Genetically Modified Food

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

Let me be clear: our endeavours in this matter are for better regulation, not deregulation. We think that gene editing has considerable benefits for the natural environment but clearly on a precautionary basis we will be working to ensure that, case-by-case, there is an environmental assessment. We look forward to the responses in the consultation.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, organic farming has risen by 13% in the past year, but organic farms are at extreme risk of cross-contamination from genetically modified crops putting their own crops at risk. How does the Minister propose to protect organic farms from GM contamination?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, organic farmers undertake a very important role in producing great products. There are regulations about these matters and the way in which GM crops are engaged in the environment, and they will continue.

Brexit: Farmers

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

Not only at the end of the transition period but throughout this process, it is essential that farmers in this country produce very good food for the nation and for abroad, while working in collaboration to enhance the environment. That is our purpose throughout the transition and beyond.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, biodiversity is key to ensuring the success of ELMS and the Government’s whole strategy, as set out in the 25-year environment plan. There is, however, no clear rationale for how ELMS will provide financial recompense for those farmers changing from the countryside stewardship scheme to that scheme. Can the Minister now provide some badly needed clarity to reassure farmers?

Organic Production (Organic Indications) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering; I agree with a large proportion of what she said. I thank the Minister for his extensive introduction to this SI and for his time and that of his officials in providing a briefing on it.

Organic food production is at last increasing in the UK. At the start of the process of the Agriculture Act we were informed that the UK had the lowest rate of organic production of any of the EU countries engaged in organic farming. I am delighted that more producers are engaging with organics—there has been a 12% increase in the last year. There is, of course, great demand for organically produced Welsh lamb, although currently getting it through the customs regulations is a bit of a sticking point.

My noble friend Lady Parminter queried why the SI is being introduced so urgently. I share her concern.

When I read the SI, I was prematurely delighted that all organic produce was to be labelled as such, along with a UK organic logo, and that the place where the agricultural raw materials had been farmed would appear on the packaging. This would ensure that some of our iconic UK produce would be safeguarded and its authenticity proved. However, this was short lived; although the SI refers to a UK organic logo, this logo has not yet been produced but is being “developed”. The most obvious question, which I am sure the Minister is prepared for, is: how long will it take to get agreement from the organic producers on this logo? It is vital that the increasing sector has reassurance that its produce will be recognised. Even if the instrument provided for UK organic products to be so labelled, this is undermined by there being no specific, easily recognisable logo, as my noble friend Lady Parminter flagged.

The instrument states that the organic sector is worth £2.3 billion per annum to the UK economy and represents over 6,000 operators. The SI protects them to some extent, but it could go much further, including on consulting the public and the devolved Administrations.

Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Organic food and feed must be inspected and certified within the scope of a regulated framework.”


The Minister has referred to this already, but can he say whether this will mean more or less paperwork for the producers? We have all seen the problems occurring at border points, with the correct paperwork not being readily available. It is important that these “teething problems”, as the Government put it, are sorted out quickly to the benefit of our producers trying to supply the markets they set up prior to Brexit.

I understand there has been consultation with the United Kingdom organic certifiers group. However, its response is not recorded. Can the Minister give an update on the view of the UKOCG?

The SI states that the impact has no changes on direct costs. I presume this relates only to labelling and that there are no changes to other paperwork. Can the Minister confirm this is the case?

I welcome the change the SI makes to ensure that UK organic produce properly labels its origin and that it is organically sourced, but I remain very concerned that the agreement on a certified organic logo is still under review. I would like the Minister to give a definitive date when this will be agreed and begin to be widely used. I fully support my noble friend Lady Parminter’s comments. This is an important issue, which should be progressed urgently.

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

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his time and that of his officials in providing a briefing on this statutory instrument. I share the dismay of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the Environment Bill and agree with many of her comments.

Our farming and horticulture sectors have come to rely on fertilisers to ensure that their businesses thrive. However, many of the chemicals contained in fertilisers do not improve soil quality—quite the opposite. The Government rightly set great store by not only improving soil quality but preventing runoff from land, which can carry topsoil away.

As I understand it, this SI has two parts: one relates only to the Northern Ireland protocol—as the original SI was implemented in February 2019, before the protocol was in place—and the other to labelling. Again, if I have understood it correctly, the “UK fertiliser” label can be used in Northern Ireland. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, producers who do not currently trade with the EU and are based in the UK cannot use the same label.

I understand that the Agriculture Act now allows the UK to set a different set of standards for fertilisers from those being used in the EU. Are these differing standards stricter in the UK than in the EU, or are the EU ones tighter?

I am aware that a radical review of fertilisers is being undertaken both in the EU and the UK. The UK review is an ambitious programme to change and modernise the use of fertilisers. How long with this review take and when will its findings be published? Is it likely to be completed before the end of July this year?

I note that the devolved Administrations have been consulted on this SI. Are they also to be consulted on the ongoing review of the use and type of fertilisers? It will be important to harmonise fertiliser use across the country and not have different practices in different devolved Administrations. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to the lack of consultation and agreement with Northern Ireland. This is unacceptable.

Widening the subject, I am encouraged that some of our waste will be recycled into soil enhancers. Can the Minister say more about plastics contamination in waste products which are to be used in this way? Like him, I am in favour of a circular economy, and delighted that we may be able to use our waste from both recycled green, on-farm composting and from water boards as soil enhancers and improvers. However, antibiotics from water board waste are entering the soil. In the past, the overuse of antibiotics has been widespread in the treatment of both human and animal diseases. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that the level of antibiotics in the soil improvers will be closely monitored?

Overall, I am happy to support this SI. As other noble Lords have said, it is very complex. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions which I and others have posed.

Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction. I will begin with the official controls regulations on animals, feed and food, and plant health. As has been said, we debated regulations with the same title on 2 December, and here we are again going over the same ground. The first SI had to be passed by December to comply with our third-country status. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, referred to safety in our sanitary and phytosanitary systems—SPS—and possible costs to businesses. I know that everyone was working flat out before Christmas and that some legislation had to be left until after 1 January, but I hope we will not come back yet again to debate the same issues but with minor amendments throughout 2021.

On this occasion, we are concerned with border control posts. As we have seen on regular news reports, the number of forms required to be completed to comply with EU official controls is very burdensome. SPS checks will, apparently, vary proportionately, depending on risk factors. This includes the import of live animals, products of animal origin or plant materials, depending on whether they are exported from a country with any current known incidence of relevant animal or plant diseases. If animal and plant products are imported from a country that has a known disease, this is a considerable risk to our farming and horticulture sectors. Can the Minister reassure us that he is confident that such imports will be disease free? The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, also referred to this.

I am pleased that the devolved Administrations have been consulted, with the Scottish and Welsh DAs having given consent. I understand that the SI does not apply to Northern Ireland. Like many others, I am extremely concerned about what I am seeing happening in Northern Ireland, with food shortages and some empty supermarket shelves. I am being somewhat opportunistic in mentioning the crisis in Northern Ireland; although it is not part of this SI, a situation has developed that needs urgent attention. Public confidence in the Government’s legislation post Brexit will be severely dented by what people see happening in Northern Ireland due to border controls.

Annexe 2 lists 30 operable amendments made by this instrument to EU exit legislation. I can see many old friends in that list. Many relate to products for human consumption. In the past, lax regulation of animal feedstuffs has led to some catastrophic disease outbreaks—I refer, of course, to BSE. We have learned many lessons along the way, but it is easy to relax rules, thinking we are safe, only to find that some unknown variant has crept back in through the back door. I ask the Minister: are there similar restrictions on the import of foodstuffs destined for animal consumption to those that there are for food destined for human consumption?

I turn to the plant health amendment regulations, which also deal with import controls from third countries. New plant health passports needed for qualifying Northern Ireland goods sent to the UK will apply only one way. Can the Minister say why plant passports are not needed for goods going in the opposite direction? The noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady McIntosh, touched on this.

Now that we are in a different regulatory and legislative regime, there is much that concerns us about how rules we have been used to relying on are being somewhat arbitrarily changed. The lifting of the ban on neonicotinoids to assist the sugar beet growers is one such example.

I know the Minister has long been an advocate of bees, and he will have his own personal views. It must therefore be difficult for him to feel any great enthusiasm for the change that the Secretary of State has made, and I would be interested to hear how he has managed to reconcile this dichotomy.

Friends of the Earth, which was referred to earlier in the debate, is concerned about the lack of transparency and access to information. The UK Plant Health Information Portal does not offer transparent or up-to-date information on the activities of the UK plant health risk group, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. This is a serious issue for those who wish to have access to this information. Can the Minister say why this is and whether the Government have any plans to rectify this omission?

I look forward to the Minister’s response to all the queries raised this afternoon. These SIs, although apparently minor, are important. On that basis, I am happy to see them approved.

Environmental Land Management Schemes

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I am a supporter of pastoral farming and can certainly confirm that the work we are doing, particularly the national pilot and the tests and trials, is to ensure that the payments will be fair but also attractive for farmers to take up on a wide participation. Clearly, our environmental goals cannot be achieved unless there is wide participation.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Government are rightly setting great store by the environmental land management scheme to protect and enhance the countryside, and to increase biodiversity. However, the NFU has begun a surreptitious campaign to relicense the use of neonicotinoids on farmland. This tactic is not likely to encourage the public to support the NFU’s “Back British Farming” campaign. Does the Minister believe that the NFU campaign is in line with the government’s ELMS biodiversity agenda?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, as to any consideration in emergency cases of neonicotinoids, we are always guided by the best scientific assessment available. We will continue to do that and if there was an emergency application, it would be considered according to the science. Obviously, integrated pest management and all those things is another area where advancing the environment is absolutely key.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by declaring two interests—at Rothamsted agricultural research institute and as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority, which is involved in several of the tests and trials.

To those of us who sat through the many hours of debate on the Agriculture Bill, the premise of this Statement is very familiar. As we have said many times, the shift from payments made on the basis of land ownership or tenure to payments for improved environmental performance and other social benefits is very welcome. I am sure that the new levels of detail contained in the transition plan are appreciated by those directly affected. Given that we voted to leave the EU in 2016, I am inclined to say, “What took you so long?”.

The Minister will be all too aware of the criticisms from the farming community that these details have been published only three weeks before they are due to take effect. Although the Minister talks about a seven-year transition, the confirmation of an immediate cut in basic farm payments from 1 January 2021 is a bitter pill to swallow, so I would like to probe this decision in more detail.

The transition paper spells out a minimum cut of 5% in subsidies next year, but the opportunity to reclaim these payments does not kick in until 2022. The Statement talks about wanting farmers to come with us on a journey, but this seems the wrong way to go about building their good will towards the huge upheaval necessary to deliver the transformation. Why do the Government feel that this payment gap is necessary? Have they done a risk assessment on the number of farmers who will be unable to operate with this reduced income? Will there be any financial compensation as part of the resilience package for those whose livelihoods are threatened? How will the £170 million saved by this cut in the first year be reallocated? What proportion will be available in 2022 for individual farmers to claim through the sustainable farming incentive?

Between 2021 and 2024, a total cut of 50% in basic farm payments is proposed. The NFU projects that livestock farmers will have lost between 60% and 80% of their income as a result of these reductions. Can the Minister assure us that, during this period, equivalent payments will be accessible to those who are willing to embrace the philosophy of the new schemes? When we will see the details of these schemes, so that farmers can be reassured that it can work for them on their farms? Is it intended for there to be a variety of projects of different lengths and complexities, so that all landowners and tenants will have the opportunity to make the positive difference to which we all aspire? Can the Minister assure us that any money that is not spent in year one, before the schemes are fully implemented, will be rolled over for payments the following year and will not go back to the Treasury?

I also want to ask about the impact of devolution on these measures. This is an England-only proposal, as agriculture is a devolved matter. As we know, the devolved nations are drawing up their own proposals to maintain more financial support for their farming communities. This could have a detrimental effect on the price of English livestock and arable produce compared with their Welsh and Scottish counterparts.

In his response in the Commons, George Eustice said:

“We will set up a joint group across the UK to do market surveillance, to ensure that there is not disturbance to the internal market and to share ideas on what works.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/20; col. 42.]


Does the Minister agree that this sounds far too complacent for an issue that many people fear is an immediate and escalating danger to market access and price stability for English-grown food?

Finally, I want to ask about the ultimate goal of this transition. The Government’s press release states:

“These changes will be designed to ensure that by 2028, farmers in England can sustainably produce healthy food profitably without subsidy”.


Will this mark the end of subsidies for English farming? Is this the future of farming, predicated on a free market principle that you can compete in the market on price or you will not survive? What will this mean for UK farmers competing in a global market where the majority of their competitors, including obviously the EU, continue to receive farm subsidies? Also, what is the strategy for upland farmers, who will struggle ever to make a profit but who represent an iconic part of rural life? What are the implications for our food policy if the race to the bottom on costs becomes the driving principle?

I fear that the consequences of these proposals will be the end of small family farms and the rise of big corporations farming on a grand scale. They may indeed deliver some environmental benefits, but they also risk changing the nature of farming and the rural community for good in ways that I do not think we envisaged when we were debating the Agriculture Bill not so long ago. I hope that the Minister can persuade us that there is a plan for long-term financial support for those delivering environmental outcomes way beyond 2027 and that profit in the long term will not be the only measure of success. I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement on the agriculture transition plan. There is much to be commended in the document, which sets out some of the detail that was absent from the Agriculture Bill. However, it is clear that many aspects of the plan are still in a state of flux and are being worked out as the implementation begins.

The document covers the period of 2021 to 2024, although the changeover from direct payments is scheduled to run for seven years. Farmers have been heavily dependent on area-based subsidies and it is welcome that these will reduce on a gradual basis. Next year, the reduction in basic payments of £30,000 will be 5%, followed by a further 15% reduction in 2022 and 2023, and 50% by 2024. For those with payments of over £150,000, the reduction will be 70% by 2024. This is a significant reduction and it is unclear whether it will be replaced by the three components of the Environmental Land Management scheme, especially since the landscape recovery component will not commence until 2024.

Can the Minister reassure us that farming incomes, which will become increasingly dependent on environmental measures, will be capable of sustaining both farmers and their families? I welcome the fact that all farmers will be eligible to apply for the first component of the sustainable farming incentive scheme. This is a step in the right direction in order to gradually introduce some farmers to the Government’s environmental agenda. However, there is no detail of how this will reward family farmers financially. The move by the Government to make all farms financially viable by the end of the transition period will need to be monitored very carefully, as some will see it as a leap of faith in the dark.

There is considerable mention of the environmental measures for which the Government will provide payments, including establishing animal health and welfare pathways. However, there is very little in the document that relates to food. Moving farmers from their previous way of working to a new environmental basis will be successful only if they are also able to produce food, whether in the form of animals or horticulture. Does the Minister agree that food production needs to be at the forefront of the reason for agriculture?

I welcome the scheme to help farmers who wish to exit from agriculture. Can the Minister give details of what the payments will be for this section of the scheme? Will it be funded from the £1.8 billion earmarked for agriculture over the next three years? Can he give reassurances that the land and farms thus released will be reserved for new entrants into farming? If the Government’s aim to transform our agriculture is to be realised, it will be vital that new entrants are given first preference for the farms of those who are exiting the sector.

The Government are clearly still at the development stage of their thinking on environmental land management reforms, and they promise to adapt the components as they go along. If some do not work, they will be altered and amended to improve them. This is to be welcomed but it does not provide certainty for farmers. Farming is not a short-term activity; it takes planning ahead and capital investment. The Government are looking to the private sector to help to finance some of their components, but the private sector is unlikely to come forward if it feels that the Government may be likely to move the goal- posts half way through the scheme. Can the Minister give reassurance that the three components of the Government’s agriculture policy will be fully tested before farmers are asked to commit their livelihoods to them?

The Government expect the environmental land management scheme to deliver the benefits of England’s peat strategy by paying for sustainable peatland management and restoration. Can the Minister provide the House with some more detail on exactly how and when that will be achieved?

I turn to the tree health pilot. It is vital that we protect our iconic trees from pests and diseases, which have decimated our hedgerows and forests in the past. There is evidence that huge numbers of saplings have been planted without any real sense of how they will be cared for and nurtured into adult trees. Can the Minister give reassurance that the thousands of trees that the Government quite rightly want to see planted will be the correct indigenous species to the area in which they are planted? As many as possible must survive to become the forests that the country will need to reach its zero-carbon targets.

I welcome this transition plan and look forward to more detail of the schemes to come, and to the Minister’s response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests, particularly—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to—in a family farm. I therefore understand the importance of more detail. I also understand that change can be daunting, and therefore the importance of advice and guidance on what is a partnership. This will work only if the Government and other bodies working with landowners and farmers of all tenures and sizes, across the country, work together.

Although I am not permitted to repeat the Statement, I will say that my honourable friend the Secretary of State said:

“We want this to be an evolution, not an overnight revolution. That means making year-on-year reductions to the legacy direct payments scheme and simultaneously making year-on-year increases to the money available to support the replacement schemes.”


In a sense, that is my first response to the point about reallocation. It is very important that that is seamless. The first reduction is 5%, which is in the scheme because, very often, there are currency exchange rate fluctuations. That is precisely why, when it comes in in December 2021, there will be a range of other schemes and so forth, which I will elaborate on.

Among other things, there is more detail to come because it is absolutely essential that we co-design all of these schemes with farmers—the people who are going to have to work through them. That is why, picking up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on new entrants and retirement, we want to co-design these schemes so that they can enable farmers who wish to retire to do so, but we also want to get it right for new entrants. The new entrants support scheme will therefore be developed as a co-design. We are working with organisations that have the capacity and interest to provide lasting opportunities; we want this to be a success to support the next generation. We will support the development of the detailed eligibility criteria through a consultative co-design process, starting by the end of 2020 and concluding by September 2021, with a view to introducing a scheme in, for instance, 2022.

It is very important to say that this is money within the agriculture budget, and it will be retained as part of the work that we want to do. It is money that we promised through our manifesto pledge and we will retain that amount of money.

The issue of uplands has obviously come up in our consideration of the Agriculture Bill. As I have said before, upland farmers are very well placed to benefit from environmental land management, which is going to be very important. In addition to other policies proposed in the agricultural transition plan, we are proposing a specific and time-limited package to support farmers and land managers so they can work with protected landscapes to deliver environmental outcomes. This scheme will deliver funding through the protected landscape bodies to support farmers—particularly upland farmers, 75% of whom live and work in protected landscapes —to make improvements in the natural environment and cultural heritage.

Clearly, long-term financial support under the productivity schemes, in reference to the farm investment fund, will be very important in incentivising and supporting the purchase of equipment, technology and infrastructure—for example, the farm equipment and technology fund and the farming transformation fund. We will work to help with on-farm water storage infrastructure precision. Agriculture equipment is also going to be so important in reducing chemicals and the impact on the environment.

Again, I emphasise the importance of food production, which will be an absolutely essential part, and will remain so, of this dual purpose. With 70% of land farmed in this country, we need to ask farmers to produce excellent food for us at home, and that will be assisted by the productivity grants that will start to come in next year. Work is under way on that and on ensuring that, in the long term, there is a very strong business profile for the production of food. If we remember, the fair dealings provisions that we worked on together also play their part in ensuring that farmers get a fair price and a fair deal for their products.

I think that the interconnection of the environment is an important feature. There are three components. We want a large proportion of farmers to join the sustainable farming incentive early on, as part of moving to the full rollout of ELM in 2024 and, before that, to national pilots. It is all to engage farmers in that work.

It is absolutely right to also mention the work that we are going to undertake on the tree health pilot. Again, eligibility is still under development. We know that we all benefit from trees, woodland and forestry. Eligible participants will be invited to apply for the pilot based on confirmation by the Forestry Commission of pest and disease issues on their land. If a land manager is eligible for a countryside stewardship tree health grant, they are unlikely to be eligible for a tree health pilot. We want to ensure that this makes a contribution, as all the ELM points are about more tree planting.

A point was made about the internal market. Another important element of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is that it will guarantee that companies can trade unhindered in every part of the UK. I have to say again that that Bill will not lower standards. The UK has some of the highest and most robust standards on goods in the world.

We have a strong future for agriculture and horticulture in this country, which have a dual purpose of food production and enhancing the environment. The work and responsibility of Defra is to ensure that farmers have the detail of the schemes. That is why work is already under way on codesigning them. Farming has a strong future, which we must ensure.

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2020

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these three statutory instruments and apologise for missing the briefing which he so kindly provided. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2020 is very short and concise. It moves the functions of identification, movement and health of animals and allocating identification codes from the AHDB to a new livestock information service, the LIS.

It is essential that animals should be able to move around and be accurately tracked. The LIS will make it much easier to track animals as they will all be on one database, instead of three separate databases under the current AHDB. However, if there are 165,000 keepers of farmed livestock and nearly 60,000 keep more than one species, that is a lot of livestock being combined from three databases into one. Has this database been fully tested? In other words: does it work? While it is extremely advantageous for farmers to visit only one database to look at their cattle, pigs and sheep instead of one for each species, it will be necessary that the computer systems work. Is Livestock Information Ltd a private company, or does it operate under the auspices of Defra? Track and trace for animals is vital to prevent disease outbreaks and controlling disease once outbreaks have occurred. Like so many things in life, if the computer system fails then chaos results. I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on this point.

The Direct Payments to Farmers (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 ensure that farmers will receive their direct payments from January 2021 and set out financial ceilings used to calculate farmers’ direct payments. However, I could find no information on what these ceilings were in the actual instrument. As with a lot of statutory instruments, unless you have the original legislation in front of you it is very difficult to interpret what is proposed. The devolved Administrations have their own legislation which deals with these issues, so this SI relates solely to England. Can the Minister say whether after January 2021 all four Administrations, including England, will pay their farmers at the same rate for the same activities? If not, I foresee difficulties with cross-border trade.

The direct payment covers basic payments, greening payments and young farmer payments. It is my understanding that the direct payments are on a sliding scale and reduce over the period of the transition from CAP to ELMS, but there is no mention of this in the instrument, which states that the seven-year transition information is not covered in this SI. Where will this sliding scale of support under the withdrawal from direct payments be covered?

The Government have committed to maintain the same financial support for farmers as they previously enjoyed, at £1.8 billion annually. I am pleased to note that in future payments will not be made in euros, so farmers will not be subject to the vagaries of exchange rates. However, in paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the text states that the SI

“removes the need for recipients of Direct Payments to meet ‘active farmer’ requirements”.

What is meant by “active farmer”? Does this mean that an inactive farmer—one who no longer manages land or livestock—will receive a direct payment?

The World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020 ensure that the UK continues to comply with its obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, the AoA. This ensures reductions in its aggregate measurement of support, a key measure used by the WTO to assess domestic support for agricultural commodities. This SI also deals with UK obligations on “amber box” payments with trade-distorting effects, to which the Minister has referred. Defra says that this instrument specifies the amounts of amber box payments that may be given in each country of the UK; they are limited under the AoA, and the aim is to reduce them over time. The Secondary Legislation and Scrutiny Committee has published a paragraph on this instrument, which allows for each UK Administration to design and implement their own agricultural support schemes within an amber box spending envelope set by this instrument.

I would like to ask the Minister about the limits of support at Paragraph 4 of the instrument, which refers to how the total sum is calculated but does not give any indication of what the total will be. However, it states that England will get 49.2%, Northern Ireland 7.49%, Scotland 12.6%, and Wales 6.83%. This does not include the reserve. Are these percentages permanent or will they change each year? I assume these percentages are for the year 2021, but can the Minister please confirm?

The instrument also indicated that spending from the reserve may be used on amber box domestic support in a Crown dependency. Does this include all Crown dependencies or only some? I look forward to the Minister’s response to my questions and those of other noble Lords taking part in this debate.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

My Lords, after the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I shall call the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, to speak.

Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his extensive introduction and for his time and that of his officials in a briefing on these four statutory instruments—quite a number to be taking in a one-hour debate.

The Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations deal with the operability of import controls, border controls and checking, with easements between January and July. The instrument is Great Britain-wide and consistent with EU regulations. It deals with a range of important changes to the agri-food chain, known as “sanitary and phytosanitary”—SPS—products. The SI does not change SPS import control policy but ensures that a robust import control mechanism is in place for imports into the UK, maintaining and improving biosecurity and welfare standards.

In annexe 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, under paragraph 3, “Regulations revoked in this instrument”, at bullet point 4 the heading is “Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/530 designating European Reference laboratories for pests of plants on insects and mites, nematodes, bacteria, fungi and oomycetes, viruses, viroids and phytoplasmas”. Can the Minister say, as this regulation is revoked, where, if anywhere, the insects and plant life will be listed and covered? Is there another SI that covers this area? I am particularly interested in nematodes. Perhaps the Minister can provide clarification.

Turning to the second instrument, the draft Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, consent has been received from Scotland and Wales to implement an identical SI. The SI was previously used for third countries. Products of animal origin—POAO—can pose a risk, including African swine fever. However, outside the transition period the country can have better control, including over importation of olive trees and preventing the importation of Xylella, which we debated last year.

From January 2021, importers of animal by-products and live animals will be required to pre-notify via GB’s new system for notification of imports: IPAFFS. From April 2021, importers of POAO will also be required to pre-notify via IPAFFS. This is likely to add to staffing costs in 21,600 firms. Can the Minister say whether there is an estimate of what those staffing costs are likely to be?

The Secondary Legislation and Scrutiny Committee noted:

“While the instrument proposes extensive amendments in this policy area over more than 18 pages … the Explanatory Memorandum provides limited explanation of the proposed changes”.


The SI itself is extremely complex and refers to numerous other statutory instruments which are being amended or deleted, as we have heard from other speakers. The Explanatory Memorandum really does not make any detailed comment about those. As I am not an expert in these matters, I feel somewhat at a disadvantage on this instrument, which does not provide legal clarity. The Government’s legislation website does not yet reflect all changes made. It is unclear in many cases if any errors or weakening have been introduced through combined changes. Can the Minister say at what point the Government expect the GOV.UK website to be bought up to date to reflect changes made by Brexit statutory instruments?

The third statutory instrument, the Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture, Animals, and Marketing of Seed, Plant and Propagating Material (Legislative Functions and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 sounds very much like a catch-all statutory instrument. This SI takes account of the Northern Ireland protocol and the movement of animals into Great Britain. This is an important SI as it covers several policy areas: seed, plant and plant propagating materials; aquatic animal health; transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and animal by-products; livestock zoonotic diseases; pet travel; and the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture, as the Minister already listed. From my previous contributions in Defra SI debates over the last 18 months, I understand something of most items on that list. I understand the use of alien species in aquaculture, which will include American crayfish. But I am afraid I do not understand what is covered by “locally absent species”. Are these species which are not alien to Great Britain but which may be alien to a particular area of Great Britain, as they usually live in a specific region? Can the Minister give an example of what this might mean?

I have questions on several paragraphs in the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 2.7 talks about the transfer of zoonotic diseases from animals to humans. Presumably, this also works the other way around. Mink in Denmark spring to mind as an example of Covid moving from humans to animals. Paragraph 7.8 refers to pet passports, which allow UK-based owners of dogs, cats and ferrets to travel between EU member states and certain listed third countries. Given the similarity between mink and ferrets, does the Minister think it is currently safe for ferrets to travel out of the UK into an EU country and then return to the UK? Is there a restriction for those travelling with ferrets on visiting certain areas of Denmark?

The last SI, the draft Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, includes provision for the Northern Ireland protocol. The instrument protects animals, people handling the medicines, consumers of produce from treated animals, and the environment. It is essential that animal welfare is high on the agenda, and the treatment of animals with veterinary medicines to relieve suffering and discomfort is important. However, this must be balanced with the impact and effect on the public consuming animal products.

During the pandemic we have become especially conscious of the effect of antibiotics. For some time, we have been aware that that overconsumption of antibiotics for minor ailments which easily heal themselves in a short time should be avoided. Overuse of antibiotics for minor conditions can harm our chances of relying on these drugs when we are seriously ill and desperately need their intervention.

Ensuring that antibiotics are not overpresent in animal products for human consumption is all part of essential management of veterinary medicines. Can the Minister give reassurance that this SI will indeed ensure that the maximum residue limits are not reached in foodstuffs? Can he also give reassurance that non-allowed pharmacologically active substances will not be found in foodstuffs? Can he clarify whether future UK rules on MRL levels will be as strong as or stronger than the current EU baseline as set out in the annexes of regulation 37/2010? Can he provide an update on the process of setting out relevant MRLs and other restrictions relating to the use of veterinary medicines in food-producing animals, and say whether this process will be complete before the end of the transition period?

These are varied and complex statutory instruments, but I am happy for them to be approved so that Great Britain and Northern Ireland can continue to operate effectively at the end of the transition period. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions raised and points made in this debate.

Rural Economy

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the County Councils Network has recently conducted work on the effect of Covid on the decline of the rural bus network. The Government are committed to a rural bus strategy, but will the Minister give assurance that consideration will be given to providing a range of passenger transport services to provide positive benefits to residents in rural areas?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have provided £220 million of new funding to support a better deal for bus users. This includes £20 million for the rural mobility fund to trial new on-demand services and to improve existing services in rural and suburban areas.