Agriculture Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsThursday 23rd July 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-VII Seventh marshalled list for Committee - (23 Jul 2020)
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 289, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, not only because agriculture remains Northern Ireland’s most important and largest industry, but because of some particular political issues that affect Northern Ireland. I recognise that the Minister has tabled some amendments in this group on the relationship with Ministers in the devolved Administrations and I welcome that. However, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness has just emphasised, it is important that Ministers in the devolved institutions are serious decision-makers in their own right and in their representation of the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and not just rule-takers from outside.
However, in the case of Northern Ireland, there are two other important issues that I believe this amendment facilitates by encouraging and, indeed, requiring the members of the Northern Ireland Executive to work together to develop bespoke legislation and an approach to agriculture that addresses the particular needs of Northern Ireland and the challenges and opportunities of the island nature of Ireland as a whole.
These agricultural issues are practical matters. I found in the negotiation of the peace process that when they could engage on practical issues, rather than those involving profound constitutional principle, it was often possible to reach a surprising degree of agreement between parties that were otherwise in deep disagreement. Recently, we have seen further evidence of this, as the Northern Ireland Executive have dealt quite well with the Covid-19 crisis in comparison with others. By inserting a sunset clause in this Bill, we would be giving a specific encouragement to Northern Ireland Ministers to engage in practical negotiations on the agricultural industry which, as I say, is not a partisan matter.
It was often noted that the late Lord Bannside, when he was Dr Ian Paisley MEP, was able to work closely with the predecessor of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, as leader of the SDLP, John Hume, who was also a Member of the European Parliament. Their co-operation was especially notable on questions of agriculture and the common agricultural policy. Our sunset clause would, in my view, encourage just this sort of bipartisanship and cross-community co-operation on agriculture in Northern Ireland.
The second reason for ensuring that the Northern Ireland Executive take up the development of their own legislation is that, in my view, the next few years will see significant changes in the relationships between the north and south in Ireland. It is clear from the protocol with the EU that Northern Ireland will have a special relationship with the rest of the island, which remains within the EU—something quite different from the rest of the UK. Indeed, it will be the only part of the UK with a land border with the EU and, with particular reference to this Bill, it uniquely has farms that straddle the border. In some cases, part of a farm will be inside the EU and part outside it.
It seems to me inconceivable that by 2026, the date in this clause, it will not have become necessary to develop new ways of addressing these issues that will be quite different from the ways that other parts of the United Kingdom—whether devolved or not—relate with the EU. By then, we will be almost 30 years on from the end of the Troubles that so deepened division on the island. A sunset clause will give the Northern Ireland Ministers the encouragement and freedom to address this complex and developing network of relationships. For these two reasons, I strongly support the insertion of this new clause after Clause 45 in the Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself with the amendments in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and also with the remarks of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Wallace. I am proud of the fact that I am a non-practising advocate, so I maintain an interest in matters north of the border.
As I entirely endorse the comments that the noble and learned Lords have made, I want to ask my noble friend a specific question with regard to the consultation that is asked for under these amendments. With regard to Amendment 291, I associate myself with the request from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for a UK framework for agriculture. What form will the consultation on these regulations take? Presumably, the regulations must be relatively far advanced, so when would my noble friend expect the consultation to commence? In reply, can he take the opportunity to inform us what developments there have been on the common frameworks? I understand that, originally, there were to be 24; we now hear word that there will be only three. They are absolutely key to this part of the Bill and to ensuring good faith—I know my noble friend likes to use the phrase “bona fides”—between the four parts of the United Kingdom. With those few words, I support the amendments in this group.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am disappointed, like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that Amendments 290 and 291 have been regrouped with others in this group. I was looking forward to a full delineation by the Minister of the way forward envisaged by the Government in creating some body in which the four nations could thrash out the common framework of a single market for the United Kingdom. As I have said earlier in Committee, the agricultural systems of the four nations are bound to diverge, not just because the devolved Administrations are governed by different political parties that may have different aims, policies and ideas, but because of the very diverse nature of their landscapes and communities.
Looking at it broadly, there are two main issues: how funding will be distributed between the four nations, and to what degree divergence is compatible with the single market. My concern is that Wales does not lose its current share of UK funding of 16%. Indeed, it should have a greater share. Mr Michael Gove, addressing the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee of the Scottish Parliament on 27 June 2018, said that
“it is in the nature of the landscape and the environment in Scotland—and also in other parts of the United Kingdom—that the preponderance of less-favoured areas and the nature of upland farming impose particular challenges that require a specific level of support … we need to look in the future at how we allocate funding across the United Kingdom in order to reflect that … My aim … is to ensure that, in the future, we allocate funding in a way that is sensitive to the specific needs of each part of the United Kingdom.”
The United Kingdom Government have guaranteed continued funding of Pillar 1 of the CAP until 2022 and, as we discussed the other day, the continuation of rural development programmes under Pillar 2 of the CAP until contracts come to an end, at the latest in 2023. But what happens then? Farming is not an industry in which capital can be quickly switched from one sector to another. It requires long-term planning, which can be achieved only by clarity on future funding. As for divergence, there should be agreed common standards for animal health, traceability, animal welfare, breeding and trading in animals, fertilisers and the like. What divergence of support in specific areas would be compatible with a single UK market?
There is no issue that there must be some forum—a forum for consent, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace argued a moment ago—in which these questions can be resolved. It would be quite unacceptable and in breach of the principles of devolution for decisions to be made by some Whitehall diktat. Indeed, the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) already agreed in October 2017 that common frameworks will be established, to
“enable the functioning of the UK internal market … ensure compliance with international obligations … enable the management of common resources”,
and to
“administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element”.
It also agreed to
“safeguard the security of the UK”—
in this context, I take it that means food security. However, nothing in the framework of the Bill requires or creates any mechanism, whether by secondary legislation or otherwise, for such a body.
Two alternative approaches are set out in Amendments 290 and 291. Each has their advantages but there really is a hole in the Bill, as I said at Second Reading, which the Government ought to fill themselves. It is no longer satisfactory to be told that civil servants are working away at this—I hope we do not hear that today. We need a commitment to the creation of a forum for negotiation and co-operation, as my noble friend Lord Alderdice said, and it needs to be written into the Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I shall speak only briefly on this group of amendments in order to probe my noble friend the Minister on when we will have the Government’s response to the recent consultation on the activities of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. There was overwhelming support for keeping the existing levy, and I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I do not think that farmers would welcome another levy in addition to the existing one. Support for the levy is fairly overwhelming at 66%, but it is important that we review the purposes for which it is used.
I want to place on the record the difficulties that abattoirs and auction marts are experiencing at this time because of Covid-19. I hope that we appreciate those difficulties and sympathise with farmers who, as sellers, are still not allowed to enter the auction mart because, as I understand it, the restrictions are still in place. Only the buyers are allowed to do so and if I was a livestock owner, I would find not being there very worrying. I would be interested to see the Government’s response to the consultation. I do not think that I have missed it—the website sets out only the responses that were submitted to the consultation.
Looking ahead to when we discuss other amendments to the Bill, I hope that part of the levy will be used for marketing and for export. I am sorry to raise my Danish connections again, but I have been hugely impressed by how the Danes use their levy, which is raised from livestock and other producers and then quite substantially matched by funding from the Government, to run marketing centres. I think that we are learning from that because we opened a marketing centre in Beijing and saw an immediate incremental rise in our exports of those parts of the pig that we do not like to eat. With those few words, I shall wait to hear my noble friend’s response.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, given her historic links to Yorkshire. It is not surprising that she has advocated a kind of danegeld in terms of this levy.
I am intervening in this debate because my name was not on the speakers’ list for the debate that took place earlier in Committee in which my noble friend Lady Mallalieu drew attention to the plight of small and niche abattoirs, many of which have gone out of business. This issue was flagged in the long-standing Radio 4 series “The Archers” when people engaged in a dialogue on it. I had been thinking mischievously of moving an amendment to try to get dialogue back into “The Archers” via this Bill. However, I take note of the stricture of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that many people have spoken at great length in these debates and so we are moving slowly through the Committee stage. For example, I spoke in the Chamber on 7 July and again at 11.05 pm on Tuesday night.
The point is that we need to coalesce the debates that have taken place. On Tuesday, I said that I have learned a great deal by following the debates and listening to those who have a great deal more knowledge than I do. My early time in politics was mainly informed by listening to my predecessor in the Sheffield Brightside constituency. His home and roots were in north Yorkshire, and his campaign to protect the rights of tenure of farm workers was successful. I come at this as a novice, but I believe that unless we get some clarity, both today and on Tuesday, on how we are going to take the Bill forward on Report, it is unlikely to see the light of day for a very long time.
I say to the mover of the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that I hope that in debating this levy, we take into account an earlier debate in Committee that revealed, to my surprise, the very small amount of land in the UK that can be described as being of grade one quality. Be careful what you do when allocating a levy, given the impact it could have on the different nations and geographic regions of the UK, as well as avoiding proselytising for vegetarianism.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as recorded in the register. I want to speak to Amendment 218 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Parminter, and the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Carrington, and express my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her introduction of the amendment and for her comments.
The Minister kindly referred in his response to Amendment 12 two weeks ago—was it just two weeks ago?—to work on agricultural and horticultural skills that I have been involved with during the past two years or so. Of course, the coronavirus lockdown earlier this year highlighted how vulnerable we are to disruption when we depend so heavily on a seasonal labour supply from overseas. So I agree wholeheartedly on the need for a strategy to address this vulnerability. However, such a strategy should encompass all labour markets in agriculture and horticulture, not just those of seasonal workers. We are lagging well behind other professions in projecting our sector as an attractive career choice, with no clear signposting, no accurate labour market information, a fragmented and confusing landscape of skills delivery, very few nationally recognised qualifications and no record of individual achievements, including CPD.
A comprehensive skills strategy which includes engaging with schools, FE and HE institutions, the apprenticeship scheme and training and lifelong learning is long overdue. All of us who are involved with the agriculture and horticulture sectors are regularly impressed by the range of skills required to farm successfully, as listed by my noble friend Lord Carrington in an earlier debate and referred to again today. As has been stated, the digital age and robotics will extend the range of skills required to embrace the many challenges we face in a fast-moving world, whether improving productivity or delivering the multiple potential outcomes through the ELM scheme, as well as adding value in exploring markets for our produce.
As indicated earlier by both the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Carrington, I have been engaged in a cross-industry skills leadership group which has the widespread support of all key industry organisations. This is not an appropriate time to do a sales job, but the group has recommended the establishment of a professional body to raise the profile of the sector and the exciting opportunities that exist in it, to recognise national qualifications and standards, to establish a single national data source of information, and to provide signposting for both employers and employees to encourage career development and CPD.
I once again thank the Minister for his personal support in trying to achieve these objectives and for the constructive discussions with and advice received from his officials within the department. I have to say that I do not agree with the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, a few moments ago.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. I pay tribute to the work that he has done and continues to do on the skills and leadership group.
In passing, I commend Amendment 219 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, because I think there is a problem of affordable housing in this sector, particularly when it comes to migrant workers. We saw an outbreak of Covid recently at a facility where the facilities that were available were less than desirable.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 220. There is absolutely no question that we must maintain the highest standards of animal welfare. In the farming sector, we are proud of our standards and reputation for such standards, so we must not tolerate or condone bad practice. We must stamp it out and ensure that the regulations are enforced.
However, I am concerned about the amendment. The export of live animals for slaughter is without question an emotional issue and generates lots of public concern, as it has for a long time. When I chaired the Meat and Livestock Commission it invested in widespread research into the impact of transport on stress levels in sheep, cattle and pigs. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, we should slaughter animals as close to home as possible and add value wherever possible so that we benefit from the marketing of those products in local, mainstream or export markets. We absolutely should do what we can to achieve that, but, as has been said, the reality is that animals suffer the most stress when being loaded on to and unloaded from lorries, not during transport, provided that the lorries comply with EU legislation, such as on journey times, and have the correct facilities on board.
I have always found it rather odd that crossing the 22 miles of water of the channel is such a major problem. It is misleading to believe, as has been stated, that all animals are likely to be mistreated as soon as they arrive. The reality does not support this belief. All the EU abattoirs that I have visited—and I have visited a lot—were of the highest standard, although I confess that I have not been to abattoirs in central Europe. Finished sheep and cattle travel much further than 22 miles from islands around the United Kingdom, including Shetland and Orkney, to the UK mainland for further finishing and for slaughter. Many lorries transporting animals for further fattening or slaughter in the UK travel 220 miles, never mind 22 miles across the channel. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned, it is also often difficult to determine whether animals are being moved for slaughter, further fattening or breeding purposes, so it would be extremely difficult—almost impossible—to police the reason for movement.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I have every sympathy for the sentiments behind Amendment 220, but I query the basis on which it is drafted. I experienced early on the concerns that people rightly have about the trade of live animals for export. It first came home to me when I was an MEP back in the mid-1990s and represented the port of Brightlingsea in north-east Essex. The trade was closed over Dover and moved to Brightlingsea so, mindful of the concern, I boarded the ferry and saw the movement of the animals from the truck on to the ferry. I must say, they were transported in much more comfort than any North Sea passenger, from my experience of ferries at the time.
I urge the authors of the amendment to go back to the RSPCA and, I am sure, Compassion in World Farming, to check the veracity of the allegations. It is true that 20, 30 or 40 years ago—I pay tribute to the work that my noble friend Lady Fookes has done in this regard —there were horrendous tales of the live trade in animals but, when you got to the basis of them, many were not in this country or even on this continent. I was appalled at that time to see that videos were being made and shown in schools in north Essex and south Suffolk to try to drum up support for banning the live trade.
As the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, just said, you have to be very careful to differentiate between animals that are being exported for fattening and slaughter and those that are being exported for breeding, showing and other purposes; as he rightly said, it is difficult to differentiate between the two.
I would like to see the live trade as it currently exists, certainly between here and mainland Europe, which I understand most of it is—that is, for every live animal that is exported, only six or seven are carried in carcass form. It is a very limited trade, it is highly regulated, and no farmer in their right mind would like to see an animal stressed by transport because the meat would be worthless and there would be no market for it at all.
There is a scenario that we seem to have lost sight of in this amendment: new subsection (6) cannot possibly apply to Northern Ireland because of the Northern Ireland protocol. I hope my noble friend will set out that it is simply not going to happen there.
I also hope my noble friend will take the opportunity to say—and I take great comfort from this fact—that if it is true that we are leaving the European Union and the transition period will end at the end of this year, the rules of the World Trade Organization will apply. I think the RSPCA is well aware of that fact. Under the “most favoured nation” clause and non-discrimination treatment, the likelihood is that the WTO would rule to prevent any such ban on the import or export of live animals under that principle.
With these few remarks, I hope my noble friend will continue to reassure us that this minimum, highly regulated level of trade can continue, but there are implications from the protocol and the WTO that I am sure he would wish to have regard to.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, 20-odd years ago, when we formed the Government in 1997, this was new to me and not something that I had not given any thought to. I was responsible for animal health and Elliot Morley was responsible for animal welfare. We toughened up the regulations and we thought they were working, but over the years I have come to share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, so I wholeheartedly support the view that she has put forward today.
There are some caveats that need to be dealt with, which I will raise, but I cannot see any excuse for the export of live animals for slaughter or for fattening. Frankly, I am not an expert, but I well understand how I could distinguish between the export of animals for breeding and the export of those for fattening and slaughter; I do not think it is that difficult. We have—or, probably, had—quite a big export trade in pigs with China. They wanted to vastly improve their stock, and it was done with breeding expertise from the UK.
It is a fact that we have far fewer live exports than we used to. If memory serves me correctly, 20 or 25 years ago the figures were probably nearer to 250,000 or 300,000. I remember the rows at Brightlingsea that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has just referred to. I also remember the tragedy there of at least one person being killed under the wheels of a lorry while campaigning to try to stop the export of live animals.
We have to be careful of certain things. There is a Northern Ireland route to France. Slipping animals across the land border and then on into France is certainly a method that would have to stop. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, and someone else raised the issue of France. As I understand it, the reason why the French want our sheep is that if they are slaughtered in France, they can legitimately put “French lamb” on the menu. It is as simple as that. They do not have to declare it as British. It is slaughtered in France and therefore it is French lamb, so it is a selling point in French restaurants. That is what I have always understood the position to be.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I pay tribute to the restraint and brevity of my noble friend Lady Henig, with whom I had the pleasure to serve on the ad hoc Select Committee on the Licensing Act 2003.
I believe that Amendment 221 is well-meaning, but it is very prescriptive. On Amendment 226, I would like to associate myself with the call for research in this area, and I urge the Minister to outline in her reply to this debate what commitment the Government are making to conduct that research. I imagine that much of the research would have been done on a cross-European basis, and I would like to know how the Government are going to make up the funding, as they are committed to do—they have said that on a number of occasions.
I also pay tribute to the work that Rothamsted and other institutes are doing, but we need to have alternatives that are technically feasible and commercially viable. I hope my noble friend the Minister will put my mind at rest as to how this will be funded going forward.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, both these amendments are very difficult to argue against. They are telling us to be careful about how we use chemicals designed to kill things. My noble friend beat me to the word “poison”, but that is what they are for: to kill the organic life that we do not want in certain places at certain times.
Having controls about where you can use such substances is fairly basic. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, describing a farmer effectively getting into a biohazard suit before using them gives a hint that they are potentially dangerous. If can think of examples just from this Chamber. I look across to where the noble Countess, Lady Mar, sat for many years: organophosphates ruined her life and she led a campaign to get rid of them.
Many people have told us that we do not know what we are talking about and to just use these substances sensibly—but we can then discover that they are lethal. Another example is DDT, and I could carry on. The fact that these chemicals cause problems when they get into ground-water is very well established. We should be more cautious and targeted about their use—there is a lot of technology which enables us to be more targeted, and we should embrace this.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on her amendment. I think that something like the study she suggests should be in the Bill. My gut reaction is to say yes to Amendment 221, but unlike the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I would like it to be more specific, so we know what we are dealing with. Such guidelines probably would depend on work that would be done under the later amendment.
There is potential risk here. We have tolerated a degree of damage to ourselves and to members of our society because we did not know what we were doing in the past. We would not tolerate that now and our standards are probably going to get tighter. Therefore, tightening up the process of observation should be encouraged.
I have one last anecdote: how many people have still got a bottle of blue slug pellets at the back of their garden cabinet which they are not quite sure what to do with? We have discovered that these destroy far more than just the slugs. I have used them in the past, and probably should not have done.
We are tightening our standards and becoming more targeted and smarter all the time with chemicals. It is about time we took this on in a more coherent fashion, and these amendments are a good step forward. I salute the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on her amendment.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, makes a powerful case for a new environmental regulatory regime for agriculture in introducing Amendment 229. While I accept that regulation will never stand still but always evolve in line with famers’ and consumers’ priorities and our understanding of the natural environment and what affects it, I think that, at a time when farmers are having to adapt their business models to reflect the loss of what is, for many, the largest single component of their annual incomes, introducing a new regulatory regime would be unnecessarily burdensome and confusing.
I seek clarification from my noble friend the Minister that the cross-compliance rules will also apply to payments under the ELM scheme; I expect that this would mean that this amendment and, indeed, Amendments 230 and 231, in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, are not necessary. Furthermore, his intention to reduce from 20 metres to 10 metres the minimum length of hedgerows to which regulations apply is surely disproportionate and unreasonable. Is my noble friend not aware that, up and down the country, farmers are putting in new hedgerows?
In Amendment 297, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, seeks to place a limit on rearing pigs on any land at a density greater than 20 healthy pigs per hectare. A friend of mine whose family have farmed pigs in Lincolnshire for generations tells me that this density is very low. I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that he agrees.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend because I was also hoping to ask for confirmation that hedgerows will be covered within ELMS and that famers will have to meet the cross-compliance requirements. From memory, when we had the debate on Clause 1 and the many amendments that were tabled at that time, it was my understanding that that would be the case. I know that my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge has taken great interest and is very expert in this area. I also am concerned about water quality and our requirements under the water framework directive; I am interested to know if we will keep up with the requirements of the successor water framework directives to come.
My main point is that I find Amendment 229 from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, very interesting, but I would be rather aghast to think that we were going to have a new environmental regulatory regime. I take this opportunity, if I may, to say to my noble friend the Minister that there is great uncertainty at the moment as to what the regulatory regime will be, as we have not yet had sight of the Environment Bill. Perhaps I am being slow here, but I do not see what the relationship will be between the office for environmental protection and the Environment Agency, Natural England, Rural Payments Agency and the host of other bodies. Who will be the policeman in all this and who will be giving the friendly advice to farmers in this regard?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, the case for environmental and agricultural regulation has been set out very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. It is important that there is an updated regulatory framework. The Agriculture Bill makes radical changes to the way that funding is allocated. The ELMS are very different from direct payments, and it is therefore essential that the framework reflects the thrust of the Government’s intentions. A farm inspection only once every 200 years is pathetic, and indeed dangerous. Bringing the framework in line with the environmental standards that will pertain once the Bill has passed is essential. We cannot have two separate standards, otherwise there will be wholesale confusion. Effective compliance cannot be implemented without an updated regulatory framework; without this, it appears like putting the cart before the horse.
Amendment 230 proposes a new clause to protect hedgerows and gives detail on how this should be designed and implemented. I fully support this amendment, as other noble Lords have. Over the years, since I was a child, I have seen hedgerows ripped out to allow farmers to plough larger tracts of land. This has meant that the feeding and breeding grounds of small birds and insects have disappeared, leading to the disappearance of some iconic species, such as the bullfinch. This amendment seeks to protect the margins at the edges of fields and to reinstate hedgerows. It is important to reconnect with the wildlife that previously lived in our hedgerows and field margins. I believe this is a move in the right direction, and support the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Quin.
Amendment 231, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, seeks to protect water, wells, springs and bore-holes from pollution. The area where I live is covered with natural springs, some of which provide domestic water supplies; preventing the pollution of this water is therefore extremely important. Farmers should do everything possible to prevent poisonous chemicals from entering the watercourses, and this should include pesticides and herbicides. Water is an important, life-saving ingredient in agriculture, and it provides biodiversity. I welcome this amendment and look forward to the Minister agreeing to this.
Amendments 296 and 297 propose a new schedule, which would introduce animal welfare standards for pigs, cows and cattle, give minimum standards of space and give protection to water and soil quality. Intensive farming and livestock management has a downside on both animal welfare and soil quality. I support this amendment and look forward to hearing positive comments from the Minister. I feel a bit sad that I am getting quite excited at the prospect of actually reaching—[Inaudible.]
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I am delighted to support Amendment 255 and I entirely endorse his comments. Subject to his decision, I would be willing to support a similar amendment on Report, if that is helpful at this stage.
I shall confine my remarks to the amendments in this group that relate to labelling and marketing, particularly Amendment 256 in my name. I am delighted to have the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I am very grateful to them for their support.
If this wording is familiar to the House and to my noble friend the Minister, indeed it should be. It is the form of words that was adopted by my noble friend Lady Fairhead during the Trade Bill, which I think was technically the rollover Trade Bill, that we debated a year ago but which then did not pass because of the general election. I was delighted that after some toing and froing and lots of debate in Committee, on Report my noble friend Lady Fairhead literally adopted this wording, so I therefore take it to be government policy. Obviously I have adapted it, taking advice, to make sure that it fits the remit of the Bill before us today.
I take great heart from the fact that my noble friend said again, in winding up a previous debate, that the Government will keep and raise our own environmental standards. What concerns me here is that we seem to be disadvantaging our own farmers and producers in two ways. One is that while we are keeping the same high standards that we currently have and possibly raising them even higher, we seem to be contemplating importing produce of lower standards in marketing, environmental health, animal welfare and hygiene. That to me is just not a Conservative thing to do; I cannot believe we are even contemplating it. That is why the thrust of my Amendment 256 is that the regulations within this clause cannot be used to make provisions that will have the effect of lowering animal health, hygiene or welfare standards for agricultural products below those established in the EU or the UK.
This is something that we are already familiar with, having been members of the European Union since 1973. I remember that in my days briefly in practice as a European lawyer we relied very heavily on the original Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome, which basically set out a limited number of exceptions to the free movement of goods, specifying that if it was deemed necessary on the grounds of the protection of the health and life of humans, animals or plants then under Article 36 an exemption could be applied for to prevent those products from coming into another European country from a neighbouring country or another member state. I see that that is now increasingly coming into trade deals that are negotiated multilaterally or bilaterally under the auspices of the World Trade Organization, so I am hoping that my noble friend will say that when it comes to the end of the transition period, this is where we will be.
I caution against something that Minister Prentis said in the other place: that the Government are considering consulting on mandatory labelling at the end of the transition period. Labelling seems very attractive. It is something that we looked at after the horsemeat scandal, because I am afraid that supermarkets were caught a little on the hop; they had not conducted a full test of the probity of the supply chain, and that is why we had the case of fraud and the passing off as beef, lamb and other products what was effectively horsemeat.
The difficulty is that labelling does not encourage people to eat home-produced meat, which is something we have discussed in the context of other clauses in the Bill. Another example I would give in this regard is what happened when we unilaterally banned the use of sow stalls and tethers. Technically, the Red Tractor label is meant to advise people that the pork, lamb and beef that we produce in this country—particularly, in this instance, the pork—is produced to those high standards. But that is not the basis on which people buy their food; they buy on price. It can have as pretty a red label as you like, but people will often still buy the cheapest cut of meat.
The other issue with labelling is this. How am I, as a consumer eating out in a restaurant or other catering establishment, to know that what I am eating is from this country and meets the high standards that the Government have asked our own producers to meet? This could create a two-tier system and mean that only those who can afford the higher prices of our home-produced food would be able to buy it.
As for what we are being told, I shall repeat again what the Minister, Victoria Prentis, said in Committee on the Agriculture Bill in the other place. She said that
“we are retaining existing UK legislation, and at the end of the transition period, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will convert on to the UK statute book all EU food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards. That will ensure that our high standards, including import requirements, continue to apply.”—[Official Report, Commons, Agriculture Bill Committee, 5/3/20; col. 372.]
As was helpfully pointed out to us by a letter from the Food Standards Agency, the difficulty with that—I will take as long as it takes here, because this is the crux of the Bill—is that those standards are enshrined in statutory instruments, so primary legislation is not needed to amend them; only a subsequent statutory instrument would be needed.
I hope that we can learn from previous mistakes and will seek to maintain the high standards that we have and ensure that we refuse to accept any standards lower than those that our own producers meet.
Baroness Mallalieu [V]
My Lords, I share some of the concerns that the noble Baroness has just raised, but I take a different view about the need for mandatory labelling of animal products. I shall speak just to Amendment 258, in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who will speak shortly.
On 29 June, Peers received an open letter from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, which said:
“The Government has committed to a rapid review and consultation on the role of labelling to promote high standards and animal welfare, and remains committed to delivering informative food and drink labelling and marketing standards to protect consumer interests, ensuring that consumers can have confidence in the food and drink they buy.”
I welcome that, and I thank the noble Lord, but I would like the Minister to tell us, first, what the word “rapid” means to Defra. Will he give us the proposed timetable for the initial consultation and the review, and then for publishing the proposals that follow, and for making the necessary regulations? My amendment suggests six months from the passing of this Act—which I hope will mean March 2021—for the earlier steps, and 12 months for the regulations to come into force, in about September 2021. I hope that he will agree with that.
The regulations on labelling are urgent because, as a result of the new trade deals we are, we hope, about to receive—they are being negotiated—we shall shortly see new products coming on to our markets from overseas. People will, as the letter says, need to have
“confidence in the food and drink they buy.”
That means they need to be confident that those meet the high standards that we were promised, but which the Government would not, apparently, put into the Bill.
The Government say that they are concerned about tackling obesity, encouraging healthy food choices, making more use of local produce, reducing food miles, limiting carbon outputs and improving animal welfare—and I am sure they are. But if consumers are not given the information on the packet, how are they to know where it comes from, how it was produced or whether it complies with any of those objectives?
I am also afraid that if you do not give sufficient information then, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has just suggested, consumers will simply select on price—some will do that anyway—and highest animal welfare standards considerations will simply not feature. The result will be that producers who meet high standards, which are usually more expensive, will simply go to the wall.
Consumers surely need to know the country of origin, particularly in these times. Amendment 254 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, makes that point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, with great force in our debates on Tuesday. That does not mean simply where the chicken was processed, but where it was reared. They need to know the method of production. We already do it for eggs; we have free-range, barn-reared, organic and so on, but we do not do it routinely for milk, meat or egg products. We should. The consumer needs to know whether his meat comes from a feedlot, was intensively reared or was pasture-fed. Some people will not care—they will just go for the cheapest—but more and more people do care and are looking. They could be told simply in words or, with enough publicity as to what they mean, through symbols.
The method of slaughter matters too, and to some members of the public it matters a great deal. I accept that this Bill is not the place to argue for the abolition of non-stun slaughter, which I very much want to see. However, it is the place to argue that consumer choice matters. Whether you require meat slaughtered in accordance with the requirements of your religion or meat which has been pre-stunned before slaughter because you have animal welfare concerns, you want to know, one way or the other, from the label of the joint you pick up at the supermarket. You want “confidence”, to use the Minister’s word, that you have picked the one you want and are getting the type of meat you selected. Will the Minister share his timetable and plans for doing what Amendment 258 suggests?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]
In moving this amendment, I remind the Committee again of my interest as chair of Assured Food Standards, commonly known as Red Tractor—a world-leading food chain assurance scheme used, in some form, by every major retailer and food service operator in the UK. It is owned by the entire food chain and allows the free flow of certified food and drink across the UK.
Part 5 of the Bill, particularly Clause 35 on marketing standards, is very important and wide-ranging, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said during discussion on the previous group. It permits the Government, with only the safeguard of an affirmative resolution procedure, to make regulations of a stunningly wide kind, from the definition of agricultural products, their labelling, packaging and claimed attributes, to the farming methods used. These are backed up by highly intrusive enforcement powers, such as powers of entry, inspection, seizure and monetary penalties. Clearly, much of this activity was previously regulated in Brussels. We need powers to operate in the new world beyond the carryover provisions in previous Brexit legislation.
However, as someone concerned with setting and improving standards, farm and factory inspection, and generating consumer awareness and support for British produce—we cover everything except eggs and fish, for historical reasons—I would like to hear much more from the Minister on his intentions. All assurance schemes, such as the RSPCA, Soil Association, LEAF and any devolved variants, have an interest in such plans. However, as the largest such scheme, assuring over £14 billion of British food and drink, and with regular inspections by UKAS-accredited bodies underpinning safety, traceability, animal welfare and environmental protection, we have the biggest interest.
We can also contribute most to future success directly and as agents of government bodies such as the Environment Agency. We can help to promote export success, and I know from operating around the world that, especially in Asia, certified standards are very important after decades of food safety problems in certain markets. We can be the flagship of British food and farming. Without EU country of origin labelling rules we can promote it better, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said among his wise words.
Some of this is in the realm of developing policy, and we all await the Dimbleby findings with great impatience. However, my amendment is designed to require a proper consultation process before new regulations are made on marketing standards, and a report to Parliament summarising the responses.
In his comments on the previous group, the Minister suggested that the requirement to consult arises in food law already and would bite here. That is helpful, but many of us, coming at these provisions from different angles, as we do, would like to see a provision here too, given the scale and breadth of the powers proposed, which could make or break many rural food or drink operators.
I would also like confirmation that impact assessments will be made and published on such draft regulations. This seemed to be the helpful response that the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay at Second Reading.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on moving this amendment. The Red Tractor has much to commend it; I expressed one or two reservations about it but I fully endorse the call for a consultation on the regulations. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look favourably on the amendment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, I spoke too soon about the fact that we may reach our target tonight, but we are nearly there. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, explained her reason for tabling her amendment, which is about assured schemes. They are extremely important in improving food standards but, as she said, this measure could make or break some small food companies.
I have looked at the amendment and where it comes in the Bill, and I find it unnecessarily restrictive. It is important that the Secretary of State should consult those likely to be affected by the regulations in Part 5 on marketing standards, organic products and carcass classifications, but there is a limit. In previous debates, we heard that the UK lags far behind other European Union states in the incidence of organic farming. Most supermarkets have sections where organic produce is properly labelled and displayed, enabling shoppers to make an informed choice. It is important that we promote organic food.
In her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, wants the Secretary of State to
“consult anyone reasonably likely to be affected by the regulations”.
I find “anyone reasonably likely to be affected” difficult. “Anyone” seems unreasonable. It is a catch-all that I am not sure can be delivered. I remember a case when a child regularly complained to a crisp manufacturer that he was not completely satisfied with the packet of crisps he had purchased. The packet stated that anyone “not completely satisfied” could have a replacement. The dialogue between this enterprising child and the manufacturer went on for some time until the manufacturer realised that it was dealing with a child and called a halt to it. I give this as an example of why we should be very careful about exactly what wording we have in Bill. The Secretary of State should consult but the question of with whom needs to be more tightly worded, otherwise he or she could consult the whole population.
Lord Hain [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 269 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Wigley.
Brexit has returned significant powers to the UK Government to negotiate and agree international trade agreements with other nations. As a reserved power, it is the responsibility of the UK Government to represent the interests of the agriculture sectors throughout the UK, including those within the political boundaries of devolved Administrations.
To ensure that agriculture businesses in Wales have access to equal opportunities in relation to trade as counterparts in England, it is reasonable to assume that any devolved Administration, responsible as they are for their own agriculture policy, support and monitoring, would share any information necessary with the UK Government in relation to trade. Enabling, where reasonable, the sharing of information to support trade policy and enable the free flow of tradable commodities within and beyond the UK should surely be considered a common-sense matter.
Large areas of rural Wales are heavily dependent on the agriculture sector as their primary economic industry. The symbiosis of agriculture and trade should be a priority; these policy areas must work together to ease the short-term economic shock and longer-term adaptation to new markets that will arise from the UK’s new trading arrangements. It is not an area where political wrangling should overrule what is most beneficial to the people and livelihoods of those affected on the ground.
As food has become a global commodity, the UK does not have the land area to compete on a volume basis with larger developing nations where agricultural production is increasing year on year. However, due in no small part to the structure of the CAP, the agriculture sector in the UK, and Wales in particular, produces agricultural outputs at a commodity scale where the amount of land available would indicate that a focus on higher-quality outputs rather than quantity would be more beneficial.
Generally within the UK, but more specifically in Wales, where legislation such as the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act (2016) are steering the nation to deliver against sustainability goals, there is a growing and marketable evidence base around the value of the sustainable production of food products. This provides significant potential for agriculture producers in Wales not only to promote our current high standards for animal health and welfare but to move into the added value, niche world of “sustainable brand values”, with the potential that this brings to extend into new international markets. Such standards and brand values would demonstrate that a foodstuff grown in Wales was produced with all due consideration for its impact against every aspect of sustainable food production and the sustainable management of natural resources. Businesses in Wales are already starting to look at the potential such a USP could deliver.
To deliver a trade policy that complements Welsh farmers and food businesses, it is essential that the UK Government not only adheres to our existing high standards when negotiating trade deals involving agricultural produce but opens wider avenues for those within the UK whose ambition reaches beyond our current understanding of food standards, to open new and exciting markets. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will indicate the Government’s acceptance of the substance of this amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, on his Amendments 264 and 265, which I was delighted to sign. I endorse his sentiments and hope my noble friend will look favourably on his amendments, particularly Amendment 264, in much the same vein as I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s Amendment 257. I think it is essential there should be proper consultation with the relevant interested parties before regulations are adopted, as I will set out. For the same reason, I support Amendment 265, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I am sure my noble friend will agree that this is a genuine oversight and I hope she will look favourably at approving these or similar provisions before the Bill leaves the House. I also associate myself with Amendment 269, which is incredibly similar to the provisions in my Amendment 256, which was supported by other noble Lords: I would like to see the same apply in Wales as in England and other parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Wigley [V]
My Lords, it is a delight, even at this late hour of the night, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I very much agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and particularly, of course, with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on Amendment 269, which also carries my name.
There are many threats facing agriculture in Wales and in the other parts of the United Kingdom at this time, but there are also opportunities, and to grasp those opportunities to the full we have to build on the reality and the understanding of the standard of food we produce. Therefore, we need whatever co-operation mechanisms that have to be brought forward to ensure that agriculture in Wales, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, is working to that agenda, and that the world knows that we are working to that agenda, and that food and food products from Wales and the UK will be seen in that light, and equally that those food products coming into the UK from agricultural regimes that are of a lower standard will be seen as unacceptable.
This is relevant not only in terms of the food itself—the content and the way it is manufactured—but also in terms of the impact that the process has on the environment. That will be an increasing consideration in all parts of the world when people come to judge the products of these islands. The policies we have in Wales, putting an emphasis on the needs of future generations, is particularly relevant in this context, and this group of amendments gives the Government the opportunity to respond on this issue and to give some certainty as to how they see these important elements being safeguarded.
Agriculture Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsTuesday 21st July 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-VI(Rev) Revised sixth marshalled list for Committee - (21 Jul 2020)
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. I shall speak also to Amendment 142. Both these amendments relate to reducing the transition period for the introduction of ELMS from seven years to five years. I suspect that Members are probably not that keen on the idea at the moment, so for the next couple of minutes I intend to try to persuade them otherwise, because it is important that we reduce the transition period.
Members and indeed the country as a whole are aware of COP 26 this year which was supposed to take place in Glasgow concerning the climate change agreement and getting the Paris agreement carried forward in a positive way to meet our planetary carbon emissions targets, but many people are not so aware of a second major conference, COP 15, about the diversity convention. It was supposed to take place this year in Kunming, China but it has also been postponed until next year.
Biodiversity is a global crisis equal to climate change. Biodiversity is not just a problem of equatorial rainforests; it is a problem in Europe and here in the United Kingdom as well. The 2019 State of Nature report states that
“15% of species in the UK are now threatened by extinction,”
41% are in decline and a third remain effectively static, with only a small proportion gaining in number. Biodiversity is not just about bird spotters or twitchers and a comfortable feeling about nature, important though it is for our mental health and the energy of our countryside. It is also about supporting natural systems and allowing them to operate—ecosystem services such as pollination, soil formation, clean water, atmospheric oxygen, disease control and many more. All these are essential not only to the natural world around us but to our economic performance and indeed to our continued existence on this planet.
One of the great things that I have always praised in the Agriculture Bill is the idea not just of public money for public goods but that it should be concentrated on building up and improving biodiversity and nature in our countryside. That is important because about 70% of the land in England and across the UK is used in agriculture. However, I regret to say that it is because of agricultural management that biodiversity in this country has declined so significantly. I do not blame the farming industry and individual farmers for that, but I do blame the financial incentive system within which they have had to operate.
Why am I asking for the transition period to be reduced from seven to five years? It is because the biodiversity issue is a global crisis as well as one here in the United Kingdom. If we take no action and carry on with business as usual, economic systems will fail. At the end of seven years, we will be almost half way through the period of the 25-year environment plan, which I also welcome, although it must be properly financed and delivered.
It may sound trite, but I remind noble Lords that the Second World War lasted for a mere six years and we managed to overcome all the problems and challenges that affected us globally within that time. At the moment we are in a transition period, moving from being a member of the EU to our global position in just 11 months, with all the challenges that that poses, so surely we can manage to implement ELMS over five years rather than seven. I also remind noble Lords that, on nature depletion, the United Kingdom is not in a good position. We ranked 29th from the bottom out of 218 countries. That is why this issue is so important. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who is the illustrious chairman of our EU sub-committee. For the record, however, I would like the transition period to remain as it is.
I want to speak to Amendment 143, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for lending their support. It is a simple amendment, which would delay the start of the seven-year transition period away from direct payments coming into effect from 2021 to 2022. I should like to pause here to explain why this is necessary.
In seeking to delay the start of the transition period to the new policy framework to 2022, I accept that there is wide support across the House for the government objectives in the Bill to move towards a new framework of support for agriculture that focuses on public payments for public goods and increasing productivity. Much of the detail will be set out in supporting regulations and in the Environment Bill, of which we in this House have not yet had sight. However, the changes being envisaged will be the biggest in a generation and look set to be in place for many years to come.
I accept that we are leaving the European Union but note with regret that, in the four years since the vote in June 2016 signalled the beginning of a process of change, particularly in leaving the CAP, we have made very little progress in developing the necessary mechanisms, policies and schemes that would be worthy of the major changes that we are expecting in this Bill. I accept that much of this is down to the political impasse leading up to the last general election and, more recently, to the pressing issues around controlling Covid-19, which I am sure have affected Defra as they have many other departments.
It is essential that we take the time to introduce new schemes and measures that will stand the test of time, rather than simply bringing them in quickly for the sake of it. I fear that there is an overarching desire through the Bill to show that things have changed as a result of our departure from the European Union, rather than to ensure that we put in place good, made-for-purpose, fit-for-purpose, resilient schemes. Let us face it: our track record in delivering new schemes and new IT to support them is not that great.
Following the environmental land management scheme tests and trials, which themselves have been impacted by the issues surrounding Covid-19 and are ultimately delayed, the Government intend to conduct a pilot in England of a new ELM scheme in 2021, with a view to it being fully operational by 2024. However, if it is true that the Rural Payments Agency will be in charge of running these pilots—I hope that my noble friend can put my mind at rest on that—we have to question its capacity to run such a pilot when it is already struggling to deliver business as usual. Once again this year, the RPA has had to ask the Treasury for funding to bridge payments to environmental stewardship and countryside stewardship applicants before being penalised for failing to meet the required payment targets by 30 June this year. What reassurance can the Government provide that there is adequate capacity within the RPA to deliver the pilot, or does my noble friend think that another body would be more appropriate?
I also place a question mark on the extent to which the Government would be able to spend any money saved through the reductions in direct payments starting in 2021. I understand that Defra has identified this as a potential problem and is therefore looking to make an announcement in September about enhanced options for countryside stewardship and productivity schemes. However, we have none of the detail available to us today. In my view, the sensible thing is to delay the start of the transition period until 2022. That is not kicking the can down the road but giving the Government and Defra the time and space to deliver the good schemes that we know they are capable of, rather than producing half-baked schemes.
The reasons for this delay are these: we are being asked to take a lot on trust; we have not had sight of the Dimbleby food strategy, which I understand will not reach us before Report; we have not had the results of the trials of the ELM schemes; the OEP has yet to be set up; and we do not know what its relationship to the Environment Agency, Natural England and the RPA will be. We owe it to Defra to give it time, because of the Covid pandemic, to reach a proper conclusion to these schemes. I therefore ask the House to commit to supporting Amendment 143.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, whose analysis I almost completely agree with, although my conclusion is a little different. I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner, as set out in the register, and that I have been a recipient of the basic payment over several years.
I tabled Amendment 144, to which my noble friend Lord Curry of Kirkharle has kindly attached his name, and Amendment 145 in order to address the problem of the likely gap that will affect farmers as direct payments are reduced in 2021, while the revenue from the joining of any new environmental land management schemes will not arrive until 2024—although this will be mitigated for some farmers who have existing countryside stewardship schemes. This is no small issue. As we have heard in the debates on the Bill, the BPS accounts for some 58% of farm business income, varying from sector to sector, and around 25% of farms are unprofitable without it.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I can say to the noble Earl and other noble Lords that I have the matter strongly in my mind.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I was not going to pursue this, but my noble friend’s answer has perplexed me. He said the Government wish to phase out direct payments as they provide poor value for money. The whole thrust of the debate on Amendment 143 this afternoon is that if whatever will replace direct payments is not in position, is it wise to start phasing out direct payments at that time? Can my noble friend not permit himself a degree of flexibility in this regard?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the Government have sought that flexibility in how we reduce the payments, as I say. Although we will make announcements on funding for the early years of agricultural transition, we have also provided that flexibility for unforeseen circumstances in which, for instance, we would need to extend the agricultural transition period.
We want to start in 2021 because this is a journey—to pick up some of the points at the beginning—about how we work with health and harmony. How do we ensure, working with farmers, that we produce very good food and enhance the environment? Of course, I take the point that we must get the system working well, but the prize in all this—public money going to support farmers in enhancing the environment—is a very desirable thing.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in the sentiments behind these two amendments. To consider Amendment 140 first, we are in the dark a little. My understanding—and I hope my noble friend the Minister will explain this in winding up—is that public good and natural capital will be explained further in the Environment Bill, which we have not yet had sight of here. I share the noble Lord’s concern as to what we understand by “public good”.
I was heartened yesterday by an Answer from my noble friend Lord Goldsmith that nature lies at the heart of the Government’s biodiversity strategy. I argue that looking after nature, which farmers do so well, is a form of public good. I am wedded to the idea of natural flood defences as well. I like to think that active farming underlies this. Will my noble friend confirm that we will have a better understanding of what public funds for public goods are—this is the whole difficulty with the Bill—because it is set out in the Environment Bill, which is not before us now? That would be very helpful.
I also support the idea of providing the means to resolve a dispute in the cases set out in Amendment 141. I took a great interest in one of the vexed schemes, because there were 16 to 20 graziers in a project, who had the right in perpetuity to graze on common land that had a different landowner from where they were tenants. It was a very complex situation. I hope that my noble friend and Defra come up with a scheme where the natural capital or public good is provided by the landowner and a tenant benefits from the scheme. I would like to know what the Government have in mind to resolve disputes such as this. There are similar instances that I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will discuss as part of his Amendment 159A, but he has raised issues that are worthy of debate today.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, we are all anxious to make progress, so I shall be brief.
These two amendments from my noble friend Lord Greaves, which I strongly support, are deceptively modest but very significant in the context of this Bill. As has been said, the concept of public goods has been a persistent and welcome thread through the early sections of the Bill. Some Members may think that it should have been more rigorously defined on the face of the Bill. I do not accept the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that we can wait for the Environment Bill. Frankly, by the time we get there, too much of the present Bill will have been decided.
With Amendment 140, my noble friend rightly seeks to achieve a full parliamentary examination of this essential element of the post-CAP package. I lost count of the number of Members in the previous debate who were referring to public goods, and of course Ministers have, throughout all stages of this Bill in both Houses, referred to public goods. Therefore, I hope that the affirmative resolution procedure, which would ensure that we have a proper parliamentary discussion of this important definition, can happen. My previous service on the DPRRC persuades me that this is the proper procedure here.
Turning to Amendment 141, which deals with large-scale tier-3 schemes, my experience of Dartmoor, where I used to chair meetings of the national park committee, and my experience of Bodmin Moor, which adjoined my home in my then constituency, made me especially aware of the sensitivity of moorland restoration schemes. These can have a challenging effect on all those who are interested in them, and on farms in LFAs, which have also been a common theme this afternoon.
Whatever their respective merits, nobody can deny that they inevitably impact on several landowners and land managers, and a variety of other users. Since the UK has responsibility for the stewardship of no less than three quarters of the world’s heather moorlands, this should be very high in our awareness of potentially clashing interests. I was interested in what the noble Baroness said. Like me, she will be well aware of how difficult decisions can be in deciding between different interests in that context.
It may well be true of other projects with overall beneficial environmental objectives, but the likely economic or other impacts on individuals or groups in those circumstances can be very important. I have had experience of uncomfortable impacts—admittedly relatively short-term ones—from major schemes such as coastal marsh creation schemes. My noble friend suggests that we should have the affirmative procedure to look at the details when then Minister comes forward with these. I hope he accepts that this too offers a practical solution.
Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]
My Lords, I want to speak to my Amendment 156. It tries to ensure that as many as possible farming families, who, to me, are the backbone of rural England, will be able to survive on their land through the various agricultural crises that will inevitably come their way over future decades. The first crisis is the dramatic changes introduced by this Bill.
Anyone who talks to farmers, tenants or owner-occupiers who are farming land that could probably not be described as prime agricultural land will know that, without the single farm payment, they currently have little chance of survival. They cannot survive solely on their agricultural production to produce the family income. All too often, the single farm payment provides more than 100% of their agricultural returns. As we all know, this will soon not be there anymore. Some farmers and their families branch out into other enterprises on their farm, involving tourism, leisure or local services such as contracting or some form of engineering. But mostly, these farming families—wives, sons, daughters and often even the farmer himself—depend on cash wages from local businesses, which allow the farming household to survive on the land. The whole survival of the farm and the family, or families, on it depends on the vitality of the wider rural economy around them.
It is important to remember that, throughout England as a whole, agriculture represents less than 5% of the rural economy. This dependency on outside jobs is particularly obvious on those farms, both lowland and upland, involved in livestock—mostly up and down the western side of England and, of course, in Wales and Northern Ireland. The further you get from urban centres, the more this applies.
What I am saying should not surprise anyone as this feature of rural living was one of the founding principles of the CAP with its two pillars: Pillar 1 supporting agriculture per se and Pillar 2 supporting rural development. The EU decision-makers knew that, to keep farmers on the land and prevent them leaving to join the urban unemployed, a variety of rural jobs would need to be available to both men and women near their farms. Returning to this country, and going back even further in history, it should be noted that, when Lloyd George started the Rural Development Commission before the First World War, he had exactly the same targets in mind. The RDC eventually became the Countryside Agency until it all got swept into Defra and then, of course, disappeared.
I am trying to give back to Defra a very small arrow in its quiver to continue the good work started so many years ago. It is not a new game but a tried-and-tested tool to help farming families stay on their land. I am also trying to give Defra a small reason to justify keeping “rural affairs” in its title.
I know that the Government will say that all this is going to be taken care of by the shared prosperity fund —as my noble friend Lord Devon has just said—but how and when will we know? Rural proofing is a concept that has lost its way recently, so what makes us think that the shared prosperity fund is going to break that mould? Can the Minister guarantee today that there will be a well-financed ring-fenced rural fund that will be an essential part of the shared prosperity fund?
If he can, that is all well and good but, even so, would it not be a good idea for Defra to have this rural development arrow in its quiver? Would it not be a good idea to hold on to the tried and tested way of helping farmers stay on the land, particularly as Defra already knows that a good percentage of farmers are going to struggle to survive under the new regime this Bill is putting in place?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I oppose Clause 16 standing part of the Bill. This follows on neatly from the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, with whom I have the pleasure to serve on the EU Environment Sub-Committee.
The original purposes of the rural development fund have made a great change to the countryside, improving the quality of life and economic well-being especially of those living in rural areas that are particularly isolated and sparsely populated, such as where I grew up—Teesdale in County Durham—and also the areas that I had the pleasure and privilege to represent in the other place: deeply rural parts of North Yorkshire.
The policy statement that was published in February this year says of the Rural Development Programme for England for 2014 to 2020:
“This £3.5 billion programme will continue to include support for rural businesses to expand and create new jobs and for farmers and growers to buy innovative new equipment.”
This is under the “Preserving our rural resilience” heading, and it goes to the heart of what is perhaps another gap.
I ask my noble friend the Minister, in summing up, to show that this gap will be closed in the current aims of the Rural Development Programme—which have so well served rural communities—and to show how this voyage into the unknown of the UK shared prosperity fund will actually work in the interests of rural areas. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: how will Clause 16 build on this and how will necessarily limited funds continue to be used for these socioeconomic purposes that have served rural communities so well?
Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I also support a number—in fact, the majority —of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Amendment 157 is in my name and I thank noble Lords who have offered their support for it, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who has also put his name to it.
The farmers—those in our rural communities bringing in the crops and so on—have been on the front line throughout the Covid crisis and they deserve our thanks and an enduring debt of gratitude. In the Agriculture Bill in front of us, we have the opportunity to repay some of that debt, and part of this is what Amendment 157 is all about. Inputting high-speed, reliable and capacity-led broadband and the digital skills with which to competently and comfortably operate online seems to be essential to farmers and all those in our rural communities, to enable them to have optimal business, professional and personal lives.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I have some sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, but I have tried to use my best judgment to amend the Bill as it stands. Amendment 223 builds on the work, as the noble Earl pointed out, of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, just to ensure that the amendments put forward by TRIG can be implemented in a timely manner.
I turn to other amendments in my name and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Bakewell of Hartington Mandeville and Lady Northover, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and my noble friend Lady Rock for lending their support to these. Amendment 237 also has a complementary one for Wales. It makes a straightforward change to require the Government to bring forward necessary regulations to allow an agricultural tenant to refer to arbitration any unreasonable refusal from the landlord following a request by the tenant to join a scheme developed under the financial assistance provisions. Let me say at the outset that there are plenty of examples of good relations between landlords and tenants; the amendment deals only with circumstances where they are perhaps less good. I think it fair to say that tenant farmers are rightly concerned about their ability to access new public payments for public goods in light of their tenancy agreements and some of the restrictive clauses they contain. I hope the Government will give an assurance in that regard.
Amendment 238 closes a potential loophole in the Bill regarding the consent of the landlord, which the tenant is required to obtain before entering a financial assistance scheme. As drafted, the Bill contains a relatively narrow set of criteria which has to be in place, but envisages providing the tenant with the option to object only where the tenancy agreement or legislation governing the tenancy relationship between the landlord and the tenant restricts the tenant’s ability to participate without the landlord’s consent. Currently, the situation would not be covered by the provisions in this part of the Bill. This amendment seeks to address that by ensuring that all refusals by a landlord are referable by the tenant to arbitration on the grounds of reasonableness. I hope my noble friend will see that that is very modest ask.
Amendment 239 again concerns the landlord’s consent. This and Amendment 238 would together address issues around unreasonable restrictions within tenancy agreements that prevent farm tenants investing in their holdings to carry out activities or improvements which assist with the productivity or sustainability of the holding. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said, three years being the standard tenancy is simply not conducive to the investment that I personally would like to see. I hope my noble friend will look favourably on this amendment. Again, it is a suggestion put forward by TRIG and I hope my noble friend will make sure that tenancy agreements contain reasonable clauses that would make an appeal against an unreasonable refusal from landlords easier.
Amendment 240 addresses the definition of “diversification activity” and would extend it to activities that, although by nature not deemed to be agricultural, horticultural or arboricultural, enhance and complement the use of the holding for those purposes. Again, the intention is not to create a complete free-for-all but simply to give the tenant certainty of provision. I would hope that it is reasonable to allow farm tenants to have access to the means to carry out reasonable farm diversification activities without the landlord’s unreasonable refusal disallowing them from doing so.
Amendment 244 also has a similar one for Wales and, taken together, they seek to enhance the franchise of individuals who are able to apply for succession of a tenancy for the limited number of tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 that continue to have rights of succession. This is simply looking to extend the current franchise that includes husbands, wives, civil partners, sons, daughters, individuals brought up in farm families and treated as children of the marriage or civil partnership, and brothers and sisters of the deceased or retiring tenant. Crucially, the list of potential successors does not include the grandchild, nephew or niece of the deceased or retiring tenant; nor does it include children from a cohabiting partner of the deceased or retiring tenant. This amendment seeks to plug that gap. Again, this was considered by TRIG, so I hope my noble friend will look favourably upon it.
Amendment 245 looks to ensure that tenant farmers in England are not locked out of new government public payments for public goods schemes, or schemes that provide support for productivity. The Bill already recognises the difficulty tenant farmers occupying under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 might have in gaining consent from their landlords, due to the nature of their tenancy agreements, but leaves tenants occupying under farm business tenancies regulated by the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 fully exposed to the whims of their landlords, without a legislative backstop. I hope that my noble friend will look favourably on this amendment. Tenant farmers want to play their full part in these schemes, which enhance the environment, landscapes and animal welfare, and I am sure that, through the good offices of my noble friend, that can be achieved. It is important to say that when this was considered in Committee in another place, it was voted down on the basis that farm business tenancies are shorter term; however, this misunderstands the nature of the marketplace for letting land and I am sure my noble friend will take a much more considerate view.
Finally, I come to Amendment 246. As with the amendment to the franchise for tenancy succession, this amendment was also considered by the Defra-sponsored Tenancy Reform Industry Group. It is part of the Government’s policy to encourage longer-term farm business tenancies. It is important to note that the average length of a farm business tenancy in England and Wales is less than four years, and 90% of all agricultural tenancies are let for a period of only five years or less. Such short-term agreements are inadequate to allow farm tenants to invest in and profit from these holdings and to have the freedom to take part in agri-environment schemes. This amendment would make the changes necessary in this regard.
I hope my noble friend will consider these amendments vital, putting all tenants on an equal footing and enabling them to benefit in the same way that landlords would hope to benefit from these schemes.
Lord Addington
My Lords, I must apologise for missing the first couple of moments of my noble friend’s speech. That is what comes when you have your back to the Chamber due to social distancing while you have supper, but I apologise.
I add that the land which has the commons is not exclusively in the north or the uplands. I have a little, vaguely second-hand interest, as I usually catch a train from Hungerford in the mornings and get off one there in the evenings. Hungerford has a very picturesque common; it has lots of dog walkers and cattle on it. It goes back a long way and is one of the surviving things from the Inclosure Acts. The Thames Valley has other areas of common land as well. Small agricultural units or smallholdings are usually allowed on them because there is some land you can get to. Sometimes you have tenancies going on them as well, but they change. It is a complicated system down there, from what I have been able to establish with a little research.
These commons are an historic part of our landscape. They allow for different types of activity. We had a long debate about smallholdings and entrants there but the commons allow certain types of entrants into the agriculture system at a lower level, which would not otherwise be allowed. It would be interesting to hear whether the Government have taken on board how these small but interesting and historic parts of our agricultural system are to be accommodated under this new system.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for bringing this amendment forward. I am sorry that I did not have an opportunity to sign it; I hope that he will forgive me for that. They say that when two Scots meet, they form a committee, so I do not know what happens when a Lancastrian and a Yorkshireman meet.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I will let you off, then. What is interesting about our debate so far is how little understanding there is of what constitutes common land and what activities are undertaken on it. My experience of the different activities undertaken on common land in North Yorkshire was not an entirely happy one. My noble friend Lord Inglewood absolutely hit the nail on the head in his advice to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the approach to it should be multilateral, not bilateral.
I support Amendment 159A and thank the noble Lord for moving it—with the support of my noble friend Lord Inglewood and the noble Lord, Lord Addington—because I am particularly concerned about how the new schemes under ELM will take place where there is a dispute, which there inevitably will be. In summing up, can the Minister say what the dispute resolution mechanism will be? Is it not better to have a blanket one that covers all common land rather than leaving it to the parties of each individual agreement to agree it?
I grew up near to the most successful grouse shooting moors in England, on the upper parts of Teesdale. Grouse shooting was a small activity and did not create a lot of income; now, it has almost overtaken the income from the land. There is great concern that shooting and this obsession with tick control for sheep, as I discovered with one particular agreement, will negate many of the schemes that we hope will benefit under the ELM.
With those two questions, I hope that we will hear some encouraging words from the Minister on the use of common land and ELMS.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves spoke to his amendment on providing support for common land, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. During the 20 years when I was a county councillor, two of the parishes in my ward had common land. It was jealously guarded and protected from incursions of all forms. Sheep were often grazed on the common, but fencing to ensure that the sheep did not wander was frowned on by some villagers. As for parking on the common, this was a very serious misdemeanour. Some people have an idyllic picture of what common land looks like. In my experience, it is not a flat area around the local duck pond, with weeping willows dipping their branches in the water. As my noble friend said, it is often on sloping and unpromising land. Nevertheless, it is an important element of rural life in parts of England. It is important that it is preserved. I look forward to the Minister’s response on just how he sees it fitting into the Bill and whether it will qualify for financial assistance under the ELM scheme.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 162 and 171. I am delighted to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and my noble friend Lord Caithness for their support.
I believe that it is essential to have a report on progress on food security more frequently—I would suggest every year. Amendment 162 therefore seeks to increase the frequency of publication by the Government of their proposed reports on food security. While I welcome the fact that the Government have indicated their willingness to produce an early report, a five-year interval between reports is much too long for such an important and sensitive issue. Every 10 years we have an issue of food security or animal health—pest, pestilence and, currently, pandemic. We had BSE; we had foot and mouth disease; and we had the horsegate scandal, which could have been much worse, rather than just a fraud.
The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has, if anything, highlighted even more the strains and stresses within the food supply system. There is no doubt that some of these issues will continue to be a problem for a long time to come. This is the first time in my living memory that we have experienced empty supermarket shelves and people having to queue to shop for food and having restricted choice within food retail outlets. The loss of the food service sector through the government lockdown measures was also a major shock that caused many consumers to consider issues around food security for perhaps the very first time.
We have become complacent over time about our ability, as a relatively rich nation, to secure our necessary food both domestically and internationally, but this could become a much more difficult proposition in the future. One of the most important objectives of a Government is to ensure that their people are well fed and it is therefore imperative that issues around food security are given much greater pre-eminence than envisaged by the Bill, which provides only for five-yearly reports.
Currently, the UK is only around 60% self-sufficient in food and we are reliant upon imports for our remaining food need. If anything, it has become apparent that more and more nations around the world are becoming increasingly nationalistic in terms of their trading policy. There is a risk that a tightening of supplies globally could cause issues for food supply. However, food supply is not just about quantity but quality. The issues of food security go the heart of ensuring that we are not offshoring our environmental and animal welfare problems by the food that we are importing into the UK. We want, surely, to promote, protect and enhance these high standards both at home and internationally and, therefore, our trading policies must reflect that. An annual report from government is a good basis on which to start and a good discipline to ensure that matters are kept in sharp focus.
Turning to Amendment 171, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for their support. Again, while I welcome the Government’s commitment to produce a regular report on food security, it is vital that this is a means through which the Government express their policy targets and mechanisms to address issues around food security.
Currently, the provisions in the Bill envisage a fairly static output that merely reports on the current food security situation. I would prefer to see a more dynamic report that seeks to set out an agenda for change, where change is required. There seems little point in the Government merely producing a report of which Parliament is required to take note rather than for it to be a platform for evaluation, repurposing and informing future actions. At the very least, it will be essential to ensure that food security targets are both met and monitored. Where the report indicates that there are issues with aspects of our food and environmental security, the Government must come forward with their plans and policy for addressing these shortcomings.
Amendment 171 will provide the necessary architecture for the Government to take this forward. It will be a failure if, having taken the time to consider the importance of having a food security report, the Government did not also ensure that this report was used to inform changes in policy and procedures. A statutory requirement for the Government to address these issues is surely the sensible thing to include in this Bill.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, 163 and 172, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for having put his name to them. Since this is the first time I have spoken in Committee on this Bill, I probably need to draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry on the register of interests. More significantly for my noble friend, he will be glad to hear that, though this is the first time I have spoken, it will also be the last time I am going to speak. Bearing in mind the stately progress that is being made, I shall not be holding up proceedings any further.
The amendments in this group discussed so far are about the frequency of reports. I have no particular dog in that fight, but I offer one word of caution, which is that if these reports are going to mean something, they need to be relatively infrequent. If they are too frequent, they lose their impact. I suggest to those who are seeking too frequent reports that these may pass by too easily and quickly. A report wants to be an event when it happens.
My amendments go to another part of this clause and try to give it some teeth. Clause 17, as drafted, could result in some pretty anodyne, platitudinous reports—general statements of principle without any detail. When we talk about food security, detail will be very important. My noble friend on the Front Bench will say, “Absolutely, I understand that, and I will ensure there is going to be detail, and the reports will have plenty of focus.” But we have been here before, and we have been here recently. A Green Future contained similarly impressive objectives and an impressive monitoring procedure. This was to be under the Natural Capital Committee chaired by Professor Dieter Helm, who was the subject of some adverse comments by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about five minutes ago. Professor Helm was to monitor performance under the green future proposals. The last annual report from Professor Helm’s committee, which was in September last year, read as follows:
“Unfortunately, the Progress Report does not in fact tell us very much about whether and to what extent there has been progress. On the contrary, the Progress Report provides a long list of actions, and presents very little evidence of improvements in the state of our natural capital.”
If we do not strengthen the wording in this clause, we will get a long list of actions and very little evidence of improvement. We need to build in some specific teeth.
The second weakness of the clause, as presently drafted, is that it could be a snapshot, whereas what we should be looking for is a continuous look—a cine film in the old-fashioned way—at the process of our food security. Perhaps I could explain further by analogy. When you go to your annual medical, the doctor looks at your heart and lungs, he sees whether your weight has gone up or down, and he tells you what the results are. That is, of course, very important. If you have a poorly performing heart, you want it treated quickly. But what is really important is how you compare with the previous year. Are you getting heavier? Are you getting lighter? Are you losing weight? Has a new mole emerged? Has your blood pressure gone up? All those sorts of things give you an idea, over a period of time, of how your health and physiology are changing. From that, the doctor can prescribe more exercise, less food, pills or whatever.
“(a) there is an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets or a serious threat of an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets caused by economic or environmental factors, and”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I first thank the Government for including this chapter on intervention in agricultural markets and exceptional market conditions, as set out in Clause 18. The purpose of Amendment 174—I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for their support—is entirely complemented by Amendment 285, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The latter amendment refers to Wales, but both amendments deal with ensuring that financial assistance can be provided to the farming industry at times of crisis caused by natural phenomena and in chronic situations, alongside the acute economic situations already covered in the Bill.
Why is there the need for this amendment and to probe the Government in this regard? While I welcome the provision in the Bill, which would allow the Government to provide financial assistance where there is a disturbance to markets of agricultural commodities causing producers to face reductions in income, I am nevertheless concerned that the Bill as drafted will not provide the Government with sufficient ability to intervene in markets where disruption is being caused by environmental factors, such as weather. This year has been quite extraordinary and is a great example of how environmental factors can cause precisely the conditions set out in this amendment. For example, we saw floods in late winter, right into January and February this year, only to be replaced more recently by potential drought. These matters continue on a chronic rather than acute basis, which would cover, for example, animal diseases such as bovine TB.
The amendment does not require the Government to intervene in these widened circumstances but provides a mechanism for them to do so, which seems sensible in a Bill that contains so much about providing the Government with the powers to act when necessary. Not having the power to intervene in markets where environmental or chronic issues prevail could render the Government impotent in responding without bringing forward further primary legislation. It must be better to ensure that powers are available now, on a forward-thinking basis, rather than having to take powers at the time an issue needs to be addressed.
My noble friend the Minister, in concluding the last debate, referred to comments made by other noble Lords about the implications for food companies. We must recognise here, and in the previous debate, that we are talking about farmers and the conditions that farmers have to meet, not those on the food shelves of supermarkets and others. The farmers are of necessity exposed to all sorts of pests and pestilence and I believe that they need the measures set out.
I pay tribute to those charities that will reach out to help farmers in the circumstances set out in this amendment. The Yorkshire Agricultural Society, the Farming Community Network and the RABI do outstanding work. One great regret from the pandemic is that there will not have been any country shows that bring the rural and farming communities together. I also want to recognise the role that national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty play. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has explained this issue extremely clearly. Essentially, Amendments 174 and 285 would greatly improve the definition of when exceptional market conditions exist, which would be a very sensible thing to include in the Bill.
My Amendment 176 would prevent financial assistance in exceptional market conditions being given to producers who do not meet animal welfare standards. I set out the arguments for restricting this assistance in the debates on previous groupings but, in short, public money should not be given to producers who fail on animal welfare—in fact, such producers should not be in business at all.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, considering the lateness of the hour, I am most grateful to those who have remained, including our supporting teams. We have had a very good debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulescoomb, for her support of my amendment and for tabling her own amendment. I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister has confirmed that animal welfare standards are already robustly implemented. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his amendment, which perhaps was a little narrower than mine, and to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and other noble Lords for the points that they have made. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Northbrook for specifying the acute and chronic conditions which should be met. Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, about storage, we had a lengthy debate about this, but I am still not convinced about what constitutes a reservoir. However, I am sure that we can come back to that in the Environment Bill. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I raise this amendment to probe the Government on the intention behind Clause 32.
Some 27 years ago, as a Member of the Commons, I moved an amendment from the Opposition Front Bench for the establishment of a cattle identification and traceability service. I did so having been prompted by the British Cattle Breeders Club. In 1998, the scheme was set up in Workington, in my former constituency, in the form of the BCMS—the British Cattle Movement Service. At its peak it employed over 1,000 people, although with efficiency savings and the application of new technology, it now employs some 400 people and is one of the largest employers in west Cumbria. It was with some surprise that we noticed reference in the Bill to
“Identification and traceability of animals”
under Clause 32. The Bill having cleared its Commons stages, I was asked to seek some assurances in the Lords.
The Explanatory Notes, in describing the proposed amendments to the legislation for identification and traceability, state:
“The purpose of the clause is to prepare for the introduction of a new digital and multi-species traceability service, the Livestock Information Service (LIS), based on a database of animal identification, health and movement data. Subsection (1) … will allow the Secretary of State to assign to a board … functions related to collecting, managing and sharing certain information in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. This information is identification, movement or health data of animals. It will also allow the assignment of functions relating to the means of identifying animals such as issuing individual identification numbers to animals … These amendments enable the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) to be assigned the function of managing the new Livestock Identification Service.”
First, what is the driver behind the introduction of a new digital and multi-species traceability service, now to be called the livestock information service? Secondly, what is the construct and day-to-day role of the board in the new
“data collecting and sharing functions”?
In what sense would it be able to
“enable the assignment of functions relating to the means of identifying animals”,
and
“disapply … EU legislation on the identification and traceability of cattle, sheep and goats”?
What are the implications of that disapplication here in the United Kingdom? Thirdly, where it states that the board will be able to assign
“functions relating to the means of identifying animals”,
does that have implications for the management of the current service in Workington? On that matter, we are told that the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board will
“be assigned the function of managing the … Livestock Identification Service”.
What is the thinking behind that?
Why am I asking these questions and probing Ministers for answers? I am simply trying to establish, for the benefit of the people in west Cumbria, what stands behind these proposals. At the same time, I seek an assurance that the high-quality service currently provided in Workington will be retained in the long term and will perhaps be further developed with additional services now that we are leaving the European Union.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I opposed him in 1987 and did my level best to become the next Member of Parliament for Workington, but sadly it was not to be.
I congratulate the Government and my noble friend on bringing in Clause 32 on identification and traceability of animals. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who will speak next, served on the Select Committee with me when we looked at the implications of horsegate, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, referred in bringing forward her Amendment 208, which I thank her for. That was a classic example of the supermarkets taking as gospel the food that was provided to them, and there is a very real need to bring forward the highest standards of traceability. Will my noble friend, in summing up, see whether the clause as it stands achieves the purposes he would intend it to?
Agriculture Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsThursday 16th July 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (16 Jul 2020)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I lend my support to Amendment 87. I declare my interest as an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association.
In the 1980s, we had an extensive network of small, family-run, easily accessible abattoirs, then along came an innocuous draft EU directive on slaughterhouses. As an MEP, I took soundings from many in rural communities. We worked very closely with what was then MAFF. Off his own bat, after years of waiting, and in a classic example of gold-plating, an official in MAFF took the opportunity to drive a coach and horses through the abattoir network and close many of the well-functioning, perfectly safe, smaller abattoirs serving the rural communities.
That brought devastating results in the early 1990s and again in the early 2000s, when we experienced BSE and foot and mouth disease. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said in moving this amendment, that led to longer journeys for livestock being taken to abattoirs, and potentially the spread of those diseases at that time. The noble Lord quite rightly identified this problem, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has just said, there are now parts of Scotland, particularly the islands, without abattoirs and completely dependent on mobile abattoirs. That raises costs to the producer, which goes to the heart of the viability of livestock production in the rural areas of the Highlands and Islands and, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, raises serious animal welfare concerns.
We must revert to a better and more extensive network, as we enjoyed before. This network of smaller, family-friendly, easily accessible slaughterhouses should be put in place and Amendment 87 provides the means to do so.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trees, on this amendment, so ably proposed by him and the two noble Baronesses who have just spoken.
I am no expert on agriculture, but I live in the Isles of Scilly, and I want to give a small example of the need for an abattoir there, which may be similar to the example of Scotland just given by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. There are five inhabited islands in the Isles of Scilly. They all have livestock—cows and often pigs—and they provide some good conservation grazing, overlooked by the Isles of Scilly Wildlife Trust. All the farmers are very much in favour of having an abattoir on the islands and would probably increase the number of cows they have if this were the case.
One problem at the moment is that they go from the off-islands in their trailers in a small freight ship to St Mary’s, and then on to another freight ship to Penzance, which takes about five hours on a good day—it does not travel on a bad day. They may then be trailed as far as Plymouth, which probably takes another five hours or so, and then, as we all know, the animals are rested before being slaughtered. Another problem is that there is an enormous cost to this. Some farmers say that the feedstuffs they have to buy cost three or four times as much as on the mainland.
There is an enormous interest in having a fixed abattoir on St Mary’s. The Duchy of Cornwall, which is the landlord here, has told me that it would be keen to see one built here now that the problems of remote veterinary oversight, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, have been overcome. All the farmers would use it but the problem, of course, is the capital cost. It is expensive and would not be used all the time but, once it was operational, it would wash its face because there is a big demand for local meat here, grown locally. Even when it goes to the mainland and comes back in butchered portions it is very popular—I think it is really good.
My only comment on the amendment itself is that for us in Scilly, “slaughtering” would need to include a cutting room and butchery. They may need to be part of it. Again, I am no expert on this; some other noble Lords who have spoken, or the Minister, may be able to put me right. But if we are going to slaughter the animals here on this island—or, I suggest, in other remote areas in the Scottish islands or parts of the mainland—we need to butcher and prepare them, and then be able to sell them locally. That would be really beneficial to the local economy at this time, when many hill farmers and remote farmers are very concerned about what will happen after Brexit.
When the Minister comes to wind up, I hope that he will either agree to this amendment or invite us to a meeting or two and come up with his own suggestions on this small but very serious problem. It could enable the hill farmers and island farmers—and probably remote farmers in Cornwall as well—to survive and prosper, using local and rare breeds on occasions, along with many other benefits of local delivery. I fully support the amendment.
Baroness Boycott [V]
My Lords, I would first like to add my voice to the praise of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for Christine Tacon while she was in the role of Groceries Code Adjudicator. It is a very important role, and I would like to hear whether the Minister plans to beef it up and give her more powers.
Following what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said about animal welfare and the need for someone to look over it, it occurs to me that someone in a similar position to the Groceries Code Adjudicator, overlooking the welfare of animals with the power to fine and bring people to book, might be worth looking at.
I am here to make a brief intervention to support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, because I am a bit obsessive about fungi and feel that they are overlooked. They were once classified as plants because they come out of the soil and have rigid cell walls, but are now placed independently in their own kingdom with equal rank to animals and plants. In fact, they are nearer animals than plants.
An astonishing though not well-known fact, which I thought your Lordships might like to know, is that the world’s largest living organism is thought to be a honey fungus measuring 3.4 miles. It is across the Blue Mountains of Oregon and estimated to be 8,650 years old. Obviously, what we know better are varieties such as mushrooms, which are important to our diet and packed with vitamins and minerals. But they are also incredibly important to research. Penicillin, the foundation of all our modern medicine, comes from the fungus Penicillium. The everyday product yeast is also a fungus. While some can make you ill, they are essential in chemicals and drug manufacture. I know, as I travel to South America quite a lot, that scientists know that there is much more to discover about this amazing microscopic world.
From the point of view of the Agriculture Bill, fungi have the most enormous environmental benefit. They feed on dead organic matter, including leaf litter, soil and, of course, dead animals. They recycle 85% of the carbon from dead organic matter and release locked-up nutrients to be used by other organisms. This makes fungi completely essential to the ongoing health of our ecosystems. Sustainable life would not have a prayer without this magical, often microscopic, and too often ignored living group. This speech was to bring this to the Committee’s attention, and to say that I hope it maintains a proper place somewhere in the Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 207 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and I thank them for their support.
Amendments 197 and 207 seek to achieve the same aim, which is to ensure proper scrutiny of the new supply chain measures being introduced under the Bill, which are to be greatly welcomed. I too congratulate and pay tribute to the Groceries Code Adjudicator, Christine Tacon, and her team for all that they have achieved under the code. The adjudicator has done a very good job in regulating the relationships between the major retailers and their direct suppliers.
However, I believe there has been a major regulatory gap in respect of relationships further upstream in the supply chain involving primary producers, the first purchasers and processors—what I refer to as the indirect supply chain. While it is good news that the Bill attempts to plug that gap, it is disappointing that seemingly little thought has been given to how the new arrangements contained in the Bill are to be governed. I understand that there have been discussions between officials and interested parties, and within those it has been suggested that for some reason the Rural Payments Agency could provide the oversight for these aspects of the Bill. I beg to differ. The RPA is not the appropriate body. It lacks the necessary skills, capacity and gravitas to be able to adequately deal with these aspects of the Bill, and is in any event sufficiently employed with its daily work.
Although the Bill is sponsored by Defra, it would be good to see a little joined-up thinking within the Government so that Defra and BEIS were on the same page in their approach to this. BEIS would like to expand the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to cover these new and important provisions, thus creating one single regulator from farm to fork. I hope that Defra will hold the upper hand and ensure that supply chains are functioning well for the long-term benefit of UK citizens, and the Groceries Code Adjudicator is the right body and team to do that.
These matters were considered in a recent review of the role and remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and it is disappointing that at that stage BEIS decided against an expansion of the adjudicator’s remit. However, now that Defra has identified the need in the Bill for further supply chain provisions, with which I wholeheartedly agree, it seems perfectly sensible to give responsibility for the oversight of those arrangements to a body that is tried and tested and already has skills and expertise in this area. Without an adequate regulator identified in the Bill, we run the risk that the provisions on supply chains will simply not be adequately administered or enforced. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, those who have co-signed Amendment 207 and I have identified, the Groceries Code Adjudicator is the right place for this work to be conducted.
With regard to the wider remit, there are many reasons to include the indirect supply chain. More often than not, they are small growers or producers. It is very difficult for them to bring a complaint. I would like to see an own-initiative investigation started by the Groceries Code Adjudicator because it is difficult to rely completely on complaints from small producers and growers, which can so easily be identified with those with whom they have the contract and so fear losing the contract. With those few words, I commend Amendment 207 and support Amendment 197.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 124 and 138, which I have signed. While my thinking is very much informed by questions of public access in the way that my noble friend Lord Addington’s is, there is a wider point here about the operation of this new system that is echoed in one way or another by a number of amendments in this group. While I recognise that it is positive that multiannual assistance plans will provide a level of certainty both for farmers and for the public, who are interested in these things, this ought to be strengthened by a greater understanding of how the objectives align with the public goods in Clause 1.
As drafted, the Bill refers to the Government’s strategic priorities, but it is not really very clear how one would determine what those priorities are. I shall give the Committee an example: there is a national policy on flooding, for example, and we know that there are policies around climate change and the environment. That is probably clear. However, there are no strategic priorities established for the question of public access. It is quite difficult to see how assistance under the Bill will link to a government strategic priority that does not actually exist. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a word or two about this because it would really aid clarity about what the funding is to deliver and ensure that there is a coherence in approach and predictability.
That then feeds into Amendment 138 regarding clarity in the financial assistance scheme, which I think most of us would agree is an essential part of transparency. We want to see not just what is being given to whom but how these strategic priorities—these public goods—are reflected in the spending once it has happened.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 127, 134 and 137, relating to Clause 4, which deals with multiannual financial assistance plans.
Amendment 127, which I am delighted is co-signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, seeks to enhance the usefulness of the Government’s multiannual financial plans. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to produce these plans, as they will provide a degree of assurance to farmers and other land managers regarding the Government’s commitment to schemes and programmes. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to come forward early in the policy transition period with their first such multiannual plan.
However, I fear that the current provisions of the Bill lack any requirements on the Government to specify levels of expected expenditure and how those levels relate to the achievement of each of the strategic priorities set out in the Bill. Without seeking to bind the Government too tightly, it is sensible to have a framework that requires the Government to be clear about what it is planning to spend, and on what. Circumstances can and do change over time, but we must see a clear direction of travel from the Government now, so that we and farmers can judge how well the Government are doing in achieving their objectives and in the targeting of public resources.
Farmers and land managers too will need assurance about the certainty of funding if they are going to enter long-term relationships to deliver outcomes for the public benefit and for the improvement of productivity. Identifying specific levels of budgetary expenditure will also enhance the ability of Parliament to scrutinise government plans and policies, both in advance of them being implemented and by way of evaluating performance afterwards; both are important parts of good governance.
Turning to Amendment 134—which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for co-signing—in framing the financial assistance scheme, it is absolutely right that the department and the Government should have regard to advice from time to time on the funding required to achieve the strategic priorities of financial assistance for the duration of the plan, whether that advice is from the Office for Environmental Protection, or any other public body with a national remit and responsibilities for the natural or historic heritage. In Amendment 137—which I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for supporting—I go on to say that we need to know that, under the Bill, any advice received from the Office for Environmental Protection and any other public body with this national remit is sufficient to prove that the financial assistance provided is sufficient to meet the strategic priorities of the financial assistance.
It is very difficult for us to take a view on what the role of the OEP and its relationship with these other advisory bodies should be when we have not had sight of the Environment Bill in its current form, or the chance to adopt it. I make a plea to the Minister and her department that the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Bill are mirror images of each other, and their provisions reflect and fully complement each other.
Baroness Rock (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 128 in my name, and declare my interests as set out in the register.
Time is running out to have all necessary legislation and implementation decisions and processes in place in the timescale set. There are still many aspects of transition and the success of future farming support policy that remain unclear, and the concern is that there will be a gap between alternative and effective schemes being in place and the start of the phasing out.
Amendment 128 allows the Government to return unspent funds to farmers as direct payments if they are not being used for other purposes. This enables Ministers to carry over any money left unspent at the end of a particular budget year for spending in subsequent years. Given the extremely welcome commitment of the Conservative Government to maintain current levels of funding, we must ensure that the precious resource of public money is used for its intended purpose of supporting agricultural businesses.
Agriculture Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsTuesday 14th July 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-IV(Rev) Revised fourth marshalled list for Committee - (14 Jul 2020)
“( ) protecting or improving the food security of citizens and access to food that promotes good health and wellbeing.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 70. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for their support for Amendment 35. I also thank the two noble Baronesses, as well as my noble friend Lord Caithness, for their support of Amendment 70.
Amendment 35 seeks to add a further subsection to Clause 1(1) to ensure that
“protecting or improving the food security of citizens and access to food that promotes good health and wellbeing”
will qualify for financial assistance. The purpose of the amendment is to put public interest in food security front and centre in the Bill. While I accept that other parts of the Bill provide a requirement on the Government to report on food security and to have regard to food production in the use of their powers under Clause 1 on financial assistance, there is nothing in the Bill that specifically addresses the need to focus attention on matters relating to food security.
This is an issue of great importance to all citizens. At a time when we have seen our food system come under huge pressure as a result of the impact of Covid-19 and the government response to its spread, it is remarkable that the Government do not see the need for greater focus on this most important concern of the British public. It is not simply about driving self-sufficiency, which has fallen to about 60%; it is also about the fact that production of food from our own resources is an important part of food security. Indeed, the Government’s own food policy tsar, Henry Dimbleby, has highlighted the need for greater attention to be given to this important policy area. It is a matter of regret that we have not, and will not, have sight of his much-anticipated report at the time that the Bill is adopted in this place. With more than 1 million people having signed a petition seeking greater support for food standards, we in this place must be in step with the British people, ensuring that we share their concerns on what is given proper pre-eminence in the important legislation before the Committee today.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I will have to look again at Amendment 60. The construct is about where, following the Health and Harmony consultation we undertook, it was decided that we should recognise support for farmers in a post-CAP world. It was recognised that we needed to put food production and food security in the Bill, and we have put them in. This is the difficulty when you have improvements in iterations. They were valuable new iterations, but the point about rewarding food production is that, with better fair dealing, the farmer gets a reward from the market. They do not as yet for the purposes in Clause 1(1)(a) to (j), and we think that is where the reward should be.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have contributed to this group of amendments. There were almost 40 contributors, including the Minister and me. It has been a vigorous debate and almost all noble Lords were united.
I am grateful for the response from the Minister. My remaining concern, as has been reflected in the questions, including those following his speech and his response to them, is that food production should be considered a public good. I am not quite sure that we have established that yet. Also, I remain deeply concerned —as, I believe, do other noble Lords—about the future of food security. We have not had and will not have sight of the Dimbleby report on food strategy, in which a lot of this will be dealt with, according to my noble friend said. That is regrettable. But the hour is late. For the moment, I will withdraw this amendment, but I reserve the right to return to it later. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 35.
Agriculture Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsThursday 9th July 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (9 Jul 2020)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and in particular that I sit on the rural affairs group of the Church of England. I apologise if I failed to mention that on Tuesday. I support Amendments 12, 13 and 62. My comments are more in the form of questions.
We have before us the policy statement. What is its status in relation to the Bill? In responding to this group, will my noble friend the Minister bring us up to date?
On Amendments 12 and 13 regarding educating children, from which budget should that come? I am a great supporter not just of farm visits but of visits of schoolchildren to country shows. When I was at school in Harrogate I had the great good fortune to visit the Great Yorkshire Show. We had a day off for the purpose. Will my noble friend use his good offices to liaise with his counterpart in the Department for Education to ensure that such visits continue? I am a member of the Yorkshire Agricultural Society and know that it is very keen to receive those visits. For the first time the show will be online, like a number of rural shows across North Yorkshire. It is a wonderful opportunity to engage children without them having to leave school or their home. However, I think it should more properly come out of the education budget.
My noble friend Lord Holmes referred to crops under glass, on which our noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach is obviously a great expert. Will my noble friend the Minister liaise with BEIS to ensure that, if we are to benefit from energy from waste, we educate the public about its benefits, even though it means using incinerators? In Denmark, Germany and Holland this is not a problem for the public, and we should not hold our farmers and horticulturalists back by a lack of understanding in this regard.
I pay tribute to the work of Fera at Sand Hutton and the Rothamsted institute. Will that type of research fall under the new financial assistance proposed in Clause 1 or should it more properly come from R&D budgets elsewhere? That clarification would be most helpful.
I support Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lady Rock. Diversification lies at the heart of our future farm policy. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take this opportunity to identify those who can advise our farmers, particularly smallholders and tenants, about the best thing to use.
In supporting Amendment 101, which relates to new entrants, I refer to the policy statement, which points out most helpfully on page 39 that regrettably those farmers
“after the reference period are unlikely to be eligible for delinked payments.”
Will my noble friend do what is set out here by making it easier for farmers who wish to retire to do so and who, by delinking, will free land for new entrants? We have to support new entrants as far as possible. This, together with the expected reductions in rent prices we are told about, should help them to get a foothold in the industry. That links to the amendments I will move later relating to tenancy holdings. This could be very useful. We need a bit of flesh on the bones in the policy statement.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 12 and 13, and I endorse what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and other noble Lords, on the importance of robotics in agriculture. I well remember being involved in this in the 1980s. We were the world leaders in new robotic developments, but of course, constrained by the state subsidy rules of the European Union, we lost out to Japan and the United States, where, in particular, the use of contract compliance with state orders for the military gave them the competitive advantage to protect their fledgling industry.
My appeal to the Government as we leave the European Union is this. In this country, state aid is generally seen as protecting old, dying industries, but, at its essence, it is to protect fledgling industries that need link-ups with universities and the ability to experiment to get products that work to market. In robotics and artificial intelligence, not least in the area of agriculture, our potential is huge. If we were to win that battle, we would be more self-reliant and more competitively advantaged internationally. We should grab those opportunities before it is too late, not least because China is doing the same thing; it is leading the market and getting that market advantage.
At the same time, we should not copy the Chinese model for GM food. One thing that most surprises me about the debate on agriculture in this country is how we have allowed a form of quasi-communism to run it. Look at the role of the supermarkets: every strawberry and carrot must be identical in size and taste. This is specified by supermarket contracts, which farmers struggle to meet and make a profit under. The answer is not to move towards GM food—the ultimate communist dream of every product looking the same and tasting the same—but to go in the opposite direction. Something far more radical than farmers’ markets is needed, although they are a good starting point, conceptually. The whole basis of the tax incentive system for local food needs radically overhauling in his country. The incentives should be for real production, as the farmer sees it taken to the local market, to take out the food miles and to challenge directly this communism of the supermarkets in making everything the same. Again, in leaving the European Union, we have the opportunity to give that incentive to those local markets, and we should be doing so in a very big way.
Finally, I have a comment on trees and forestry. Pit timber used to grow alongside the collieries of this country in a very big way. We failed to learn the lessons of that in our forestry planting. Forestry planting has been seen as the preserve of the rural economy, yet on former coalfield sites we have huge swathes of reclaimed land, once brownfield and often still laid to waste. It would be ideal for reforestation as an industry, exactly as was done for those pit timbers 100 and 150 years ago—the remnants of which still exist. That would also give an amenity to local communities over the next 50 years. We should rethink precisely where our forests are being planted.
The Earl of Shrewsbury [V]
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. I believe it to be an extremely important one and I congratulate him on the way in which he moved it. It is a very wide-ranging subject. I have no problem at all with public access to land, so long as no damage is caused to property or to livestock. I believe firmly that if such damage is caused—not everyone who benefits from access to the countryside acts in a responsible manner—it is only fair that the owner or tenant of the property in question is compensated for the cost of that damage and its reparation.
To give an example, during the recent very hot spell, and with lockdown and social distancing in force, a field on the River Dove, very close to where I live in an idyllic part of the world called Dovedale—an area of outstanding natural beauty—was invaded by a large group of people, who picnicked there and swam in the river. The litter they left, both in Dovedale and by the river down in Mapleton, was like a carpet of detritus. It was atrocious—bottles, plastic bags, human waste and all sorts. It was cleared up and disposed of by the landowner at his own expense. Under the terms of my noble friend’s amendment, that landowner would have been reimbursed for his trouble. That seems to me to be only fair and right.
The other day, at Questions in your Lordships’ House, I asked my noble friend Lord Goldsmith whether it was the case that the landowner or the tenant should not be responsible for paying for the clearing of fly-tipping on their land. The answer that I got was less than satisfactory. My noble friend told me—to paraphrase—that the landowner or the tenant should pay for this because it was part of his responsibility of farming the land. That could not be further from the truth, and I think that is a pretty rough statement to make.
I support my noble friend’s amendment and I look forward to listening to what my noble friend the Minister has to say in this regard.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on this amendment. I shall be brief, because it covers many of the points that I made on the third group. I also thank the Minister for adding Clause 1(1)(b), but I have questions for him. What form might the compensation take? Is one of the problems perhaps that rural crime is not taken as seriously as it might be?
I believe that such prosecutions come under the Environment Agency rather than the police. Should there be a wider use of cameras in rural areas believed to be prone to this? Where there is shared access between, for example, a county council as well as a different user of the land, should there be some arrangement to negotiate between them about who is responsible for policing this? How does my noble friend intend to police the current provision under Clause 1?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to take part in this brief debate, and it is nice to have a debate on one specific amendment, dealing with a particular problem or series of problems.
I do not suppose there is a single one of your Lordships who was not totally disturbed and revolted by the photograph of that wonderful, 500 year-old oak tree burnt down last weekend in Herefordshire as a result of irresponsible barbecuing. That is a totemic picture and shows—alongside the graphic descriptions by my noble friend Lord Caithness, who moved this amendment splendidly—what we are up against.
I have a specific suggestion to make to my noble friend the Minister. I was taken by the explanatory statement of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on the Marshalled List:
“This amendment is to highlight the extra costs that farmers and foresters can face”—
he has done that graphically and splendidly—
“and discuss the effectiveness of the Countryside Code.”
I understand that the code is in the process of being revised, which is good. However, I do not suppose that very many of those people who created squalor in Dorset or who burnt down that beautiful old oak in Herefordshire have a clue what the Countryside Code is.
My suggestion to the Minister is this: I have spoken in your Lordships’ House before on the subject of citizenship, and I believe that every young person leaving full-time education should go through a citizenship ceremony, having studied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship for a year at least. One of the prime responsibilities of being a good citizen is to help to look after and enhance the environment.
There should be compulsory education on the Countryside Code and looking after the environment, which we have inherited and have a duty to pass on to successive generations. I would very much like to see, as part of the graduation process from school, the issuing of a countryside passport that young people are proud of and can carry with them. If they transgress—of course, it is not a problem of young people only, but one has to start somewhere—there should be exemplary fines and penalties. A cancelled passport should be one of these, because those who have shown that they do not appreciate and care for their environment and for the countryside should not be allowed to trespass and transgress upon it. I do not use “trespass” narrowly.
If we really mean what we say, and if we really want to strengthen the Bill in the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has suggested, we must have not only compensation but, at the forefront of our mind, the creation of a culture where compensation will not be needed because people will not despoil and damage their environment. I recommend to my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, and to my noble friend Lord Gardiner, who has been meticulous in his attendance, devising some sort of system along these lines.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who speaks with great authority and knowledge on these issues. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for introducing this little group of amendments and for the opportunity to discuss native—and, perhaps I might say, non-native—species. I will limit my remarks to Amendment 19. The biggest threats to native species, as I see it, are the uninvited, unwelcome guests of non-native species. For example, I have seen first-hand the damage that Himalayan balsam can cause, particularly along the length of a stream; how difficult it is to eradicate; and the time and expense taken up by land managers in this regard.
When I was on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the other place, we looked at this in a report on Chalara, which causes the ash tree dieback. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister sums up she will confirm that the practice by which, for some bizarre reason, seeds used to be exported from this country to others such as Denmark, Poland and others where the disease existed, and then we reimported those trees as saplings from those countries, has been stamped out and will not be repeated. It brought a high level of infection to this country. We now have a number of endemic diseases in the horse chestnut, which I fear may go the same way as elms did. We heard only this week in the Lords of a new threat, particularly to lavender and other plants, from Xylella fastidiosa.
I again commend the work of Fera—I know that it has changed its name, forgive me—which does great work in this regard, as well as on ash tree dieback. If the Government were to look favourably on this little group of amendments, I invite my noble friend to consider whether farmers and land managers could be reimbursed for the work that they do in trying to protect our native species from these unwelcome and uninvited non-native species.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Lord Marlesford? If the noble Lord does not wish to speak, we will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is on such fine form. I thank my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for bringing forward this excellent amendment. I will ask my noble friend the Minister one specific question, which follows on directly from what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, just said. I am conscious that many livestock producers, predominantly pig producers, have cut down heavily on the use of antibiotics, at some considerable expense. As I understand it, the alternatives are a great deal more expensive. Will the Minister confirm that Clause 1(1)(f) will enable alternatives to be covered by the provisions of financial assistance under that clause? I entirely endorse the thinking behind what my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury said. It is absolutely right to see animal health and welfare as interdependent.
The Duke of Wellington (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I had intended to withdraw to speed up proceedings, but now that I have been called I will simply say that I support the principle behind Amendment 44. It is in my opinion desirable, where the terrain and climate admit, to winter animals outside. It is good for their health. Therefore, I totally support what is behind that amendment. I need say no more.
Agriculture Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsTuesday 7th July 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Committee - (7 Jul 2020)
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. Amendments 5, 17 and 89 question the different wording in different sections of the Bill. Clause 1(1)(a) uses “protects or improves”; Clause 1(1)(c) uses “maintains, restores or enhances”; elsewhere, “conserves” is used, which is defined as including “restoring or enhancing”.
Using different words in close proximity in the Bill gives the strong impression that different things are meant by them and that words which are not included each time are therefore in some way excluded. For simplicity of reading, we should choose one word. I would choose “enhances”; I have gone with “conserves” because that is the Government’s choice. If we have one word which is defined to encompass all the other concepts, this clause will read more clearly.
With Amendments 27 and 28, I wish to check with the Government that we are not confining ourselves to additional varieties and species, but that we will be able to apply funds to new species of animal livestock and in particular to new plant crop species. Genetic engineering should mean that we can move many of the crops that now grow some way south of us a good way north and therefore improve the resilience and variety of our agriculture.
Amendment 86 checks where the boundary is for an activity such as coppicing. It was not clear to me from the words used that the whole process of felling trees and particularly extracting them from woodland could be covered by finance. If we are going to make it profitable for small woods in particular—I declare an interest in owning one—to supply coppice for the power station industry, for instance, we must look at how we will get that wood extracted. If not, there will be no benefit in extracting it and therefore no benefit in coppicing.
Lastly and most importantly, Amendment 76 addresses local nature partnerships. In the Bill we ought ideally to recognise the role that these have come to play in the negotiations between the various entities which have a finger in the pie of looking after nature in our countryside. They have been remarkably successful and I very much hope we will continue to support them and embed them in how we take decisions about nature and the countryside.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to my three amendments, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister, the Bill team and everybody for getting us to this stage. It is quite remarkable that we have a book of amendments almost as large as the Bill itself. I know the lengths to which my noble friend will go to accommodate us.
I will speak first to Amendments 24 and 104 in my name. I thank other noble Lords who have joined me in signing Amendment 24, which is for probing and debating purposes only. Obviously, I do not wish to see land taken out of “managing land or water” that will benefit from new financial assistance under the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend, who is responding today, and to our noble friend Lord Goldsmith for responding to my concerns, which I have also set out in Amendment 104.
There will be opportunities for farmers to create reservoirs, working either on their own or with water companies. This will be recognised as financial assistance, other than where they may already fall within a flood plain, which I think is the one exclusion. My noble friend said that the equivalent of 25 Olympic-sized pools would fall within the provisions of the Reservoirs Act 1975.
We are absolutely delighted to have the Slowing the Flow at Pickering scheme. I am sure that many other schemes like it will benefit from the provisions of this Bill. I welcome that. It could be not just for farm use, but caravan parks and golf clubs may consider storing water temporarily or more permanently on their land. However, could my noble friend be a little more precise? In my noble friend Lord Goldsmith’s reply to me in a letter on 2 July, he said:
“The temporary storage of floodwater on land would not necessarily constitute a raised reservoir and would therefore be exempt from reservoir safety regulations in England.”
It would be helpful if my noble friend could place that letter in the Library so that I do not need to refer to it in any more detail. Could we have an assurance today on what will be considered temporary storage and what permanent storage, to reassure those seeking to retain water temporarily as floodwater that they will not fall within the provisions of the 1975 Act, which are particularly onerous for reservoirs and would reduce it to 10,000 cubic metres?
Further, the reservoir we had initially sought for the Slowing the Flow scheme could not be signed off by the panel engineer from the Institution of Civil Engineers. Can my noble friend assure the House today that even water stored temporarily to retain floodwater on land will not fall into that category? That would be most helpful.
Amendment 24 relates to financial assistance for upland and hill farms in particular, which produce pasture-fed livestock. There are concerns that hill farmers may not benefit because many of them are tenants. In North Yorkshire and other parts, I think almost 50% of farms are tenanted. Later we will consider county council farms, which are almost exclusively tenanted farms by their very nature. This is a probing amendment to see whether my noble friend would be minded to use financial assistance to promote pasture-fed livestock farming systems. It is something that we are particularly good at in the United Kingdom, in parts of northern England, Scotland, Devon and, I am sure, Wales and other parts as well. The taste of the spring lamb off the North Yorkshire moors is hard to beat but that is not why we are here today.
Pasture-fed livestock farming is responsible for the management of a significant part of our landscape. The national parks have done a great piece of work on this, which we will come on to consider. But it is particularly important in this regard to seek financial assistance for the way the uplands are managed. Too often, calves and other animals that are fattened on the pastures come in for unnecessary and unwanted attacks from interest groups which perhaps do not understand how red meat is produced and how important it is to a balanced diet. The uplands also play a role as a carbon sink—storing carbon in the grasslands—and in harvesting carbon from the atmosphere on an ongoing basis. Given the wider benefits of pasture-fed systems, I urge the Government to address this sector within the realm of public goods, under Clause 1(1).
I make it clear that this is complementary to and supportive of the provisions on native breeds, whether on pasture or other systems. I acknowledge that native breeds are probably already recognised, so I nudge my noble friend towards considering that pasture-fed livestock also come under the provision, for biodiversity and public health reasons as well.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, whose closing remarks on pasture-fed livestock echo my own Amendment 78, which seeks the following:
“In framing any financial assistance scheme, the Secretary of State must have regard to maintaining support for hill farms and other marginal land previously designated as less favoured areas.”
I support what the noble Baroness said in praise—not just support—of those areas.
We need to recognise the geographical importance as well as the environmental, agricultural and food production importance. Less favoured areas in England cover the Pennines, the Lake District, the Yorkshire Dales —Yorkshire generally—Devon and Cornwall and most of Wales; and, of course, a huge chunk of Scotland, which I know is not directly covered by the Bill but this demonstrates how important it is. In those areas it is a very significant part of the local economy, in terms of employment, the environment, access and the general diversity of the economy. As the noble Baroness made clear, our uplands—our hill lands—are most useful for livestock rearing, grazing and pasture feeding, particularly of lamb and beef, and are not suitable, really, for cropping, other than in marginal circumstances.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the origins of this amendment are fairly straightforward. As we go through this Bill, we talk about great changes to agriculture. We start off with a list of changes and where things are going to change in relation to government support for agriculture. We do not actually define those whom we are going to support, and I feel that they should be on the face of the Bill. If they are not on the face of the Bill, we should know exactly where that list is.
All the positive changes that might affect the environment and people’s access to it, which I will discuss at considerable length in the next group, are going to be dependent upon farmers taking much of the action and getting through financially in what they need to do. Unless the Government pay them, it is not going to happen. Unless we are getting some sort of new force that is going to go marching into the countryside equipped with whatever it is and on whatever legal authority it is—which I have seen no hint of anywhere —we are dependent on those involved in farming and related industries actually to fulfil this for us. The only way we can reasonably expect them to do it is if they are properly paid, so there is a symbiotic relationship there: they get money for changing their behaviour.
The change of behaviour for farmers is going to be difficult: culturally, financially and in every other way, it is going to be a change in a way of life in many cases. To what extent and where depends on who they are and in what situation, but that is what I am trying to get on the face of the Bill. I do not pretend that this amendment is perfect because I literally went through and thought, “Good, this is in the Bill or that’s in the Bill” and at the end of it, I said, “What about land managers? Let us try to get some idea about this.” They are the delivery system for the other changes set out in the Bill, so let us make sure that they get some support. It does not really go much further than that, other than to say that we have to make sure that they are there and identified. If the identification comes somewhere else, that is great, but if it means running down a list saying, “By the way, if you look across and go legally through and jump across sideways, that’s where the definition is,” that is the classic way to make mistakes. The lay person will not be able to find out what is going on. We have all, in this Chamber, been involved in situations where somebody said, “Legally, it was there,” but we could not find it. It might be slightly more straightforward here than in some of the cases we are talking about, but that is what I am trying to get at.
There is another amendment in my name, Amendment 115, on the accountability system for taking on any action. That probably would have read better in the next group, but if the Government have any undertakings on this, let us find out what is going on. That is really what my initial thinking was about, and I look forward to hearing from those who are going to speak on the rest of the group, but that is my primary motive for moving this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I will speak to three amendments in my name in this group and thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and my noble friend Lord Caithness for supporting Amendment 65. The purpose of this amendment is again to probe the Government. As was said in conclusion by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, we have a limited pot of money being spread very thinly. I hope that we can focus where the money goes on farming, obviously within the remit of agriculture, horticulture and forestry.
In keeping the focus on farming, I will turn to Amendment 103. Just before I do, I will take the opportunity to ask my noble friend the Minister about the types of activities that he feels may be covered. For example, there have been sectors in the past that have received no support but have spent huge amounts of money—I am thinking in particular about antibiotic use, which we have reduced at some considerable expense, although I think this has put Britain in the driving seat with regard to the reduction of antibiotics.
There may be possibilities of supporting, for example, pigs through outbuildings and storage facilities, which will help to tackle climate change and bring a number of benefits while improving the way that we manage—or rather pig producers manage; I do not, obviously—manure and slurry reduction. While it has not been beneficial in the past, I hope that it will help to tackle climate change and increase production. Is that something that my noble friend thinks might be supported?
I want to flag up something that I am sure we will return to in later groups: the potential funding gap between when basic farm payments phase out and when ELMS—which I know we are going to explore in more detail in further amendments—will come in. How is that going to be addressed? I am also looking at the socioeconomic aspects of this, where natural capital seems to have been the focus of great emphasis, although it benefits only those who own the land, for the most part, and it cannot necessarily be shared with tenant farmers, who actually do much of the farming on that land in many circumstances.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for supporting Amendment 103. I am sure that my noble friend will recognise this text because it has come, in great part, from the Government’s own paper Health and Harmony. The public good is very ephemeral and opaque, and I give him the opportunity to put more meat on the bones and reward activities that are related directly to the production of food or farming in its broader aspects and, furthermore, activities from which tenants may benefit. We might focus too much on trees and the planting of crops like special grasses that soak up the water and have many qualities, and I want to make sure that landowners and tenants will benefit.
Lord Clark of Windermere [V]
I was going to do that. We have 19 million visitors. In order to accommodate them, there need to be facilities. If we are going to have public access, we need small car parks and public transport to get people to the attractive areas.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I shall be brief as I do not have amendments in this little group. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Overall, access has been a phenomenal success although we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that that is not always the case. My concern is that the flip side of access should be responsibility on the part of those using the access. Over the lockdown period we saw regrettable behaviour by a few irresponsible people which unfortunately tarnished it for many.
I remember that when I was growing up there was something—I think there may be a later amendment on this—called the countryside code. It was on television. There were adverts saying simple things like, if you walk on the Pennine Way, which is near where I grew up, you close the gate if there is livestock in the field and that it is dangerous to enter a field where there is a calf, as the cow will defend it to the death. We have even seen a vet, who was walking their dog through a field, killed in the past two years. Like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I cut my parliamentary teeth next door on the CROW Bill, so I bear the scars. We ran one or two very unsuccessful exercises as an opposition, I recall. How can the Government ensure that the flip side of access will be responsibility and that the costs will not be disproportionate to the enjoyment? I hope those using the access will behave in a responsible manner. We saw some malicious fires—It was not just fly-tipping; the materials were burned to get rid of them so they could not be traced—and the irresponsible use of barbeques. When there are crops growing in a field, you cannot have access until the crops have been taken out. We need responsible behaviour so that the cost will be proportionate to the enjoyment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington. As somebody who over the years has supported access to the countryside, I fully understand and appreciate that. However, I come back to the principle, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the Minister, of the balance of competing rights: the right of people to enjoy the countryside, and their right to have access to it while at the same time respecting it. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I am well aware that during lockdown there was a certain despoliation of the countryside—a considerable level of littering and probably interference with farm animals. It comes back to the issue of getting the balance right. After all, access to the countryside can be a pretty disputatious issue if it is not managed properly.
Direct Payments Ceilings Regulations 2020
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward these regulations today, sandwiched so neatly between the Fisheries Bill and the Agriculture Bill next week. Like other noble Lords, I express my concern about how these regulations under the current system apply to smaller farmers and, in particular, those on hill farms, where I grew up and which I represented for 18 years in the other place, and tenant farmers.
I welcome the certainty that my noble friend has presented today, with the rate being fixed at an exchange rate of 89p to the euro. My question is one which I am sure has been asked in other years. I understand that the euro currently stands at 90p, or even slightly higher. Who picks up the shortfall in the costs of the exchange rate? Does that mean that fewer funds are available to the farmer, as it has to come out of the £2.8 billion allocated to the direct payments? I would be interested to know. Obviously, someone has to pay if there is a currency discrepancy there in this particularly volatile current period.
My noble friend referred to the ceilings regulation and the fact that, as I understand it, the ceiling is being kept the same. As we go into the transition period, where these will be phased out, will my noble friend say whether the Government intend to keep the pro rata within the ceiling, so that as the total comes down, the pro rata will remain the same and there will be a similar cap in future years? Can my noble friend address specifically a potential continuity gap between the regulations before us today and the new regulations, which will not come into effect until the end of the payments transition period? I understand that a consultation on ELMs has reopened, and I accept that that is an issue for another day. However, it is difficult to respond to a consultation if the farmers or those who wish to respond do not know the outcome of the trials and we have no idea what the nature of the pilots will be. Any light that my noble friend can cast on that would be very welcome.
The continuity gap that concerns me, which I hope my noble friend might briefly address, is: as we phase out these payments over the period to the end of the 2020s and the new payments come into effect, how does my noble friend intend that the Government will address that? Obviously, this is an argument for another day, but I hope that he will look favourably on the amendment to delay the transition phase from 2021 to 2022 in the context of the Agriculture Bill when we reach that next week.
Looking ahead to that Bill, I know that a number of noble Lords today have argued for transfers of payments from pillar 1 to pillar 2. My concern is that we are taking money away from the active farmer and often giving it to those not involved in farming at all. That will be an even bigger issue when we come to address financial assistance or public goods. I hope that my noble friend will address that when he comes to consider the comments that we have made in this little debate, but I thank him and I support these regulations.
Fisheries Bill [HL]
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsWednesday 24th June 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-R-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Report - (22 Jun 2020)
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for his explanation of Amendment 55. It was slightly mystifying when Schedule 10, which was brief and pithy and revoked four articles and one annexe of the common fisheries policy regulation, suddenly spanned eight pages of the Marshalled List. Some of this is tidying, as the Minister says—although I am not wholly convinced that tidying needs to be done at this moment.
Many of the provisions are in reference to the fisheries objectives. Can the Minister confirm whether the schedule would need to be amended further if your Lordships’ excellent amendment on the sustainability objective, which we voted for on Monday, were upheld in the other place or—dare I say—accepted by the Government? He also mentioned provisions relevant to the landing obligation and to multiannual plans for stocks, which give the Secretary of State powers to make decisions that depart from some of the requirements of the Bill as a result of a “relevant change in circumstances”. I understand that flexibility is required owing to relevant changes of circumstances, but can the Minister tell us what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that those powers are not overused?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have just a couple of questions. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure us that this is not a change of policy? It is good to have the opportunity to discuss these amendments as part of our discussions on the Bill.
My noble friend said that under the review, particularly when a calendar year is being replaced by
“such year or other period as may be specified in the determination”,
this would be based on scientific evidence. In order to be absolutely clear, may I ask what that scientific evidence will be? Will it include not just the home scientific evidence that we have from England, Scotland and other parts of the UK but scientific evidence from ICES?
I have two anxieties. As my noble friend explained, changing the period from a calendar year could be eminently sensible, but would it not be better to say something like “such year or part-year as may be specified in the determination”? The amendment as drafted is quite open-ended. I would like some reassurance that we are not looking to set, for example, a 20-year value. The ability to use a non-calendar year, or a part-year, seems useful, and I could support that. I just want reassurance that we are not going to see 20 years’ catch allocation being taken in the first year, which would obviously lead to a disproportionate result. I hope my noble friend can reassure me on that.
Amendment 33 is about issues involved in setting the quota of catch or effort for English purposes. Are those issues affecting the setting of the quota of catch or the effort for English purposes only? It suggests that only the EU quota will count as quota that can be overfished, but can my noble friend explain the position of quota that the UK sets for whatever reason? Surely, we in the UK need to know what is happening to stock for which we are responsible. If overfishing is not recorded, how can we address the issue? This is a matter of taking the scientific evidence and the actual recording over whatever time period, whether it is part of a year, and to rule out a 20-year period in the first instance. That is what I am particularly concerned about. Lastly, I would like a reassurance that this is not a change of policy.
The Deputy Speaker
We had a problem earlier on in getting the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and I would like to try again. Lord Naseby?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received a request from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to ask a short question for elucidation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
I am increasingly alarmed by what my noble friend says. This seems to be a step backwards. We heard clear undertakings at Second Reading and in Committee that we would continue to take the science from the tried-and-tested research capability to which we contribute financially at present and whose excellent experts we previously heard from in the EU Environment Sub-Committee of our European Union Committee. I am alarmed that there is any question of us moving away from the international science community. As we have established, we do not have unique control over the fish. They move around. I want an assurance that we will not look at moving away in the next five or 10 years, as well as a further commitment from my noble friend that our current commitment to financing ICES after 31 December this year is assured.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, we may be at cross purposes here. We have no intention of not using the best science. In fact, I have worked collaboratively with ICES. I assure my noble friend and your Lordships that there is no intention of doing anything other than seeking the best scientific evidence available. That is why we are working with ICES, why ICES has an international reputation and why we have a very strong record here. My noble friend asked about the next five to 10 years. I cannot commit on what a further Government might want to do, of course, but I can say categorically that this Government work closely with ICES, which contributes in many respects to ensuring that we have the best science and the best scientific advice. The scientific objective in the Bill could not be clearer. I am troubled and will therefore write to my noble friend because we may be at cross purposes. There is no intention of doing anything other than going forward with the best scientific advice.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I noted that in the earlier version of this Fisheries Bill, which came out over 18 months ago now, there was a clause early on that tried to define a UK fishing boat as one with at least one UK shareholder holding more than 5%. That seemed quite a low bar to me, but the thinking behind it was probably based on the 1970s attempt by the UK to apply an ownership limit to foreign investment in UK fishing boats of 75%. For the record, the UK lost its case in the courts because ownership caps at that time could apply only to EU ownership, not British ownership.
Nowadays, of course, the widespread and sometimes complicated international ownership of all businesses—in this case boats—creates far too tangled a web to unweave through legislation, which is probably why the words I referred to in the earlier version of the Bill were dropped. Anyway, maybe it does not matter who is investing money in our fisheries and boats, as long as they are creating the jobs in the UK. As others have said, we all know that for every one job on a boat, whoever owns it, there are 10 jobs on land in the processing, handling, transporting, marketing, selling, et cetera, of the fish.
So it was very sensible of the Government to drop the reference to the percentage of UK shareholding in a boat, but sadly they did not follow through with any sort of landing requirement. It seems that they understood the issue but, having realised that their solution would not work, failed to see that a landing requirement would achieve almost the same end but by a slightly different means.
This is an important amendment. Such a landing requirement could make a huge difference to coastal communities—and, believe me, they need this boost. Of the 25 local authorities with the highest rates of insolvency, 16 are coastal—and that was before Covid-19 came along to make matters worse.
I hope that the Government will accept this enabling amendment, or agree to bring in a similar amendment of their own. I accept that such a commitment might be dependent on Brexit negotiations, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some comfort in his reply and indicate that such a requirement is very much at the forefront of the Government’s mind.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on bringing forward this debate on a key topic in the Bill. I agree entirely with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy: the key to coastal community economic success is processing activities. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, put so eloquently how these have been devastated in communities such as Grimsby.
There is another side-effect. If we do not have a national landing requirement, as set out in this amendment, I struggle to see how we can apply Clause 28, in which the Government hope to introduce a discard prevention charging scheme. My noble friend will recall my disappointment that we have moved away from discard being an objective in Clause 1, but we are now going to have a discard prevention charging scheme. A bycatch objective has now been added to Clause 1. How can we police the bycatch and impose a discard prevention charging scheme if we do not have a national landing requirement?
Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]
My Lords, I support this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. The situation reminds me of what used to happen with EU structural funds, which were intended to promote regional development and often funded roads and railways into remote rural areas. These promptly allowed all primary agricultural and other products and skills to be sucked out of those rural areas and processed elsewhere, which resulted in more impoverishment of the very areas the investment was intended to help. We do not want an example in the Fisheries Bill of inadvertent consequences of this sort.
Bearing in mind that we are repatriating and setting forth towards a brave new world of our own fisheries management independence, it is highly appropriate that this amendment aims at ensuring that our new fisheries regime will make sure that UK producers, processors and coastal communities play a full role in a thriving and sustainable fisheries market, and at the promotion of UK jobs and skills. This is a highly appropriate amendment.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful for the clear way in which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, introduced this amendment. That was helpful.
I have a concern about the word “entrants” in the amendment. We are talking about a fishing industry which comprises both crew and owners. In 2018 the Seafish review put the average age of crew at about 38 and of owners at about 50. Surely we are trying to get more boats and therefore more owners, who will then employ more crew, into our fishing fleet. I particularly welcome the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, of focusing on helping boats of under 10 metres, but that will all depend on the economic viability of fishing. If fishing is not a viable, sustainable industry, there will be no owners wanting quotas and, as a result, no crew employed. That will have a detrimental effect on coastal areas, as we have already discussed.
The quota system, which is how the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is attacking the issue in this amendment, is perhaps not as beneficial for increasing the overall ability for new entrants to come into the industry as another way might be. I do not know quite what that way is, and I will rely on my noble friend Lord Gardiner to help me with that, but focusing on the new entrants will not be as beneficial because the quota belongs to the boat owner.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I am minded to support this amendment, as it addresses an issue I have raised ever since we had the informal briefing with the then Minister for Fisheries, now Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am slightly concerned because, in spite of what we hear about various schemes for new entrants, I have not identified a great rush for new entrants over and above what the current provisions allow. I raised this at the informal briefing and was given an assurance on it; currently the under-10 fishermen—I had the privilege of working with them most recently in Filey, but also in other parts of the country—rely very heavily on shellfish, but, as was said previously, are given scraps of other whitefish under the table through the very complicated system of top-slicing discards which are then gathered into a pool from which the under-10s can benefit.
We were led to believe in the informal briefing that an official mechanism would be put in place to ensure a stricter, clearer, more transparent situation in which the under-10s would benefit from any remaining quota on an annual basis. My noble friend the Minister may well be able to put my mind at rest here, that that provision is somewhere and I am not immediately seeing it, but that promise was made and I invoke it here: that under the provisions of this Bill, under-10s will benefit from a higher and more regular quota going forward.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, like all industries, a vibrant fishing industry relies on a rotating workforce. Many families around our coastlines have been engaged in fishing for generations. Sons and occasionally daughters learn from their fathers and become part of the team. However, as we have heard, it is becoming increasingly difficult for new entrants and the under-10s to get a toehold in the industry and an allocation of quota to get started. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, also pressed the case for fresh young blood in the fishing industry. The examples of Denmark and the Shetland Islands prove that it is possible to encourage new entrants.
For new entrants to feel confident that they can make a living out of fishing and for the under-10s to be able to put a roof over their heads in the much sought-after properties around fishing ports, quota will need to be reserved and increased to be allocated to this vital sector. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, asked whether the Government are happy for the profits of fishing to go to pension funds and shareholders or whether they want to support our coastal communities and young people waiting to move into fishing.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said in his introduction that this is a minor amendment for England only. When making amendments, the Secretary of State would consider the previous three years’ quota; it would provide a degree of certainty to new entrants and the under-10s. Fisheries plans should consider historic catch. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, gave a graphic description of how the monthly quota system disadvantages the under-10 fleet. It is time for a change.
My noble friend Lord Teverson spoke about protecting our coastal communities. This amendment allows that to happen. Putting all our eggs—or fish—into the one basket of larger fishing vessels does nothing for our coastal communities. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, has drawn attention to the shellfish fisheries around our shores. These are largely small vessels, and most of their catch is sold to EU countries. He gave an excellent synopsis of how the Bill is likely to play out if no deal is agreed on Brexit.
If the fishing industry is to survive, it must be vibrant and have new entrants. The under-10 fleet must be a consideration in quota distribution and not be fobbed off with the scraps left by the deep-sea fishing fleet. I could not follow the logic of the arguments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; there will be no rush of new entrants unless they can be assured of receiving a quota to live on. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but if it is not sufficient, I will join others in the virtual Lobby.
“( ) In making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must ensure that fishing rights—(a) may not be sold on to other persons following the original purchase,(b) are not sold to non-active fishers, and(c) are prioritised for sale to vessels under 10 metres.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak to Amendment 35A to Clause 27. This is a neat amendment which encapsulates three important points. Paragraph (a) states that quota
“may not be sold … to other persons following the original purchase”.
It should specifically not be sold to non-active fishers and should be
“prioritised for sale to vessels under 10 metres.”
Paragraph (c) has been debated to a large extent under the previous amendment, and the fact that that amendment was carried negates my having to speak to that part of my amendment.
My main concern lies with a practice that has become widespread. I do not think it was ever intended that quotas should be tradable, but it is a bit like the milk quotas. If you give something an economic value, it suddenly becomes of great interest. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, spoke about hedge funds. I was surprised to learn that football clubs had chosen to invest in fish quotas. I cannot think of anything that could possibly be further removed from an active fisherman. I would like to return to active fishermen benefiting. We have discussed how boats under 10 metres do not have access to anything other than shellfish, for which no quota is set, but they would like to have further access. As I say, that point has now been addressed, but I would prefer to see that quotas are not sold under any circumstances to non-active fishers. I should be interested to know the Government’s position—whether they would look favourably in that regard.
More especially, I should like to concentrate my remarks on the fact that this practice of quotas becoming tradable is regrettable. We should revert to the original practice, where those who bought the quotas kept them and did not sell them on. I do not think it is good practice to sell the quotas on and, if we can couple ownership to the use of quota, we will develop more responsible behaviour as to how the quota is exercised. It would be my fervent wish that quota is, in both the shorter and longer term, owned and used by fishermen directly, which gives everyone the opportunity to behave better, not being able to cut and run and sell quota off as surplus to their requirements purely as an economic commodity.
With those few remarks, I hope to gain the support of the Government in this regard for ceasing the practice of tradable quotas and to revert to practices where the quotas are sold to those who use them and, ideally, active fishermen. I do not intend to press this to a vote, but at this stage, I beg to move.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for tabling this amendment; I will be interested to hear the Government’s response to it. As the noble Baroness said, milk quotas became purely financial instruments, and it is absolutely right that we should not be in that position. They should not appear on the London futures market or whatever it may be because that is not what this is about, especially in the area of fisheries.
However, in Cornwall there is an organisation called the Duchy Fish Quota Company. While it is not itself a fishing concern, it attempts to use money from donors to buy quota in order to keep it for Cornish fishers. It does so because we have the exact problem that has been set out so well by the noble Baroness: these quotas are traded and there tends to be a concentration of them with the risk that they can be owned outside the United Kingdom. The nice thing is that if this problem could be solved through such an amendment or a similar policy, an organisation like the Duchy Fish Quota Company would no longer be necessary. I am strongly in favour of this amendment in principle and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response in terms of its policy for the future in this area.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her amendment, which seeks to place additional requirements were the Government to introduce schemes for the sale of rights to use fishing quota in England. These include requirements that rights must not be sold to non-active fishers and are prioritised for sale to under-10 metre vessels. As noble Lords will be aware, Clause 27 relates to the sale to English boats of rights to use fishing quota for set periods of time. It provides the necessary powers for the Government to make regulations in the future allowing the auction or tender of such rights in England. It is important to note that such rights may be sold for only a fixed period and do not give rise to any long-term rights to quota, which will impact on their tradability.
The Bill as drafted provides flexibility for any scheme to be tailored to future needs. This includes broad powers for the Secretary of State to specify persons or descriptions of persons who are eligible or ineligible to buy these fishing opportunities. This includes all of the criteria set out by my noble friend in her amendment. Clause 27(3)(d) allows any scheme to specify the persons or descriptions of persons who are eligible or ineligible to buy rights. Clause 27(3)(h) allows a scheme to permit rights to be sold or not to be sold to a person who meets certain conditions. Clause 27(3)(k) and (l) allow any scheme to permit or to prohibit the transfer of rights.
In England, we will tailor any auction scheme to our marine environment and fishing industry. The criteria to be applied to any future auction or tender could address concerns raised in relation to the under-10-metre fleet. Measures could be introduced to limit the lots being tendered, the amount of time they are tendered for and the groups they are targeted towards. The Government would fully consult on the scheme and any allocation criteria before it was introduced. It would be unhelpful to restrict the scheme before we had competed that consultation.
With regard to my noble friend’s point about whether fishing rights could be sold after purchase, that would be determined when developing any such scheme. The Government could place restrictions on this, including restricting the onward sale of certain stocks upon which different parts of the English fleet place more importance. However, it might be appropriate to allow the onward sale of rights to use some stocks. This could provide flexibility to the industry and allow rights to be exchanged throughout the year in response to market conditions, weather patterns and suchlike. Fishing is not always a predictable business and it is important that the industry can adapt to changing circumstances.
To summarise, under the current drafting in the Bill the Government can already introduce the provisions set out in the amendment. It is also right that the specific arrangements or criteria for any auction scheme are developed in consultation with stakeholders, rather than being prescribed in advance. The scheme will be consulted on and will be brought forward under the affirmative procedure, so noble Lords will have the chance to debate the structure at that point. The consultation and parliamentary scrutiny processes should ensure that stakeholders’ views are fed into the setting up of the scheme.
With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
I am very grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate, and I thank my noble friend Lady Bloomfield for her remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, under whom I have the honour to serve on the EU environment sub-committee, rightly identified the comparison with milk quotas and explained why that would be regrettable. I thought that the scheme that he described for Cornwall was a good one and would not trade the quota for use by anyone other than active fishermen.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his kind remarks. He pointed out the slight deficiency in the amendment, which at this stage I tabled more for the purposes of debate. I congratulate him on potentially securing the position of under-10-metre vessels through the adoption of his amendment earlier this afternoon.
I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Bloomfield for confirming that this issue will be set out in more detail through the affirmative procedure. With those few remarks, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has asked to be readmitted to this debate.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
I am most grateful. I seemed to have fallen off the speakers’ list so I thank the House for reinstating me.
I have a quick question for the Minister. Given the time, I do not want to rehearse things that I agree or disagree with. I am sure that the Minister stated at Second Reading, or in the informal briefing prior to Second Reading, that the Government are minded to introduce remote electronic monitoring. At what stage of preparation is the Government’s introduction of REM? Do the Government have a point of principle against introducing REM at this stage or is it simply a matter of timing and preparation, as other speakers have alluded to?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, we had an extensive debate in Committee on the use of remote electronic monitoring of all fishing vessels. Noble Lords on all sides of the House have expressed concern at the state of fish stocks and the amount of bycatch and discards. It is not that we do not trust our fishing industry to stick to the quota and species rules; it is more that a degree of realism is needed when dealing with this issue. The discard ban is not being observed, and not just in the UK. Full compliance, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, told us, is essential. In the past, fish stocks have been decimated, cod in particular, which has led to a switch to other species. Due to stringent measures, including REM, cod stocks are beginning to recover. The only fail-safe way of protecting fish stocks is to have fish monitored at the point of catching, and REM is the most effective way of doing this.
Marine conservation has to be led by scientific data. My noble friend Lord Teverson has explained the purpose of REM as an enforcement tool. Where this is currently used, it is effective. I regret that I am unable to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that now is not the time to make REM mandatory. Now it is precisely the time. If we leave this to the discretion of fishermen, fish stocks data will be insufficient.
This amendment has cross-party support; it covers the current UK over-10-metre fishing fleet fishing within the UK exclusive economic zone; it covers the UK fishing fleet outside the UK EEZ; and it covers all motorised vessels fishing in the UK EEZ, whatever their nationality. In the vernacular, what’s not to like? As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, told us, supermarkets do not wish to sell and the public do not want to buy illegally caught fish. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, called this amendment the most important change we can make to the Bill.
Many noble Lords have mentioned data collection. It is essential that we know where fish are moving as result of changing sea temperatures and flows. How can we do this if data is not collected? REM would allow data to come back regularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, told us. This is not new technology; it is tried and tested.
The conditions in the amendment are stringent, but they need to be to protect our fish stocks. Without protecting our fish stocks, future fisheries will find fish stocks depleted and that there is nothing for them to catch. The arguments have been made and I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I fear I will probably be voting virtually.
Lord Krebs [V]
My Lords, it is getting late, so I will try to be as brief as possible. I start by thanking the Minister and his officials for extensive discussion of this matter and my Oxford University colleague Professor EJ Milner-Gulland for her advice and help.
In earlier stages of this Bill I spoke against the use of MSY as a target in UK fisheries policy. I cited leading fisheries scientists from the UK and US, who described it as outmoded and dangerous. I also referred to the fact that leading jurisdictions such as Australia and the USA no longer use MSY, because they have recognised its limitations. Sadly, I have lost that battle. I now seek to ensure that the definition of MSY in the Bill minimises its potential for harm.
Just to recap briefly: the concept of MSY dates back to the 1950s. Fisheries scientists wanted to work out in theory how many fish one could catch without driving the stock to extinction. The answer can be summarised very simply: when the harvest exactly matches the recruitment of new harvestable fish, the population is in balance and the harvest is sustainable. Harvest a bit over this limit, and the fish population begins to decline to extinction; harvest below, and fishing opportunities are missed.
The trouble with this neat theoretical idea is that in practice you often do not have enough accurate information to calculate the rate of recruitment, nor do you usually know the precise harvest. That is why some fisheries harvested at MSY have in the past collapsed. These problems are compounded when dealing with mixed fisheries, where setting MSY for one species may incidentally cause another to be overfished. Furthermore, as the environment changes—for instance, as a result of climate change—the recruitment rate and other variables will change, so the MSY will no longer be appropriate. That is why the wording in the Bill needs to be changed.
Clause 48 defines MSY as
“the highest theoretical equilibrium yield that can be continuously taken on average … under existing environmental conditions without … affecting the reproduction process”.
The problems with this definition are as follows. First, it refers to a theoretical calculation rather than relying on actual data from the sea. Secondly, it refers to the recruitment process, which is only one factor that can affect the viability of fish stocks. Other factors, such as environmental change, can also be important. Thirdly, it is not appropriate for mixed fisheries.
My proposed change is very simple: remove the word “theoretical”, so that the calculation is based on real data, and replace “reproduction process” with “viability of the stock”, which allows for both environmental change and mixed fisheries.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say this afternoon that ICES is the body whose advice the Government respect and use. Here is what ICES says in its advice on the management of the exploitation of living marine resources:
“ICES considers ecosystem-based management … as the primary way of managing human activities affecting marine ecosystems with ecosystem-based fisheries management … specifically addressing the fishing sector.”
It goes on to say that MSY
“is a broad conceptual objective … The MSY concept can be applied to an entire ecosystem, a fish community, or a single stock. … ICES interpretation of MSY is maximizing the average long-term yield from a given stock while maintaining productive fish stocks within healthy marine ecosystems.”
My question to the Minister and his officials when I met with them was: why not simply use the ICES definition in the Bill? Remarkably, one of the officials said that, although he had helped to draft the ICES definition, the definition of MSY in the Bill could not be changed because it was the definition used in the common fisheries policy. I thought the point of Brexit was that we would determine our own way of doing things, but apparently not in this case; this has actually been a recurrent theme in debates on the Bill.
I fear that the Minister will not agree to change the wording in the Bill, even though I strongly believe that my wording is an improvement on what is currently there. If the Minister is not willing to change the wording, it would at least be encouraging if he were to reassure the House that the management of fisheries will be based on real data and that it will include broader ecosystem considerations such as environmental change. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for bringing forward these two amendments. I had the opportunity, just out of personal interest, to meet the scientists at ICES in their Copenhagen offices on two separate occasions. I was very amused to learn that they have annual visits from the Scottish fishermen, who try to massage some of the research figures; I am delighted to say that the ICES scientists have managed to bat these away—they are leading independent scientists in this field.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has done the House a great service this evening by identifying why MSY is possibly outdated and no longer fit for purpose and pointing to the basis on which ICES relies, which is an ecosystem-based management. Recognising that MSY might be moving forward and given the fact that climate change is changing the nature of fisheries—the waters are warming in certain parts and the fish are moving to cooler waters—I support the sentiments behind these two amendments and indeed have lent my name to them. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has pointed out, ICES is the leading marine scientific base of research. These amendments give my noble friend the Minister an opportunity once again to confirm that we will continue to take its research going forward, at the very least—he could not commit to five or 10 years —for the next year or two. I do lend my support to these two little amendments.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge [V]
My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. I support completely the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. He has stated the reason for them admirably. Given that we have just been having a debate about the importance of data, I cannot understand why we would then look at theoretical information—how we can base judgments on theory when we should be looking all the time to base them on data and science.
Fisheries Bill [HL]
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsMonday 22nd June 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-R-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Report - (22 Jun 2020)
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I speaking to Amendment 1, I will speak also to Amendments 4 to 6. What concerns me about all these is that if the UK and the EU fail to reach a deal by the end of the year, they will be bound by international law; namely, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—UNCLOS—which requires co-operation and efforts to agree rules on access to waters, as well as setting catch limits and standards on conservation and management of marine resources.
In the bizarre world of Brexit, the fishing sector—which represents a fraction of 1% of the UK economy—may be the issue that determines whether the current trade negotiations with the EU succeed or fail. Escape from the common fisheries policy was touted by the Brexiteers during the campaign as a great prize to be won, but this sector is heavily dependent on easy access to EU markets, whereas British consumers prefer to eat fish imported from Europe.
I suggest that the future of UK fishing should be determined not by this vacuous Bill or by Amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, but by a sensible and detailed negotiation with the EU in the current trade talks. At present, regrettably, there is little sign of this happening, and there is now a danger that this issue will prove to be the rock on which a potential deal founders.
As everybody in this debate will be aware, the UK fishing industry, including processing, is heavily concentrated in coastal communities of the nations and regions, which rightly deserve protection in view of their high levels of deprivation and low levels of income and education. However, these communities are heavily reliant on easy access to EU markets. About two-thirds of fish caught by British fishers is sold to the EU in frictionless overnight trade. Most Welsh fishing boats specialise in shellfish, with 90% of their catch currently exported to the EU; I am speaking from my home in Wales at the moment. Meanwhile, UK consumers prefer fish imported from Europe, so our fish processing industry is also heavily reliant on imports from the EU.
After years of one-sided propaganda about “our fish” and claims in the tabloids that a single British fishing industry will benefit from reclaiming the proportion of fish caught by EU boats in UK waters—probably around 60% by weight and 40% by value—a more complex picture now emerges, as this catch is mostly fish for which there is little demand in the UK. There are also large British boats that depend on EU-agreed quotas for their access to Norwegian waters.
In April 2019 the biggest whitefish trawler in the UK fleet sailed up the Thames to highlight the threats facing the fishing industry if Brexit negotiations end in no deal. This is because in that event there would be no automatic access for British boats to these key waters. The jobs of hundreds of fishermen and many hundreds more in fish processing in north-east England will be at risk unless a deal is reached whereby UK vessels are able to continue in such waters that have long been open to UK fleets.
Unsurprisingly, protecting their own vulnerable coastal communities, and ensuring that fishing rights that have existed for hundreds of years do not die, is also a priority for a number of coastal EU member states, such as Ireland, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and France. This became evident earlier this month when EU Fisheries Ministers were reported to have rejected Michel Barnier’s proposals for compromise and instructed him to hold firm to his red lines. Just as the Conservatives may be wary of being seen as having betrayed Scottish fishers—as they are worried about the Scottish Parliament elections next year—President Macron of France, for example, will have in mind that he faces an election in 2022.
Incredibly, our dogmatist Government—I acquit the Minister of this charge, because I think he is doing an honest job—seem willing even to sacrifice the chance of a beneficial deal for the UK financial services industry to save UK waters for the British fishing industry. The financial services sector accounted for 7% of UK GDP in 2018, employing an estimated 2 million people. In any event, the UK fishing industry is likely to suffer, rather than prosper, if there are EU-UK cod wars, as, among other things, there will be a danger to sustainability of stocks through overfishing. It would therefore be a spectacular own goal if the UK refused a deal relating to finance as the price of not reaching an agreement on fishing.
What might constitute a reasonable deal? Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, outside the common fisheries policy the UK is still legally obliged to consider the historical fishing rights of its neighbours, which suggests that some continued access to UK waters for fishers across the channel would be a reasonable expectation. As a quid pro quo, and irrespective of Brexit, as a result of fish migration there is probably a case for review of some UK quotas for mackerel, herring, cod and hake, but that does not need to be at a scale that destroys the livelihoods of hundreds of EU fishers.
However, a no-deal Brexit would destroy the significant parts of the UK industry that are dependent on frictionless overnight trade in fish, impact fish processing—which depends on access to EU imports—and cause loss of access to waters off non-EU states for large UK boats that currently benefit from EU access. I am really not sure how Amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6 help deal with that predicament.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I was very interested to hear the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, gave for bringing a slightly amended version of this amendment back on Report. While I am sympathetic to what I think he is trying to achieve, I have great difficulty in finding this amendment appropriate. I fear it looks at the issue from a particularly English perspective, and I hazard a guess that the Scots may take a different view. I was fortunate to receive briefings from both the Scottish fisheries organisation and the Law Society of Scotland, and we must appreciate that the fisheries opportunities in Scotland are immensely important. They represent 58% of the value and 64% of the tonnage of all fish landed by UK vessels, so I am struggling to understand.
I see that we have changed the wording from “marine stocks” to “fish”, probably in recognition of the fact that, in Scotland, there are many other uses of the exclusive economic zone. But the argument remains: the citizens of the four nations, and in particular those of Scotland, would argue that they have a right to a lion’s share of the fish.
Proposed new subsection (2) goes on to talk about quotas. I have tabled an amendment to Clause 48, which we will come to much later, when I will develop my argument on quotas more fully. I wait with great interest to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say on this matter, but I am not entirely convinced that the law as it currently stands does not encompass what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is trying to achieve. If noble Lords will forgive the pun, I believe that this amendment will, if anything, rather muddy the waters and not take the arguments any further forward.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, we spent a great deal of time discussing sustainability during earlier stages of the Bill so I do not wish to repeat the arguments at length. However, because it has been well over three months since we last discussed this issue, I will recap briefly.
This amendment supports the Government’s own aim. At Second Reading, the Minister told us that
“this Bill creates a strong and legally binding framework to deliver this Government’s ambition to leave the natural environment in a better state than we inherited it.”—[Official Report, 11/2/20; col. 2167.]
He also said that sustainability is at the heart of the Bill. Sure enough, the first fisheries objective in Clause 1(1) is the sustainability objective. Unfortunately, however, as drafted, the Bill does not guarantee the protection of fish stocks and the wider marine environment. To be absolutely sure that the Bill does what it claims on the tin, let us get the commitment to protecting the natural environment written into it. That is the purpose of this amendment.
What is the problem? History shows that whenever there is a trade-off between short-term economic and employment considerations and longer-term environmental sustainability, short-term factors nearly always win. This is what has led to overfishing and long-term damage to the marine environment in many of the world’s fisheries, including those covered by the common fisheries policy. That is the key point. The Bill as drafted allows for the possibility of short-term economic and social factors overruling environmental sustainability in making trade-offs.
Clause 1(2) defines the sustainability objective as having three elements: environmental, social and economic. I do not argue with the fact that sustainability has these three components; indeed, the Minister reminded us that they are the UN framework. I want to ensure, however, that socio-economic factors do not win out over protection of the marine environment. That is why the first part of the amendment ensures that, in calculating trade-offs between these three, the environment always remains the priority. This will ensure that we do not repeat past mistakes of putting short-term economic and social interests ahead of protecting the environment.
The second part of the amendment refers back to Clause 1(1). As we discussed in detail at earlier stages of the Bill, the eight fisheries objectives are not all born equal. The sustainability objective, as redefined in the amendment, takes precedence. The other seven fisheries objectives should support, or be subordinate to, environmental sustainability. This would make it unequivocal that the aim of the Bill is to harvest our marine resources without compromising the health of the marine environment. The amendment is not saying: “no fishing”; it is saying: “sensible fishing”. It is not saying that there will not have to be trade-offs, but it sets boundary conditions for the calculation of the trade-offs.
At earlier stages of the Bill, the Minister did not agree with the arguments that I have rehearsed. I suspect that he will argue again for a proportionate approach that gives equal, or at least undetermined, weight to all three components of sustainability. In Committee he acknowledged:
“We might have a collision point on sustainability.”—[Official Report, 4/3/20; col. 629.]
He also said:
“We must balance the protection of our marine environment with our objective of supporting thriving fishing and aquaculture sectors.”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 461.]
If the Minister is not minded to accept this amendment, I would ask him to explain how these trade-offs will be made in practice.
This is our big chance to get the management of our fisheries on a genuinely sustainable footing and avoid the mistakes of the past. We can join the leading nations in the world such as Australia, New Zealand and the USA, managing our fisheries in a genuinely environmentally sustainable way, or we can languish lower down the international league table, with the risk of putting short-term gain ahead of long-term pain. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply at the end of this debate, but unless there is a significant change of tack, I would wish to test the opinion of the House on this crucial issue of the Fisheries Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I lend my support to this amendment. There is a certain attraction in having one objective, namely sustainability, in the context of the Fisheries Bill, as the primary objective. Part of my reasoning for this is that the House might wish to take a broader view and make sure that we come to the same view on the Fisheries Bill as we do, for example, when we come to consider the Environment Bill. We should not consider one in isolation from the other.
I was very taken by the Minister’s argument in Committee that in relation to objectives, there was a three-legged stool, whereby environmental, social and economic objectives should be given equal weight. There is a distinct attraction in singling out the environmental objective as the “prime fisheries objective”, as it says in the amendment. I know that it is a concern of Scottish fishermen and the Scottish Government in particular that we should look at the broader use of the marine environment, particularly in regard to renewables and other resources. There is an overwhelming attraction in having the sustainability objective as the prime objective. To put my mind at rest, I would be very interested to learn from the Minister, in the event of a contest between the three legs of the stool, how the Government would decide to prioritise between the economic, social and sustainability objectives.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I know that my local fishermen and those involved in the catching and processing sector want fishing to be a leader in the marine food system. They also want to ensure that people have access to good-quality products in the various fish species which they catch. I firmly believe that this can be achieved through the principle of environmental sustainability and the commitment to protect the natural environment. We are in no doubt that sustainable fishing means leaving enough fish in the ocean, respecting the habitats and ensuring that people who depend on fishing can maintain their livelihoods. It is a bit of a balancing act and I hope the Minister will address that issue.
The Bill provides a framework for future fisheries management. However, in some quarters, it is felt that the Bill will not achieve the Government’s aim of world-leading sustainable fisheries management because sustainable fisheries depend on a healthy marine environment. Environmental legislation has featured little in the fisheries and Brexit debates so far. Of particular relevance to a healthy marine environment are the European marine strategy framework directive, the birds directive, the habitats directive, the bathing waters directive and the water framework directive. Will the Minister outline how this will be achieved in the post-transition period, while at the same time protecting the local fishing industry?
It is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said when he moved the amendment, that fishing and aquacultural activity do not compromise environmental sustainability in the short or long term. This legislation presents us with a unique opportunity to ensure that environmental sustainability and the principle of sustainability take precedence in the various elements of sustainability and that sustainability is a prime fisheries objective. We should grasp that opportunity now, but be mindful of not ending up with legislation that is too rigid in the eyes of those in the fishing sector—both catching and processing—because we do not want to replicate the challenges that beset the fishing industry as a result of the common fisheries policy.
Lord Krebs [V]
My Lords, I hope and expect that this amendment will not take as long as Amendment 2, so I will be very brief in my introduction. First, I thank the Minister and his officials for their very helpful discussions on the question of bycatch, and my Oxford University colleague Professor EJ Milner-Gulland for her expertise and advice in drafting the amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the bycatch objective focuses on the desired outcome, rather than on the processes that might contribute to the outcome. As drafted, the objective appears to focus primarily on undersized and unwanted fish species rather than on the wider marine environment. Yet we know that, globally, non-selective fishing gear—including long lines, gill nets and trawling—causes major mortality among non-target species. According to WWF, bycatch is the single largest cause of mortality in small cetaceans; it causes significant mortality in turtles and 26 species of seabirds; and it destroys large areas of coral reef. North Sea trawlers are estimated to discard up to 150,000 tonnes of marine invertebrates annually, including starfish, sea urchins, sponges and marine worms.
In Committee, the Minister assured us:
“The Government are resolutely committed to minimising bycatch of sensitive species as much as is practically possible”.—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 461.]
That is absolutely in line with the purpose of this amendment. He also referred specifically to seabirds, cetaceans, sharks and rays, and to the definition of “sensitive species”, which goes wider than the category of endangered species. Furthermore, he pointed out that the ecosystem objective encompasses the bycatch of species that are not covered by the bycatch objective.
In short, the intent of the Bill seems to me quite appropriate, although it may appear to some to be slightly confusing to have the issue of bycatch spread across two fisheries objectives. It would be very helpful if, in his reply, the Minister were able to remove any ambiguity by confirming that the bycatch objective aims to reduce bycatch—and bycatch mortality—to support the conservation of not only fish stocks but the wider marine environment. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on bringing forward this amendment, which I have signed and am lending my support to. The amendment seeks to delete subsection (6) from the original Clause 1. I have particular difficulty with subsection (6)(c) and the wording therein. It says that,
“bycatch that is fish is landed, but only where this is appropriate and … does not create an incentive to catch fish that are below minimum conservation reference size”.
My noble friend Lord Gardiner will recall my disappointment in Committee that the original Bill had looked to have a discard objective. I would still place on record my belief that that is preferable to bycatch, or should be seen as additional to bycatch. During his comments in Committee my noble friend said:
“One limb of the bycatch objective is that catches are recorded and accounted for. We will improve the accuracy of the data available on fishing mortality and enable sustainable quota setting that avoids overfishing”.—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 425.]
I will take this opportunity to ask my noble friend how he expects to achieve that. As a supplementary point, it would be helpful to understand precisely what the bycatch objective is.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has put this very succinctly. I have concerns, not just about the fish bycatch but about the wider marine environment, which he mentioned. It may be of interest to noble Lords that Saturday was World Albatross Day. As many noble Lords will know, a large number of the world’s population of those birds breed in the UK’s overseas territories so, as well as having a general interest in biodiversity, we should all take this seriously. On the subject of albatrosses and other sea-bird bycatch, I recommend that, if he has not already, the Minister looks at a British invention called Hookpod that cuts sea-bird bycatch on long-line fishing. I will not detain the House with a long discussion of it, but it has made significant progress in reducing that bycatch in a cost-effective way. I would be interested in what the Minister says on the whole subject of bycatch, because I have great concerns about it.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend the Minister for not being able to take part in the Second Reading of this very important Bill. I come to this from the perspective of someone who used to look at legislation in great detail in the other place to decide whether Bills were overarching Bills, out of which would flow secondary legislation, or ones that would generate very little secondary legislation.
This Bill deals with the key objectives behind a very novel situation for us as a country as we leave the EU, in the sense that 60% of the fish caught in the UK’s exclusive economic zone were not caught by the UK fleet. It is very transitional, in the sense not just of time but of quantum. A huge change will take place. One has to look only at the scale of Norway to understand the real size of this change.
Against that situation, and as someone who was in commerce and industry for most of my life before I entered the other place, I believe that objectives have to be clear and not very long. There is nothing wrong with the sentiment of what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern puts forward; they are clear objectives. However, I am grateful to the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, which reminds us in its briefing that this is enabling legislation. It is framework legislation that provides for arrangements to be developed for fisheries management in the UK. They are workable in their current form, but the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation cautions against amendments that would add unnecessary complexity through primary statute when the detail that will be needed for fisheries management and managers should rightly lie in secondary legislation made through the Bill’s powers that reflect what is needed.
I am on that side: the side of clear, precise objectives. That does not mean that I am against what my noble and learned friend and others are saying, but that is underneath the clear objectives. Therefore, I am not in a position to support these amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for bringing forward Amendment 4, which I support. My question in regard to that amendment and that of my noble friend Lord Lansley is the relationship between these amendments and the devolved Administrations. I pay tribute to the Minister, who I know has spent a great deal of time trying to ensure that the devolution aspects in relation to the devolved Administrations are respected as far as possible. If we were to accept this amendment, how would it impact on the way in which this provision would be interpreted by the devolved Administrations?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I too support the amendments and thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for bringing them before the House. The amendments reflect the sad fact that farming and fishing are two of our most dangerous industries, with perhaps a higher number of casualties and fatalities than any other. However, is it the Minister’s position that the sentiments behind Amendments 5 and 6 fall better within normal health and safety legislation and wider maritime law, which would be the usual place for such amendments to be found? Having said that, I welcome this opportunity to consider the great service that our fishermen do in battling the elements and bringing their excellent produce to our tables.
Lord Lansley
My Lords, I join my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and other noble Lords in paying tribute to the courage, fortitude and skill of those who work in our fishing fleets. In that sense, I think that we are all very much behind the spirit of the two amendments.
I hope that it will be unnecessary to insert an additional clause on sustaining the workforce, because it is implied by the fisheries objectives as they exist, but I hope that the Minister might also tell us more about the ways in which the Government are proposing to assist Seafish, the NDPB which under the Fisheries Act 1981 has responsibility to provide support to the workforce of the sea fish industry and, under regulations introduced in 1982, the ability to place a levy on the first sale of sea foods in this country. Its corporate plan is due to be renewed. It would be helpful, if not this evening then perhaps subsequently in a letter placed in the Library of the House, if the Minister were able to say something about how the Government hope to support Seafish in its endeavours. Its last corporate plan had as one of its five challenges to support a safe and skilled workforce. The issues that we are talking about, of recruitment to the industry, of training for those in it and the achievement of an as-safe-as-possible working environment for them, are things that Seafish is endeavouring to address, and we want to see it supported.
Lord Krebs [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for tabling Amendments 7 and 53. I have added my name to the latter. I strongly support them for the reasons she set out so clearly.
The climate change committee will publish its annual report to Parliament this Thursday. It will be a very uncomfortable read for the Government. The committee’s chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is reported in yesterday’s press as saying that the response to the climate crisis in the UK is being run by the Government like a Dad’s Army operation. Fisheries and aquaculture may not be the biggest contributor to our greenhouse gas inventory but, if we are to get to net zero by 2050 or even sooner, every sector of the UK will have to make its contribution. Furthermore, the way in which we fish will have to change as a result of the inevitable climate change to which we are already committed as a result of the greenhouse gases that we have pumped into the atmosphere over the past 150 years. For instance, there is growing evidence that changes in ocean temperature will affect the distribution of the plankton that form the basis of the marine food chain. As a consequence, the distribution and abundance of fish will change, and this will need to be taken into account and anticipated.
I had the privilege of sitting on the climate change committee for eight years, and chaired its adaptation sub-committee. In every one of our annual reports we called for a step change in action by the Government: on both mitigation, reducing our greenhouse gas footprint; and on adaptation, preparing for the inevitable climate change that we will experience in coming decades. Amendment 53 will ensure that fisheries and aquaculture contribute to that step change. There is overwhelming public support for more action from the Government on climate change. For instance, the recent Climate Assembly poll showed that 80% of people agree or strongly agree that, in the post-Covid world, government plans to achieve net zero should be advanced.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for bringing forward these two amendments and allowing the House to debate this issue briefly. What will be the relationship between this part of the Bill—and the new climate change objective, to which she referred—and the Environment Bill? Can my noble friend confirm my understanding that fisheries activities do not themselves contribute greatly to climate change? We should recognise that and commend this activity as being fairly neutral in that regard. My concern is the impact of climate change on our waters, as so eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. My understanding is that, as the waters warm, various species migrate as they cannot adapt to the warmer temperatures. This will obviously have an impact on any agreement, either within the United Kingdom or, as a coastal state, with our erstwhile partners in the European Union under the new arrangements. How can the Minister and the Government be absolutely sure that any arrangement that we come to will not be undermined by the fact that the fish are no longer where we thought they were, but have migrated to colder waters?
The Deputy Speaker
Do we have the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge? We do not seem to. Perhaps we will try to get him later. The noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, have both withdrawn from this group, so I call the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Oh, do we have the noble Earl?
Agriculture Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsWednesday 10th June 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 May 2020 - large font accessible version - (13 May 2020)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests. I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak at the Second Reading of such an important piece of legislation and congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his eloquent introduction to it.
We currently have the highest standards of production for animal health, hygiene and welfare. These standards must not be compromised or negotiated away. I refer to those of us who remember the unilateral sow stall and tether ban introduced by a Conservative Government in the late 1990s, yet we continued to allow imports from other EU countries and elsewhere that used them. Consumers voted with their feet, choosing the lower-priced, imported products that did not meet our high standards. As a result, 50% of our pig producers left the market. Now we face similar challenges to our home- produced chicken, beef and flour at the risk of inferior imports that are not produced to our high standards.
I have had a letter, as I am sure many have, from the chair of the FSA, Heather Hancock, in which she clearly states:
“The FSA will publish its risk assessments and its risk management advice to Ministers, who would then decide whether to accept this advice.”
After that, all that would be required to change the existing regulations or authorisations would be for statutory instruments to be laid in Parliament—a mere swipe of the pen and an SI, and our standards could be changed overnight. No primary legislation would be required. For the avoidance of doubt, let us put the case in the Bill for our current standards to be maintained and matched against any imports under any future trade agreement.
I raise the issue of vets and their capacity to meet increased demand for veterinary certification and supervision on import and export checks. This is a very serious issue. I hope my noble friend will today give the House a commitment that we will have enough vets in the UK to provide this service.
Many noble Lords have referred to the sketchy information available on ELMS at this stage. I welcome my noble friend’s commitment to introduce mitigation against flooding as a public good, from which farmers and others will benefit. We have certainly benefited in North Yorkshire from the Pickering Slowing the Flow scheme, but will my noble friend address the issue of reservoirs in the Bill and the stringent requirements of operation, particularly in its review of the Reservoirs Act 1975? How will water storage on farmland be regulated under ELMS? If pilot schemes for ELMS are to start only in 2021, when will the results be known?
I will also raise the position of tenant farmers, who make up 47% of farmers in North Yorkshire and the north of England. Will they continue to benefit under the scheme? Is there a danger that they might be excluded since they do not own the land? What, also, is the future for hill farming?
I pay tribute to our farmers, who work all hours and produce food in all weathers, particularly in this crisis. Now that we have left the European Union, we are not bound by public procurement rules. Will my noble friend ensure that all our schools, hospitals, prisons, care homes, shops, restaurants and homes source our food from the UK to our high standards of animal welfare and hygiene? Will he agree to set up an international trade commission, independent of government, to set the criteria to be met in any negotiation on international trade? Will he agree to defer the phasing out of basic farm payments for one year, particularly in the light of Covid-19? Will he agree that agriculture, horticulture and forestry activities must lie at the heart of farm policy under the Bill?