Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Boycott

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]]

I support Amendment 22 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and will vote for it. On the previous day of the debate, I spoke at some length about the importance of ensuring that our trade standards are consistent with our high standards of food and animal welfare, and our climate and environmental obligations in particular. I will not repeat those arguments here, because I have bored noble Lords enough by my concerns about public health and food, but this amendment is important and, without it, we run a lot of danger of leaving ourselves open to standards that are below ours and will damage our health, animal health and environment.

More generally, in 2020, we saw a small reduction in emissions globally as a result of the pandemic that we still have. This reduction should not be a blip; we need to see it as a more permanent arrangement and build on it. If we do not have considerations such as those in this amendment brought to the front of trade policy, we risk doubling down on our old ways of trading, increasing global emissions again. We need to use our trade power for good and to encourage others to produce carbon-neutral products. If we do not, even if we reduce emissions at home, we will import them from abroad. The same general principle applies to the food that we import into this country which we expect ourselves and, more importantly, our children to eat.

This amendment is about parliamentary scrutiny, which I am sure will carry favour with many noble Lords. It would not make it illegal to import products that were produced to a lower standard but, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has so clearly set out, it would require consultation and a vote in Parliament to approve any deviation from existing standards. In essence, it is a compromise that would give our farmers as well as the huge swathes of the population which have made their voices heard in the last few months—about their determination to maintain not just good food standards but transparency in food standards—peace of mind without making trade impossible.

Finally, I specifically ask the Minister what he and his department know—I am sure they are aware of it—about the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability, or ACCTS, as it is called. This is led by New Zealand. Nations are free to sign up to it to show that they are committed to using their trade policy to support action on climate change. As we have now left the EU and the transition period is over, can we join this agreement to show our intent in this hugely important year before COP 26? I will return to ACCTS when I talk about labelling later in the debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his amendment and give him my wholehearted support.

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I speak to Amendments 20 and 22 in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, moved Amendment 20, and I fully support her and others in ensuring that imports will meet the current principal standards on food safety, the environment and animal welfare.

We have had numerous direct debates about ensuring that these issues remain at the forefront of the Government’s commitments to the public. It is, however, vital that in order to trade with least developed countries and encourage their entrepreneurial skills, our standards do not act as a blockage to those countries. At the same time, it is important for public confidence that food safety standards are maintained and animal welfare is not compromised. We are, after all, a nation of animal lovers.

Cross-party Amendment 22, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, also mirrors debates that took place during the passage of the Agriculture Bill. It is an extremely important amendment to ensure that Parliament is fully involved in ensuring that standards affected by international trade agreements are maintained at our current high levels.

Members of Parliament are elected to ensure the well-being of their constituents in a wide variety of areas, and it is simply unacceptable for them to be excluded from debating trade agreements that could have a dramatic impact on local businesses and their constituents. Similarly, the upper Chamber, while not currently elected, has a wealth of expertise and knowledge that can be brought to bear to enhance future trade agreements, where necessary.

Issues of food safety, quality, hygiene and traceability are essential not only to protect consumers but to ensure a level playing field for our farmers and food producers. It is important for human rights and equalities to be included, especially women’s and children’s rights along with other classifications under the Human Rights Act of 1998.

The devolved Administrations should not be an afterthought but should be consulted at an early stage and able to express their view on trade agreements that affect them. The relevant committees of both Houses, including the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, will also have a view.

As we move forward with the continuing process of separating ourselves from the rest of Europe and bringing the UK closer to other countries in the world, standards and scrutiny will be important to maintain the confidence of the public, business and our other partners, some remaining in the EU. This amendment gives the reassurance that is required for this to happen. I fully support these two amendments, and I will support Amendment 22 should the House vote in the virtual Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 26A, which concerns the importance of labelling, and will support Amendment 31A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Both are connected with public health and human health.

People do not realise how hard fought the campaign for clear labelling was. Someone I was at school with called Caroline Walker, a great food campaigner in the 1980s, made the wonderful point that we knew more about the ingredients that went into our socks than we knew about the ingredients that went into our food. She fought long and hard for good, clear labelling, and it would be an incredibly regressive step if, for any reason, the UK lost control of this.

Other countries that we are considering signing trade deals with take very different approaches to labelling. To choose just one example, I am sorry to come back to the USA again but it is permitted to refer to mechanically recovered material as “meat.” This could be any parts of anything that runs around on four legs or two, scrambled together from anywhere.

If the UK opts to accept another country’s labelling as part of a free trade deal, we could end up with food that has less information on labels and perhaps nothing at all. Our own labelling is not brilliant. For instance, pigs can be reared in Denmark, imported into the UK and turned into sausages in the Midlands. They can then be labelled as made in Britain. That is legal, but I think it is slightly deceitful, because it hides the fact that those pigs have been reared in conditions that we find to be unacceptable ill-treatment of animals.

Consumers here are very accustomed to using labels not only to buy what they want but to buy according to their values. They know that they can also eat to stay healthy. It is incredibly important to understand how much salt or sugar there is, and if you are diabetic this is a matter of life and death. The UK’s front-of-pack traffic light labelling scheme, which uses colours, words and numbers to help UK consumers to understand fats and saturated fats, was introduced in 2013. Our Government describe it as

“a crucial intervention to support healthy choices and reduce obesity rates by communicating complex nutritional information to shoppers in a way that’s easy to understand.”

To understand the risk that future trade deals could have on our food labels, leaked US-UK trade negotiation papers show that the US side says that food labels are “harmful” and that they are

“not particularly useful in changing consumer behaviour.”

They say this particularly about sugar, and I would bet my bottom dollar that that comes from the sugar lobby. I and many health experts would beg to disagree.

Health matters are intrinsically interwoven with all food and farming. It is very hard to see how Ministers can try to unpick them and put one bit here and one bit there. Research shows that some of our prospective trade partners have really irresponsible approaches, for instance, to using medically critical antibiotics in farming. It could have a serious impact on health in the UK, despite our own standards, if we water them down in any way. Similarly, prospective trade partners use a great many more pesticides. Some of these are known to be linked to cancers and are currently banned in the UK.

We know that the UK is reliant on foreign trade for a great deal of its fruit and vegetables, but other trade can also have a negative impact on diets. The obesity rates rose in Mexico and Canada post-NAFTA due, most researchers now believe, to the greater availability of food and drink products that are high in calories but very low in nutrition—in other words, snacks and fizzy drinks, out of which the manufacturers make a great deal of money.

Thanks to their greater transparency, the US produces barriers to trade reports. These show their hostility to the sorts of measures which the UK has already introduced or would like to undertake as part of its obesity strategy. It includes front-of-pack labelling, sugary drinks taxes, a ban on junk food adverts, and limiting the use of cartoon characters in marketing and reformulation policies. Free trade agreements could change our food environment not only by increasing the availability of such foods but by limiting our Government’s ability to introduce policies that will help to encourage healthier diets.

Turning to Amendment 31A, I am still confused as to why the Government are happy for the Trade and Agriculture Commission to consider plant and animal health but not human health. The Minister has previously said that consideration will be given to the impact of trade on human health and that advice will be shared with Parliament. However, despite many helpful briefings I am still somewhat confused as to where this incredibly critical issue is going to live. I would like to see it in the Trade and Agriculture Commission, because the commission is statutory and to some degree independent. If it is not going to be there, could the Minister say which agency has the equivalent status and would be best placed to provide advice? Government health agencies do fantastic work, but will they have the independence and clout of the TAC?

There are many issues of human health at stake here. World health rates are not going up, due to bad diets, and I find it deeply alarming that the TAC will not be allowed to consider the impacts of trade on human health. I beg the Minister to reconsider when the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is put forward. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution to the debate on this group of amendments.

Amendment 26A, on the accurate labelling of products, as laid out so eloquently by the noble Baroness, is essential. I will not repeat the arguments that she has made, which I have made myself in debates. Consumers wish to know that the food they are buying is safe to eat, is of high quality and has been produced in hygienic conditions. Should there be a problem with any of the above, it is important that the produce is traceable, that both human and animal welfare have been protected during production and that the environment has not been damaged during growth and production. The latter is becoming more important by the day as we see the effects of climate change on our environment. Our agriculture and food industry produces the very best for human and animal consumption. Clarity on labelling provides the reassurance that both our farmers and the public expect.

Confidence in government is currently at a bit of a low ebb. It is necessary to repair that confidence, and detailed labelling is a step in the right direction for both farmers and food producers. Both Houses of Parliament must be reassured that this will take place at all stages, from inception—the planting of seeds—right through to harvesting and processing. This cannot be a back-door function of any trade deal.

Amendment 31A would ensure that public and human health came within the remit of the Trade and Agriculture Commission. Given the pandemic that we are living through, it is vital that we as a nation make every effort to ensure that such a situation does not happen in future. The TAC is the right place for this to be considered on a legal footing. Public health is an important element of maintaining confidence in all levels of government, from national level down to district and parish councils. All are interested in ensuring that inequalities are dealt with effectively and removed, and I hope the Minister is able to accept these amendments.

Amendment 34A would leave out the words

“except insofar as they relate to human life or health”.

The amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to limit the advice which the Trade and Agriculture Commission can provide to him or her. For the TAC to be truly effective, it must be able to provide independent advice across a wide range of areas, many of which may not be obvious now. We have no way of telling with any accuracy what future world events may affect our trade and agriculture agreements and sectors, and I believe that it is wise not to be prescriptive at this stage. I support Amendment 31A and will vote in favour of it if a Division is called.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Boycott

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. In my view, both are vital to our own safety: to the protection of our countryside, our health and our environment. As we know, pesticides are not benign. They are applied to our crops to kill insects and any other creature that might be around at the time. It is natural behaviour—if you deny the natural world its own food source. However, pesticides do not just kill the creatures that are feeding on the crops. They also damage us. Numerous studies document the associations between exposure to pesticides, increased incidence of respiratory problems, cardiovascular and renal diseases, as well as the ageing phenomenon, not to mention many cancers. If you are an ordinary member of the public who happens to live near a field, or a school kid in a playground that borders a field that is being intensively farmed, you are open to being occasionally sprayed by pesticides.

Let me give a tiny example. I used to live with my husband in a house that bordered an intensively farmed field. One day at the end of the year, when it was being sprayed to kill the cover crop, the wind changed. I kid you not: within an hour, the entire herbaceous border on to which the spray had come was lying in a muddy heap. It was completely destroyed. Any thought I had that there was anything healthy about these products vanished at that point.

Some 22,000 chemicals are registered and in use in Europe. In December 2018, high quality checks had been completed on 94 of them; half were declared unsafe. There are many large out-of-court settlements involving Bayer, the company that has taken over Monsanto. This leads many people to believe—cynically, some noble Lords might say, but I do not think so—that it is suppressing evidence of the chemical links between lymphomas and other common cancers. We have to protect the population from these serious and damaging chemicals. Without a doubt, we need strong mandatory levels for the areas in which they are sprayed.

I believe—and this takes me straight on to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—that farmers have very little choice at the moment in the way that they farm. The common agricultural policy, which thankfully we are coming out of, has paid people per acre, and therefore the striving has been to produce as much as possible, probably of monocrops. The result has been, since the “green revolution” after the war, the incredible use of more and more pesticides, insecticides and fertilisers. These have had the result of weakening our soil to the point that the World Health Organization has said that, across the world, we probably only have 60 harvests left. The soils are now working only if they are given chemical additives. The amendment from the noble Baroness is therefore vital, because there are many other ways to farm. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I found when we were doing our Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and Environment, a more healthy way of farming is also a more healthy way of eating.

Climate impacts are being felt across the world—you have to be blind not to see it—and our food supplies are going to be affected. We cannot keep our heads in the sand about it. Here, we have seen soil erosion, more flooding and coastal land inundation. We have also seen extreme weather—we have had it in the last year. We really cannot afford to wait. The proposed new clause provides that, by 2030, we have to start reducing emissions from agriculture, first, through better care of the soil, lower livestock emissions and reducing fertiliser; and also, crucially, by storing carbon in the land—so we need to plant trees. Soil sequesters carbon much better than anything else if left to its own devices. We must protect it, along with peat bogs.

There is so much that farmers can do if they are given the right incentives and the direction. However, we must have a target to ensure delivery. If we are to meet our Climate Change Act target for 2050, we have to get to 50% by 2030. If we do not, it will be too much for the world to take on. That means that the policies that we need must be laid down in this Parliament and the next—but primarily in this one. This amendment will complement the existing clauses in the Bill for financial support and for climate mitigation and adaptation, and it will confirm the Government’s commitment to strong action, at a time when we will be hosting COP 26 next year.

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for re-tabling his Amendment 11B as Motion C1, with some modifications. This is a really important issue. Unless they are extremely foolhardy, those who are spraying pesticides have protection in the form of personal protective equipment and respirators, and they will be in filtered tractor cabs during their work. Rural residents and communities have absolutely no protection at all from the cocktail of toxic chemicals sprayed on nearby crops.

We have in past years not acted on harmful substances being used in agriculture until it is too late for some people who have suffered extreme health problems. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for mentioning sheep-dip, and to the noble Countess, Lady Mar. Now is the time to make this change. The other place did not feel that it was necessary, saying that existing legislation was protection enough. I do not agree. The 2009 European regulations on pesticide use have not yet all been implemented. Those relating to dwellings are not scheduled to be carried over after 1 January next year. The Government are now quoting the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 to deal with the gap. That legislation is 35 years old and had not been referred to during previous stages of the Bill, nor in discussions with officials. At the same time, there is evidence of serious harms from pesticide chemical exposure resulting in out-of-court settlements due to cancers.

This proposed new clause is crucial for securing the protection of rural residents and communities from agricultural pesticides, especially the most vulnerable groups, such as babies, children, pregnant women, the elderly and those who are already ill or disabled, none of whom should ever have been exposed to these toxic chemicals in the first place. The petition to the Prime Minister and the Defra Secretary calling for this proposed new clause to be included has over 12,000 signatures, the majority of which are from affected rural residents. The petition has been supported by several prominent figures including Hillsborough QC Michael Mansfield, the Prime Minister’s own father Stanley Johnson, Jonathon Porritt, Gordon Roddick and the Defra non-executive board member Ben Goldsmith, among others.

All the arguments have been made previously. I remain convinced that this amendment should be on the face of the Bill as the only way to properly protect the public. If the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.

I turn now to Amendment 17B proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, in Motion F1. Again, the ethos of the amendment has been thoroughly debated in all previous stages of the Bill. This is a matter which has moved rapidly up the political and non-political agendas. The country has signed up to the Paris Agreement, and the Committee on Climate Change has thrown its weight behind moving towards achieving the country’s 2050 target. As I have previously said, an interim target of 2030 is vital to monitoring progress and ensuring delivery. Agriculture has an important part to play in reducing emissions.

I have not yet read the Government’s response to the Committee on Climate Change, but I am very disappointed by the news that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has brought to us about what it says. It is not just we unelected Lords who are concerned about this; the public are very concerned about climate change and the effect it is having on our land and shores. Sir David Attenborough wants us to act; the Duke of Cambridge wants us to act. We must act to give a strong message to the Commons that they must act now—not in 40 years’ time, but now. This amendment should be on the face of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is wonderful to hear that a food strategy will happen and be reported upon following Henry Dimbleby’s initial reports. I too urge the Government to respond in less than 18 months; we really do not have time to waste.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and other speakers, I believe that the strategy needs to be tough. The industry has had its own way for a very long time: it has been run on the politics of the supermarket and we have seen the chaos that this has caused, not just to our health and eating habits but to our agriculture, as we have just been discussing. I urge toughness, joined-up government, a strong position of leadership and a willingness to tread on some commercial toes as we start to look for other ways in which to grow and eat our food.

I am pleased to hear from the Minister that action on food security will include household food security. I thank him for the meetings that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I have had with him in the past few weeks. I am glad that the issue of household food insecurity will be pegged to something, and that that something is the Government’s Eatwell plate. Today, the poorest 20% of households would need to spend 39% of their disposable income on food in order to eat the diet that we recommend for people to be healthy. We all know that that will not happen. If you are in a rich household, it will cost you 8%. This is a really big issue and it would be pointless for household food security to be judged on whether one was getting access to enough sugary cereals and sweets. So I am very pleased to hear what the Minister said, in the Chamber, in front of everybody.

It has been a delight to work with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on this. I am very pleased to have witnessed this day, because I have spent most of my life working on food policy and, quite frankly, as I have said before, all I have done on the whole is put bits of Elastoplast over the bleeding wound. There is now a chance to reshape the food system for the better.

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. A national food strategy is not something that it might be nice to have; it is essential.

Like others, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and support for a food strategy. As we enter the inevitable second wave of Covid-19 infections and a possible second lockdown, food security is at the top of everyone’s thoughts. Children affected by lockdown are struggling. Ensuring that they have enough to eat has become a national cause. The Welsh Government have announced that free school meal provision will be extended through every school holiday until Easter 2021. The vouchers provided to be exchanged for a meal must be for healthy food. The other nations in the UK should now follow the Welsh example. I can think of nothing worse than a child in the UK—one of the richest countries in the world—being hungry while others are overeating with the resultant health problems. During the national regimes of the 1940s and early 1950s, obesity and diabetes were hardly heard of. I am not suggesting that we return to those strictures.

I recently listened to an interview with a Durham University student who was in a unit with five other students. They had all paid for catered meals. Due to lockdown, they were virtually imprisoned in their accommodation, with a kettle and a toaster. They were provided with food boxes that contained “junk food”—the student’s words, not mine—of Pot Noodles, crisps, snack bars and three apples, the only healthy food. The next box, supposed to last for 11 days, contained no fruit at all but the same selection of junk food. Never was it more obvious that a proper food strategy was essential in order to protect these students.

The other place has indicated that it wishes to wait for the final report from Henry Dimbleby and that the Lords amendment is unnecessary. I hope that our prodding will ensure that something is done, and done quickly, once that report is published. The grass appears to grow faster than we would like, and 18 months is far too long, as other Peers have said.

I fully support all the comments previously made on a national food strategy and am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for their expertise and perseverance in this important matter. I look forward to the Government’s consultation once Henry Dimbleby’s work has been completed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that monitoring the outcome will be essential.