Water Industry

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I do not have long, so I cannot dwell too much on some of the valuable contributions made by hon. Members, but I commend the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) for securing this debate. He raised very important points, and I am delighted that they are being addressed in this forum. There was quite a contrast between some of his comments and those of the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who painted a glowing picture of water privatisation that I find it difficult to recognise.

The right hon. Member for Newbury admitted that he knew little of what was happening in Scotland, which is a surprising admission for a former water Minister, who should surely be prepared to learn best practice from wherever it can be found. After all, we are only up the road, geographically speaking. I hope he will be interested to hear some details in my speech. He also spoke of water being a necessity of life, and I wholeheartedly agree. It is far too important to be subject to a privatised system that gives, as we have heard, a worse service, and that seems to be largely driven by right-wing ideology, rather than what is best for customers.

There has been a lot of enthusiastic talk in this place about taking back control. That sounds strange coming from people who are, by and large, wholehearted supporters of stripping democratically elected Governments of control over the delivery of public resources, instead preferring essential services to be fractured and put into the hands of the private sector. Taking back control of England’s water supplies is an argument that makes a lot of sense to me. People are rightly scunnered by a system that services debt and pays disproportionate dividends through increasing bills for customers. There should be an outcry over the findings of the recent Greenwich University research, which suggested that a staggering £56 billion in dividends was funded through £51 billion, or potentially more, in debts.

Supporters of the privatisation cannot even claim real competition benefits, with most of the water companies operating as regional monopolies. The leakiest pipe in England’s domestic water supply is seemingly one that drains money away to a private stream. A public company, run for the public good, is the best way to end that scandalous rip-off. I welcome the contribution of the campaign led by We Own It to make that happen.

Luckily, as has been mentioned, there is a model close to hand that is working very well—I appreciate the hon. Member for Harrow West mentioning it often—which the UK Government would be very welcome to emulate. As with so many other public services being delivered under devolved Government control, such as the running of prisons or the procurement of NHS contracts, Scotland has chosen a more sensible path wherever it has the powers to do so.

We did not privatise domestic supplies of water, and Scottish Water was established in 2002 as a publicly owned company answerable to Scottish Ministers. Under the Scottish Government’s watch, there has been a focus on driving up standards and keeping charges affordable. We are now reaping the benefits in drinking water quality, environmental performance and customer service.

[Richard Benyon]

One thing I know about Scottish Water is that its leakage level is way above that of the rest of the United Kingdom—I think just shy of 40% of water is lost, compared with about a fifth in England. I wonder whether the hon. Lady would like to comment on that.

[Deidre Brock]

It is interesting. We are, of course, spending considerable amounts of money on addressing that. As I understand it, and I will speak about this later, our service performance is now comparable to the leading UK water companies; on some measures, we outperform them. As we continue to invest, water loss will be driven down. English water companies are having to resort to debt; that is what their investment in infrastructure is largely based on.

[Gareth Thomas]

Far be it from me to help the Scottish National party out, but as I understand it, from analysis done by Greenwich University, the levels of leakage per kilometre in Scotland are better than for many English water companies, and are certainly in line with the average at worst.

[Deidre Brock]

I was quite surprised by the contribution made by the right hon. Member for Newbury, as that is not my understanding. Perhaps I should quote the Scottish Water Commission, which noted in 2013:

“It is now more than a decade since Scottish Water was established. In that time the company has transformed itself as an organisation. It has caught up with the top performing companies in England and Wales on cost efficiency and levels of service and has regularly reached—and outperformed—its targets.”

I expect more of that in the future.

As Greenwich University research found,

“the public-owned sector in Scotland delivers the service just as efficiently, albeit at a lower cost to consumers.”

In Scotland, bills are 2% lower in real terms than they were 18 years ago, while over the equivalent period in England they increased by 13%. Drinking water continues to be at record levels of compliance, and there were no failing waste water treatment works in 2017, compared with more than 70 in 2002.

Scottish Water has reduced energy consumption and increased renewable power generation. It has cut carbon emissions by more than 30% since it first reported in 2006-07. Driven by the Scottish Government’s ambitious renewable heat and carbon reduction targets, the amount of renewable energy the company generates is now more than double its electricity consumption. Ageing facilities are being replaced through major investment in projects such as Glencorse water treatment works outside Edinburgh. That energy-efficient plant was delivered on schedule and under budget, and now supplies cleaner, safer water to around half a million people in the capital, while having sustainability at the core of its operations. A hydro-turbine provides almost half the facility’s own energy needs, helping to keep water charges low for customers.

Scottish Water’s service performance, as I mentioned, is now comparable with that of the leading UK water companies; on some measures, it outperforms them, while still keeping the bills down. Even where it can be said that the leading English companies perform better, at the current pace of investment by Scottish Water, and without the spend on dividends, that position is set to change over the next decade.

The myth that private profiteers are required to deliver things better has been dispelled. Indeed, the We Own It campaign points to the move towards public ownership internationally, with 235 cities in 37 countries taking water into public ownership in the last 15 years. Public ownership of public water supplies is already working in Scotland. That may seem clear, but it is worth reminding the Labour party of that fact, given that the Scottish leader, Richard Leonard, argued recently that they should be taken back into public hands. There was a wee bit of confusion there, but I will certainly draw his attention to helpful comments made by his colleagues down here today.

Scotland is rightly famous for its water. It is a reliable natural asset that serves our health, our wellbeing, our environment and our economy well. It is right that public supplies of domestic water have remained a public asset, delivered in the public interest. It should be so in England too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman is also a good fella with good intentions, and I share his concerns about no deal. What we need to do now is to find a deal that the House can unite behind. The Secretary of State would say that if he were in his place, and it is important that the Leader of the Opposition now joins that process.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I, too, am sorry not to see the Secretary of State in his place at the Dispatch Box after what was quite the bravura audition yesterday. Someone once said:

“The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want.”

It seems that those cards and paths have been pretty expensive so far. Can the Minister tell us whether his Department’s largesse has sorted out the export health certificate system, which of course relies on a single spreadsheet? Has he made export agreements with 154 countries to replace the EU agreements? Lastly, has this been the worst poker hand ever played?

[David Rutley]

Lots of questions there, but I can assure the hon. Lady that I am even more saddened not to see the Secretary of State here because I am having to answer all his questions on this subject.

On the hon. Lady’s substantive point, we are working on the export health certificate process, and we are working on the other trade agreements. My hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the farming Minister, is working on those issues as well. Each of those steps is being dealt with.

UK Fishing Industry

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara]

The CFP is a political decision and it can be reformed. If consecutive UK Governments had not sacrificed everything, including the fishing industry, to get where we are, we would not be in the situation that we are in now.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I remind all Members here in Westminster Hall that in our 2017 manifesto we committed to either fundamental reform of the CFP or its complete scrapping. And it was in 2004 that the former party leader, who I think was the Member for Banff and Buchan at that time, introduced a private Member’s Bill calling for the scrapping of the CFP.

[Brendan O'Hara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since the 1970s, it has been the Scottish National party that has opposed the CFP. We have opposed it; we have sought its reform; and any record in Hansard will show that that is the case.

The fishing communities across the UK did not need Brexit to thrive and survive; they needed a Government who cared and put their interests first. I look forward, with certainty, to the day when that Government is an independent Scottish Government, who will look after the interests of all our fishermen and not throw them under a bus at the first opportunity, as has been the case in the United Kingdom throughout the years of the CFP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Henry. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), whose long-standing commitment to the cause of fishing safety is a badge of honour and who is commendably tireless in her pursuit of a safer environment for people who work in the industry. She clearly has a very personal knowledge of the fishing industry; her personal loss means that she speaks with profound understanding of what is so often at stake for so many of the crews who go out to bring back fish. I cannot imagine what it takes to continue to campaign, as she does, for a better situation for them.

I speak from a less personal standpoint, but I absolutely acknowledge the nature of the task that the fleets face on each trip out to sea. I also recognise the unrelenting nature of the job and the difficult economic circumstances that face the fleets and the communities that depend on them. The uncertainties attached to working in the industry, onshore as well as offshore, must only be heightened by the chaos that dogs the Brexit process. I have to say that things are a little calmer in this Chamber today than they have been in the main Chamber over the past couple of days. Staid and sober consideration of the issues before us is certainly a better way to proceed.

I commend the hon. Lady for what she said about the comments quoted from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. She made the important point that those words have been taken out of context and misquoted; I commend her honesty, and I hope that when hon. Members discuss these matters in the future, they will hear her wise words. She and other hon. Members also spoke about the Fisheries Council meeting next week—the last time the Minister has a voice at the table. A very important point arising from the flawed deal that the Prime Minister may or may not have negotiated is that the fishing industry will have lost the opportunity to influence and guide decisions made at that Council. The hon. Lady made a doughty challenge at the end of her speech for the Minister to provide clarity on the issue, particularly on aspects that relate to her constituency and its interests. Her points were well made and I look forward to the Minister’s response, as I am sure we all do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) shared stories about the difficulty that the hostile environment approach to immigration has caused for access to crew, a point made by hon. Members across the Chamber. He also raised vital concerns about the advantages to be enjoyed by Northern Ireland under the arrangements in the current withdrawal deal and gave us some spirited discussion about the vexed issue of the CFP. I am sure that that spirited discussion will continue long into the future.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) reiterated my hon. Friend’s call to relax the tight restrictions on non-EEA crew members, which are causing big problems. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) called for the maintenance of good relations with other countries—a really important point that I appreciate her making and heartily endorse. She also noted that there is no guarantee that anything will change under the current deal or that it will address the inherent unfairness that fishers see in the current system.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) called for clarity about the details of the deal that may be negotiated as a last roll of the dice at the Fisheries Council—possibly the last deal of its kind to be struck with the EU. He also spoke about the potential for inshore fishing, although I would argue that that could be done under a willing Government whether or not the UK retains its EU membership. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as always, spoke up for his constituents and raised some specific questions for the Minister, who will be very busy in his reply; I had better be as brief as possible, so that there is time for those questions to be answered.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for his helpful clarification of the circumstances surrounding the Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill. He also raised the issue of future deals for pelagic species and asked what the Government will do about the growing crisis in the availability of fishing crews, the resulting restrictions and their impact on safety.

It has been noted that the variety of our fleets and the differentiation around the shores and across species make it difficult to describe the industry as a single entity. Each part of it has different priorities. Scotland’s creel fisher-folk, for example, tell us that their product has to get to market alive, so one of the biggest threats to their continued profitability is congestion at border control. The industry could die along with the catch if the M26 becomes a lorry park. Those concerns have to be sorted out in advance of Brexit day.

Access to the EU market is essential for Scottish fleets, which should not be in a less advantageous situation than any other part of the UK. We will be losing access advantages as it is, since we will no longer have automatic barrier-free access to the world’s biggest marketplace in the world’s most affluent continent. There are something like 1,800 shellfish boats in the Scottish fleets; it is a significant source of employment offshore and has significant onshore economic impact.

The concerns of pelagic and whitefish fleets may be slightly different but they, too, require open markets. Around three quarters of the fish and seafood landed is exported, while around two thirds of the fish and seafood we eat is imported. Trade with the EU is essential for the fishing industry. We should probably see whether there is some kind of organisation that we can join that would allow us free access to those markets and keep food imports at a reasonable price—if only we could think of one.

There is a cruelty for our fishing fleets in the fact that they will be trapped in the CFP after we leave the EU and will therefore still have to comply with the rules after we have lost the ability to influence them. So much of what we heard before the referendum was simply untrue, but that is one of the cruellest tricks of all.

A host of other questions about Brexit and fishing are still unanswered, not the least of which is how the European maritime and fisheries fund will be replaced. The development of the fishing industries around these islands may be hampered if we do not have a replacement ready to go. The improvements to the boats, including health and safety improvements, that such schemes fund are important, but so are the shore-based improvements, and the environmental spend is of incalculable value.

We also need to know about access to the labour market for the industry. Like agriculture, the work of onshore fisheries in Scotland depends to a large extent on EU migrant workers, so closing us off from them will damage the profitability of the industry. I know that some Members of Parliament are dead set on ending freedom of movement, but the argument is about what to replace it with.

Some have argued that we should look at the Australian system; if I can don my outback hat for a while, I reckon that there is a new Australian scheme that might just fit the bill. The Australian Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs says that his Government

“is working to improve our immigration program to better match the needs of specific locations”.

The Northern Territory and south-west Victoria will have immigration schemes that allow in agricultural workers and hospitality workers to service the industries that desperately need them. The schemes, known as designated area migration agreements, will allow permanent residency in those areas, provided that people are willing to remain there for at least three years. I suggest that such a scheme would be helpful to the food production industries in Scotland and should be considered by any Government who value the contribution that those industries make.

We may or may not be leaving the EU soon, and we may or may not be getting a vote on it at some point, but it is high time we had a serious chat about how we want to protect our fishing communities and how we enhance them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

Yes—again, we will ensure that we do not water down those standards. I am sure that later in these questions we will hear from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who is doing a tremendous job in taking the Agriculture Bill through the House.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said in its report on the Agriculture Bill that the Government should put their money where their mouth is and accept an amendment stipulating that food products imported as part of any future trade deal should meet or exceed British standards relating to production, animal welfare and the environment. I have tabled such an amendment; will the Minister undertake to accept it in order to keep Frankenstein foods off the tables of families the length and breadth of these isles?

[David Rutley]

I know that amendments have been tabled, and they will be properly considered on Report.

Fisheries Bill

Deidre Brock Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I would like to start with a couple of points that arose from listening to the Secretary of State’s speech. First, he claimed that the SNP has not opposed the CFP and, in fact, wanted the UK to remain in the CFP. He clearly does not recall the Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill 2004, promoted by then Member Alex Salmond and signed by the right hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) and some Tory and Labour MPs.

[Stewart Hosie]

For the avoidance of doubt, that was a Bill designed to see the UK leave the CFP, in the name of the right hon. Alex Salmond, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), the late Eddie McGrady, Elfyn Llwyd and Tory and Labour MPs. Does that not rather make a mockery of what the Secretary of State said earlier and show what a tenuous grasp of reality he has?

[Deidre Brock]

It certainly points to some short memories in this place.

Secondly, in March, the Secretary of State said that the Government had accepted a sub-optimal outcome for fishing in the Brexit negotiations. Will he tell us whether he still thinks that is so, and whether that view is reflected in the Bill? I look forward to that being addressed in the Minister’s closing words.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

Could the hon. Lady give us a history lesson about what a former Member of this House did? Does she agree with me that my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Moray, in the most recent general election campaign—[Interruption.] I notice she is getting a whisper from the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). In the general election campaign last year, when asked umpteen times on the BBC whether the Scottish National party would agree to go back into the CFP if Scotland became independent and wanted to get back into the EU, my predecessor said yes. The party’s sole aim is to go back into the CFP.

[Deidre Brock]

On our terms, of course. That is the point the hon. Gentleman is leaving out.

If we are looking for a history lesson, let us remind ourselves about the Tories, who have been selling out Scottish fishing for nearly half a century. Under Ted Heath in the 1970s, fisheries were considered expendable. In the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher, the UK Government signed us up to the original doomed common fisheries policy, which consigned our fishermen to decades of mismanagement. John Major’s Tories signed up to a revised common fisheries policy in the 1990s, which scrapped vessels and destroyed livelihoods. In the 21st century, the Tories were attempting to enshrine the common fisheries policy in European treaties, while the SNP was trying to return controls to the fishing nations. Let us not forget that, very recently, Ruth Davidson was reported in The Times as calling fisheries a red line issue, and a Scottish Tory source was quoted as saying:

“We won a lot of votes in the northeast on the back of our stance on fishing and wouldn’t be able to show our faces in Banff and Buchan if we renege on this one.”

[Pete Wishart]

Does my hon. Friend not agree with me that the Scottish Tory MPs have made 20-gallon galoots of themselves with their resigning/non-resigning nonsense? I do not know if she knows exactly where they are just now, but are they going to be in or oot when all this has concluded?

[Deidre Brock]

I am as baffled as my hon. Friend on that particular issue; that is for sure.

Returning to my speech, I think the context of this Bill has changed somewhat as a result of the withdrawal agreement. Some of the content of that agreement makes some of the apparent intent of the Bill a little more difficult to deliver and more dependent on negotiation and agreement with the 27 remaining members of the EU.

Having said that, let me pay tribute to the EFRA Secretary for staying the course and being determined to see things through to their conclusion. That seems to be a principle or a staying power that is somewhat lacking in his colleagues—erstwhile colleagues, I should say. They may have fallen by the wayside, weary of the march, but he carries on indefatigably. I understand that his father, as he mentioned, was involved in the onshore side of the industry, so he certainly comes to the Bill with some knowledge, but with a rather poor recall of facts if the newspapers are to be believed.

I acknowledge that the Secretary of State comes to the table with a backstory—if not a backstop—but that does not mean that he necessarily comes with the solutions the industry needs. The withdrawal agreement that was greeted with such delight by Government Members keeps our fishing industry in the common fisheries policy for a further two years after Brexit day, although of course our lack of membership means that the EU will decide the rules, while we have no say in them, no say in how they should be implemented and no voice in the discussions about whether the CFP is meeting its policy objectives.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Obviously, the SNP has persistently voted against the common fisheries policy in the European Parliament, as the records show, as well as in this Parliament. My other point is: has the Secretary of State given her any reassurances about the customs union, which is critical for this excellent produce to get to its markets on the European continent?

[Deidre Brock]

Absolutely not, no. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope he has jogged the Secretary of State’s memory a little with his first point.

[Mr Charles Walker]

May I mount a bit of shameless lobbying? To tackle illegal lobster potting, the Scottish Government have put a limit on recreational lobster fishermen, such as myself, of one lobster landing a day on the west coast of Scotland. As the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), who represents Barra, will know, it is often very difficult to get your boat out more than once every four or five days. Will the hon. Lady ask the Scottish Government whether, instead of putting on a limit of one lobster a day, they will look at a limit on the number of pots a recreational fisherman can have—say, five or six—beyond which they would need to get a licence?

[Deidre Brock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am certain that the Scottish Government will be closely following the debate and that they will make a note of his request.

If the steady stream of Ministers heading for the exit delays negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and the EU, we could find ourselves in an extended period where our fishing industry just complies with the rules, rather than having someone in the room standing up for it. Mr Barnier has already suggested that it will last for at least two years, which could be an underestimate if we consider how long it took to reach the much simpler withdrawal agreement.

We may have to suffer the CFP for quite a few years to come and it may change to the advantage of the remaining members of the EU, and not to ours. We may lose markets to sell fish into, or at the very least, find that our competitive advantage disappears because we will be subject to the same tariffs as other non-member states. I hope they will be the same tariffs, but going by the poor negotiation results that we have seen so far, we may end up with higher tariffs that reduce our fleet’s traditional competitive advantage.

It will not come to that, of course, because the new fishing deal has already been written into the withdrawal agreement by the departing Brexit Secretary. On page 4, the political declaration tells us that he has agreed to a new fisheries agreement with access to UK waters and assigned quota shares being

“in place in time to be used for determining fishing opportunities for the first year after the transition period.”

That means the common fisheries policy will carry on regulating our fishing fleets after we have left the EU. Taking back control has never sounded so hollow.

It is a sad state of affairs for this Secretary of State to have to deliver that news, because in March he said that he feels a

“debt to fishing communities who are looking to government to deliver a better deal for them”

and promised that he would ensure that our

“fishermen’s interests are properly safeguarded”

during the implementation period. That period starts on 29 March and lasts for an indeterminate amount of time, during which access to some important markets might be limited. France, for example, is the UK’s most important export market for fish. It is nearly twice as lucrative in cash terms as the US, and almost three times as strong in export volumes. Spain, by the way, is just behind the US in cash terms and slightly ahead in volume. Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany are all significant customers for our fishing fleets. Two thirds of our fleet’s fish is exported—perhaps a case of EU citizens jumping the queue to buy fish.

Once the deals are done and we finally leave the CFP, however, we will still be in it. It is a conjuror’s trick, and not a good one. Last year, the Secretary of State spoke to leaders of the Danish industry and guaranteed them continued access to our waters after Brexit. Earlier this year, the UK embassy in Spain reassured Spanish trawlers that their access to UK waters was assured. The withdrawal agreement replaces common decision-making on the CFP as a member of the EU with CFP rules handed down from Brussels and no input from Ministers from these isles on behalf of the industry here. Well done to the Brexiteers—they certainly landed a whopper there.

The Norwegians sometimes describe their relationship with the EU as a “fax democracy”, because the rules just come down the line from Brussels. That seems to be what removing ourselves from the EU will do, except, of course, that the European maritime and fisheries fund money will vanish. We have heard nothing about what might replace that in due course.

We will be left to accept the rules that are handed down; we will lose access to the decision-making body and the funding from the EU; and we will have to deal with the consequences of the Government’s poor negotiation techniques and the uniquely weak position that they have left us in. When the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave evidence to the House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee 26 months ago, he said that

“we have to recognise historic rights…In some sectors, for instance on scallops, access to the French part of the channel is quite important to the UK industry. I accept there are trade-offs. All these things will be a matter for negotiation in a new world.”

During the referendum campaign, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:

“I think the fishermen are wrong in the sense there is no way we would just go back to Scotland or Britain controlling British waters. There are a whole host of international rules and agreements even if we were outside the EU which would impact on their activities.”

Then of course there is the same problem agriculture has in relation to workforce planning. We will lose access to EU workers, who make up 58% of Scotland’s fish processing workforce and 70% in Grampian, where the Secretary of State’s family business was based.

Scotland’s seafood and fishing industries could be destroyed without access to EU markets. Scotland’s processing industry could be irreversibly damaged without access to EU workers. We also have to consider Scottish farmed salmon, the UK’s most valuable food export, and how losing the market advantage over Norwegian salmon that EU membership gives us could be utterly devastating. Scotland stands to lose a lot without access and there is little indication of how any of it might be replaced.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Fishermen in the north-east are often quoted as saying that more fish will be consumed in the UK, rather than exported. In my constituency, however, the south-west Scotland market consists of nephrops, crustaceans, langoustine and lobster. Some 85% are exported to the European market. It might well be that we all eat a little bit more white fish after Brexit, but I cannot see anybody being in a financial situation where they are going to be eating more lobster.

[Deidre Brock]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I am delighted that she brings up the interests of the south-west part of the country.

Once more, Scotland’s needs are massively different to the needs of England. Once more, we cannot have the Scottish industry locked into a rigid framework that will satisfy the English industry. Fishing, of course, has been a devolved matter since 1999 and the responsibility for nearly all the policy area rests in Edinburgh. I think the Government acknowledge as much, with the legislative consent motion they have asked for at Holyrood.

The industry cannot be squeezed into the same box as the English industry, but I appreciate the desirability of common frameworks to allow co-operative working on various issues—kind of like the EU managed with the CFP. Where such frameworks are sought and agreed by both sides they will be mutually beneficial, but they cannot be imposed. They must recognise the devolution settlement and respect it. There must be an element of trust that runs between Whitehall and Holyrood. Her Majesty’s Government must allow Scotland’s Government to govern in the devolved areas and this Parliament must allow Scotland’s Parliament to legislate in devolved areas.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

This is a characteristically divisive speech from the hon. Lady. On the subject of division, can she explain how, under Scottish National party policy, Scotland will be better served when it has to go into negotiation with England for access to its waters, and how Scotland would somehow get a better result under the SNP policy when it has to negotiate with Europe alone and trade with an even smaller WTO box?

[Deidre Brock]

I am always amused when Scottish Tories stand up to talk about divisiveness and accuse the SNP of being divisive about anything.

Returning to a more serious subject, in general the provisions in the Bill that relate to this area seem to fit those provisions, and, while I reserve the right to check that I am correct in thinking that, I welcome the drafting of the Bill in this respect.

I cannot offer the same welcome to some other aspects of the Bill, such as the setting of quotas. Quotas for Scotland’s waters should be set in Scotland, just as quotas for English waters should be set in England and Welsh waters in Wales. That is devolution. I am sure the Minister or any Government Members would not want the Scots and the Welsh to set quotas in Cornwall, so they will understand why Scots would not want our effort limits set here. The same applies to foreign vessels in our waters. We know that the Secretary of State has been a little free with his pledges of access to our waters, but it should more appropriately be the devolved Administrations that determine such things.

The principle upon which devolution was determined, the division of responsibilities and powers, was that anything which was not reserved was devolved. Power does not flow from here to there, but is, rather, only held here where it is written in the devolution legislation. Matters determined on an EU platform but not written into schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 are devolved and should go straight to Holyrood. They will go straight to Holyrood unless there is some power grab, some clawing back of responsibility, some deliberate diminution of Scotland’s Parliament. That would be unthinkable and we should do our level best to ensure that we do not legislate across that boundary.

Let us endeavour to ensure that we can modify the Bill appropriately so that we do not overcomplicate what should be a simple process. Let us make sure that the responsibilities and powers over our fishing waters and industries rest in the most appropriate places: the devolved Administrations for the most part, and this place, when there is no choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

It is a pleasure and privilege to speak in this debate. Similarly to when we considered the Agriculture Bill earlier in the Session, this is the first opportunity for this Chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament to debate a future policy—this time for our fishermen and fishing industry. Communities such as Buckie, Cullen, Lossiemouth and Burghead do not have the same number of fishing boats as they once did, but they still have an extremely strong link to the fishing industry and they look at our debates in this Chamber very closely.

I very much support this enabling Bill, which has widespread support throughout the industry. The Ministers and their team have done a good job in bringing it to this stage. We all want to ensure that we have control over our waters and regenerate the coastal communities that have suffered in the past. There is a great deal to welcome in the Bill.

I want to spend a bit of time looking at the utter tosh—that is the only way I can describe it—that we have heard from the Scottish National party during this debate. We heard from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who is not in the Chamber. He took us back to 1972, 11 years before I was even born. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) took us back a number of years ago when Alex Salmond was putting forward legislation. The SNP has not mentioned him recently, so it is interesting to hear his name used again. In an intervention, I took the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith back to last year’s general election—the most recent election—to find the most recent credible position of the SNP. The SNP’s position then, on which all their candidates stood for election, was to go back into the common fisheries policy, and she confirmed that in response to my intervention.

[Deidre Brock]

rose—

[Douglas Ross]

I am sorry, but because of the time—[Interruption.] I will come to the hon. Lady, who confirmed that the SNP’s position—

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) has a deaf ear, because I said I would let the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith intervene. I will come to her in a minute, if she has patience.

The hon. Lady confirmed that the SNP’s position is to go back into the CFP on re-joining the European Union but, she said, in their terms. I would like to give way to her so that she can tell us what those terms are. What is the SNP going to tell the EU that it would like to negotiate on the CFP, and what is it going to give away? A negotiation needs give and take, so what would it give to the European Union on that?

[Deidre Brock]

I would just like to quote directly from page 29 of the SNP’s 2017 general election manifesto:

“We will continue, in all circumstances, to demand the scrapping or fundamental reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and support Scottish control of Scottish fisheries, as we have done for many years.”

[Douglas Ross]

That is page 29, but there is absolutely no information on how the SNP would do that or what it would do. It is absolutely farcical—you have no plan for how you will go forward on the CFP; you will simply go back into it and do as you are told.

Other things we have not heard are—[Interruption.] Oh, come on, please. The hon. Lady mentioned nothing about the Scottish Government’s report that says that the fishing industry will benefit from £540 million and see an extra 5,000 jobs in Scotland as we come out of the CFP. The SNP will not mention that, because it wants to go back into the CFP.

I agree with a lot of things said by a number of Members—including the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—about the problems that the Government’s immigration policies are causing for fishermen. I held a Westminster Hall debate on the matter at which a number of Members spoke. [Interruption.] If SNP Members would stop barracking me, I may be able to answer their questions. This is something for which I believe there is cross-party support. I believe that the Government could make small changes to ensure that we get the right people into our—

Agriculture Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Committee Debate: 14th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause will simply allow Ministers to measure their progress in implementing a promise made during the Brexit campaign that moneys available to support Scottish farmers will not decline in real terms as a result of our no longer being in the EU. The leave campaign made some real promises, which should be honoured. There will be plenty of hot air and confusion over the coming days, weeks, months and eternities, but can we at least get some clarity on how progress on this pledge will be measured?

[Jenny Chapman]

I have a few questions on this. It makes an awful lot of sense to me, and it matches what the First Minister of Wales has said repeatedly, which is that he wants all support to be matched penny for penny in the future, as was committed to by various voices during the referendum campaign. I do not think that there is anything unreasonable about that. If we agree to the new clause, it would open the door to similar amendments being made for the other devolved Administrations.

All the new clause seeks is transparent reporting that we would all benefit from being able to monitor, including in England. Agricultural payments will be something that we make decisions about, and doing so in the most up-front and clear way possible will help all of us. It is clear that the agriculture sector requires certainty going forward, and this is one way that we can assist in that. One key concern raised by stakeholders, particularly the farmers unions, is the continuation of funding that will be made available, particularly to the devolved Administrations.

Another key concern raised by the farmers unions is the ability of the devolved Administrations to make payments to farmers in 2020, due to the way that the Bill is structured. It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on what will happen, particularly for Scotland. As Members will know, the Scottish Government’s continuity Bill is currently being considered by the Supreme Court. If it is deemed unlawful, what will happen to the payments to Scottish farmers? The Scottish Government intend that Bill to provide the vehicle by which payments could continue. What does the Minister consider the implications will be if that is not the case? It would be helpful to us all if we could use the consideration of this new clause to try to understand that issue.

I would like to ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith about the progress the Scottish Government are making with their own agriculture Bill, which the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy, Fergus Ewing, has said that they will implement. Scottish farmers need to know what the future holds for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Yes, I am aware that NFU Scotland has now said that it believes that, as a minimum, there should be something like new clause 3. I discussed the issue with Scottish Ministers yesterday at the meeting that we had in Wales, where it came up. We established that it is relatively easy to rectify. This is a single clause. We could put it in a schedule to this Bill if it were the wish of the Scottish Government for us to do so. We could add a schedule to the Bill that replicated new clause 3 for Scotland but did nothing else, and we could do that at later stages of the Bill, or of course it is open to the Scottish Government to add new clause 3 to an alternative piece of primary legislation, going through the Scottish Parliament. The issue is not complicated to fix; it does not necessarily need a fully worked-up, fully detailed Bill, but they do, as a minimum, need something equivalent to new clause 3. I think that they understand that now, and they are considering whether it is best to do it as a schedule to our Bill or as an addition to one of their own Bills.

I hope that I have been able to explain that we have a review under way that is looking at intra-UK allocations, that is designed to address the needs of every part of our United Kingdom as we consider funding the provisions in this Bill and provisions that other, devolved Administrations might bring forward in the future.

[Deidre Brock]

In response to questions regarding Scotland not taking powers through this Bill, I will repeat once again that that is because, in short, we do not need to do so. We do not need the Government here to legislate for us on devolved matters. We have been producing our own legislation in those areas since the Scottish Parliament began in 1999. There is no question of our not being able to make payments immediately after Brexit, because the existing common agricultural policy rules will become retained EU law; that has already been provided for.

If there is no deal, then in conjunction with the UK we are preparing the necessary adjustments, through statutory instruments and Scottish statutory instruments, to ensure that we will be able to continue to make payments under the existing CAP rules. If there is a deal, then along with what happens in the rest of the UK, provision will be made to ensure that we can continue to make payments during the agreed transition period. Whatever scenario we face, there will be provision to make payments and administer schemes from next March.

[George Eustice]

I agree that it is possible for the Scottish Government to include a clause similar to new clause 3 in primary legislation going through the Scottish Parliament, but the hon. Lady needs to understand that it requires the setting of a financial ceiling; that does not come across in retained EU law. That is why we have introduced those new clauses to the Bill for every other part of the UK. The hon. Lady is right: we are not saying that we have to legislate through this Bill. There is an offer if the Scottish Government would like us to include something equivalent to new clause 3, but if they would rather not have that, it is for them to add the provision to one of their pieces of primary legislation.

[Deidre Brock]

Indeed, and given that the withdrawal agreement, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the Scottish continuity Bill all give Scotland a legal basis on which to continue to make payments and administer schemes, we see no need to rush into the development of new legislation, but we are of course always open to that.

In our consultation document, “Stability and Simplicity: proposals for a rural funding transition period”, we have explained that the point at which we propose to start evolving our farm support arrangements is 2021. At that point, we will need new powers to amend the relevant retained EU law, and we are looking actively at all available options for taking those powers, including the possibility of legislating in the Scottish Parliament.

I hear what the Minister says about the review that is ongoing, but we want some certainty that an ability to check the promises that were made is hardwired into this Bill—as the hon. Member for Darlington said previously, that is in the interests of transparency—so I will press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Agriculture Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Drew]

That is true. Northern Ireland is the most acute case, because it has a land border with another country. The two countries have to have some sort of similar agricultural system because farmers farm on both sides and environmentalists want to see what is happening. While I was in Belfast, I talked to Friends of the Earth, which identified a serious and growing methane problem because of what has happened to farming in the north. I also talked to various parties in the south, which identified a similar problem. That indicates how much we need a common framework.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that different schemes already operate in the four different parts of the UK? There is already plenty of co-operation on agriculture and the environment, so I do not think that that sort of UK-wide framework is required at this point.

[Dr Drew]

I have to disagree with the hon. Lady. If we do not put that in the Bill, what is there about having any co-operation?

[Deidre Brock]

That is the point of devolution—that the different parts of the UK can do things differently according to their conditions and needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Drew]

I thank the Minister for that, and it is a perfectly valid case to make. That would be fine if we did not have a common border with another country that is going to remain in the EU. I do not quite understand. Although the seas are different in the sense that, yes, of course, there is a question of international access across all our waters, we have the same issue, whether we call it the backstop or just the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. We have to face up to it and look at some commonality, which is best achieved by common frameworks.

[Deidre Brock]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept the Scottish Government’s point that the implementation of international obligations in devolved policy areas such as agriculture is in fact a devolved matter?

[Dr Drew]

That is the whole point. It is a devolved matter, but it is a question of whether, as I have said, there is some degree of agreement on how to take things forward. What we are considering is just a framework, not something that will demand that different parts of the UK follow exactly what other parts will do. The reality is that they will not. We know that. In farming policy, the word “policy” is important, because legislation is one thing, but the underlying policy equally needs to be scrutinised, which we have not really been able to do. We had a rushed series of evidence sittings, and the Government’s policy paper is, at best, fairly sketchy. We shall be looking at that.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion said he wanted to probe the question, and I hope that he will consider going further, having heard what has been said, to try to be clear about the future of British agriculture—if such a thing exists, given that the issue is devolved. The people in border areas really need to know that.

--- Later in debate ---

If the Government are not minded to accept new clause 11, I hope that the Minister will make it clear how the ongoing meetings with Ministers across the three territories and the officials in Northern Ireland can stay in place. With all the turmoil of Brexit and the way the world is becoming more complex, how will this stay in place? Unless we have some framework to ensure that this co-operation is ongoing, it could be subject to a completely voluntary approach to how the different Administrations want to get on.

[Deidre Brock]

I will be brief. I understand why the hon. Member for Ceredigion has brought the new clause forward, but I cannot agree to support it. In particular, the Scottish National party position is that there is no need for a legislative UK framework of this sort. There are different common agricultural policy schemes in operation at the moment, for example, that do not disrupt the ability to trade across the UK, and land management needs are, frankly, too disparate to be covered under a single framework.

[Martin Whitfield]

I want to make a few points about this and to split them into the political and the legislative aspects. We have an opportunity with the Agriculture Bill to do what the National Farmers Union in Scotland has been crying out for—namely, to shape the decision-making process and establish it within the field of agriculture, for production and the environment. It would be a missed opportunity not to pursue that, given the length of time between agriculture Bills in the United Kingdom. We have an opportunity to provide farmers with a level of certainty and confidence, both of which, from the reflections that I have come across, are deeply lacking.

I said on a previous matter that the Bill is a framework and that there is little to see within it. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be seeing in it whatever they want to see. In doing that, we run the risk of creating something that means different things to different people. Agriculture is, rightly, devolved, but it does straddle the borders. There are farmers who do not necessarily have farms that straddle the border, but who are landowners on both sides of the border. This is an opportunity to give some certainty through a UK-wide framework, so that all our farmers and land managers and those who take an interest in the land are able to decide how they want to move forward with that confidence and certainty.

Secondly, I would like to address the politics of the Bill. We are in this position regarding this new clause and the Bill because there has been an inability for politicians to come together, consider and reach an agreement. I was grateful to the Minister for indicating the uphill challenge with regard to the memorandums that sit in front of the three devolved nations and England. However, he has highlighted the great problem that people have been unable to sit down and come to an agreement. That agreement has been desperately sought by the National Farmers Union, landowners, farmers and others on both sides of the border. There is still an opportunity to achieve it. It would be very helpful, as the Bill progresses, if the politics of it could be removed, so that some reality, certainty and, most of all, confidence can be given to our farmers.

A UK-wide framework would give an overarching picture in which each devolved area and England can continue to develop its own agricultural practices and those nuances that make a farm in Northumberland different from a farm in the borders and East Lothian. However, both those farms actually need certainty.

[Ben Lake]

I thank all those who have participated in the consideration of the new clause. I emphasise just a couple of things. It is of course true that there are policy differences between the different nations at the moment. However, we should also remember that there is—in effect, if nothing else—a UK-wide framework: the EU framework within which all the different nations tailor, operate and administer their policies. I therefore think there is a need to look again at how the four industries and four nations will work and co-operate post Brexit.

I understand what the Minister said about the memorandums of understanding and the concordats. I am particularly interested in the proposed dispute resolution mechanisms, or at least the potential for such mechanisms. I still argue that it would probably be neater and easier to understand if we were to have a single dispute resolution mechanism. My preference would be some sort of council of Ministers for agriculture, in which the four devolved Administrations could come together and agree on a more formal basis.

However, the point about the decision-making process was very well made by the hon. Member for East Lothian. I reiterate that we now have the initial frameworks and memorandums of understanding. There will come a point, whether in three, five, seven or 10 years down the line, when we will need to renegotiate, whether on the tricky issue of regulations or the even trickier matter of funding. An approach that sees us have an array of static concordats and memorandums of understanding would possibly not be appropriate.

This was a probing motion. Having now listened to the points made by Members on both sides of the Committee, I am tempted to go back and draft something else for the next stage of the Bill’s passage, and to then push that to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

International trade agreements: agricultural and food products

“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the agreement—

(a) includes an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement, and

(b) prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of agricultural and food products in relation to which the relevant standards are lower than the relevant standards in the United Kingdom.

(2) In subsection (1)—

‘international trade agreement’ means—

(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—

(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or

(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or

(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);

‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;

‘relevant standards’ means standards relating to environmental protection, plant health and animal welfare applying in connection with the production of agricultural and food products;

‘SPS Agreement’ means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time);

‘WTO Agreement’ means the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.”.—(Deidre Brock.)

This new clause would ensure that HMG has a duty to protect the quality of the domestic food supply by ensuring that imported foodstuffs are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are held to.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Deidre Brock]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 14—Ratification of international trade agreements—

“(1) An international trade agreement shall not be ratified unless it enables the United Kingdom to require imports to—

(a) comply with the standards laid down by primary and subordinate legislation in the United Kingdom regarding food safety, the environment and animal welfare, or

(b) have been produced to standards that are no lower than the legislative standards of the United Kingdom in protecting food safety, the environment and animal welfare.

(2) In this section ‘international trade agreement’ has the same meaning as in section 2(2) of the Trade Act 2018.”

This new clause would prevent the Government from entering into trade agreements that allow food imports that do not meet the UK’s environmental, animal welfare and food safety standards.

New clause 23—Import of agricultural goods—

“(1) Agricultural goods may be imported into the UK only if import would not conflict with and would be consistent with—

(a) the UK’s commitments under international law on animal welfare, including but not restricted to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes.

(b) The UK’s commitments under international law on environmental protection, including but not restricted to—

(i) the Paris Agreement,

(ii) CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora),

(iii) the Convention on Biological Diversity, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity,

(iv) the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and

(v) the Sustainable Development Goals.

(c) Domestic legislation on—

(i) animal welfare,

(ii) environmental standards,

(iii) the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants,

(iv) public morality,

(v) public security,

(vi) health and safety,

(vii) food safety standards.

(d) The section on animal welfare in the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Terrestrial Animal Health Code and the section on the welfare of farmed fish in the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Aquatic Animal Health Code.

(2) ‘Agricultural goods’, for the purposes of this section, means—

(a) any livestock within the meaning of section 1(4) or any product derived from livestock,

(b) any plants or seeds, within the meaning of section 13(6)

(c) any product derived from livestock, plants or seeds.”

This new clause would prevent the import of agricultural goods from other countries into the UK if they have been produced to lower standards than those of the UK.

[Deidre Brock]

There has been considerable concern from consumers about the quality of foodstuffs that will be available after Brexit, and particular concern about the possible reduction in quality that might come as a result of trade deals, with chlorinated chicken, hormone-pumped beef, genetically modified vegetables and so on. The concerns are wide ranging and cover many areas.

Chlorinated chicken, for example, has implications for food hygiene and nutrition. We prefer poultry with higher welfare and hygiene standards throughout the journey from hatching to plate, rather than its carcass being bleached to remove evidence of poor welfare and hygiene. Those consumer concerns are matched by producer concerns about high-quality products being undermined and undercut by poor-quality, cheap imports, whose adulterations are masked by later cosmetic measures, which is truly the modern-day purchase of a pig in a poke.

Consumers and producers have been protected thus far by the European Union and its rules and red tape, which we will shortly shed. It seems sensible to me to replace those EU protections with what protections can be offered from this place. Such protection will be a pale imitation—that is sure—but we should do what we can. New clause 12 would ensure that food standards and the protections offered do not plummet off the Brexit cliff to be dashed on the rocks of profiteering below. It is incumbent on us to offer what protections we can, and the new clause would do that. Likewise, new clauses 14 and 23 would offer some peace of mind and some protections, and I am minded to support them.

I have seen no movement from the Government in this direction so far. However, I hope that the Minister will see the wisdom of accepting the need for such protections to be written into the Bill.

[Dr Drew]

I am minded to support the hon. Lady on this, although we have tabled our own new clause 23. This is at the core of the Bill. Although we are talking about agriculture, we cannot exclude trade from that. We—I mean the great “we”, because no organisation that has commented on the Bill is not of a similar mind—need to know what guarantees there are that the animal welfare, environmental and food-quality standards that British agriculture prides itself on will not be undermined by a race to the bottom, and that we will not take on some mad trade deals to try to dig the UK out of its current dilemma of what it does if it shuts the door on the EU. This is very important.

We have reached a turning point in our debate on the Bill. We hope the Government will get the message, from not just the Opposition but the organisations that have commented on the Bill, many of which will have spoken to the Minister. They want security and the knowledge that there will be no attempt to undermine the standards that have been put in place over generations for British agriculture and the environment. Greener UK, which has been largely supportive of the Government’s approach, sees this as one of the major dividing lines. It wants new clause 23 or new clause 12 in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith.

We can argue about the definitions—we think that our new clause is slightly more foolproof, but we will listen to the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, who will hopefully get the opportunity to speak to new clause 14. This issue is absolutely crucial to the way the Bill will be received in not just this country but the wider world. We have to send the wider world the message that this Bill rules out importing cheaper, poor-quality food.

I know there is a degree of disunity in the Government. The Secretary of State for International Trade has been going to all sorts of places, but I challenge him to name one place outside the EU—where he has not been—whose food standards are equal to the UK’s and the EU’s. The reality is that there are not any. Other countries are able to produce cheaper food because they undermine labour standards, sadly mistreat the animals and use all sorts of other methods.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I think that that is right and it is why ultimately this area of policy is for the Department for International Trade, because it has to look at the whole trade piece. As the hon. Member for Ipswich pointed out, agriculture is unique and special, and that is why DEFRA has a special role in this—because there are complex issues in relation to tariff rate quotas, which a lot of people do not understand and which are very agriculture-specific, and lots of complex SPS issues. Agriculture is a unique and highly complex area of trade that we would need to get right.

In conclusion, a process has been set out; there is an ability for Parliament to block ratification and, if it so wanted, to make a resolution to strike down a treaty. However, in the light of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, I will of course undertake to talk to Government colleagues to see whether anything could be refined in this process to reflect the agricultural context of trade agreements and to look at the role of scrutinising those agreements from a strictly agricultural perspective. I do not think that it would be within the scope of the Bill, but I hope that in Committee I can give some additional reassurance in this regard.

[Deidre Brock]

This has been a very good debate, with very good contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I appreciate what the Minister has said about trying to refine this issue at some stage, when we go further into the Bill, but I am disappointed that he has not indicated that he will include a clause about trade in the Bill. We still come back to this question: where are the safeguards to prevent Ministers from signing up to trade deals that disadvantage UK food producers and potentially lower animal welfare, environmental protection and food standards? Farming, environmental, public health and food-producing organisations think that the strongest assurances are required in the Bill so, in the hope that the Minister and his colleagues will agree with me that it is important to make it clear now to all those organisations and to our constituents that their concerns are being taken seriously and listened to, I will push new clause 12 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Agriculture Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 15th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 26, page 20, line 36, at end insert—

‘( ) Regulations under this section containing provision that extends to Scotland may be made only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.”

This amendment would require that the power to make regulations extending to Scotland can only be exercised with the consent of Scottish Ministers.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 119, in clause 26, page 20, line 36, at end insert—

“(1A) Regulations under this section containing provisions extending to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland that would ordinarily be within the competence of Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland and exercised by Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland may be made only with the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, as appropriate.

(1B) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made by the Secretary of State under—

(a) section 35 or 58 of the Scotland Act 1998 (as amended),

(b) section 82 or 114 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (as amended), or

(c) section 25 or 26 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (as amended).”

In order to preserve the principle that agriculture is a devolved matter, this amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State may only make regulations to secure compliance by the UK with the WTO Agreement on Agriculture with the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.

Amendment 68, in clause 26, page 20, line 44, leave out from “support” to end of line 2 on page 21.

This amendment would remove the role of the Secretary of State as final arbiter in dispute resolution.

Amendment 69, in clause 26, page 21, line 26, leave out subsection (6).

This amendment would remove the requirement to provide information to the Secretary of State.

Amendment 96, in clause 26, page 22, line 2, at end insert—

“(8A) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this clause shall affect the devolution of any power under—

(a) the Wales Act 1998, the Wales Act 2014 or the Wales Act 2017,

(b) the Scotland Act 1998 or the Scotland Act 2016, or

(c) the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

Like previous amendments, amendment 67 is about tidying up the Bill to respect the devolution settlements. It is about allowing Scottish Ministers to exercise powers that are already within their purview. Amendment 68 would remove what I describe as the overseer powers of the Secretary of State in respect of devolved powers by taking away the role of final arbiter and encouraging instead an environment in which consensus and agreement become the norm, rather than a veto.

Similarly, amendment 69 would remove a provision in the Bill that gives the Secretary of State power over the devolved Administrations that is not necessary. Although I can predict that the Minister will argue that there is a need for information to be provided to demonstrate compliance with World Trade Organisation rules, I contend that his assumption is not correct. Again, we return to the issue of respect for the devolved Administrations and the desirability of finding consensus and moving forward together. Removing subsection (6) would facilitate that and remove the impression that the Secretary of State wants to gather power to himself, rather than seeking agreement.

I have sympathy with the amendments suggested by other Opposition Members and the way in which they are trying to secure the future of the devolved settlements. I urge the Minister to consider how he can best do the same.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are all glad to be back in our places in Committee. This has been a fairly momentous day so far.

I wish to speak to amendment 119, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower wishes to speak to amendment 96. I do not want to delay the Committee too much; I just want to make some observations. I concur with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith has just said, and she might want to look at our proposal, because it incorporates everything, including Wales and Northern Ireland.

The point about this line of amendments is one that we have discussed before. We are trying to make the point that, when carrying through the WTO arrangements, we have to ensure that we fully consult the different territorial Administrations—in this case, Scotland, but also Wales and Northern Ireland.

Let me explain why we have tabled amendment 119. As I have said before, I visited Northern Ireland and Ireland last week, and the situation is clear. I will not say that completely different agricultural systems are evolving, but there is some difference between them. We have to recognise that. It will be something that we need to be aware of whenever we talk to the WTO if and when we leave the European Union—it will be interesting to hear whether the Minister has something to say on that, because clearly it is not a given.

We will have to apply to the WTO. Currently, we are part of the EU, so we will have to apply to the WTO in our own right. That will involve making sure that all four territorial Administrations are included in whatever appeal we make to the WTO, so in amendment 119 we are paying due regard to the devolution settlements. The situation is made more difficult, as I have said before, because there is no Administration in Belfast. We have to rely on the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to take the appropriate measures on the say-so of the UK Government, but not necessarily to be completely dictated to by the UK Government.

I hope that the Minister can allay our fears that this will be a bit of a dictatorial measure if it is not amended. That is why we have tabled amendment 119. If the devolution settlements mean what they should—of course, agriculture, in this case, is a devolved matter—we have to be clear, however we subsequently work towards our own independent application to the WTO, that agriculture, which is a crucial part of any WTO arrangement, is included.

The WTO agreement is quite interesting. I hope that if I say a few things about it now, we will not have to do so again when debating clause stand part. Agriculture and horticulture are crucial parts of the WTO agreement. That means that we need to take cognisance of this, as clause 26 does, but in a way that gives due regard to the different territorial Administrations, as these amendments do.

The whole point of the WTO is to shut down agricultural loopholes,

“by binding and reducing tariffs, removing import bans or restrictions, and cutting subsidies that distort trade, both in domestic markets and on exports. As such, ‘Country Schedules’ of market access and national treatment commitments for products form an important legally binding component of WTO Membership.”

That is the specificity of the WTO agreement regarding agriculture. I could say more about how it affects agricultural trade, how it shapes agriculture policy, what the future direction of travel is and what it means for the United Kingdom, but I want to concentrate on the post-Brexit situation when we will be making this application. That is why these amendments are important. We have to ensure that all four countries are on the same page when we make that application. One of the underlying principles of the WTO is that members must not discriminate against one another. One would think that that immediately comes between the United Kingdom and other parties, but it would not be very helpful if we had discrimination within the United Kingdom, so it is quite important that we understand this in terms of the whole arrangement.

I raise that because the Minister rightly brought forward—at quite a late stage—the English votes for English laws arrangements, which lay down where the Bill affects England specifically. It is a pretty arcane document, which the Minister may wish to speak about. I will not spend hours trying to explain what the different bits mean, because I am not sure that I understand what the different bits mean. As we have tried to argue, however, this Bill has a major impact on England, much more than on the other Administrations. Wales is following England in due course. Scotland does not have a schedule. From my intimation, Northern Ireland is doing its own thing at the moment and will do so until it gets an Administration. That matters because we have to be sure that on the one hand England is not adversely affected by what is happening elsewhere, because that would look strange when we make the application to the WTO, and on the other hand that the other Administrations know that they must not discriminate against England, and they must be included in any negotiations, consultations and discussions on how we move this particular clause forward.

This clause is important. It is a part of the Bill that looks forward. It is not something we have done before, because the WTO did not exist when we entered the then European Community—the Common Market. This is a very different set of circumstances. I ask the Minister to allay some of our fears. First, will there be proper consultation, including with all the different Administrations, or with the appropriate actors if there is not an Administration, as in the case of Belfast? Secondly, to do a wee bit of pleading on behalf of England, will he make sure that England does not make all the ground running, or all the sacrifices, because we have not sorted out our own arrangements within the four countries?

The worst possible thing would be if the WTO sits on the application, leaving us in limbo land. None of us can pre-empt what will happen when we make that application. It may go through like night follows day, or it may be quite a difficult operation. Today is particularly apposite in regard to that, because we have a Bill, a discussion or a deal—whatever Members want to call it; I am not sure what form it will take when we get to the meaningful vote—that has really brought home to some Opposition Members, if not Government Members, how we have to nail this down carefully.

I hope that the Minister listens and understands why we feel so strongly about this, and why we need to get this right. I hope that he looks at these amendments—particularly amendment 119, in my name and that of other hon. Friends—because otherwise we could open up a very difficult scenario when we make that application.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Given that it is a reserved competence, it is right that the Secretary of State should be the final arbiter, because somebody has to be. We do not have a federal system; we have a devolution settlement. It is different from a federal system of government and we have deliberately stopped short of a federal model with qualified majority voting.

[Deidre Brock]

The Minister talks about this being reserved, but we are quite clear that, as this concerns the implementation of international obligations, it is devolved and should be treated as such. I also remind the Minister that agriculture is considered to be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament because it is not a reserved matter under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. How does he address that and—I am sorry that this is rather a long intervention—the concerns of the National Farmers Union of Scotland that a future UK Secretary of State with these powers could have

“the ability to set limits on the amount of domestic support which could be targeted at specific measures that Scottish Ministers may seek to apply in Scotland to meet their objectives”?

[George Eustice]

Agriculture is devolved; we do not dispute that. That is why there are schedules for some parts of the UK that have asked us to do that, and it is open to other devolved Administrations, including Scotland, to bring forward their own domestic legislation on agriculture. However, demonstrating compliance with an international obligation through the WTO is a reserved matter. We do not dispute at all that agriculture is devolved—that premise runs right through the core of this Bill—but this is about demonstrating compliance with an international obligation.

Turning to the point that the hon. Member for East Lothian made about whether we could have a better way, as I said, we do not have a federal model. This system is one that we use a lot, through things such as the joint ministerial committees. Next month, hopefully, I will go the December council to discuss fisheries. When I do that, Ministers from all the devolved Administrations will join me in the trilateral with the EU presidency and the Commission. We work through our differences and work together on particular issues, but in the final analysis if there is a dispute about a priority or we have to make a judgment call about whether to support a final agreement, it is for the UK to make that final decision. That is right because it is an international negotiation.

Amendment 119 would make a similar provision on defending the devolved settlement. As I said, we are clear that the powers we outline in clause 26(1) are fully reserved—they do not encroach on any of the devolution settlement at all. Therefore, there is no need to restate some of these matters.

The hon. Member for Stroud asked what will happen when we lay our WTO schedule. We have already laid our proposals for that. We have been in a long discussion with the European Union. The plan is to split the WTO schedule both on tariff rate quotas and on the aggregate measurement of support—the so-called amber box. It has already been decided that it will be split using a method based on historical use or an appropriate allocation of the size of our agriculture. That schedule has already been logged with the WTO in draft form. We are currently going through what are called article 28 discussions with some countries about certain issues they have raised. The process is clear: the amber box—the AMS schedule—is split and, as I said, we get around £3.5 billion of that. We are already going through the process of laying that, with the agreement of the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

Is the Minister saying that voluntary coupled support schemes, which only Scotland takes up the option of implementing, count not as amber box subsidies but as blue box subsidies?

[George Eustice]

That is correct, yes. There is a bit of a misconception there.

--- Later in debate ---

That important issue has been highlighted several times in the debate, but I hope I have reassured the Committee that it is tightly prescribed around a reserved matter. I hope the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith will withdraw her amendment on that basis.

[Deidre Brock]

I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but I will press the amendment to a vote. We feel strongly that the matter requires the Scottish Parliament’s consent. It concerns the implementation of international obligations that are devolved. Ultimately, the Minister has described a situation where there is not agreement, but an imposition of the Secretary of State’s views whenever there is a dispute—and with the best will in the world, such things happen. I would like to see a mature approach, which is how the Scottish Trade Minister described the Canadian solution for its trade dealings with its territories and provinces yesterday in the Scottish Affairs Committee. That is what we should strive for, rather than looking to change a system.

Clause 26 contains provisions that affect the Executive confidence of Scottish Ministers as regards the exercise of functions concerning agricultural support in Scotland. We acknowledge that for some elements of the WTO obligations, decisions need to be taken for the whole UK, but that does not suddenly convert this into a reserved policy area, which is what I think the clause does. Establishing the UK-wide arrangements for allocating the financial ceilings under the WTO agreement concerns devolved matters and certainly requires the Scottish Parliament’s consent. I repeat that, although such decisions could be taken on a UK-wide basis, that should be done only on the basis of consent, as per the allocation of competences implicit in the Scotland Act 1998. I will press the amendment to a vote.

[Dr Drew]

We will support the amendment, but we would also like to press amendment 119 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Drew]

I thank the Minister for that; that is very useful. It is just a strange world if we have already had a complaint before we have joined. They are getting their retaliation in first. These issues matter. Sheep will be an important variable if we leave the EU the way we could do, because we would be subject to the end of New Zealand’s quota arrangement. Australia, in particular, will want to send a lot more sheep into this country, because it thinks it can do it cheaper and better. That has a huge implication for Wales and Northern Ireland, although perhaps less so for Scotland. These issues matter, and we need to know what the full implications are.

I do not have anything more to add, other than—dare I say it?—caveat emptor. We need to be aware that what is potentially coming is quite complicated, and that we have got to keep lots of balls in the air, particularly for the devolved Administrations, which could lose out if we are not careful in how we draft the completed application to the WTO.

[Deidre Brock]

We are not happy with the clause. It gives the Secretary of State powers over the devolved Administrations that are not necessary or appropriate. It allows him to be the final arbiter in future disputes about the nature of domestic support. As I have said before, this is about respect for the devolved Administrations, which I find sadly lacking in this clause. I urge the Minister to revisit it, and we will be re-examining it on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Wales

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I begin by paying tribute to the officials in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, which has some talented people working on its agriculture team. No one doubts that they face a difficult challenge. With all the changes we are going through as a country, they do not have an elected, political Administration in place. They are very conscious of that and, for that reason, they have been cautious in the powers they seek under this schedule.

It is also important to note that DAERA has not just sat back and decided that it can do nothing. In fact, DAERA produced the first report from any UK Administration setting out their broad thoughts on future policy. That report was drafted by stakeholders, bringing together the farming industry and others. DAERA shared a document with us that reflected the views that came from the farming industry, environmental non-governmental organisations and others about what the future direction might be. Even in the absence of that political Administration, it fed into this process with a paper that set out the views of stakeholders, to ensure that the interests of Northern Ireland farmers and agriculture were not overlooked.

Amendment 37 will ensure that DAERA is able to set ceilings to continue to make basic payment scheme payments after 2020. It is important to recognise how it has approached this. DAERA asked us to give it the powers to continue to make the basic payment scheme and existing legacy pillar 2 schemes and to take a power to modify those. It has not decided how it might use that power to modify, but if a new Administration came in who wanted to modify that, it has been clear that that future Administration should have that power. Crucially, it was clear that DAERA did not feel it appropriate for an unelected Administration and officials trying to steady the ship during this challenging period to take the powers outlined in clause 1, because those powers are clear about a direction of travel and a switch to a payment for public goods, rather than the existing direct payment scheme. Therefore, it thought it would be inappropriate to take such a power without there being an elected Administration.

It is equally important to note that DAERA chose not to take the powers to have a transition period and phase out direct payments, for the reasonable reason that that would be a political decision that a future Administration must take. Its job, as a DAERA administration without a political Administration, is to ensure that it can provide continuity and that whatever is done is future-proofed, so that a future Administration may take over.

In essence, DAERA intends to carry on with the scheme that we have now and not make any changes at all, and to await a future political Administration, who may then take decisions about the future direction of Northern Ireland policy. I believe that officials in DAERA behaved impeccably to protect the interests of Northern Ireland farmers, to ensure that they continue to make payments, that officials have the power to set ceilings and also to future-proof the policy, so that there are some initial powers to assist.

[Deidre Brock]

I am curious about how the accounts for Northern Ireland agricultural funding are signed off in the absence of Ministers. Is that included in the schedule or an aspect of it? What sort of public accountability will there be?

[George Eustice]

We already have an organisation called the UK co-ordinating body, which is hosted by the Rural Payments Agency and works in collaboration with all the devolved Administrations on auditing and accounting issues under those EU schemes. We envisage that a body such as that would continue anyway, but there are already established principles in place within the UK civil service. It is important to recognise that, while we have different devolved Administrations, we have one civil service for the entire UK; civil servants working in the Scottish Government are as likely to get a transfer to work in a Whitehall Department as anywhere else. We have a single civil service, which is important to give some cohesion to our system.

I conclude by saying that this is an important schedule to include. In my view, DAERA has taken the correct approach of ensuring that it can continue to make payments to its farmers, while putting some powers in place for a future Administration. The answer to the shadow Minister’s question is that, when there is another Administration, if they have bolder ambitions to change and transform their policy in the way we have outlined in clause 1 and that Wales has chosen to adopt on an interim basis, it will be open to them to introduce legislation through the Northern Ireland Assembly to give effect to their specific proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

I rise to speak to clause 34 and new clause 6. The Radcliffe report recommended changes to the red meat levy in 2005, and successive UK Governments really should hang their heads in shame at its taking 13 years to get to the stage where the matter is finally being addressed. To be more exact, the preparation for putting in place a scheme for addressing the red meat levy is happening at last. I understand that discussions between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Scottish Government continued right up to the wire, so I am very pleased that DEFRA Ministers have given ground on this. I congratulate them on their very good sense in listening to Scotland.

The pressure for this change came from farmers, whose levy moneys were not being spent to their benefit, and from the promotion boards, whose jobs were made harder by those funds not being properly distributed—a couple of million pounds a year taken from both Scotland and Wales. Quality Meat Scotland and NFUS, as well as their counterparts in Wales, deserve credit for their long-running campaigns to rectify this anomaly. Frankly, politicians should be ashamed that it has taken so long.

With that said, I welcome the Minister’s agreement to the amendment. Discussions between his Department and Scottish Government Departments might not always have been easy, but they have brought an agreement that we can all live with. I will withdraw my amendment—to give this one a clear path—if I can get a couple of reassurances from the Minister.

First, can we be assured that timescales will be specified to give certainty to the levy boards? Time lags clearly would be a difficulty for the boards, and regular, consistent income streams would be more beneficial to allow their work to carry on as it should, and also to allow forward planning to be conducted properly. Can we also have an assurance that the scheme will be reviewed on a regular basis, such as every five years or so, to ensure that it is operating properly? If I can have those assurances from the Minister, then he and I are on the same page—at least on this—and we agree on the way forward.

I welcome this change to the operation of the red meat levy and the Minister’s willingness to listen to the voices from Scotland and Wales that have been calling for it. That work with the Scottish Government is an example that one hopes the rest of the Departments in Whitehall can follow.

[Colin Clark]

I rise simply to thank the Minister for supporting the amendment and to echo the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith—this has been called for for quite some time, and it is good that just over £1.5 million will be spent on promoting Scotland. We have to remember that the vast majority of red meat is exported south of the border, and we are very grateful that the promotion will continue for the entire country.

Agriculture Bill (Tenth sitting)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

Producer and interbranch organisations etc: application for recognition

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 22, page 16, line 30, leave out “to the Secretary of State”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 59.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 57, in clause 22, page 17, line 5, leave out “to the Secretary of State”.

Amendment 58, in clause 22, page 17, line 13, leave out “to the Secretary of State”.

Amendment 59, in clause 22, page 17, line 31, at end insert—

‘( ) An application under subsection (1), (3) or (5) is to be made to and determined by—

(a) the appropriate authority for the part of the United Kingdom in which the applicant has its registered office or principal place of business, or

(b) where the applicant is made up of producers, producer organisations or, as the case may be, businesses operating in more than one part of the United Kingdom, the appropriate authority for any of those parts.”

This amendment would require organisations of agricultural producers, associations of recognised producer organisations, and organisations of agricultural businesses to apply for recognition to the appropriate authority in the country of the UK where the applicant is principally based.

Amendment 60, in clause 22, page 17, line 38, leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert

“The appropriate authority to which an application is made under this section”.

Amendment 61, in clause 22, page 18, line 5, at end insert—

““appropriate authority” means—

(a) in relation to England, Wales or Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State,

(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;”.

Amendment 62, in clause 23, page 18, line 30, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert “an appropriate authority (within the meaning given in section 22(11))”.

This amendment would require the delegation of functions to require permission from the appropriate authority (as set out in amendment 61).

Amendment 63, in clause 24, page 18, line 37, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert “an appropriate authority (within the meaning given in section 22(11))”.

This amendment would allow regulations to give the power to delegate functions to an appropriate authority (as set out in amendment 61)

Amendment 64, in clause 24, page 19, line 5, at end insert—

‘( ) Regulations under section 22 or 23 containing provision that extends to Scotland may be made only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.”

This amendment would ensure that regulations under section 22 or 23 containing provision that extend to Scotland may be made only with the consent of Scottish Ministers.

New clause 5—Quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs—

‘(1) Subsection (2) applies to any function of the Secretary of State under—

(a) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (“the EU Regulation”),

(b) the delegated and implementing Regulations,

(c) any regulations made by the Secretary of State under the EU Regulation, and

(d) any regulations made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 relating to the enforcement of the EU Regulation or the delegated and implementing Regulations.

(2) The Secretary of State may exercise the function only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.

(3) In subsection (1), the “delegated and implementing Regulations” means—

(a) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 supplementing the EU Regulation with regard to the establishment of Union symbols for protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed and with regard to certain rules on sourcing, certain procedural rules and certain additional transitional rules,

(b) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2014 supplementing the EU Regulation with regard to conditions of use of the quality term “mountain product”, and

(c) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 laying down rules for the application of the EU Regulation.

(4) The references in subsection (1) to the EU Regulation and the delegated and implementing Regulations are to those instruments—

(a) as they have effect in domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and

(b) as amended from time to time whether by virtue of that Act or otherwise.”

This clause relates to the replacement of current EU Geographical Indicators in future UK legislation. It requires that the exercise of relevant functions conferred on the Secretary of State in this area including in relation to its enforcement, should be subject to the consent of Scottish Ministers.

[Deidre Brock]

I still consider the lack of focus on food production a fundamental flaw of the Bill. It is a serious omission at a time when food security has become a major concern. Farmers already have a very clear interest in protecting the environment, and the sensible approach to supporting those endeavours would surely be along the lines of the work that the Soil Association is already doing in Scotland with the support of the Scottish Government: education and exampling to encourage more productive but environmentally friendly farming. I urge hon. Members to look at Future Farming Scotland, Farming with Nature and the Rural Innovation Support Service—three excellent programmes from the Soil Association to improve farming in Scotland that are far more effective than asking farmers to fill in more forms to show environmental progress.

It would be easier for larger enterprises to do that form-filling and comply with the rules for gaining that cash than it would be for small farms, and potentially easier for grouse moors and stalking estates to access funding than for small family-run farms producing foods for local markets. That offsets any possible benefits of so-called public goods. As food miles grow, the environmental benefits surely diminish, and, similarly, as the air miles and road miles of shooting enthusiasts grow, any environmental benefit from proper management of shooting estates and grouse moors vanishes, and perhaps even turns negative.

[Mr Goodwill]

I represent a very large moorland area on the north Yorkshire moors. Does the hon. Lady not agree that the management by keepers and shooting estates maintains the delicate environment for the benefit not only of the sheep and grouse that graze, but of the people who enjoy those areas?

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

Management is certainly an important aspect, but as the air and road miles of shooting enthusiasts increase, so the environmental benefit of the proper management of shooting estates and grouse moors vanishes and can even turn negative.

I would argue that smaller enterprises providing produce for local consumption start from a more environmentally friendly base, and it makes sense to encourage them rather than larger interests. With respect to the Bill and agriculture in general, we in the Scottish National party see farms and land management as vital to rural communities, as well as being primary producers—that is especially true of crofters. The community cohesion function becomes even more important as communities become more remote. Hon. Members from across some areas of England and Wales will of course have examples to offer, but Scotland is a very different place, particularly when one heads into the Highlands, into the far north, or on to the islands, where farming is by no means an easy living and where there is a different culture and calendar to farming, and markedly different outcomes. Scotland is different and requires a different framework in which to operate.

I quote the evidence given by the National Farmers Union Scotland to the Scottish Affairs Committee recently. It said that

“significant elements of the Agriculture Bill are clearly about policy and policy delivery in England, and they would give us significant cause for concern if they were to be applied in Scotland. Quite simply, Scotland’s agricultural landscape is very different from that of England and much of the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why we must have agricultural policy delivered in a devolved capacity. There is clearly a trajectory within DEFRA England’s policy thinking that it wants to phase out direct support payments over a seven-year period and replace them with a public support for public goods approach, and that is clear within the Bill. Now, if you took that very distinct and very clear ‘first and fast’ approach in Scotland….that would be extremely detrimental, in many senses, to huge tracts of Scottish agriculture.”

[Simon Hoare]

The unique beauty of Scotland is clear for everybody to see and a precious resource within the United Kingdom, but I fail to understand how the hon. Lady can argue that that uniqueness means that Scotland needs bespoke policies and devolution, while, at the same time, her party wishes to adhere to the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy by remaining a part of the European Union, given that there is no opportunity for bespoke policies within the EU.

[Deidre Brock]

All four Administrations of the UK take very different approaches to CAP implementation, and there has been no impact on, say, the internal market as a result. I would have thought the hon. Member would be clear on the SNP’s policy regarding the CFP. It is not our proposal to continue with the CFP as it is. We have long called for its reform. That is on the record and has been the case for years. The damage to Scotland would be immense, because 85% of Scotland’s farmland is less favoured area land. Scotland needs a different framework from England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Whitfield]

Just for clarity, NFU Scotland has indicated it feels there is a lot of politicking going on between the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government over the Bill.

[Deidre Brock]

There are significant areas of dispute between the two Governments; it is not politicking. We are hearing from NFU Scotland that there are issues it would like to see pursued by both Governments—I am quite prepared to acknowledge that it is both Governments—and I will be raising some of those points later.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady’s description of Scotland could have been mistaken for a description of Wales—only Wales is a bit more beautiful perhaps. Is it not important for Scotland to align itself with Wales and support the Bill?

[Deidre Brock]

It has been said before that Wales has a different approach to the Bill. Of course, it is up to the Welsh Labour Government to choose to have a schedule inserted, but Wales voted to leave, and that puts a different spin on the Welsh Government’s approach.

[Colin Clark]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, but she spoke about evidence from NFU Scotland, and its evidence is that it wants to see Scotland involved in the Bill. It says the engine is running and that it wants to get on board. In its position statement the other day, it said it would like to see Scotland involved in new clause 3, which we have already debated. Does she not agree that NFU Scotland has been absolutely clear that it would appreciate the Scottish Government either getting on board with the Bill or legislating in Holyrood? It has clearly said the engine is running on the Bill. Does she agree that the Scottish Government should get on board?

[Deidre Brock]

No, I do not in this instance. The hon. Gentleman is one of those who tried to table an amendment to schedule 3 last week. That demonstrates the vulnerability of inserting a schedule into the Bill. It would potentially allow a Member who is not even a member of the Government to alter something and control the Welsh Government’s ability to make payments to whoever they wish under that schedule. It is quite amusing, therefore, that he makes that contribution.

[Jenny Chapman]

I am trying to understand this. As I understand it, the Welsh Government put forward a schedule that one could call a power grab—they have helped themselves to some quite nice powers here—and the Government accepted it. I cannot see any attempt to amend the schedule getting anywhere, so I am not sure what lies behind the hon. Lady’s reluctance to submit a schedule.

[Deidre Brock]

We do not need a schedule inserted into the Bill. We do not need anyone to legislate for us on devolved matters. We have been producing our own legislation in such areas since 1999, when there was devolution to the Scottish Parliament. In terms of rushing into making legislation, I would have thought the hon. Lady would share my concerns about the views expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords on the Bill. It clearly demonstrates what happens when we rush into making legislation. The Scottish Government knows that it does not legally have to do it. They would much rather take their time, consult all the necessary organisations within the sector and arrive at stability and simplicity, which is of course the name of our document.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

My hon. Friend is making a very important point, which is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that the Welsh Government themselves have concerns about the schedule that they are trying to address, which they must do through this Committee, over which they have no direct control.

[Deidre Brock]

That is a perfect point and well illustrates my point, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.

I have already commented, in my reference to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, on the difficulties with thinking that a schedule to a Westminster Bill will protect devolved interests. The amendment I referred to came not from the Welsh Government or the UK Government, but from three Back-Bench MPs, so relying on a schedule for absolute protection is trusting to luck.

Although the Bill extends to Scotland in great part, it does little that would support Scottish agriculture. I will seek to amend and improve it where I can—much of it so far has been subject to the English votes for English laws process, meaning that I am unable to vote on it—but there is no amendment that will make it completely fit for purpose for Scotland. That will be a running issue in Scottish farming and for all the support mechanisms devolved to Holyrood. The flexibility of the EU support mechanisms gave some room for manoeuvre to allow support for Scotland’s farmers, but that is missing in the Bill, and I expect that Members representing parts of England are also a little concerned about that apparent rigidity. It will not come as any surprise that the Scottish National party would far rather all responsibility and power for managing Scottish agriculture rest in Scotland, but we are here and I will be looking to improve the Bill where I can. We will be back for the rest.

I turn to clause 22 and new clause 5 and amendments 56 to 64. The clause strays into devolved territory and could do with a bit of tidying up, just to save DEFRA Ministers having to deal with Scottish issues down the line, which would be tiresome for them. Amendments 56 to 64 would amend clause 22 to require that applications for recognition of producer organisations be made to the appropriate Administration. In other words, an organisation operating in Scotland would make its pitch to the Scottish Government, rather than leaving DEFRA to deal with it. That would save work for DEFRA officials and Ministers, but also has the virtue of respecting the devolution settlement.

[Simon Hoare]

This is a slightly philosophical point, which I think all members of the Committee, with the exception of the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Ceredigion, will get. It would be a travesty to suggest that Ministers of the Crown or indeed this Westminster Parliament would find dealing with anything in Scotland tiresome or a nuisance. We are unionist parties that believe in the strength of the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady can make her point, but we will not be flippant with her nationalism, and she should not be flippant with our unionism.

[The Chair]

Order. That is a debating point; it has nothing to do with the amendment before us.

[Deidre Brock]

Thank you, Sir Roger.

Passing the amendments would kill two birds with one stone, relieving UK Ministers of a burden and going some way to show that the devolution settlement can be respected in legislation passed here, which I would argue is a fairly important point.

Under new clause 5, protected geographical indicators would continue to have the input of Scottish Ministers. There is currently no provision in the Bill for PGIs, but they are vital for Scottish goods. In the evidence sessions on the Bill and in evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, on which I sit, we have heard time and again about the importance of PGIs, for a whole rack of goods, including those from various parts of England and Wales, and I think—I would have to double-check—Northern Ireland. A while back, a Minister suggested that PGIs could be bargained away to get a trade deal, which is a real worry for producers and exporters. The proposed new clause would ensure that Scottish Ministers get a say in any new scheme for PGIs, in order to protect Scotland’s unique place in the market.

While I am in full flow, I will address the Government’s amendments. I have concerns about amendments 9 and 11, in that they seem to dilute the purpose of a producer organisation and invite disparate entities to form one. That might also encroach on devolved areas, and I ask the Minister not to press it for those reasons.

[Martin Whitfield]

On that point—before we leave the question of recognised producer organisations—the Government’s wording certainly seems loose. Does the hon. Lady envisage a producer organisation that could cross the boundaries of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

[Deidre Brock]

That is certainly possible, and my proposal would allow for that possibility. Amendment 10 is odd; it is not clear why there should be no legal form defined for an entity in legislation. I hope the Minister can clarify.

[Dr Drew]

I will be brief because it is important to hear from the Minister. This is one of the real issues with the Bill. We have no schedule for Scotland; we do have a schedule for Northern Ireland, and I visited there last week to get some clarity on what they think it implies for Northern Ireland’s participation in the Act. Officials were clear that they see the schedule as a political decision-making requirement. As there is no Government in Belfast at the moment, they feel it inappropriate to support the Bill as it stands. They feel strongly that the current direct payment system will remain in place—they want their £300 million, by the way, Minister.

The Bill is very interesting, but, effectively, it is a Bill only for England and Wales. It is not a Bill for Scotland or Northern Ireland, yet these things are under the aegis of a Bill for the United Kingdom. It is a funny Bill, with two parts of the United Kingdom not participating in it.

Now, it might be a case of the officials misunderstanding. Clearly, we could move to direct rule, and the Government would then have to take decisions. I thought I had better check with the Democratic Unionist party spokesperson on agriculture. He reaffirmed that the DUP does not support the movement towards an environmental approach and it will, in due course, vote against it. The DUP believes that direct payment should stay in place as the only way for farmers in Northern Ireland to be secure. Having also visited the Republic, I am not sure that it will move, even though the CAP is up for redesign at the moment. There are indications that it will move towards environmental payments, but it is not there yet.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith’s point is interesting, to put it mildly. I am unclear where the Bill stands as a United Kingdom Bill. To me, it is very unclear. The devolution settlement means that, effectively, Scotland and Northern Ireland can do their own things, because agriculture is a devolved matter. If it were not a devolved matter, we would be discussing the agriculture policy of the United Kingdom. However, we cannot and we will not, and we might get a nasty shock when we come to final votes on the legislation.

There may be some interesting alliances, because I do not think we have understood the degree of the problem. I will make some more points on this when we reach schedule 4. I am laying down what I think is a very big dilemma. We have assumed that when this Bill becomes the Agriculture Act it will carry the four countries. I do not think it will. It will not carry Scotland, and it is increasingly evident that Northern Ireland will not be carried. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that. How does he intend to overcome that huge hurdle?

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

That is broadly what would happen, and it is quite possible that the Scottish Government, Northern Ireland Administration and Welsh Government will already sometimes be involved in giving advice or supporting individuals who want to bring forward those designations. However, the assessment and designation of them has to be done by the UK.

I hope that, having been given this clear explanation as to why clauses 22 and 23 are reserved, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith will accept that there has perhaps been a misunderstanding about the difference between the ability to award grants and the process of recognition for the purposes of an exemption from competition law, which is reserved, and will withdraw her amendment.

[Deidre Brock]

I am sorry to disappoint the Minister but I will be calling for a vote. We believe part 6 and clauses 22 to 24 in particular require the Scottish Parliament’s consent as they are for a devolved purpose, namely the promotion of an effective agricultural market. The fact that in order to do this it is necessary to exempt producer organisations from the Competition Act 1998 regime does not mean that the provisions relate to competition law. Their purpose is not to regulate anti-competitive agreements, which is the precise element that is reserved. I am afraid we have to disagree with the Minister on that.

I understand that new clause 5 will be voted on later, but I want to tackle one thing. I did not realise that some of these things will be discussed when we look at new clause 34 later.

[The Chair]

Clause 34.

[Deidre Brock]

Sorry, clause 34. I will leave the hon. Member for Darlington to speak to that. The hon. Member for East Lothian attempted to suggest, perhaps inadvertently, that the Scottish Government is relaxed about what happens to farmers in Scotland later on. The Scottish Government were the first in the UK to come out with a consultation paper “Stability and Simplicity” to provide some certainty for their farmers. We are very clear that things can continue as they are after 29 March and there is no need for the schedule in the Bill that some have called for.

[Martin Whitfield]

That is not what I was suggesting. I was merely pointing out that NFU Scotland feels that both Governments are politicking on the Bill.

[Deidre Brock]

Perhaps I misunderstood his intention, so I appreciate his correction. Sir Roger, I feel that the amendments in my name stand or fall together. If I pressed amendment 56 to a vote as the lead amendment, is it right that the rest of the amendments would follow that?

[The Chair]

The system is fairly clear. We deal with the lead amendment, which is amendment 56. It is up to the hon. Lady, in discussion with the Chair, whether she moves any of the other amendments. I advise her that if amendment 56 falls, most of the others will fall. However, I noticed while she was speaking that the hon. Member for Darlington indicated an interest in amendment 59. I am unclear whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith or anyone else wishes to move that amendment, but that is separate from the other sequence. Let us take the amendment that has been moved first, and perhaps the hon. Lady can have a quick think about what she would like to do after that. Does she wish to press amendment 56 to a vote?

[Deidre Brock]

Yes.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

I wish to speak to amendments 65 and 66.

[The Chair]

Order. May I say to all Members that, if you wish to be called, it helps if you make it very clear by rising?

[Deidre Brock]

Thank you, Sir Roger.

I am minded to support the other Opposition amendments in this group, barring amendment 111, mainly because I am not entirely clear what its purpose is and I am a bit concerned that it could encroach on devolved responsibilities. Amendment 65 seeks only to ensure that the devolution settlement is respected. It would ensure that Scottish Ministers are able to exercise their powers under the devolution settlement. Agriculture is devolved, as the Secretary of State said in his most recent letter to the Scottish Government, and that should be respected.

Amendment 66 would ensure that those who are directly affected by the regulations are consulted. The Minister has made clear his liking for consultations and has said how much he values the input of those affected, so I am sure he will welcome the chance to put that into the Bill.

[George Eustice]

I shall begin by touching on amendment 48. Since the shadow Minister has not sought to remake an argument we have had many times, I will refrain from quoting from the Agriculture Act 1947 on this occasion.

I turn to the more substantive collection of amendments—93, 94 and 95—which seek to broaden the measure and to remove the requirement for it to apply to the first purchaser of agricultural produce. I understand the shadow Minister’s point, but I want to explain why we have adopted this approach. As he is aware, the Groceries Code Adjudicator enforces the groceries code for the 10 largest supermarkets—those with the largest turnover—and is funded by a levy on those retailers. It has been successful because it is focused on the key task of improving the relationship between the very sizeable retailers and their suppliers, which are often far smaller.

However, for a couple of years now people have raised concerns about the fact that some farmers do not directly supply the supermarkets. Indeed, although in sectors such as fruit and veg it is quite common for an individual farmer or grower to supply a supermarket, in other sectors—notably beef, lamb and dairy—farmers supply processors and abattoirs instead; they do not supply their produce directly to the supermarket. The point has been made that they do not benefit from the protection of the groceries code and the Groceries Code Adjudicator.

Anecdotally, there are sometimes problems with processors finding it easier to pass costs and breaches of the code on to the farmers than to have a difficult conversation with the retailer and tell it that it is in breach of the code, or to report it to the Groceries Code Adjudicator. For that reason, we said, “Let’s also address the problem at the other end of the scale.” The problem we are trying to address in the Agriculture Bill is that primary producers—farmers—are price takers and are often not sure what they will be paid until their animal has gone through the slaughter line. They can then end up with all sorts of costs that they did not expect and penalties that they could not have predicted. We therefore tried to address that unfairness by keeping the focus of these provisions on the first purchasers.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I feel that this will be one of those unexpected issues that returns on Report. I will undertake in the meantime to talk to my ministerial colleagues responsible for the forestry industry.

Amendment 65 is a similar provision to that which we discussed in an earlier debate on producer organisations. It seeks to ensure that we could make measures in that area only with the consent of Scottish Ministers. We have adopted that approach because it is a competition matter that deals with the ability to have contractual changes linked directly to competition law—that is why it is a reserved matter. We are not doing anything new in that regard. The current Groceries Code Adjudicator is a UK-wide body; it operates UK-wide and the legislation that underpins it is UK-wide. The EU milk package is an example of a contractual fair-dealing provision under EU law. It applies UK-wide and can only be switched on and implemented on a UK basis. It is therefore a well-established fact that such issues, which pertain directly to competition law, are a reserved matter to be handled by the UK Government. That is why we do not accept that the provisions are necessary or acceptable.

[Deidre Brock]

I thank the Minister for his explanation but the Scottish Government do not agree with his interpretation of that; nor do I. We think that it requires the Scottish Parliament’s consent because it is for devolved purposes, namely the regulation of unfair contractual terms in commercial contracts by agricultural producers in Scotland. It does not relate to the competition law reservation, which is specifically directed at the regulation of anti-competitive agreements.

[George Eustice]

Although it might do so in a different way, it relates to competition law and is not an exemption from the chapter 1 requirements that we discussed earlier. The hon. Lady has not complained about the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which is administered on a UK basis and operates UK-wide; nor has she raised huge concerns about the way that the EU has always approached those matters, which is that they are a UK-wide competency and that switching on elements of the milk package is a UK decision and can be done only on a UK-wide basis. I hope that I have addressed the issues raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith about the role of Scotland in this reserved matter, and reassured the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bristol East that their amendments are unnecessary since they are provided for in part 2 of schedule 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We move on to amendment 86.

[Deidre Brock]

I wish to speak to amendments 65 and 66.

[The Chair]

We have finished that section. I am terribly sorry. The hon. Lady has to be on the ball.

[Deidre Brock]

Forgive me. I rose earlier, so I thought that I would be called.

[The Chair]

No. I am sorry. We have taken the vote on the lead amendment. Well, to be more exact, we have taken a vote on another amendment.

[Dr Drew]

We will revisit it. The hon. Lady need not worry.

[Deidre Brock]

Can we revisit it?

[The Chair]

You can.

Agriculture Bill (Eighth sitting)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Jenny Chapman]

I didn’t catch what the hon. Gentleman said. [Laughter.]

I understand that Ministers will want, as the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire said, the ease to get on with things and not have to bother with troublesome MPs, and subject themselves to hours and hours of process. However, sometimes Parliament needs to say to Ministers, “Sorry, but in the kind of democracy that we have we can’t allow you to proceed in a way that does not allow parliamentary scrutiny.” Some people get very anxious about the overuse of delegated legislation. I used to feel that they were sometimes over-fixating on it, but having looked at the Bill more closely and gone through the withdrawal Act process, I am becoming one of those people who is inclined to worry about the extent to which Ministers are gathering up powers, and how they could be used in future.

This is not just about the current Secretary of State and Minister; it is about the future. I do not think that whether people are urban or not is the point. Governments will have competing priorities in the future, and they will not be the same ones that we have now, but I want to ensure that farming and agriculture are properly supported in a stable way that allows for certainty, long-term planning, greater food security and all the good things that we have discussed.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I am interested in what the hon. Lady is saying about the affirmative procedure. I wonder whether she thinks that in at least some cases the super-affirmative procedure would be appropriate.

[Jenny Chapman]

We need to have a procedure that is appropriate for what we are trying to do. I think the best procedure on this issue would be to put something in the Bill—I do not know how much more super-affirmative we can get than that. We want to see what Ministers will do with the powers. That is all we are asking for. At the moment, the Government are asking us to take a leap of faith, and we are not prepared to do that.

We were told during the passage of the withdrawal Act that statutory instruments will not be used to make policy, but I would argue that that is exactly what they are being used to do in the Bill. Joelle Grogan from the London School of Economics puts it quite well. She said that delegated powers should not be used for policy-making, and that the former Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), during the withdrawal Act process, explicitly mentioned in the foreword to his White Paper that they will not be used as

“a vehicle for policy changes—but…will give the Government the necessary power to correct or remove the laws that would otherwise not function properly once we have left the EU.”

The measures in the Bill clearly exceed that commitment, which was made by the former Secretary of State as we considered the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. This is serious. We did not really believe that assurance—I think we have been proved right—and I am not inclined to believe the assurances being given now either. Parliament needs to hold the Government to account much better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Drew]

That is absolutely true, but I am not sure that that helps me.

[Deidre Brock]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the fact that different schemes already operate across the UK in the different jurisdictions, so I am sure that dealing with this is not beyond the wit of man or woman. I am assured by the Minister’s reference to administrative agreements. I am sure that something could be found along those lines to help to sort out the whole issue.

[Dr Drew]

I am now assured, I think.