Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Lords Chamber

The ban on third-party sales will protect and enhance the welfare of puppies and kittens, so that they are not subject to such unscrupulous breeders. This statutory instrument further affirms the Government’s position and desire to be world-leading in animal welfare. I beg to move.

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the statutory instrument, which follows on from the many discussions we have had over recent years about the whole question of the pet trade. I am grateful to him for explaining the campaign for Lucy’s law. We were all well aware of it, and the response was overwhelming.

I think that he said that there were 6,500 responses, the majority very supportive of the measure. Can he share with us the concerns expressed by others who were not so fully supportive?

The use, abuse, breeding and smuggling of puppies and kittens over the years has been a disgrace. I am really proud that the Government have decided to tackle it in a complete way, while giving the various people involved in the trade until April 2020 to make alternative arrangements.

I have two other questions, although I support the instrument. On the whole question of pet shops, licensing and local government’s commitment to cover the costs, does local government already receive subsidy or some form of help for the inspection regime in place now? Will the charges that may be made by local authorities in future cover all inquiries or just specific issues that they are asked to consider?

My other question is on the whole issue of rescue and rehoming. Many people are tempted, because they want to help, to look to rescue and rehoming rather than buying a pet from a pet shop or a legitimate breeder. I was not sure from our brief where rescue and rehoming businesses—or charities—sat under the regulations.

Lastly, I turn again—we have talked about it before in Committee—to the individual who breeds but is not registered as someone who sells puppies or kittens. Previously, we have considered a breeder producing perhaps two sets of puppies before they would fall under the law. I was not at all sure about kittens. A little clarification on that would be very helpful.

Again, I thoroughly welcome the instrument and wish it good speed through the House.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for her contribution. I sympathise with her on two points; I especially want to come back to her point about rehoming pets. I intend to speak only about puppies because I know about dogs; I have always had them. If I may say so, I have never bought them from a pet shop; I have always got them either through rehoming or direct from local farms.

I take the view that pets are not a fashion statement. Pets, especially dogs, are there for what they give to humans. They give us so much in terms of loyalty, comfort and affection. I must say, I welcome both the Government’s strategy on animal welfare and the regulations. I agree entirely with the BVA that they must be seen not as an isolated example but as part of a developing holistic approach. I was encouraged by the Minister’s point that this is the next step in the process. We will not be satisfied with that; we look forward to the step after it. We very much welcome the regulations and I take the Minister’s statement in the spirit in which it was made.

Of course, we live in a changing world. There are roughly 9 million dogs in this country—an increase of 400,000 since last year alone. I am afraid that the increase is partly due to fashion. We cannot affect it; people can do what they want and buy what they want with their money. However, importantly—the Government are aware of this—much more public communication is needed to get across to people what keeping a dog means and from where they can be bought. Again, I agree with the Government and am encouraged by the Minister talking about a comprehensive communication strategy. That is precisely what is needed because when most people, or at least a lot of them, acquire a dog, they are doing so for the first time and do not know what they are getting or what they want. On many occasions, they waste a lot of money through getting the wrong breed of dog. Of course, the regulations are here because unscrupulous people take advantage of that fact. It is very important that we try, gently, to educate the general public.

Coming back to rescuing and rehoming, the Government were encouraging, although they did not say a great deal about it. I have had rescue and rehomed dogs, and I have always been impressed by them. Now, the overwhelming majority of rescue establishments, whether they deal with specialised breeds such as collies or Labradors or are general establishments, maintain very high standards. That is what the regulations are partly about: high health standards. Most establishments have the animals microchipped and all of them allow the public to see the conditions in which the animals are kept. That is very important. It is not always available at a pet shop; you cannot see the conditions in which the dogs are kept 24 hours a day—that is probably a slight exaggeration, but basically all the time.

The noble Baroness raised a point about these rescue establishments; most of them are charities. Can the Minister clarify the position? As I understand it, these charities are exempt under the parent Act, if I can call it that. If that is the case, it is important that we monitor the charities as well—I am sure they would support that—because we must be sure that no unscrupulous dealers see this as a loophole in the system.

The online sale of animals is a bigger challenge than I can comprehend, and with social media it is a real challenge—not only for the Government handling it at the centre but for the local authorities, which in a sense ensure that the regulations are enforced.

In conclusion, I really support these regulations and the Government’s intent. I am encouraged by, and very much welcome, the Minister’s approach, but it will need careful monitoring.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Byford Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I totally agree with some of the things she said. There is a movement gathering pace against using livestock for entertainment in a way that has traditionally gone on in the countryside, and I accept that. There is currently a great harassment of our farmers and she raised the whole question of animals not being stunned before slaughter. I share her view on that. Today, however, we are looking at the Bill, which she quite rightly says is a small Bill, and I actually do not follow her logic or her thoughts as to why it should not go ahead.

I thank my noble friend Lord Gardiner for introducing the Bill, which I personally welcome. I see that there are a couple of noble Lords in the Chamber who sat through the Animal Welfare Bill, for which I was shadow Minister back in 2006. In Committee, I introduced an amendment to ban the use of all wild animals. The noble Baroness will probably not agree with me, but that was my view at the time. All these years later, my view has not changed. At the time—it would not have been the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville—the Liberals were trying to bring in an amendment alongside mine which would have banned the use of all animals in circuses. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I do not think that this is right. I think that domesticated animals have a real role to play in circuses and bring a lot of pleasure to those who go to see them, but I am still as strongly committed to the proposal that all wild animals should be banned.

I am grateful for the various briefings that I received from individuals and organisations, some of whom support the ban, while others are opposed. When we reach Committee, we will no doubt have well-argued debates on the practical definitions, which my noble friend the Minister mentioned earlier. We will be looking for unintended consequences, about which the noble Baroness rightly highlighted some of her concerns. Back in 2006, it was argued by some that the care of wild animals in circuses was not a welfare issue. In those days, the majority were well looked-after, as I am sure they are now. I do not think that that is an issue. However, there were some suggestions that the films that were shown at the time—which I have not seen on this occasion—contained some footage that was not necessarily taken in United Kingdom circuses. If that is still true, we should recognise it, because one cannot compare what goes on somewhere else with what goes on in our circuses here today. Having said that, in my view it is still a matter of, “Do we think it is right in this day and age?”.

As I said, my views have not changed and I believe that there is much more general support for people wanting to see wild animals in their proper environment. The BBC programmes have helped enormously in that. For most people in this country, if they were not looking at wild animals on television, they would be going to zoos to see some of these animals in as near as one can get to their natural habitat. As I said, mine is a very personal view. I believe that animals are much better seen, where possible, in their natural environment.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, is going to speak later, but I was particularly pleased to receive the briefing from British Veterinary Association. I declare my interest—and I suspect that several others will do the same—as a long-standing honorary member of the BVA. I quote from its key points:

“BVA strongly supports a ban on wild animals in travelling circuses. The welfare of these animals is emblematic of the way we treat all animals under the care of humans. The welfare needs of non-domesticated, wild animals cannot be met within the environment of a travelling circus; especially in terms of accommodation and ability to express normal behaviour as per the five welfare needs (as outlined in the Animal Welfare Acts)”.


I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that the care and love the existing circuses have for those remaining 19 animals is very apparent, but the Bill poses the question of whether the animals should be in a circus to perform in the way they have traditionally done.

I know that many others will come forward with their views, but my view is still as strong as it was. As I said, I agree with some of the noble Baroness’s concerns about other ways in which wild animals are used for demonstration purposes—for example, at agricultural shows or sheepdog trials or on other occasions—but that is not the same as having wild animals enclosed in travelling circuses. I hope that the Minister can clarify one or two points that have already been made and will be made again as we go through this Second Reading.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, Kew does not have access to unlimited resources, and I welcome the recognition of this by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I fully support his amendment, and am pleased that the Government have decided to accept it. Like my noble friend Lady Kramer, I am pleased we have had the opportunity for a contribution from the noble Lord, Lord True, given that this was his Bill in the first place. The amendment before us strengthens the Bill and I am pleased to support it.

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, as somebody who is not based near Kew but who has really appreciated my visits there, I am delighted that this very small Bill will secure Kew’s future. I understand the questions raised about Clause 1, but, having looked at the amendments in this second group, I think they will reinforce it and give us a good balance. We will be able to look at future developments that may happen, because otherwise it will not be sustainable in the long term. The most important thing is the valuable work that goes on at Kew. With climate change and everything else that is coming along, Kew is a precious commodity that we need to keep in hand, without restricting it from developing in ways that we do not yet know will be possible in the future. I am delighted with this, and very supportive of it, as I have been throughout the passage of the Bill.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I very much support Amendments 2 and 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Proposed new subsection (3)(b) refers to,

“the ability of the Board of Trustees … to carry out its functions under section 24 of the … Act”.

The first of these functions is to,

“carry out investigation and research into the science of plants and related subjects, and disseminate the results of the investigation and research”.

That is a very widely drawn function. It was drawn that way because, when the draftsman drew up the 1983 heritage Act, he discussed what Kew was doing and was looking for continuity. He was not looking for change.

The point I want to stress concerns the related subjects. In a period of climate change, biodiversity problems and environmental problems, the status of and the concentration on related subjects will change. Kew could help us, particularly with some of the points raised in the course of the Bill, if it gave its interpretation of its policy at a given moment in relation particularly to this first function, but indeed to all of them. The rest are a little easier to interpret. At the moment, in its annual report Kew states these functions, but says nowhere what it has concluded these functions mean it should be doing.

As has been said, completely correctly, Kew is constrained by its resources, particularly money, and by all sorts of history and agreements. It is in a context. If Kew wishes to explain how it sees that context, it should set it out. I hope that my noble friend, in his conversations under the Memorandum of Understanding or in any other way, will seek agreement from Kew that it will volunteer its own policy approach to the functions in Section 24.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Baroness Byford Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing a Bill that has been described as “modest” but that I believe is vital. I add my support to the proposals in it. I wish Leicestershire were nearer Kew and I could become a regular visitor, but sadly not. Over many years I have had the great joy of going there—literally as a member of the public—and just enjoying the parkland and being part of it, and on other occasions of going to see the research it is so well known for worldwide, not just in this country. I know that my noble friend is a passionate supporter of this Bill, and he and I both wish it well. I will not go over the ground that some have already covered on the facility the longer lease will give—that is essential—but I will come back to the question of finance later.

As has been said, Kew Gardens employs some 350 scientists. We should remember not just those working there at any particular moment but those who go on to do research elsewhere, which is so hugely important. Its six research departments do some wonderful work. In addition, its amazing library, art and archives are a great source for many to share in its knowledge. Indeed, it is not just a UK but, I believe, a global role we are engaged in. It would be wonderful to see more young children there; I would also like to see many of us who are still young at heart there.

Kew becoming a UNESCO world heritage site in 2003 was a great step forward. The Royal Botanic Gardens and the work undertaken there are key to the survival of many rare species, to seed banks and for disease control. I am sure that my noble friend will smile because we have taken a great many statutory instruments through in recent weeks looking at plant health and disease control and what we can do about them. The work done at Kew is even more important than it might have been thought in the past.

With changing climate patterns, it is even more likely that infection and disease will continue to be imported, thus risking damage to our own national species. Indeed, in today’s paper, there is a headline that my noble friend Lord Holmes referred to: “Fungal disease wiping out ash trees will cost economy £15bn”. I understand that the Government have pledged £6 million towards research work in halting this disease, plus an additional £4 million to £5 million towards strengthening border security. We cannot understate how important it is that people who go on holiday and decide to bring things back—and the companies that import plants and trees—carry a big responsibility in making sure that those plants are not infected.

As I said, I am pleased to support this short Bill but, like other noble Lords, I seek clarification on its financial implications. I know that establishing the Kew Gardens (Leases) (No.3) Bill opens up new income streams for use. I also understand that my honourable friend Zac Goldsmith said:

“I stress that the Bill … would not involve selling assets nor would it be about renting out Kew Gardens”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/18; col. 719.]


Richard Deverell, director of Kew, said that the Bill offers,

“an excellent opportunity to attract private investment that will help ensure that we have an estate that supports the needs of the botanic gardens”.

Like other noble Lords, I would like the Minister to clarify Defra’s commitment. At the moment, Defra is committed to supplying a third of the total costs. In future years that may be reduced, but, as the Bill stands, as far as I can see, there is no statement at all about Defra’s commitment.

RBG Kew is funded through a combination of grant in aid from Defra, self-generated income and charitable donations. The total income for 2017-18 was £111.7 million, of which some £40.8 million was grant in aid from Defra. Can the Minister tell us whether future financial support is anticipated to be continued in the short or long term? What proportion of the other income was self-generated compared with that obtained by charitable donations, as they are two very different sources?

It is not often we have a little Bill that we are all pleased to support. I know that my noble friend is keen for it to have fair wind. For me, Kew is one of the jewels in the crown, as has been mentioned, but it has enormous importance not just to us in this country but other places around the world. I wish the Bill well.

Upland Farming

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, as a Government, we entirely accept that the uplands have an important connection to us all. After all, they provide 70% of our water. They have an enormous environmental benefit. Through the environmental land management system, which will replace the CAP, we are looking for ways to support and encourage the next generations to do this vital work on our behalf.

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm the need for the 6,500 upland farmers to continue to receive public financial support? Without that, they will not succeed. Some 70 million people visit the uplands each year and that sort of payment is essential. In addition, I note the important role that small and medium-sized enterprises play in those local communities. Without that interaction, those communities will die.

Animal Health, Plant Health, Seeds and Seed Potatoes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, as the Government have made clear, we intend to incorporate on to our statute book and make operable all relevant aspects of EU law from the point of exit to ensure that we have fully operable arrangements which protect our biosecurity and minimise trade disruption. This instrument covers animal health, plant health, seed marketing and seed potatoes and primarily makes technical amendments to ensure that recent EU decisions will be operable on exit day. I would like to make it clear from the outset that our biosecurity controls on animals and plants are paramount, and this instrument contributes towards ensuring that we will have the most robust arrangements in place to protect public health and the environment.

The amendments made by Regulation 2 concern recent updates on animal health control measures relating to African swine fever in certain member states. This instrument amends Commission implementing decision 2014/709, ensuring that recent updates relating to the two ongoing earlier requirements applicable to all member states are transferred to the appropriate Minister in the United Kingdom.

Appropriate Ministers are required to prohibit movement of live feral pigs and to erect advisory signage alerting the public to the ways in which the disease can inadvertently be spread by people who travel to and from affected areas. I assure noble Lords that this amendment supplements our existing powers in the Diseases of Swine Regulations 2014 to prevent and control African swine fever, including powers to cull infected animals and establish protection zones, surveillance zones and feral pig control zones in the event of any such outbreak.

Regulation 3 amends retained EU law to ensure that TSE functions operate correctly by replacing a reference to production and manufacturing processes approved by “the EU Commission” to processes approved by “the Secretary of State”.

Part 3 of the statutory instrument covers plant health. Regulation 4 applies to England only, and Regulation 5 applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The instrument amends the Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to deal with new EU plant health decisions introduced and to recognise arrangements with the Crown dependencies.

Planned meetings with the Crown dependencies concluded early in 2019 and Regulations 4 and 5 recognise the outcome of broader government agreements with them. The Crown dependencies, which include Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, are currently treated as part of the United Kingdom for the purposes of EU plant health legislation, so plants and plant products move between the Crown dependencies, the United Kingdom and the rest of the EU under the same EU plant health rules. Outside the EU, these arrangements will no longer apply, and there have been discussions with the jurisdictions concerned to agree future arrangements for the trade in regulated plant material. The Crown dependencies have agreed to adopt controls similar to those of the UK in order to continue to facilitate this trade. The changes made by this instrument give effect to those arrangements, specifically in relation to the import and movement of regulated material from the Crown dependencies.

The amendments made by Regulation 5 also deal with new EU plant health decisions recently introduced, supplementing the lists of regulated pests and plant material and controls in the regulations. Regulation 5 prescribes in full on our statute book the detailed requirements in recently introduced EU legislation preventing the introduction and spread of the damaging plant pest, the red-necked longhorn beetle. This pest is a threat to a range of fruit and ornamental species in the United Kingdom, including cherry, peach and plum. It has been present in Italy since at least 2010, where it is established in the Naples area. The specific measures that we are introducing will help protect against its introduction through, for instance, wood-packaging material and nursery plants.

Regulation 5 also amends recent EU decisions to provide for imports of ash wood from the United States and Canada to continue under the same stringent derogation provisions after exit, ensuring continuity of supply for UK businesses without compromising our biosecurity. This follows a prolongation of the EU decisions concerned, which have been proven to provide effective protection regarding this trade and which we wish to retain.

The Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are also being amended to enable UK plant passports to contain specific details such as the origin, identity and quantity of the plants concerned. These are required in relation to the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants to avoid the need for dual labelling. This follows an update of business-as-usual legislation, which has recently allowed this change to be made.

Part 4 of the statutory instrument covers seed marketing and seed potatoes, and it applies to England, as this is a devolved matter. Regulation 6 amends the Seed Marketing Regulations 2011 to allow a two-year interim period to recognise authorisations granted by EU member states for marketing the seed of new vegetable varieties that have not yet completed testing for official registration. This pragmatic approach maintains trade and will give growers in England continued access to new varieties at the earliest possible stage.

Regulation 7 addresses technical operability issues by removing from the seed potatoes regulations references to the European Commission, Community and member states, replacing references to “third countries” and removing reporting obligations to the EU.

Regulation 7 also assures continuity in supplies of seed potatoes by amending the Seed Potatoes Regulations 2015 to provide for a one-year interim period during which EU varieties and seed can continue to be marketed in England. In addition, it avoids financial loss by permitting a one-year period for existing stocks of pre-printed official EU certification labels to be used.

Regulation 8 amends the Marketing of Seeds and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (England and Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to exclude the marketing in England of vegetable seed produced in Switzerland. The regulations had been amended to allow seed from Switzerland, but vegetable seed is outside the scope of the EU’s trade agreement with Switzerland—hence this change.

This instrument is required to attend to a number of elements of retained direct EU legislation to ensure its operability and appropriate functioning after exit. I beg to move.

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument, which is hugely important for the protection of both animal and plant health. I welcome the steps that are being taken within the statutory instrument. Most of the sections refer to transposing EU law into UK law, but I have one or two questions for the Minister. In Part B, on page 34 on infested zones, it says that the conclusions will be,

“based on sound scientific principles”,

and gives powers to,

“the appropriate UK plant health authority”,

to amend the buffer zones where required. Can the Minister tell us whether this power is literally transposed across or is a new initiative? If it is a new initiative, it makes good sense; if it was already there, I am glad.

On the same area of infested zones, the statutory instrument says that the demarcation can be lifted,

“if the plant pest is not detected in the area over a period of four consecutive years”.

Again, I ask the Minister: is that current practice or a new introduction within the statutory instrument?

I now move on to the marketing of seed potatoes from the EU and Switzerland, to which the Minister has just referred. On page 43, paragraph (8) refers to “GMO regulations”. Again, I wonder whether that is within the current restriction and whether it will have any bearing on any new varieties that might be worked on or introduced.

On page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 2.10 refers to,

“UK plant passports to contain … information in relation to fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants”.

It states that the Plant Health (England) Order 2015 is out of date—the Minister referred to this earlier. Will it be updated or does the statutory instrument that we are debating at the moment do that?

Moving on again, I am glad to see that people travelling from the EU will be subject to the same rules as in the past when bringing plants and plant products into the UK, particularly those with their own packaging. One of the big risks we run is introducing disease from incoming plants, however well-intentioned the person was who brought them in.

The Explanatory Memorandum also refers to the European Statutory Instruments Committee’s comments that this SI has, “political and legal importance”, making “extensive amendments” to the two EU exit SIs. I wondered what these were, because when I read through it I did not pick them up. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to comment on that when he winds up.

Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products Framework (Miscellaneous Amendments, etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Lords Chamber

The instruments in this grouping make changes to ensure an operable legal framework for the CMO, supporting farmers and delivering continuity. They also ensure that retained EU law will function correctly. As I said, the changes are technical, ensuring operability and addressing any deficiencies. These changes will ensure that we can continue to set and enforce standards for farmed goods covered by the CMO and continue to operate the aid schemes set therein. I beg to move.

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the seven sets of regulations. At this time of night, having sat here from about 3 pm, other Members will be delighted that I will not repeat everything I have written down, because he clearly introduced the regulations in the correct manner.

I am very grateful to Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Sub-Committee A for its 18th report, which looked at the regulations and which it followed up in its 19th report with some extra questions. My noble friend may want to pick up on some of them when he responds. I should declare the family farming interest, in particular the fact that we receive payments, including for environmental matters.

This is a very important group of statutory instruments which cover matters such as aid for private storage, aid schemes, marketing standards—which are particularly important—labelling, packaging, production methods, conservation and storage and transport certification, to name but a few in the first instrument. The Explanatory Memorandum on the third instrument, on marketing measures, states that our retained EU law is being kept as close as we can to the current system. Paragraph 7.2 refers particularly to public intervention and aid for storage, aid schemes generally, marketing standards, producer organisations, import and export rules—which are extremely important—and crisis measures, which my noble friend did not mention but which he might also want to pick up when he responds.

On the fourth SI, on marketing measures payment schemes, managing market volatility is again particularly important. Perhaps my noble friend can say a little more about that when he responds. The collaboration and competitiveness of agricultural producers is hugely important: bringing producers together so that we can gain competitiveness in the international trade in which we shall be competing. Promotion and high standards are particularly important, as are the production methods to which they refer. Awareness and recognition of EU quality schemes is increasingly important, and the statutory instruments allow us to achieve that. My noble friend did not mention—but there is so much for him to mention in these statutory instruments, it is probably just as well for us tonight that he did not go through the whole lot—the safety proposed to farmers by removing surplus products. Again, perhaps he would pick up on that. I shall not comment on the fifth statutory instrument at all.

Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Grand Committee

These instruments will ensure that an operable legal framework is in place for exit day and will facilitate the flow of goods while preserving the current plant health regime’s overall aim of preventing and managing pest and disease threats. I beg to move.

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for taking these two statutory instruments together. Although they are huge, they are complementary. I am also grateful to him for his explanation. As he said, it is a matter of making sure that we have an operable legal framework when we leave the EU. I have one or two questions.

I am grateful for the detailed Explanatory Memorandum on the first instrument. Paragraph 2.5 talks about “existing fees”. Will we continue with those fees until at some future time they might be changed if that needs to be done? At the moment it just states that the existing fees will continue.

Paragraph 2.7 talks about the new certificates,

“issued in the country of export in accordance with International Plant Protection Convention obligations”.

I was delighted to see that any imports will not be stopped at the border but will be examined and looked at in great detail at the centres to which they eventually go. I understand that physical checks will not be carried out on anything that has come through existing EU member states, and that that will continue into the future—I hope I am correct and that we get clarification on that—but anything coming in from a third country that does not come through the EU will be dealt with in a totally different way. It is hugely important that we control anything coming into this country. We have seen with great sadness ash and oak trees being lost through infections and diseases. These are really important steps we are taking. Are the premises that will need to be authorised by Defra to provide those inspection facilities all over the UK or based around the London area? It is not clear where they will be based.

We have a new offence in relation to non-compliance with import requirements in this statutory instrument; I welcome the opportunity for us to prosecute serious cases. Do the Government anticipate that there might be set fees for anything coming in that fails to live up to the expected standards, or will they come later?

I turn now to the statutory instrument itself. On page 23, Article 22A(3) states:

“The conditions are that—(a) the packaging in which the relevant material is transported and any vehicle which is used to transport the material is free from soil and plant debris and any relevant tree pest”.


I do not know how one can fully guarantee that, even if the material is wrapped and fully secure, there will not be some leakage or mishap during transition. Has thought been given to that? Then on page 29, in Part D of Schedule 13A, paragraph 11(a)(vii)(cc) refers to,

“controls for the disposal of waste, soil and water, as appropriate”.

The two do not seem to sit terribly well together. Why is there different wording in different areas? It may be that I have missed something, but I am not quite clear and I would be grateful for clarification.

Basically I very much welcome these regulations, because—like other noble Lords who will take part in this debate—I have for many years been very conscious of the risks we run. The more plants and shrubs we import, the greater the risk to our native species. Also, the climate is warming here, and therefore we may well, as we are seeing, be able to grow more vines and things, but as we import additional shrubs and other habitats into this country, the risk is even greater than before. It is just a matter of trying to make sure that the system we are establishing here is strong enough and has enough powers. Hence my questions on the way fees will be dealt with and on what regulations there will be about the charges when people do not live up to the standards we are setting in these instruments. They are hugely important. I would not normally speak at such great length, but I am very aware that while we cannot control certain things, such as wind-borne diseases, we certainly can control physical things coming into our country. I want to make sure we have taken enough precautions in these two statutory instruments.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for so clearly outlining the changes. If we enter a no-deal Brexit scenario, we will lose a fully-functioning system that regulates the very important trade in fruit, vegetables, freshly-cut flowers and timber that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, is critical to ensuring our continuing biosecurity.

I have three points. First, I struggled to get a sense from the Explanatory Memorandum of what increase in the inspection rates will be necessary as a result of this new scenario in the event of no deal. As the Minister rightly said at the beginning, the majority of plants and fresh fruit will not have any more inspection, but all the plants and produce coming in by virtue of the EU plant passport regime, which are not subject to inspection now, will be subject to inspection in future. I was grateful for the responses that I had from the staff when I asked them that question: they made it clear that we are looking at a 30% increase in the number of inspections necessary in plants, fruit and cut flowers, and a 50% increase in timber. We are not talking about small numbers here. The figures that they gave me are that at the moment we have about 100,000 consignments per year of regulated goods, so a 30% increase on those figures is not going to be small. There will therefore be considerable on-costs to the public purse as the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Forestry Commission will have to undertake those inspections.

The staff helpfully made it clear that at the moment the Forestry Commission has 10 inspectors who undertake inspections but, if we have to go forward with this SI because of a no-deal Brexit, it will have to have increase its inspectors by 50%, which means another five. In real terms that does not sound like a very large number, but it is still of 50% more inspectors, not in the London area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, rightly highlighted, but geographically spread out, so it will not just be a question of staff costs; it will mean resources to get them out and about in the country. There will be significant on-costs to the public purse as a result of the necessary increase in inspections if we leave the EU.

Secondly, I would like to tease out a bit more on the inspections that are going to take place at authorised premises in order to ensure that there are no backlogs at the RORO points. The Explanatory Memorandum is quite clear that the Government want to avoid that, and I think we all wish that. The Minister just said, if I heard him correctly, that 35 businesses have applied to have authorised premises so that these inspections can take place at their facilities around the country. My understanding from the Explanatory Memorandum is that 900 businesses that are presently engaged in this arena. So 35 business have have applied to have their premises authorised and there are potentially 900 businesses that are already within this arena. Again, I am grateful to the staff because when I asked them how many of those 900 businesses had premises that they thought would be suitable—not everyone is going to have premises that are—they very kindly indicated that they thought between 75 to 100 businesses would have suitable premises. So up to 100 of those 900 businesses are potentially able to get their premises licensed, and only 35, so far, have done so. Will the Minister say a bit more about exactly how we will ensure that we do not get delays at the ports? I applaud the desire to have no backlog at the ports but, at the moment, the figures do not quite seem to stack up.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned the additional costs. The cost of the additional plant health inspectors required in a no-deal scenario to facilitate inland checks is covered in the additional £7.4 million that the Animal and Plant Health Agency has been allocated for 2018-19. It is also to support Defra’s wide-ranging and ambitious portfolio of preparations for exit. I work with the Animal and Plant Health Agency and it has strong expertise.

[Baroness Byford]

I thank my noble friend for clarifying the extra money that has been allocated. Will that money be clawed back from importers and people who are buying the products, or will the Government put the money up and make no attempt to get recompense? I thought from the conversations we had earlier that there would be a charge.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The fees are for the costs of inspection or whatever. The additional costs for people will partly be borne by the Exchequer. I think I had better have complete clarification on that. As far as I am concerned, the fees cover the cost of inspections and we will have to upscale them. It might be helpful if that £7.4 million is allocated in a way that my noble friend and other noble Lords can appreciate, so that we get it right and I get it on the record right.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Parminter, mentioned the 33 premises. There are obviously other businesses. Officials are engaging with export businesses and encouraging applications. We look forward to being helpful because it is important that these premises are inspected, secure and fit for purpose. Then we can help to ensure that these products come to the inland premises as swiftly as possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked about future plans. The policies in regulations are risk-based and proportionate, and will apply temporarily from day one until we develop our future plant health regime. This will include consideration of the extent to which we implement aspects of revived arrangements to be introduced in the EU from December 2019 through its new regulations on plant health and official controls, given their significant influence in shaping these new arrangements. Clearly what we in this country want to do is to have the highest possible standards of biosecurity. We will be looking at the advantage of available technologies to facilitate trade that is as frictionless as possible, but the paramount importance is to have high standards of biosecurity. Defra and the Food Standards Agency are working closely together to develop proposals for this and plan to consult on them this year.

The noble Baroness asked about Scotland. By chance, I met Mairi Gougeon, the Scottish Biosecurity Minister, along with Lesley Griffiths from Wales only about three hours ago as they were in for other meetings at Defra. I requested that the three of us meet, perhaps when this particular hiatus is over, so that we can work positively together. For Scotland, the Plant Health (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2019 were laid in draft on 13 March and were debated and passed scrutiny unchallenged on 14 March, while similar regulations for Wales were laid in draft on 19 February.

I am going to have a close look at Hansard regarding other points. My noble friend Lady Byford mentioned climate change. Obviously, this is an area where we all need to work collaboratively across the world. Because of climate change, plant diseases and pests have, in my view, become much more alarming. The issue of physical and windborne is absolutely the case. I am afraid that we would have got Chalara even if we had not done the unwise things that we did because, as my noble friend Lord Deben and others will know, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk and such eastern counties are suffering because of it being airborne. That leads to a much wider issue: whatever our arrangements with our friends in the EU 27, this is an area where we all have to collaborate. I am afraid the challenge that I would put back to Europe in this area is that a lot of things are coming here because when they arrived in Europe, there has not been zero tolerance. I mention the oak processionary moth and the Asian hornet as examples of where arrivals in Europe have not been dealt with, so we are having to seek to deal with them here. We do not have enough sea to match the ambition of New Zealand or Australia; it is only 22 miles wide. We all need to do very much more.

On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the maximum penalty, I might not have a note from the Box but I think the fine is limitless. All I can say is that if someone transgresses, I hope the fine is substantial because the disasters that can befall our country due to these pests and diseases is very grave. I will study Hansard. I will write if there are embellishments or further details that I can supply.

Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Grand Committee

These statutory instruments provide important and necessary continuity for stakeholders and beneficiaries. They will provide guarantees for the future by ensuring that farmers, fisheries and land managers continue to receive payments that support their vital work. I beg to move.

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these five statutory instruments, but I must admit that I was slightly thrown as I thought that we were going to take them separately. I have prepared for them to be taken separately, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I have rather a long list of things to raise. It would have been easier for me if we had taken them separately. However, we are where we are, so I beg everyone’s forbearance.

I thank the Minister for introducing these instruments. They are a very necessary and welcome step in enabling a smooth transition. I declare my interest as a family farmer and as benefiting from the basic farm payment scheme. My farm was in the environmental stewardship scheme many years ago.

It might be simpler if I take the instruments one at a time. I gather from the first one that stewardship schemes will no longer be open to new applicants and that intervening schemes will overlap and be covered by payments in the normal way. However, paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that Pillar 2 projects submitted before the end of 2020,

“will be funded for their full lifetime”.

I welcome that too. Defra and the devolved Administrations can continue to sign new projects during 2019 and 2020, but I am not clear how that fits in with the earlier statement that environmental stewardship schemes will no longer be open to new applicants. I might have misread the SI, in which case I apologise. However, I welcome the basic provisions.

The AHDB has a duty to raise the levy, and that will continue to be done. However, I wonder whether the AHDB will review the way in which it operates that levy, because there will perhaps be opportunities in the future to look at different and better ways of using levy income, which is a considerable amount of money coming in from businesses. As I said, this instrument will deliver a smooth transition and give farmers, land managers, rural businesses and communities certainty. I am very grateful to the Government, as that will help enormously. My specific queries, therefore, are on the existing environmental stewardship schemes, which I gather will no longer be open to new applications, and on paragraph 7.4, which refers to the possibility of signing up new projects during 2019 and 2020.

I also welcome the second SI on financing, management and monitoring. I agree with the Minister and other members of the Committee on the importance of the agriculture sector in our country today. As well as agriculture, I should mention horticulture, because the two go together. It is worth around £113 billion and employs some 3.5 million people in the food sector. With the growing population in this country, the challenges we face are more acute than they are for some of our colleagues in the European Union, where populations are in fact decreasing. There is a greater need to make sure we produce as much as we can in this country.

Paragraph 14 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report states that the NFU, one of a group of organisations that came together to consider this and advise the Minister, called for greater clarity. I refer to paragraph 8 of that document, which talks about a framework that,

“enables current agricultural support measures to continue to function effectively in the UK after EU exit”.

It goes on to say that payments will work,

“within a suitable financial framework”.

I wondered what was meant by “suitable framework”; perhaps “effective” would have been better. Again, I would be glad of some clarification on that.

I welcome paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says that Defra and the Rural Payments Agency’s industry partnership group came together on 25 September and again on 26 November, as I referred to earlier. Those working groups were very worthwhile and, on the whole, people were very happy with what came out of them. What reassurances can the Minister give that the payments will be paid on time? As he is well aware, I just sent him two Written Questions on the way the payments are made to English farmers at the moment. While 80% is quite good, and we are looking to 90%, late payments have a huge effect on many farmers. I worry about what the mechanism will be for holding the responsible statutory bodies to account when we leave, to make sure those payments are made on time. I did not see anything in this instrument that would cover that. Maybe I am being overanxious, but it would be helpful to the Committee to have a response on that.

In the past, the EU has fined us for late payments, with infraction payments. If that body no longer regulates us, who will hold the bodies responsible for those payments to account? At the moment, no environmental body has been set up; that will come in the future. If we leave without an agreement, we will have a gap between the end of March and whenever something else gets established. Like many others, I hope that an agreement will be reached and therefore these questions will be unnecessary. However, what assurances can the Minister give that those payments will be made? If I am right, the responsibility for those payments has been moved from the Environment Agency to sit totally within the RPA, so who will hold the RPA to account? I am not clear on that.

Is there any definite date for the possible future liabilities? For example, some of the projects in which we have been engaged in this country are social and rural economic projects that run for a five or six-year programme. From this legislation, I am not sure whether we could be held to account by Brussels in later years, although we will have left the EU—if the Minister follows my logic. In other words, can the EU come back to us on some of the existing projects which have been agreed, if it thinks they are falling short of what is expected? I cannot explain myself any better, because it is slightly complicated. I apologise.

On the agriculture environment schemes, who will hold us to account on making sure that payments are made correctly and on time? I am not asking about situations where there is a death, or transfer of ownership, as I know dealing with those takes time. However, many environment schemes are delayed, so I would like clarification on that.

I turn now to the third statutory instrument: miscellaneous amendments. The Explanatory Memorandum explains that this is a reasonable course of action—I am sure it is—to ensure that CAP programmes can operate properly, ensuring smooth transition. I am quite happy with that. But I am puzzled by the statement that standards of cases of discrimination, harassment and victimisation are included in this SI. I wondered why that was and what it means. I would be grateful for some clarification, because it seems extraordinary.

Reading through this SI, I have no problem with the change of wording from “member states” to “relevant authority”, because we are leaving the EU. However, on pages 6, 12 and 13, I have two queries. Regulation 4(10)(a)(i), talks about,

“the scheme for distribution to the most deprived in the UK”.

Is there a set-down definition of “the most deprived”? Is that something we would transpose from a European definition, or will we interpret it in our own way when we leave?

Regulation 5(28)(b), which amends Article 31, states that we are leaving an existing EU “small farmers scheme”. How many farmers in our country, if any, fell within that scheme? Are they currently in such a scheme and, if so, do the Government anticipate continuing such a scheme, or introducing one if they are not already included?

The fourth SI looks at the technical and legislative functions. Sub-Committee A referred that to us for our thoughts. If I picked it up right, provisions which have been carried out by the European Union will be transferred by regulation to public authorities to continue smoothly; I am more than happy with that. However, paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum talks about preventing having to make primary legislation every time a technical change is required. Can we have a little clarification? I am sure it is a good thing, but sometimes we need primary legislation rather than just secondary legislation, and I am not sure from the EM exactly what that is.

Paragraph 10.4 of the same EM, on the consultation outcomes, states Defra had its consultation between 4 July and 12 September on the fisheries White Paper. I am pleased about that; it was very helpful. While it states that the stakeholders were broadly supportive, did they have any specific major concerns?

Finally, I turn to the fifth SI, on state aid. Paragraph 2.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that if the UK,

“has exceeded its annual State aid budget, certain categories are then only exempted from State aid rules for a 6 month period”.

It goes on to say by how long this SI extends that—and here in my notes I put dot, dot, dot, because I am not sure by how long it will be extended. Will it be another six months or will it be for an indefinite period? Again, I seek clarification.

On emergency aid, I am grateful that the Minister mentioned flooding, something which sprang to my mind. The other issue is drought; we face great drought considerations in this country. The Minister knows, because I have raised it with him before, that the Environment Agency is a little slow—to be kind—in agreeing to some of the extractions that are needed, particularly in very dry areas such as East Anglia, Norfolk and into Lincolnshire, where they will not be able to continue producing crops in the same way unless they can gain water. I am well aware of the pressure that is put on water, and looking to the future, there will be even more pressure. There are ways in which we can save water—by plugging leaks, to say the least—but my thoughts turn to emergency aid for flooding and droughts, and there may be other things.

Finally, I welcome the direct rural payments, which I think are fairly clear. No doubt, other Members in Committee will want to raise those issues anyway. I am sorry my speech is so bitty—I thought we would deal with each SI individually. I apologise to other Members that it has been a bit round the houses.

--- Later in debate ---

I think that I was asked to give a reassurance about payments being made on time. I have made it very clear that the RPA is now responsible for making payments to agreement holders. The Government have been clear that the current delivery of agri-environment schemes is not good enough, as I have said. On the issue of harassment, raised by my noble friend Lady Byford—

[Baroness Byford]

Reading through the instrument, I found that odd. I could not think of the context that it was referring to.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I can understand that. In signing the EM, Ministers have to declare that we have had due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited under the Equality Act 2010.

I turn to the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Grantchester, about the red meat levy exemption. In continuing the existing exemption for imports from the EU, we were advised that we need to be in line with WTO rules, as I advised. I also advise that we expect this change to be minimal or nil. We believe that very few animals are imported into the UK live for slaughter. On average over the last five years, fewer than 500 cattle, sheep or bovines have been imported each year from beyond the EU into the UK. Their average values have been relatively high and our understanding is that they are imported mainly for breeding purposes. We believe that few, if any, are slaughtered in England soon after being imported—hence our belief that the impact of this change would be minimal.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, raised a question relating to three of the instruments and concerning the legal wording coming into force on a date later than exit day. He asked why that is the case. The legislation is worded as it is because it was not clear whether the instruments would be debated, approved and made before exit day. The wording providing for the instruments to come into force on the latter of exit day or the day after making was a prudent contingency to account for this eventuality and to ensure that we did not purport to bring into force an instrument before it was made. I might need to think about that myself, but I wanted to put the position on the record. However, it is an interesting construct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

Would it help if the noble Lord and I had a conversation after this debate on the statutory instrument? I am interested in hearing his point.

With your Lordships’ permission, I will conclude my point. In a no-deal scenario, the SI will take effect on exit day; in the case of a withdrawal agreement, it will come into force after the implementation period.

On the noble Lord’s question about Ireland, these regulations will ensure that the same state aid regime applies in the UK and Ireland, because obviously it is bringing back the same arrangements.

My noble friend Lady Byford asked how many farmers fell within the schemes. My memory is that for direct payments, it is about 85,000 farmers, but of course with countryside stewardship and environmental stewardships it is a much smaller sum.

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, I know I got a bit confused when we went over the various instruments. My question was actually in reference to small farmers, as my noble friend will be able to see when he has a chance to look at Hansard—there is no definition. I agree with him about the total numbers, but my query was about the number of small farmers and whether they are in a small farmers’ scheme.

Rural Development (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Byford Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Grand Committee

I have covered all the ground that I wished to; most of these points were also raised in paragraph 3 on page 3 of the Sub-Committee’s report. The instrument obviously begs a number of questions, which I have set out, but I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity to allay a number of fears.

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, I follow my noble friend on her various questions; she touched on some of the things I wished to raise. The question of the timescale is hugely important because, in the past, some agricultural schemes have run for 10 years and some for seven years. The timescale that she has just referred to—between 2022 and 2027—is a span of only five years, so that ongoing question needs to be resolved.

We have talked about the question of active farmers and of who receives payments in the future in many of our discussions on agriculture. I particularly wonder whether that could, in the future, include youth projects and retirement projects, or whether that is outside the particular instruments that we are looking at. It may well be so and if I am told that it is, I will perhaps be happier than I am with it not being mentioned here.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh spoke about tenant farmers and graziers, or commoners, but if I am right, I would also raise the whole question of contractors with the Minister because so many farms—as indeed ours are—are now contracted out. It was easier in the past to always refer to tenant farmers, but I think one will find that there are many more contracted arrangements now between farmers.

I, too, would like to raise paragraphs 3 and 4 of the report from the Scrutiny Committee’s Sub-Committee B. These refer to the deficiencies but the Minister has covered many of them in his presentation. If there is anything he wants to add to it, it would be good for the Committee to hear that. Also, what is happening with the financial analysis that has taken place?

Returning to the European structural and investment funds regulations, page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the,

“special interest to the Joint Committee”.

I understand that the House of Lords sifting committee did not think it was necessary to have a debate. However, the House of Commons recommended that we should, which is why we are debating it here. It would be interesting to know what it was unhappy about and what steps the Government have taken to rectify that, but overall, these instruments are obviously welcome. They are very technical, and allow systems to keep going as they are.

Moving to rural payments, we have talked about money being made available for rural development. Can the Minister say if that will also be defined as, for example, making it possible for groups of people to come together to enhance businesses and make that food chain shorter? That is not clear here. One of the big challenges that we face as a nation is how to contain the costs of producing food. The Minister, who is so knowledgeable on these things, knows very well the great advantage one has in fruit growing, or whatever it is, if there is a chain that links everything together. Money has been put aside in the past for that sort of work and I wonder whether that would fall within these regulations. It is not defined but it would be of great help.

Once we have accepted these instruments and moved on, perhaps there will be greater freedom for the UK to develop more ideas of its own as to how money could be used better to ensure that we produce food to our very high standards while reducing the chain. That way, the actual cost to the consumer could be contained in a better way than it perhaps has been in the past—it has been a bit fractioned in some areas. Pigs and poultry are not falling into that but there are some other areas, particularly horticulture, where the coming together of business would bring great benefits. However, having read through this, I am not clear whether that falls within the category of the thinking behind these regulations.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to the first two of these four statutory instruments that are being taken together. I thank the Minister and his officials for their very helpful briefing session on what is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has already indicated, a very complex subject.

The European agricultural fund for rural development provides rural development programmes which run under the multiannual financial framework. This SI allows funded programmes to run allegedly unhindered after exit date, until their natural end in 2020.

Annexe 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum lists the six legacy regulations affected by the SI, two more in which deficiencies will be remedied and four where the devolved Administrations have had programme amendments approved. This will ensure that structure fund programmes continue to run smoothly. As I understand it, these programmes will continue to report in the same way as previously but will report to the rural development programmes of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as the relevant devolved Administrations, instead of direct to the EU.

The aim of these SIs is to ensure operability of schemes and the continuity of investment in rural areas, which is the key element for me—it is really important. I wish to ask about the specifics of reporting mechanisms. The EU was very stringent on the information that was required by those who had received structure funds. Being involved with an organisation that had some of their money, I am aware of just how stringent it was. Can the Minister assure us that the UK will get good value for public money? This is especially necessary now that the Exchequer will pick up the funding instead of the EU.

As someone who comes from a rural community, I have a keen interest in the effect of these SIs. Last Friday I took part in a rural conference whose chief aim was to press the Government to produce a rural strategy. The Government have produced an Industrial Strategy which addresses the needs of urban communities and their economy. Now it is time to produce a strategy to address some of the huge disadvantages that rural communities face. These include lack of infrastructure, lack of transport, significantly less pupil funding, lack of affordable housing and poor access to services. I am concerned that the lifeline of rural development funding will be cut off by 2021, to be replaced by a nebulous undertaking that this will in future be covered by the Agriculture Bill.

The Agriculture Bill as published makes some significant changes to the way funding for farming and the environment would take place—as has already been said, public money for public good—but the Bill has become stuck in the Commons after Committee. I am concerned that a large gap in funding for rural areas is opening up before us. As the noble Lord has indicated, Sub-Committee B of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee estimates that the value of EU funds that will need to be replaced is between £400 million and £450 million a year of the European agricultural fund for rural development programmes for the remainder of the period to 2020. The loss of this investment will be keenly felt by many in deep rural areas.

Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“After EU Exit, no new rural development programmes will need to be approved and from 2021 new agricultural and environmental schemes will be delivered under the Agricultural Bill”.


The Agriculture Bill will therefore need to be in place by 2021. It should have been in place by the 29th of this month, so that rural communities could plan ahead and have confidence that they were not going to suffer from a severe lack of resources. I know that the Minister understands these issues, but I am not sure the rest of the Government do.

Paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum, under “Impact”, states:

“Beneficiaries will continue to receive rural development funding as before EU exit”.


I am not confident that this will happen and am very concerned about the fate of rural communities.