Common Agricultural Policy (Cross-Compliance Exemptions and Transitional Regulation) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I greatly enjoyed my noble friend’s presentation of the instrument before us. I think that paragraphs 7.7 and 7.8 set out exactly what my noble friend said. I would just like to ask for a point of clarification. We were informed last week about this dashboard. I have had great amusement trying to find the dashboard and identify the 570—I am told—Defra regulations, of which I assume this is one.

Is my noble friend of the view that this instrument will come back before us within the next year? That would greatly help me. A close reading of today’s House of Lords Business will show that I have tabled a Question to help me to understand. If 570 Defra items are listed on the retained EU law dashboard, published on 22 June, which relate to phytosanitary, plant or animal health, welfare and hygiene measures? Presumably we will have the opportunity to consider each in turn when they come before us, but as a general rule many of them will fall because, like this one, they fall within a transitional period. As the CAP comes to a close and Brexit kicks in to a greater extent there will presumably be retained EU legislation such as this that will fall. Will we come back to this particular instrument in the next year or two for those purposes?

There must be other pieces of retained EU legislation that we spent hours going through in this very Room or remotely to see how they would apply, many of which I imagine we would wish to retain. Do we have to wait for the Brexit freedoms Bill—I am not quite sure what it is called—to come before us, or will we approach this on an ad hoc basis? It would certainly help me to understand, since I committed so many hours to my greater knowledge and understanding of what the EU retained legislation was at the time, what the situation will be with this and other instruments.

It strikes me that it will take up an inordinate amount of Defra officials’ time to go through this exercise. If such instruments will fall anyway, will we have to meet physically to confirm that they are redundant and that they have fallen out of use or will that happen naturally? Will we be required to go through every single regulation that we adopted as part of our retained EU law that we wish to keep on the statute book?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI and for the helpful briefing beforehand. I accept that the majority of these changes are technical in nature.

First, although it is not ideal, I understand why the changes to EU regulation 2020/2220 could not be made at this time, given that it was passed so close to the end of the transition period. It therefore makes sense to take this opportunity to remove the provisions to minimise ambiguity and potential confusion. I also accept that it is helpful to remove redundant references to the EU and member states where they no longer apply in UK law.

Secondly, with regard to the changes to cross-compliance regulations, I can see why it might be necessary to widen the scope of the existing cross-compliance exemptions as set out in Schedule 3. However, I have some specific questions about this. These new exemptions to the schedule are very specific and refer only to the specific changes we made to Section 98 of the Environment Act 1995 and Section 1 of the Agriculture Act 2020. Can we be sure that these two provisions are the only two occasions where exemptions to the cross-compliance rules should be necessary?

I am struggling with some of the detail here, but I do not think many farmers will be operating exclusively under those agreements. That raises the question of what happens if, for example, their environmental work is, say, 20% but also has a direct impact on other activities, such as food production, at 80%. Would they be penalised, or is there an element of discretion? If so, what would that look like? In other words, what is the interface between the old cross-compliance and the new arrangements? How much discretion is there in all that or is it absolutely fixed in stone?

I still do not feel, having read the SI several times, that the application of the cross-compliance rules is clear, notwithstanding double negatives and so on. I would not relish being a farmer and having to try to understand and apply them. To be absolutely clear about this, are they to be applied only to claims under the old basic payment scheme? Therefore, will the cross- compliance rules be phased out as any claims under the old CAP scheme are phased out?

Given that there is wide acknowledgement that the CAP was too rigid and the financial penalties for non-compliances were too onerous, why are the Government not taking this opportunity to introduce the lighter-touch regime we were promised when we debated the then Agriculture Bill? Can we be assured that the roll-out of ELMS and any future UK agricultural and rural payment schemes will be assessed without cross-compliance penalties? How is that all going to work in future?

I look forward to the Minister’s response. I also look forward to the Minister’s response to the very interesting questions from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which I would like to know the answers to as well.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and my noble friend for their contributions; I will try to answer their questions.

On the dashboard, these regulations and all retained EU law will be carefully reviewed as we go through the next few months. The Bill text is yet to be finalised. We are working closely with the Cabinet Office on what will be required in Defra-retained legislation. My noble friend Lady McIntosh is right to point out that we are coming to the end of the transition period, which is why we are doing all this stuff now. The tidying-up operation we are bringing in is because the sunset element of the EU withdrawal Act will be later this year and we want to get these matters resolved.

My noble friend asked how this instrument relates to the Brexit freedoms Bill. This instrument was an EU exit instrument made using the powers of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As such, it makes no policy changes and does no more than is appropriate to make this common agricultural policy legislation fully operable now that the transition period with the EU has concluded. The Brexit freedoms Bill makes it easier to amend or remove outdated retained EU law from the statute book, ensuring that the UK continues to seize the benefits of Brexit and utilise our regulatory freedoms. Future regulation will be in line with our new regulatory principles. This answers some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made. Our rules will be proportionate and create a collaboration with business to help spur on economic growth.

I would just say, to her final point on ELMS, that we are trying to generate a culture change within agriculture. The cross-compliance rules of the common agricultural policy were tedious—I speak with the scars on my back from having to fill in the IACS forms and all their successors—and you could feel the dead hand of government on your shoulder regulating every aspect of what you do. We are transferring to a system that trusts farmers to draw down from a list of possible actions they might like to take and treats them rather like we do taxpayers. We taxpayers fill in our tax returns and the Government trust us unless they have reason not to. Occasionally, they will do an inspection. Occasionally, they will do a risk-based, intelligence-based assessment of whether somebody is at risk of breaking those rules. If they do break those rules, there are sanctions, but we want to be working with farmers much more, encouraging them into the new schemes and seeing the benefits that will come from that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made a very important point about cross-compliance regulation and enforcement. We are reforming our regulatory system, as I have said, to meet the country’s need and we will deliver a clear, fair and effective system. Cross-compliance will end at the point that the CAP direct payments are dealing from land. However, protections provided by cross-compliance will mostly continue. Domestic legislation already contains most of the same rules as cross-compliance and enforcement action to deal with any non-compliance.

The end of cross-compliance provides an opportunity, as I say, to move away from an approach that is seen to be disproportionate. We are reforming our farming regulatory system using the Dame Glenys Stacey 2018 review recommendations and by working closely with farmers and others. We want a farming regulatory approach that is focused on outcomes and based on the core principles of partnership, adaptability, proportionality, transparency and efficiency.

Some questions related to the whole area of complexity. Defra is working hard to make the system as easy as possible for everyone. We have simplified the online application system to make it faster and easier for farmers to apply and revised the scheme standards to make them clearer and more self-explanatory. Farmers can be in the SFI and the Countryside Stewardship scheme or the Environmental Stewardship scheme at the same time, so long as they are not being paid for the same actions twice and the actions are compatible.

--- Later in debate ---

I will look through Hansard to see whether there are further points that I have missed, but without knowledge of any further points, I beg that this motion be agreed.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am sorry, I do not normally interrupt the Minister, but can this be right? I think the Minister said, which I did not expect him to, that when the basic payment scheme is phased out, as it will be, cross-compliance will carry on after that. Is that the correct understanding of what he said?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

There is some conditionality on the scheme. If you say that you are going to plant a headland, you have to plant a headland with wild flowers, and it is the same if you are doing something that comes under the heading of “public goods” that we are pushing through our new schemes under the SFI. However, as I said, we want to do this with a light touch. We want farmers to be trusted to do it. The cross-compliance elements will remain as the schemes are phased out, but then we want to move to a system that is more trusting of farmers to do the right thing.

Plant Health etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the regulations before us. I broadly welcome them, but I have a number of questions.

Paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The impact on business … is that these changes are estimated to save businesses c. £1.2m per annum due to lower levels of checks and subsequent impact on fees.”


Obviously, a lower level of fees will be pleasing for the industry, but I had not grasped that we are introducing a lower level of checks through this instrument.

One of the difficulties of this instrument, which my noble friend just introduced, was also set out in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s fifth report. As my noble friend stated at the outset, there will be a second statutory instrument at the end of June that will set out the regime. Why has the way in which the fees have been structured been separated from the regime? Why have we not had an opportunity to consider them both together? I would have thought that the regime was probably of most interest. When might we expect to see that statutory instrument, as today is already 28 June?

Am I right to assume that paragraph 28 talks about the inspection fees being corrected, as they are being reinstated, when samples of imported consignments are taken for lab testing to confirm the presence of certain plant pests? Can my noble friend elaborate on whether that is done on an ad hoc basis or responding to intelligence? Does it include such laboratories as FERA, which I had the honour to represent in North Yorkshire for the last five years I was in the other place?

Also, is this one of the instruments that appears on the famous dashboard that we heard about last week? Is it one of the 570 statutory instruments that is retained EU law or is it a stand-alone instrument? Will we come back to look at this in a different context? I welcome the opportunity to debate and approve the regulations this afternoon.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for the helpful briefing that he organised beforehand.

The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the purpose of the regulations is to help reduce biosecurity risk and to protect the environment from the spread of harmful pests and diseases. Obviously, these are objectives that we can all aspire to, but I would like to explore in more detail whether the proposed changes will achieve that result.

The new fees structure set out in this SI is based on a new risk-targeted inspections scheme which is set out in a separate SI, the Official Controls (Plant Health) (Frequency of Checks) Regulations, which this SI says will apply from July 2022, and to which the Minister referred as well. However, that SI has not been published yet. When I queried this with the department, I was told that it would be published on 30 June, which happens to be a couple of days after this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also raised this point. Where is the parliamentary scrutiny in this process? We are being asked to agree the fees without seeing the risk-based scheme in the first place.

The basis of the proposed changes was set out in a government consultation. In the Government’s response to the consultation, dated 31 March 2022, they concluded that imposing full checks on all categories of plants needed to be balanced with the impact on regulators and trade. In effect, it appears that this is a watering down of our biosecurity risk regime at a time when the threat of importing new plants and diseases with new and emerging pathogens is increasing.

I think it is fair to say that this is not a very reassuring SI in terms of the impact on biosecurity, and that the proposed changes were not greeted with unanimous support during the consultation. For example, the Government’s response to the consultation flags up that concerns were raised about the ability of the plant health risk group to respond quickly to new outbreaks. Obviously, there are different sorts of outbreak; some can be predictable, as can some disease threats, but some occur unusually and out of the blue. Is the plant health risk group really in a position to be able to judge and assess that risk, and to measure the right plants that are coming across our borders? There was a feeling that the inspection methods and technology applications were out of date and that we needed to modernise them. Concerns were also raised about the need for more transparency on the interception of pests and diseases and that, if a new pest or disease had been identified on UK shores, it needed to be shared more immediately.

These are all real challenges that Parliament has not yet had the chance to discuss, so I hope that the Minister can clarify why we have had such limited opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny on a very important issue that we have debated on a number of occasions in the past. Quite rightly, everyone has said that there is an acute need to take biosecurity more seriously.

Returning to this SI, first, it acknowledges that some commodities will be subject to reduced levels of physical and identity checks, leading to a lower fee being applied. However, nowhere does it really say that those at higher risk levels will have to pay a higher fee. I am interested to know how that will work in terms of our biosecurity protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their points. To continue to protect plant biosecurity while facilitating the trade and movement of plants and plant material, it is essential that consignments that could pose a risk be subject to risk-based inspections before entering Great Britain. As I described, this instrument will maintain the alignment of plant health inspection fees with UK government policy to recover the full costs of official checks to manage risks arising from commercial activity.

I will respond in a rather random way to both questioners—I hope the Committee will forgive me. First, my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked why the two SIs are being dealt with separately and why Parliament has not been given a chance to debate measures in the other SI before deciding on this one. The Official Controls (Plant Health) (Frequency of Checks) Regulations 2022 set out the methods used to calculate the frequencies on which the fees in this instrument are based. Those methods and the resulting frequencies of checks have been published via consultation.

Both SIs are scheduled to come into force on 22 July and require scheduling to ensure that they do so in an aligned fashion. The difference in scheduling of these SIs is due to the different type of parliamentary procedure that they should follow, determined by their parent Acts. The Official Controls (Plant Health) (Frequency of Checks) Regulations 2022 will be open to full parliamentary scrutiny, as per the negative procedure, following being laid on 30 June.

I reassure both noble Baronesses that we have raised the standards of biosecurity in this country since leaving the EU. We have put resources behind it, employing 150 more inspectors, and we are approaching it in a unified way, with Border Force improving our training at ports of entry. As the Committee knows, we are rolling out our BCPs in the coming months to make sure that we stop more high-risk plants at the border, rather than at point of delivery.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about some fees and checks being reduced significantly and whether that means that we are somehow weakening biosecurity as we will not be inspecting so intensively. The new inspection arrangements are based on international standards for categorising commodities according to risk. This will allow the Animal and Plant Health Agency to focus on those commodities representing the highest potential risk, including trees and other woody plants to be grown outdoors, while reducing input on those products representing a low risk due to their intended use, such as houseplants and many fruits and vegetables for consumption. In this way, we will be targeting resources in the most effective way to protect GB biosecurity while avoiding unnecessary burdens and costs on businesses.

The noble Baroness asked who makes this decision. Experts make the decision, not me. Our Chief Plant Health Officer, who I speak to regularly and have spoken to today, and I have a monthly biosecurity meeting where we look at risks, but the risk is managed by people who understand its evidence base. Those are the basic criteria around which we make this decision. The plant health risk group meets monthly and continuously monitors new threats, taking account of the results of import inspections and other relevant information, such as scientific reports and developments in other countries. Inspection frequencies are one tool by which risks can be mitigated, and they will be kept under frequent review. However, it is already the case that the highest-risk plants and products, including trees and woody plants, will be inspected more intensively, and that we will keep our import requirements under continuous review to determine where they need to be strengthened in response to new or altered risks, as was the case in the recent pine processionary moth incident.

Going back to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, certain goods are subject to routine sampling and testing, such as seeds. In other cases, goods are sampled when an inspector sees something concerning during an official import inspection. A sample is taken to confirm the presence or absence of a controlled pest.

A question was asked about the large difference between some fees. It is a good point to make. The risk associated with specific commodities is the basis on which the fees are set. The highest-risk commodities are subject to 100% documentary, identity and physical checks and 100% of associated fees. Lower-risk goods are subject to lower frequencies of checks and therefore proportionately lower fees. Defra and its agencies are not alone in doing this. There is a protocol across Whitehall about charging for these activities. That protocol is set by the Treasury. We work closely with it to make sure that our rules for cost recovery are in accordance with those laid by the Government.

I should say at this point that the Government announced on 28 April that the remaining import controls on goods from the EU, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, including plants and plant products, will no longer be introduced this year. Instead, traders will continue to move their goods from the EU to GB as they do now. The rest of the controls which were planned for introduction on 1 July are no longer going ahead. This means that import checks of high-priority plants and plant products will not be moving to border control posts yet. Deregulated and notifiable produce and cut flowers will not be subject to import checks from July. Low-risk Article 73 goods will no longer require prenotification but will be assessed on a risk basis.

I have received inspiration in reply to a question about who makes the decision. This is agreed on the basis of consultation with stakeholders, as we have done with this SI, which has the support of the industry. That is really important to us.

There was also a question about the flat-rate fee. The fee will be in place until a fees review has taken place. That will involve a full review of all plant health fees, including the methodologies used to determine them. It is a multi-year process involving close work with stakeholders.

The other point I would make is on the disparity in funding for foliage versus physical checks, which the noble Baroness rightly raised. There is a serious risk to seed potatoes, which is why they are charged at a higher cost. Foliage—an apple, for example—is a simple product to assess. We want to make sure that we are doing it on the basis of risk but also in accordance with cross-government rules on charging.

As I have outlined, these regulations ensure that full cost recovery of plant health services is maintained and that the costs of inspecting imported plant health-controlled material are met by those businesses using Defra’s import inspection services. With that—

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his reply, which was, as ever, very comprehensive. I just want to go back to the original point about the missing SI that is not here. The Minister said that it and this SI originally came from two pieces of legislation, which is why they ended up here in a different order, but there must be somebody in Defra who can apply a bit of common sense to that ordering. I do not wish to make too much heavy weather of it but I hope that a lesson is learned from this. The department needs to ensure that, whatever the originating piece of legislation, instruments come before Parliament in a sensible order so that we can deal with concurrent bits of legislation at the same time. I leave that thought with the Minister.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

That thought is well made and will be reflected on. We want to make sure that we are doing this properly. As the noble Baroness says, the instruments come from two separate pieces of legislation. Which measures are affirmative or negative, in what is brought before us in this place, is an enigma wrapped in a mystery to me. However, there are wiser minds than mine that understand these things. I accept the point: we try to apply common sense in everything we do and make it easy for noble Lords to hold the Government to account, but we are bound here by two distinct pieces of legislation. I am hopeful that they will go on to the statute book and improve the regime, and be in place by the middle of next month.

Water Companies: Sewage Discharge Monitoring

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to require water companies to monitor the volume of sewage discharged into water courses and not just the frequency of such discharges.

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

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register. The volume of storm overflow discharge is not directly proportional to its harm as the concentration of sewage in discharges depends on the volume of rainwater it is mixed with. Therefore, we have taken a more effective approach to place a duty on water companies in the Environment Act to directly monitor the impact of discharges on water quality upstream and downstream of overflows. This monitoring system will identify harm from storm overflows and ensure that water companies are held to account through enforcement action.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that response, but the Environment Agency has already said that there has

“been widespread and serious non-compliance with the … regulations.”

How can it be expected to act if water companies do not have to measure the intensity of polluting sewage being discharged. Of course there is a cost, but we have always known that more investment is essential to tackle this problem. The Commons Environmental Audit Committee has already recommended installing these monitors, so why are the Government siding with the water companies against the interests of the public, who are rightly outraged at this ongoing scandal?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The Government are very much not siding with the water companies. The level of storm overflows into our rivers is totally unacceptable. That is why we are publishing on 1 September this year our storm overflows plan, which will give details of how we will monitor this. We have measures within the Environment Act which give new legally binding targets and measures which we will bring into force. We have the 25-year plan commitment and our strategic policy statement for Ofwat, which gives a very clear direction. We also have our requirements to the Environment Agency on enforcement, which will hold water companies that break the law to account.

Animal Welfare (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, this instrument makes several minor, technical amendments to retained EU regulations, correcting deficiencies so that the legislation operates effectively. These regulations relate to the protection and welfare of animals during transport and to official controls on the imports of animals, animal products, plants and plant products, including food and other imports relevant to the agri-food chain.

In Great Britain, the Animal and Plant Health Agency issues authorisations to commercial transporters of animals which can show that they meet the regulatory requirements, such as having appropriately trained and competent staff. For long journeys, the Animal and Plant Health Agency also approves journey plans, known as journey logs, prior to the journey beginning. Approval of a journey log depends on the transporter demonstrating that it can meet the welfare needs of the animals being transported, through providing appropriate rest, food and water. The requirement for an APHA-approved journey log extends to EU transporters that wish to import animals to Great Britain.

This instrument clarifies the role and powers of the competent authority to grant or refuse requests for journey logs and transporter authorisations needed for the transport of live animals into, out of and through Great Britain. This will allow for better enforcement, as the role and powers of that authority would otherwise be unclear in some circumstances, resulting in possible confusion on the ground.

It also clarifies a power of the competent authority to recover the costs of enforcement action where appropriate; that is, it provides the competent authority with the discretion to decide whether to recover costs. The powers of the competent authority are not affected, and the change is intended to make it clear that cost recovery is an option for the regulator. The power to recover costs, without an obligation to do so, enables the authority to take into account circumstances and make decisions regarding cost recovery on a case-by-case basis.

This instrument removes defunct references to various EU systems and organisations—contact points, mutual assistance schemes and an oversight committee. It also removes the legal requirement to report annually to the European Commission on long journeys and animal welfare inspections. Multiple references to “EU member states” are replaced with “Great Britain”. An outdated requirement to provide rules on penalties for infringements of animal welfare in transport regulations by 5 July 2006 is removed, as those rules were laid by that date and are currently in force. Finally, outdated references to other regulations, relating to training for competent authority staff, other veterinary legislation and animal welfare inspections for animals destined for slaughter, are corrected, ensuring that the regulators’ ability to enforce welfare standards is maintained.

The amendments contained in this instrument are necessary to ensure that, in line with current government policy, we can enforce our high animal welfare standards and protect the UK’s biosecurity. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that introduction. We agree that these changes are broadly technical in nature but, once again, we have an SI before us which, in its own words, corrects failures and deficiencies in retained EU law which should and could have been spotted earlier. First, can the Minister say how these errors came to light and why they were not identified earlier? Has there been any detriment to animal welfare controls since the adoption of the withdrawal Act in 2018, as a result of this incorrect wording?

Secondly, the Minister explained the rationale for changing mandatory cost recovery to discretionary cost recovery. On the face of it, this seems sensible, but can he say something more about the types of cases where it would not be in the public interest to pursue cost recovery? Is there a danger that, if we now switch to what he described as a “case-by-case basis”, it could lead to a broader fall in enforcement action, with many authorities making a financial calculation that the cost is just not worth the effort, particularly if it is a marginal benefit? Could there be an overall drop in enforcement as a result?

Finally, paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the outdated references have been updated to refer to current legislation, and the Minister gave some examples of that. Are the current standards now in place equivalent to or better than the old ones that were there before? As this is quite a complex area of regulation, will it potentially be revisited as part of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s bonfire of EU regulations? If so, what will the process be and when will we hear more about how he intends to conduct that review? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions and her understanding of the need for this. She rightly identified a number of areas that need clarification. I absolutely reiterate that these regulations do not reduce any current animal welfare standards. As the noble Baroness pointed out, they make technical but necessary changes to ensure that existing legislation on animal welfare during transport can continue to operate effectively in practice.

In answer to the noble Baroness’s first question, no detrimental effect nor operational issues have arisen since our EU exit but this legislation enables operational delivery. However, there is a need, met by this SI, to ensure that the role of the competent authority is clarified to avoid any points of confusion. There is also a need to ensure that the definition of the competent authority is consistent with that set out in the retained form of the official controls regulations. The other corrective measures in the SI, such as the removal of any obligations to report to the EU Commission and references to defunct legislation, are tidying-up requirements and so have not created any impact.

Leaving the EU was never going to be an easy job. The legislation that took us through the retained EU competence process left a number of anomalies, for which there is a time limit for us to sort out. This is one of them and is relatively minor. It could have been done earlier but is being done now. I hope that the noble Baroness understands.

The noble Baroness talked about the importance of recovery of costs. By providing discretion for costs recovery, we are allowing for situations where such actions would be impractical, uneconomic and not otherwise in the public interest. It is our view that this measure would enable money-saving decisions to be taken by the regulator or at least to ensure that the costs are net zero. We are not amending the powers available to the competent authority; this change is intended to make it clear that recovering costs is discretionary for the regulator. Currently, the competent authority is required to attempt to recover the costs of any and all enforcement actions undertaken. This relates to expenses incurred and there will be a de minimis where the activities exceed the monies recovered. We want to make sure that we are protecting businesses, not imposing costs on them. Giving that discretion to authorities is important.

The noble Baroness asked about making sure that the competent authority has the skills. Any references to other regulations related to training for competent authority staff, other veterinary legislation and animal welfare inspections for animals destined for slaughter have been deleted. They have been replaced by references to current legislation, which maintain the standards already in place. The training requirements for competent authority and veterinary staff are now set out in the retained versions of the official controls regulations. I hope that this gives the noble Baroness comfort that the new standards are at least equivalent, if not better.

On her point about the Government’s deregulatory drive, this is a key area in which we want to retain high standards. We want this country to continue to have the highest animal welfare and environmental standards, which is why it is important that we take this forward. I do not see that changing in this Government and I think that there is cross-party support for Britain remaining a beacon for animal welfare standards, constantly raising the bar and improving what we are trying to achieve. The Government’s animal health and welfare pathway is an example of that and has been broadly welcomed by the farming industry. It is just part of this picture.

We are proud of our world-leading standards on animal welfare. As I have outlined, these amendments will ensure that existing regimes for animal welfare during transport continue to operate effectively.

Food Security

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The most beneficial way to encourage people into farming at all levels is through a system of let land and tenure. It is very often those corporations and those individuals that the noble Baroness mentions that provide the only entry for people who do not have access to capital to purchase a farm. We want as broad activity as possible in agricultural production, and that means encouraging new and younger people to enter farming through the tenancy system.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on a similar issue last Wednesday, the Minister said:

“we are taking action to make sure that private sector investment in our natural environment is done properly, with the proper social underpinning.”—[Official Report, 8/6/22; col. 1151.]

Can he explain how this “social underpinning” is going to work? Will local people have the right to veto a large-scale private sector land grab, an example of which we have already been hearing about?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Under the Forestry Commission’s rules, there is a local consultation process that proposed tree planters are required to go through. Also, the woodland carbon code is very clear, as is the UK peatland code. We also want to make sure that corporations that are investing in this kind of mitigation are publicly accessible through the UK Land Carbon Registry, so anybody can see what is being done in their neighbourhood. We want to make sure that, with these so-called environmental, social and governance measures, the middle word is used and is fundamental—w want to make sure that these schemes are socially acceptable, as well as environmentally acceptable.

Government Food Strategy

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement this evening. We have waited a very long time for this food strategy to be published—and what a disappointment it has turned out to be. It has provoked a united response, but for all the wrong reasons. It has been roundly criticised by Henry Dimbleby himself, by farmers, by food campaigners and by environmentalists, for being vague and unambitious. Henry Dimbleby has said that it is not a strategy and has warned that more children will go hungry. Minette Batters has said that the proposal to help farmers increase food production has been “stripped to the bone”. The Soil Association has criticised

“a narrow-minded ideology which believes government should not intervene to reshape diets”,

and Greenpeace has said that the proposals

“only perpetuate a broken food system”.

Sadly, these proposals are a disservice to the excellent, well-researched report produced by Henry Dimbleby, which took a holistic approach to the farm-to-fork journey and its impact on our health. It highlighted the terrible damage that poor farming practices could do to our planet. It called out the complicity of food manufacturers whose drive for profits is pushing highly processed junk food on to the nation in the full knowledge of the ill-health consequences, and it warned of an obesity crisis that would overwhelm our health service if urgent action were not taken. The UK is now the third fattest country in the G7, with almost three in 10 adults obese, while children are going hungry because our school food system is failing so many of them in need.

The Dimbleby report was radical and challenging. As it says:

“Change is never easy. But we cannot build a sustainable, healthy and fair food system by doing business as usual.”


It seems, however, that this is exactly the approach the Government are taking. The Dimbleby review consisted of almost 300 pages, yet this response covers barely 10% of it. It has not even responded to the 14 very well-argued recommendations in the report. All the difficult questions have been ducked. Instead, we have a statement of vague intentions and a rehash of existing policies, not a blueprint to tackle the major food issues facing this country.

The Minister’s Written Statement talked about the need to work across all government departments to deliver the strategy but, frankly, such cross-departmental working should have been put in place before the White Paper was drafted. Where are the policies that would address the 7.3 million people living in poverty, including 2.6 million children? Where are the policies to make food banks a thing of the past, instead of our facing a 95% increase in food parcels being handed out since 2015? Where are the policies to tackle the rise in adult obesity that is putting our health service under such strain? Why have the Dimbleby plans to improve child nutrition been ignored? Why have the proposals to extend entitlement to free school meals been rejected, despite widespread support from teachers, health workers and campaigners?

We know that food prices are rocketing and the food system is under strain, but this White Paper gets nowhere near addressing the root causes. Costs are dramatically rising for farmers and food producers, putting further pressure on food price inflation, and the closure of the UK’s biggest fertiliser plant last week will add to food costs. Meanwhile, crops are rotting in the field and over 40,000 pigs have already been culled because of labour shortages.

So, where are the plans to support British businesses and ensure that British food is affordable? Where are the plans to support our farmers and stop them being undercut by imports with lower animal welfare and environmental standards? Why was the commitment to tackle low-quality imports taken out of the paper at the last minute? What message is that sending to farmers? Instead, we should have a plan to ensure that we buy, sell and grow more of our great British food, entrenching Britain’s reputation as a beacon for quality food, high standards and the ethical treatment of animals.

The Dimbleby report was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset our food strategy for the future. It tackled the difficult issues, knowing that not everything would be agreed. So, why did the Government not feel able to give the recommendations in that report the detailed response they deserved? Does the Minister recognise that as a result, we have a White Paper that pleases no one, lacks ambition and represents a missed opportunity? I very much look forward to his response on these issues.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, there is much to say about this “Let them eat venison” food strategy—although there is not a lot of meat in it. It is full of vague intentions and grand promises such as a school food revolution. It seems to me that when this Government want to hide the fact that they have chickened out of doing something really revolutionary, they call it a revolution. Sadly, they have failed to do justice to Henry Dimbleby’s thoughtful, realistic and ambitious national food plan. No wonder he is disappointed that only half his recommendations have found favour with the Government.

Our national food system is broken. If your Lordships do not believe me, ask the NHS workers who are forced to use the food bank set up by the hospital where they work. Ask the person who has three jobs, trying to put food on the table but able to afford only cheap food or ready meals because there is no time left to cook. Ask the doctors who treat the 40% of overweight children and the 64% of overweight adults. Ask the nurses who treated the large number of people with obesity who died of Covid-19 at the height of the pandemic.

Henry Dimbleby recommended a food system to make people well, not one that would make them sick, while at the same time protecting the environment. Yet what do we have in response? Twenty-seven pages that ignore evidence-based measures such as introducing a sugar and salt tax, an idea that the soft drinks industry levy has shown to be an effective way of incentivising manufacturers to reformulate and reduce sugar in order to avoid the tax. Tonnes of sugar have been cut from the diets of children and teenagers, while people drink just as many soft drinks and the industry has not suffered at all. However, despite that success, the amount of sugar the average person eats is continuing to rise because of the increase in consumption of junk foods laced with sugar, salt and other appetite stimulants. So why will the Government not follow the sugar tax idea with other foods? Can the Minister say who has been lobbying the Government to ditch this recommendation? Is it the same people who succeeded in persuading the Government to delay the implementation of the ban on TV and online advertising and volume promotions of HFSS foods before the ink was dry on the Health and Care Act?

The price of food is rising but there is no evidence that a salt and sugar tax would increase it. I spoke yesterday to someone in the food industry who was convinced that it would encourage reductions in salt, and particularly in sugar, without price rises. If the Government want to reduce taxes, perhaps they should start with the inflated amounts of VAT that are flowing into their coffers from our fuel and energy purchases; that would help families directly.

During the passage of the Health and Care Act, there was a great deal of talk about what the new integrated care systems could do to address the health inequalities crisis. We know that obesity is more common among poorer people, yet this so-called strategy will do nothing to help them afford healthy food. We are told that a healthy diet would cost five times what the poorest families can afford, but the sugar and salt tax could pay for some of the measures that Dimbleby proposed to balance things out. Extending the Healthy Start programme and eligibility for free school meals and the holiday activity and food scheme would help to get fruit and vegetables into the diets of poor families, yet there are no proposals about that. Why not?

The Government talk about willpower, information and education for consumers, yet we have had health education in school for years, as well as food labelling. It has not worked. When the soft drinks levy was introduced, Liz Truss objected, saying that people should be free to choose. However, the problem is that people are not free to choose healthy food because they cannot afford it; they can only afford cheap calories. In some housing estates, almost the whole row of shops consists of junk food outlets. Where is the choice there? It is a matter not of will power but of affordability and availability.

The Government have a responsibility here. I was amazed to read in the White Paper that the cost of food is not a matter for government. Does the Minister really believe that? Of course it is, when people are getting sick, putting pressure on the NHS and costing the taxpayer a lot of money. I do not expect this Government to care about poor people losing years of life because of poor diet, but I would have thought they would understand the economic case for ensuring a healthy and productive population. Achieving the Government’s own ambition of five extra years of healthy life by 2030 is nowhere near on track, especially in the lower demographic groups.

Neither is there anything concrete in the White Paper to help farmers produce good food more efficiently, while protecting the environment. Farmers are already up in arms about what they are being asked to do without extra support, and worried about competition from large farms in Australia and New Zealand. Subsidies have been cut by 20% and the Government are still not clear about the details of the environmental land management payments.

Your Lordships’ Science and Technology Select Committee, in its report on nature-based solutions to net zero, said that farmers need a free and independent expert advice service to help them improve their productivity while improving biodiversity, but all we have is an alphabet soup of schemes and funds—and nowhere in the food strategy could I see the word “soil”. Another of Dimbleby’s recommendations that is notable for its absence is that we should aim to eat at least 30% less meat, given that 85% of our agricultural land is used to feed animals. Apart from the ridiculous “Let them eat venison” proposal, I see nothing practical to achieve that.

We are offered more research on things that we already know and more reviews about things that do not need reviewing—nothing but delay and equivocation. What a missed opportunity.

Tree Health in England

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for tabling this Question and provoking such an interesting debate. I should declare an interest through my involvement at the Rothamsted agricultural institute.

As noble Lords have vividly illustrated, a record number of pests and diseases are arriving on our shores and threatening our native tree population. Species of oak, elm, Scots pine, beech and birch are all at increasing risk from invasive bugs, fungi and bacteria. Quite rightly, there is real concern that our native woodlands could suffer wholesale devastation, with catastrophic impacts for not only the local landscape but our wider environmental and economic objectives.

We all recognise the vital role that trees play in carbon capture and sequestration. This is why we on these Benches have supported the Government’s tree-planting targets, challenging though they have proved to be. For every tree that dies as a result of invasive pests and diseases, meeting the planting target becomes even more of a challenge. So what can we do to prevent the inevitable drift towards woodland devastation?

First, as noble Lords have said, our warmer climate is becoming a magnet for new pests, while others that would have been killed off in harsh winter months continue to thrive and breed in the warmer climates. It is absolutely vital, not only for the obvious reasons but for those reasons as well, that we hit our net-zero targets. Perhaps the Minister can update us on whether he feels that we are playing our part in planting new trees to do that.

Secondly, international travel has fuelled a taste for exotic plants and the globalised trade in live plants has been allowed to outweigh our more pressing concerns about the host plants infecting our native species. As noble Lords have said, we need stronger vigilance and enforcement. We also need an urgent programme to invest in our domestic nursery sector, reducing our reliance on imported saplings.

Thirdly, perhaps most importantly, we need to invest in research into both the prevention and the cure. We need to understand what makes a tree pest-resistant and how we can replicate its genes. We need to understand what natural allies can be harnessed, such as natural microbes that could be enlisted to fight the diseases. We need to understand more about the natural habitats that make trees strong and healthy, including the benefits of planting and protecting diverse native woodlands, smaller woods and natural woodland corridors—a number of noble Lords made this point. We also need to ensure that we have the trained staff for the long-term care and nurturing of woodlands, to maintain them for the longer term. Can the Minister update us on the training programme for a rollout of skilled arborists and foresters to meet those new challenges and provide that support?

Finally, the Government’s tree health resistance strategy has at its heart the need for international collaboration and the sharing of research data, so can the Minister clarify whether we are continuing to participate in the EU pest and disease notification systems? Can he update us on the replacement for TRACES? Are we fully able to map the spread of pests and diseases using this system? Can he also update us on the future of the biological research programmes being funded through Horizon Europe? Will those schemes continue or will the researchers now get equivalent EU funding? As many noble Lords have said, the key and solution to all this is detailed long-term funding, so I would be grateful if the noble Lord could quantify how much actual cash is going into that research. How much is available now and how much in the future? I look forward to his response.

Farmers

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, tenant farmers can access the sustainable farming incentive, which is the entry-level scheme. Where there are difficulties between landlord and tenant, we are seeking to iron them out with the committee headed by my noble friend Lady Rock, which has representatives of the Tenant Farmers Association, the CLA and others, to make sure that tenant farmers will be a fundamental part of future British agriculture. It is the only way for many people to get into farming, and we want to see it thrive.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, currently farmers are losing basic payments at a faster rate than they can claim under the new sustainable farming incentive. As a result, many of them are suffering financial hardship. When is Defra going to increase the range of environmental standards under ELMS that can be claimed so that farmers can get their finances back on an even keel?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We have announced a number of the areas of the sustainable farming incentive, the soil standard and many others. We are going to make further announcements in the next few weeks on other aspects of the environmental land management schemes. We recognise that farmers have to face price spikes—for example, in the areas of fertiliser production—and we have brought forward their area payments by six months, which will give them the cash they need to purchase the inputs they need to make sure that the next season’s growing crop is in the ground.

Zoonoses Research Centre

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right to raise this issue. It was a feature at COP, where we managed to talk about more than just carbon and climate change; we also talked about the impact on nature, and on us, of a depleted environment. As the right reverend Prelate knows, we cannot address that within these borders; we have to continue to lead on it internationally, and the COP in Kunming at the end of this year is absolutely vital in taking forward the issues he raises.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, taking animals from the wild for their meat or for other products is a known major source of genetic diseases such as Ebola and HIV. With that in mind, why are the Government not prepared to ban in the kept animals Bill the keeping of primates as private pets in the UK? Surely that would significantly improve these protections.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to point out the impact of kept animals in passing on zoonotic disease. Trying to make our borders secure is absolutely vital, and I will get back to her about this issue because the Government still intend to include measures to prevent people keeping the wrong kind of pets in this country. It is wrong for the pets because our climate is not right for them, and we must also consider their welfare conditions.

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2022

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his time—and that of his officials—in providing a briefing for this afternoon’s statutory instruments. It is important that those engaged in both the horticulture and potato industries know when the levy that they pay is to be removed, in order that they can plan. I assume that the consultation carried out has provided some indication of timetables.

The levy was first implemented in 2008 under powers in the NERC Act. In January and February, the potato growers triggered a call for a ballot. Only 5% of the membership is required to call a ballot, which seems a very low threshold. In the horticultural sector, there was a 69% turnout and, as the Minister has said, of those who voted, 61% voted to abandon the levy. In the potato sector, there was a 64% turnout, with 66% voting no to continuing with the levy—overwhelming figures. As a result, the Government have abandoned the levy for future years.

However, there is still the issue of how the money accumulated in the past and in future will be spent. A five-yearly vote on how the money is spent seems a long gap between decisions on spending priorities. Are the results of the vote on spending plans monitored against sector planned priorities? Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that levy payers have a say in how the levy is spent. Can the Minister say whether this happens in practice?

With the abolition of the levy, there is a fear that the research and development work of the AHDB will be restricted. However, as the Minister has said, there is an opportunity for the AHDB to charge for services provided. I could not find any reference in the EM or in the statutory instrument itself to the scale of the charges. Paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The impact on the public sector is the loss of levy funding for AHDB horticulture and potato services.”


Does this mean that the AHDB will be financially unviable for these sectors, or will the charges they can impose cover the loss of the levy?

There are 10 other sectors covered by this SI within the overarching definition of the horticulture industry—from protected vegetables grown in glasshouses and indoors to trees and saplings in tree and forest nurseries. It is important that research and development continue to provide protection for all categories, especially as many diseases are airborne and difficult to control.

The current levy produces an income of £5.6 million from the potato industry and £5.7 million from horticulture. This is a large sum to be replaced by charges, which appear to be ad hoc but I hope have some rational basis. All other sectors, including pork, beef, dairy and sheep, produce an income of £70 million. At this time of uncertainty in both the EU and other trading markets, it is vital that R&D capacity is not weakened across any sector. There is ongoing consultation with sheep producers on the levy. I look forward to the results of this consultation.

I am encouraged that the Government are listening to industry growers in abolishing the levy for potatoes and horticulture, but I am concerned about the effect on R&D. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance but generally welcome this SI as a step forward.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction and for the helpful briefing beforehand. I should declare an interest through my involvement at the Rothamsted agricultural institute. The Minister will be pleased to hear that we will not oppose this SI. The issue seems to be straightforward, particularly given the democratic ballots that have taken place in the horticulture and potato sectors. However, the fact that these changes have been felt to be necessary raises some wider questions, which I hope the Minister will feel able to address.

First, can the Minister explain when Defra and the AHDB became aware that there was such disillusionment among those sectors under the previous levy regime, and why was no action taken to change the levy system at that time? It seems rather extreme, if I may say so, that the two sectors had to organise themselves to demand a ballot when, had there been ongoing consultations, there might have been a bit more sensitivity to their disillusionment. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about what happened in the run-up to the two groups organising a ballot.

Can the Minister also say something more about the underlying concerns that the sectors had about the levy? Was it just about the cost, or did they feel that they were not getting value for money in a broader sense from the payments that were being made? For example, was there a problem with the quality of the research and advice that they were getting for their money? If so, are we confident that that is now being addressed? And, if that is the case, why were those concerns not addressed at the time that we first became aware of them?

Secondly, as the Minister has explained, arrangements are now being made for the other sectors covered by the levy to have regular ballots, which is to be welcomed. Is he confident that those new consultations will prevent the other sectors from triggering unilateral ballots, now that they have seen the success of the potato and horticultural action? Is he confident that those arrangements are now settled and that people are now happy with the new proposals?

In addition, the Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the devolved nations also considered a

“proposal to extend the scope of the Order to other agricultural industries on a UK-wide basis”.

Can the Minister explain what is happening with the devolved nations? Are they all doing the same thing at the same time now—in other words, will the AHDB equivalents in the devolved nations all have these regular ballots? Is that what the proposal is? And how does that fit with the proposals before us today?

Thirdly, and most importantly—this echoes the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell—what will be the impact of the loss of the levy on the work of the AHDB? Is there a danger that vital research capacity will be lost, which might have a wider impact on future disease control and climate mitigation techniques, for example, as well as investment in better techniques for cultivation in the future? Are there wider implications that the Government should have a concern about rather than just greater productivity? Are we sure that that ongoing research will still be addressed when the levy is no longer here?

Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum also makes mention of delivering

“legacy research and plant protection services”

on a transitional basis. That is great, but what will happen when that research comes to an end? Presumably, it was felt to be necessary in the past, so what will be the future of that research and plant protection services? Are we confident that it will still be covered? Otherwise, given the UK’s ambitions for the agriculture sector, we might find that we are losing out if we do not have the research base in the future.

Fourthly and lastly, the EM makes it clear that, as the Minister said, sectors can continue to work with the AHDB on a voluntary or a commercial basis if they wish to. Can the Minister say something more about how that cost basis will be different to the old levy structure? Is there a danger that only the larger producers will pay the levy in the future? In other words, are we in danger of having a two-tier system where the big producers have the money to invest with the AHDB but the smaller producers do not and therefore fall further behind, when we would want to make sure that smaller producers have the research capacity as well? I am just a bit worried about how that cost basis will work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the views expressed on the order. I believe we all recognise the importance of respecting the outcome of the democratic ballots to end levies in the horticulture and potato sectors and the need for the AHDB to be more accountable to levy payers in future. I will try to respond as best I can to the questions that have been put on such an informed basis—I am grateful for them.

On the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones, I recognise the concerns at the loss of £14 million of annual levy funding for the future of horticulture research and about retaining skills and research capabilities in these sectors. However, I can assure the noble Baronesses that we are working proactively with representatives from across the horticulture and potato sectors to agree new industry-led funding models for research and crop protection activities that can meet the needs of this diverse sector more effectively than the statutory levy has done in the past. Discussions with industry on these options are ongoing, with the aim of agreeing new industry-led funding models over the coming months.

It is clear that the current one-size-fits-all levy was not meeting the diverse research and support needs of these two sectors. Therefore, it is more appropriate in future for subsectors or groups of growers to come together to formulate plans for the delivery and funding of priority research activities tailored to their specific business needs. This could be through a voluntary levy or a statutory subsector levy if industry supports that approach. As a next step, we will engage in discussions with industry-led groups and trade bodies to explore in more detail the design of industry-led funding options.

I understand the point that the noble Baroness made about five years between seeking the opinions of sectors as to whether they want to continue with the levy. However, a body with 471 employees and a turnover of many millions of pounds needs a period of stability to produce research, to do the work it does on innovation and then to take it forward with the sectors concerned so that they can then make an informed decision about whether this suits them. We considered the views very carefully but concluded that we do not currently have the details necessary to make legislative amendments to deliver a subsector levy. For example, there are detailed questions that need exploring, such as who would pay the levy, how it would be applied and calculated and whether there should be any exemptions. We are engaging in discussions with industry to explore industry-led funding options, including syndicate grower-led funding for specific research projects and the potential for a voluntary levy to fund a co-ordinated approach to crop protection activities. We also remain open to exploring new subsectors of statutory levies if there is widespread support for this from the businesses that would be eligible to pay for it.

A point was made about the consultation response saying that the public funding will not pay for research or other actions that were funded through levy investment. The inferred question was: does that mean that horticultural and potato research bodies or businesses cannot apply for funding from Defra’s future farming schemes? Research organisations and businesses in these sectors can continue to apply for existing future farming schemes in England, all of which have a policy focus, such as the farming innovation programme, for which they definitely are eligible. These schemes are subject to open competition, with applications judged on their merits. It is important that industry provides leadership in formulating new industry-led funding models that will enable cross-industry collaboration for the delivery of priority research development and other activities to support their businesses in future.

If I got her point right, I think the noble Baroness also asked what would happen if it cost the AHDB more than estimated to wind up its horticulture and potato operations and would another year of levy be charged. The AHDB has built a small contingency into the wind-up budget to cover any such eventuality, and it is tightly managing the wind-down process to ensure that it is completed within budget. We are clear that the statutory levies on the horticulture and potato sectors are ending from April 2022, and the AHDB will not seek any additional levy after 2021-22, even if additional costs or liabilities arise out of that wind-up process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about issues relating to Scotland and the devolved Administrations. I shall just give some background to this. The organisation employs around 470 staff. The noble Baroness made a very good point about governance, and it is governed by a main board, with several sector councils representing each of the levy-paying sectors. In response to industry feedback, the AHDB has been delivering organisational change to modernise its governance, reduce central costs and bureaucracy and increase levy payer engagement to deliver improved value for money to levy payers. That is very much part of the process that she asked about.

The AHDB embarked on a major change programme to ensure that it is an effective and efficient organisation, fit to meet evolving levy payer needs in future. However, before those changes were fully delivered, a number of dissatisfied levy payers in this sector, as I have already described, utilised the provisions in the order to trigger a ballot. As has been said, a ballot can be triggered if requests are received from at least 5% of levy payers in the sector over a rolling three-month period. The horticulture ballot closed on 10 February 2021; 69% of horticulture levy payers turned out to vote, as has been said, and 61% of those voted no to the levy continuing.

To respond to the outcome of the ballots and implement reforms resulting from the earlier request for views, the UK Government and devolved Administrations ran a public consultation between November 2021 and January 2022 to deliver an end to the horticulture and potato levies and improve the accountability of the AHDB to other levy-paying sectors in future. This SI now implements those changes. A joint UK Government and devolved Governments public consultation delivered that answer. Some 1,196 levy payers voted, which, as the noble Baroness said, is a fairly decisive number.

A question asked was why we were not implementing proposals to expand the scope of the AHDB to other agricultural sectors. Having considered the range of views on this proposal, and some of the difficulties between respondents from different countries, we have decided not to deliver this legislative change now. However, as a next step, we will take forward discussions between the UK and devolved Governments to explore in more detail the benefits and safeguards needed to provide a broader scope for the AHDB to work in practice, with a view to implementing the legislative change in future, subject to the outcome of these further discussions.

It was asked whether there will be any further Defra funding to help fill the gap left behind by the levy. It is not appropriate for public funding to replace levy-funded activity, but we are keen to work with industry leaders on their proposals for new models to fund collaborative research and development and other activities to support their businesses in future, whether through a voluntary levy, commercial arrangements or a new statutory levy where there is widespread support for that. However, research organisations and businesses in these sectors can continue to apply for existing future farming schemes, as I have already said, including the farm innovation programme and the farm investment fund, for which they are eligible. These schemes are subject to open competition.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked what will happen to the horticulture and potato research and knowledge generated from levy funds since 2008, and whether it will still be accessible. AHDB horticulture and potato work will be archived and made accessible online via the AHDB website to levy payers by the end of March 2022, to ensure that the industry can continue to benefit longer-term from its investment. She is entirely right to raise this, as all data and research must be available.

We live in a fast-moving time for agriculture. We need to introduce new innovation and measures to support different sectors, and I hope that this will provide a meaningful future for this very important organisation. I hope I have addressed the concerns raised by noble Lords and that they will approve this instrument for a reformed and accountable AHDB that will deliver value for money, supporting farmers for years to come—

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I do not want to make heavy weather of this, but it seems a bit odd to me that we are effectively cancelling—or running down via a transition—the research that has been taking place without a new model to replace it. The noble Lord has explained that discussions are going on, but in my limited experience an awful lot of agricultural research has to be ongoing—you cannot just stop it and expect to pick it up two years later. They may not be researching potato blight, but things such as that happen in field trials season by season, rather than stopping and starting again. We are where we are, and I do not suppose that anything will change, but it seems odd that we have stopped one scheme without having the follow-up replacement oven-ready to be there in future.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness will be a much greater expert than me on scientific research and support for agriculture, but she will also know that this is across a very wide spectrum of provision—all kinds of academic organisations, government-linked bodies and organisations funded through industry. We want all different sectors to be able to access the research they need to build on the very long datasets which have been built up over the years; 2008 to 2022 is a microscopic moment in time in terms of the development of understanding and knowledge about crops and animals and how to make them more productive and how to make our systems reflect the desire for good animal welfare and environmental standards.

I am sure the noble Baroness will continue to keep the Government’s feet to the fire on this. I will be very keen to share with her and others all the different avenues we are going down to make sure that there is adequate support for these sectors in future. I cannot be more specific than that, but we live in a broad-spectrum world of innovation and we must not be narrow in our approach but accept that the answers may exist in the minds of people yet to enter into academia and research —and also those abroad. We will take her point into account and I will keep noble Lords informed. If there are no more points, I beg to move.