the regulatory regimes in this area.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I accept that point, but surely the difference will be that, should we end up with a different set of rules in future, that will create a different regime for Northern Ireland, inevitably. Will that not inevitably lead to additional cost—not immediately, but after 2022?

[Victoria Prentis]

I do not feel that our trade and future relationship with the EU should be affected by the extension of the “UK fertiliser” terminology to Northern Ireland. The EU fertilisers regulation will continue to apply directly to Northern Ireland by virtue of the NIP, so trade in EC fertilisers will continue in Northern Ireland. I think that is without prejudice to the EU’s fertilisers regime.

We will look at all such matters closely. Fertilisers are quite special in the way that they have been regulated in the past. It is important that we work with the industry to make our new regulatory framework, and I have no doubt that we will be able to do that in a perfectly satisfactory way.

With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.