Agriculture Bill (Seventh sitting)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[George Eustice]

Yes, that is correct. We may be straying into an issue that I will explain in more detail later under Government new clause 3. Although the basic payment scheme regulations come across through retained EU law, there is a natural sunset clause on the financial ceiling—the payment powers underneath it. Unless an amendment is put down to extend the financial ceiling, that power falls away. That is not addressed in the EU (Withdrawal) Act. At the very least, a single clause is needed to create a financial ceiling beyond 2020.

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

The Minister will accept that Scotland Ministers and Scottish Government officials dispute that fact and say that there is no problem at all with making payments after those dates, and that that will not be affected by this Bill.

[George Eustice]

That is what the Minister said. I am not sure that that position is shared by Scottish Government officials. It is a recognition that yes, they could bring forward some primary legislation, but they would need something. It could be quite a simple clause along the lines of what we will propose later, but they would need something in order to have the power to make payments.

We have strayed slightly from the purpose of the amendment, as is often the case when we discuss such issues. In conclusion, I want to reassure the hon. Member for Stroud that we shall seek to use the powers in a proportionate way, as we are legally bound to anyway under the Data Protection Act 2018. On that basis, I hope he withdraws the amendment.

Agriculture Bill (Sixth sitting)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Davies]

Bringing my thoughts to a conclusion, I reiterate that these are probing amendments, and I am sure the Minister will take them on board.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wilson. I am pleased that this is a probing amendment because it is a good example of why the schedules relating to the devolved Administrations do not protect or guarantee respect for the devolved settlements. If accepted, it would surely restrict who the Welsh Government can pay out to. That point was ably made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion. It is a proposed imposition on the devolved Administrations that would restrict how they can spend their money. It does not even come from the Government; it comes from a group of—without being rude about it—random MPs.

[Jenny Chapman]

I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but my impression, having raised this matter with the Welsh Government, is that they agreed to schedule 3.

[Deidre Brock]

But I am discussing the amendment.

[Jenny Chapman]

The hon. Lady is referring to the schedule. It has not come from the Government; it has come from the Welsh Assembly.

[Deidre Brock]

Forgive me, but I am speaking about amendment 90, which makes it clear that it would impose financial restrictions on the schedule. I am objecting to it because, from the Scottish Government’s point of view, that is not desirable.

I note that paragraph (b) would allow payments to be made to landlords and others who have an interest in the land but do not actually produce anything, rather than farmers. That is certainly a concern. I feel strongly that these kinds of decisions should be made by the Ministers setting up the scheme, rather than by people in this room.

[George Eustice]

I will take each amendment in turn. I am delighted that the shadow Minister described amendment 52 as a probing amendment. I will explain why the Government have chosen not to take that approach for England. He asked what Wales did to get this. I can clear up the mystery: there is no mystery. This is a fully devolved matter. The Welsh Government have the power and ability, if they want, to introduce their own Bill. They have taken, in my view, the very sensible decision to say that, for the time being, they want to make sure they have legal clarity, so they wanted a schedule that effectively mirrored the Bill for England. At a later date, they will consider additional primary legislation. The clause is in the Bill not because they won an argument; it is simply because they asked for that additional clause.

Agriculture Bill (Fourth sitting)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Q This is a skeleton Bill, and I am getting a very strong impression that an awful lot of people are reading into the Bill what they would like to see, without it actually being there. You have talked a lot about the sustainable production of healthy food; however, the most operable parts of the Bill are subsections (1) and (2) of clause 1, and there is no mention at all of the production of food in either. Because this is an enabling Bill, it says:

“The Secretary of State may give financial assistance”,

so we do not know whether he will decide to give financial assistance to any or all of these things, but we do know that it does not say that he may give any financial assistance to the production of healthy food in a sustainable way. Is that something that you would like to see in the Bill?

Professor Marsden: That is why I tabled my amendment for a longer first clause that integrates those things so that it interlocks them. The point is not that it is the environment over and above agriculture, farming or food, but all three. This Agriculture Bill should be projecting the integration of those three priorities because they are all priorities and they are all interlinked—you cannot really have one without the other. That is the critical point, from which the rest of the Bill could be much more specified in duties and so on. It is the principal thing that needs to be right at the start. I think that it is important that the Bill gives the vision.

This is a 1947 moment; I was not around then—not many of us were— but we have all read about what happened. This is a clean sheet in terms of taking back control and delivering a much more self-sufficient, sustainable food system for the UK as a whole. So take the opportunity—that is my advice.

Professor Millstone: I certainly agree that the Bill addresses certain aspects of farming, but clearly the National Farmers Union thinks that there are rather important aspects that are not mentioned. As my colleague Professor Marsden says, it is almost completely in abstraction from food, which there is nothing about.

May I please briefly go back to David Drew’s question about institutions and pick up on Vicki’s point about education and training and Terry’s about the need for transformation? Previously, we had the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, which performed two important functions. First, it disseminated information and knowledge about innovations and new products and processes to farmers. But it also performed a second function, which was gathering information from farmers about the problems to which they would like solutions that the research and development on innovations could provide. When ADAS was abolished, it was essentially replaced by a commercial marketing and sales system, and that second function disappeared in the UK. It remains present in Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria and many other countries, which accounts for why their agriculture is both more productive and more sustainable than UK agriculture. There is scope for important institutional development in that regard.

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

Q It has been suggested to me that the switch from support for food production to support for public goods might make subsidies easier to claim for landowners who manage things such as grouse moors and shooting estates, rather than for farmers with small plots of land. Would you consider that an environmental gain, and, in that case, would the reductions in food production be worth it?

Vicki Hird: We do not have a position on that—it would be hard for me to say whether we would advocate for grouse moors. I understand that clauses on active farmers, food producers and those gaining financial reward from production of goods from the land are being mooted. I think that would restrict the Bill somewhat and make it very inflexible in supporting systems that can do both in a very extensive way. I am not necessarily talking about grouse moors here; I suppose I am thinking more about extensive livestock in a system that has other huge benefits in carbon capture or tourism. If land is producing not a huge amount of food but a bit of food, and the Bill restricts that, that would not necessarily be a good thing.

The important distinction is that we would not be advocating payments purely for being a farmer on an acre basis. In answer to Sandy’s question as well as yours, we do not think that that would be a good outcome for farmers, the taxpayer or the environment. What is in the Bill is a skeleton, which needs to be built on, and we certainly think that there needs to be an extra clause relating to agri-ecological systems such as organic, to make sure that we can cover them and very small producers. You mentioned small producers. It is really important to get rid of the cut-off, because there are some very small, very productive producers who should benefit from any possible public good payment. I will leave it there.

Professor Marsden: We clearly have a big issue here in what we are saying about the uplands. They are never going to be agriculturally productive in this sense, and they will need support for landscape purposes, amenity and so on. This is a very important element and one of the reasons why I stress this whole issue of the rural economy.

The economy in the uplands is governed not by agriculture but by all sorts of other activities, not least the public sector, which is very significant in rural areas. I think we have to look at upland agricultural systems in a completely new light. We have to look at ways in which we can support them in delivering for the rural economy, as well as for the environment.

Over the last few years we have done some research in Wales which has shown that, okay, there may be some scare stories about cuts in subsidies for hill farmers, but if you look at the amount of household income, not farm business income, many hill farmers are generating a lot of income from non-agricultural activities. They are reliant on non-agricultural income for their household income. There is a lot of cost transfer from different members of the household into upland farm households. That is something we should be encouraging. We should encourage more multifunctional farms in upland areas, which can attract visitors and fulfil more amenity purposes. Again, the Bill provides a real opportunity, not a threat, to our extensive upland areas across the UK.

David Baldock: I think the public goods record of some grouse moors is highly controversial; some of the management practices of grouse moors would not score very high in the public goods test. It is more likely, as Terry has been saying, that money will go into mixtures of agriculture and forestry—agri-forestry—and different patterns in the uplands, producing more return for farmers and land managers, rather than be switched out of the land environment. I do not think that is likely to happen on a significant scale, no.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Should some sort of distinctions be placed in the Bill specifying that? I did not quite hear what you said—are you saying that that would limit the Bill too much?

Vicki Hird: If it was only for the active farmer and food production; if that was the only basis on which you could get any support at all.

Professor Marsden: A key word here is “productivity”, isn’t it? That needs to be in the Bill, but we need a broader definition of what we mean by productivity. We can see—we have evidence—that we can get productivity out of small agri-ecological farms. You can create demand for labour out of those activities. You can create much more work. So we need to redefine the notion of productivity in a much broader way to cope with this variation across the agricultural landscape in the UK.

Vicki Hird: Yes, because they might be producing good carbon capture. There are other ways of measuring.

[George Eustice]

Q I will be brief, Sir Roger, because you want to keep us to time. Part 2 of the Bill creates the power—quite a large one—to modify and sort out existing schemes, to remove some of the bureaucracy, to simplify them and to sort out mapping. If you had one or two—perhaps this is for Mr Baldock because you have had some experience of them—what would you do to clean up and sort out the existing basic payment scheme?

David Baldock: The main difficulty with the current CAP regime is its bias towards control of very often the wrong thing—micromanagement of farm boundaries and of the way data is gathered and reported. Instead of getting the big picture of what is happening on a farm and how it is complying with its broad obligations, we have a highly burdensome system that, at the end of the day, does not really add a lot of value to the public purse or public transparency. It would be very welcome if the Government were able to shift that whole delivery system so that it focused on real outcomes and was more farmer friendly.

I was involved in the beginning of the cross-compliance discussion in Brussels. At that time, the whole idea was to take out the very worst farmers—to put under scrutiny people who committed large-scale abuse of livestock and so forth. It has become a micromanagement tool for worrying about individual farmers, with ear tags for livestock and a whole process around that. It has completely disappeared into a bureaucratic process. There is a great opportunity here to change that culture and delivery system.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Q Could you expand on that? We have said before that we are looking at refreshing the county farm model. What would you like to see?

Ed Hamer: For many new-entrant farmers, it is quite intimidating to take out a mortgage to buy their own holding and to then try to pay that money back through farming itself. With the county farms estate, there is still the opportunity to rent a small area to start on, even if it does not come with accommodation and is just the land itself, and to then build up a business and a local market for products, to the point where a farmer can start to invest in their own land or find somewhere else to move on to.

As a stepping-stone measure, the county farms estate is a fantastic resource that has so far been under-utilised. It has been very positive to see DEFRA’s soundings on reclaiming that estate for use by new entrants.

[Deidre Brock]

Q What concerns do you have about the possibility of standards being lowered for imported food? Witnesses have referred to that already quite a lot. Mr Hamer, your website makes it clear that there is a real shortage in the supply of domestic produce, and that, if new recommendations to eat more fruit and veg were actually followed, current production could not keep up. Would cheap imports fill that gap?

Ed Hamer: We like to think not. Horticulture is quite a unique example. At the moment, in the UK horticulture receives less than 1% of public funding. Since 2005, horticultural production has declined significantly—veg by 26% and fruit by 35%. At the moment, we import 42% of the vegetables and 89% of the fruit that we consume in the UK.

Post-Brexit there will clearly be an opportunity for renewal within the horticulture sector. We would like to see UK consumers prioritise the high standards that we have here in the UK, and to see a new generation of young farmers access some of that current import market. At the moment, we spend £7.8 billion a year on importing horticultural produce that could otherwise be grown here in the UK. We would like to see an opportunity for new entrants to access that market and use that revenue to generate jobs and employment within the sector. We are certainly worried about the risk of importing fruit and veg from countries with lower environmental and social standards, which would undermine production in the UK.

Diana Holland: We see food standards and safe, healthy food as going hand in hand with decent treatment and professional, high-skilled jobs. All the evidence that we have is that recent food scandals have gone alongside severe labour abuses and exploitation, because workers are fearful of speaking out about what is going on. We very much believe that the Bill needs to cover the race to the bottom in all aspects and build in incentives to treat workers properly and ensure that decent standards are followed. That could be reflected in certain parts of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Q I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument on low pay in the farming sector—thousands of low-paid people work in my constituency—and I am trying to understand the driver behind it. I do not necessarily see exploitative farmers trying to take advantage of workers. Is it not the value chain? Do we need to be realistic and expect higher retail prices? Are the British public too used to low prices for farming produce? Looking at some of the other aspects of the Bill relating to the value chain, can we change the balance of power away from the far end—the retailers and distributors—and give a little bit more power to the suppliers? Is that not the answer?

Diana Holland: If that was true, paying workers less would mean the cost of food would have come down, and it has not. There are pressures; we have been part of various studies and commissions on access to safe, healthy food and the implications on wages. There are links that need to be made. However, we are trying to say that a minimum standard needs to be built in, below which no one should fall. Alongside that, there should be a possibility for all the stakeholders in the industry to come together in the way that used to be done with the Agricultural Wages Board—we recognise that there may be equivalent ways of doing the same thing, as has been done in Wales. All of us who are involved directly in this industry, including the workforce—not excluded and shut out, but part of it—could come together to say, “How should we conduct ourselves so that people are treated fairly, and what happens if the industry is protected?”

I completely recognise that there are issues in the supply chain. Those players all have a part to play, but we need them around the table to discuss that, rather than the current system where workers are extremely isolated in that process, in a way that they were not before. Before, their voices were part of a system, but now, in England specifically, they are not able to access that any more. That has weakened their position—their pay, sickness, holidays and so on. It has not created the improvements that it was claimed it would.

This is an opportunity. This was a very rushed abolition, as part of trying to get rid of red tape. The reality of it has not been a minimisation of red tape; it has just been a reducing of conditions, as we feared and said that it would be. If we really want people to choose to work in this industry and to feel respected in it, we need to do something about that. This is a fantastic opportunity to do just that.

Ed Hamer: Our members are largely self-employed—most of our members manage their own holdings. Consumers need to become more aware of the true cost of production, but the problem lies more in the supply chain: if you go to the supermarket now and spend £1 on produce, farmers receive anywhere between 8p and 20p. The rest goes to the middlemen and the supermarkets. Local food systems demonstrate that if you can reclaim a larger percentage of that food pound, you can generate much higher levels of income on a smaller area. One of our biggest challenges is accessing those local markets so we can reclaim the food pound. Then we can support decent livelihoods on small areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Davies]

Q We have heard from other farming groups that the Agriculture Bill does not contain enough agriculture. Do you agree, or do you think that there is enough agriculture in it relative to environment?

Jonnie Hall: As I said in response to Mr Whitfield’s question, I agree that on the face of it there is not a direct and clear reference to driving agricultural production of the highest standards that delivers both on animal health and welfare and the environment simultaneously. That is important; it is the Agriculture Bill.

Food and drink as a sector in Scotland is hugely important to the economy—it is the largest manufacturing sector in the Scottish economy—but it will not go anywhere without the primary producer. If we end up in a situation across the United Kingdom where the primary producer is steered more and more to the delivery of purely public goods and not market goods, in terms of food production, then you could see significant implications for food security and our ability to generate exports of high-quality product.

Ivor Ferguson: The document that we have out for consultation at the moment in Northern Ireland certainly recognises the need to produce food. Northern Ireland farmers are very passionate about producing food, but they are also very passionate about the environment. Not only do we need the ability to produce food to the high standards that we do, but we would like the ability to expand our business. We see the mainland GB market as a very big market for us and, as I said, we export 80% of our food, so there are opportunities there for us. We would certainly like the ability to be allowed to expand our food business. From that point of view, we are happy that that is already in our Northern Ireland document.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Mr Hall, I am not entirely clear why you think that we could not alter the CAP regime in Scotland. I am aware—I am sure that Mr Burgess will back me up on this—that if there is no Scotland schedule in the Bill when it is enacted, the Scottish Government will still be able to make agricultural support payments. I think that is right, is it not, Mr Burgess?

George Burgess: Yes.

[Deidre Brock]

Q It was worth making that clear, for farmers who might be concerned about that. Perhaps you can elaborate a little, Mr Hall. Also, you told us how understandable you think that the Scottish Government’s reservations are about the Bill. Would you therefore encourage the Ministers in charge of it to accept the Scottish Government’s amendments in good faith and to allow the transfer of those powers to Holyrood?

Jonnie Hall: You are making two points. First, there is no doubt that the Scottish Government will be able to continue making payments, but they would be governed by the existing rules of the CAP. We want to get to a point beyond the implementation phase—December 2020, if that is what it is—whereby Scotland is ready and able to move to a Scottish agricultural policy beyond the CAP, to deliver support in a way that is more befitting and a more efficient use of taxpayer funding, and a better outcome in terms of supporting not only Scottish farmers but everything that Scottish farming then delivers for society as a whole. That is our concern there. Yes, continuation of payments, but we need to move away from, or out of the shadow of, the CAP at some point.

On the second point you made, I think we share those fundamental concerns about some of the schedules in the Bill—in particular part 7 and the World Trade Organisation reporting requirements. As the UK is the signatory to the WTO, the powers would rest with the Secretary of State. We have been quite clear that the Secretary of State would have, essentially, in theory, unilateral power to determine the funding allocation to different types of support measure, in order to be compliant with WTO requirements. That, in theory, could then impinge on policy decisions at a devolved level, a Scottish level. That is our concern, but if such concerns can be fundamentally addressed and resolved in practice, I think we would be in a different place.

As things stand with how the Bill is written—our legal and academic advice has backed us on this—the Secretary of State has unilateral power. Where we would like to get to is a situation in which there is much more involvement by the devolved Administrations, and in which the devolved Administrations have a role in agreeing those spending limitations. The same applies to the producer organisation element and to the fairness in the supply chain element.

However, there will always be an issue around how that should work because on the one hand the Secretary of State could have unilateral power, but on the other we certainly do not want Scotland or any other devolved Administration to have a veto over the rest of the United Kingdom either. We need to meet somewhere in the middle where some sort of consensus is established and agreed, and then we can move forward.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Your colleagues were certainly clear that it should be agreed and not imposed—inside the common frameworks, for instance.

Jonnie Hall: We have always argued that there is a need for common frameworks, particularly on regulation, across the UK, but they have to be commonly agreed frameworks. It is as much about the process of getting to the framework conclusions as it is about the conclusions themselves. And this is the same.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Mr Burgess, perhaps you could shed a little light on the funding aspect of this matter that we have just been discussing.

George Burgess: As I think I commented earlier, there is no question but that the ability to fund agricultural support will continue, for day one and beyond, and I think Mr Hall has already agreed with that.

I actually agree with quite a lot of what Mr Hall has said. For the benefit of the Committee, our Cabinet Secretary has written to the Secretary of State with a number of proposed amendments to the Bill that the Scottish Government would like to see being made. I will ensure that a copy of that letter, and of the amendments, will be made available to the Clerk, to be shared with Members.

On the WTO clause that Mr Hall mentioned in particular, yes, we have a constitutional concern there that it relates to the observation and implementation of an international obligation. While international relations per se is a reserved matter, observation and implementation of such obligations in relation to devolved matters, such as agriculture, is itself a devolved matter. Therefore we see it as being entirely right and proper that Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers have a direct input into setting the limits within the WTO provisions and indeed into the mechanism for ensuring that the UK as a whole complies with our requirements.

[Deidre Brock]

Q I have one last very quick question. Mr Clarke, I was delighted to hear your comments about Quality Meat Scotland, or QMS. As you know, the Scottish Government have been pursuing that for a long time and I hope—I have certainly tabled an amendment to this Bill and I am aware that other Members have as well—that something actually gets sorted there.

I wanted to ask you about protected geographical indications, or PGIs, and how damaging they could be, particularly to the meat sector, and to what extent. I wonder whether you could give us some information on that.

Alan Clarke: First of all, PGI is very important to Quality Meat Scotland. I mentioned earlier that we have Scotch lamb PGI and Scotch beef PGI, and we are able to promote those world-class brands—both of them—in Scotland, in the UK and worldwide.

We have been doing a lot of work with other partners, including Scotch whisky, Scotch salmon and so on, and they care about what the implications of this are. We really hope that there is a seamless transition for PGIs going forward; we would be very, very concerned if there was not, particularly if we ever had to reapply for a PGI. That would be a major concern to us.

We also know that the current consultation has identified that there would be a need for a new logo, for example. Our concern would be the packaging costs for the processing sector to do something like that. More importantly, would we confuse consumers? They have trusted this logo and it is something that they have recognised. Over the years, we have invested millions to try to establish that logo in the minds of customers, and we have a real concern that all that really good work could be lost. That is one area within the red meat industry in Scotland, but we really are part of the much wider food and drink sector, and that synergy has really benefited us as well.

[Chris Davies]

Q I represent a constituency right on the border of England and Wales, and many of my farmers have land on both sides of the border. Currently, they have to abide by what one could say are two slightly different regimes. Mr Hall, regarding the farmers that you represent on the Scottish side of the border that also have land in England, so that they farm both sides, do you think the Scottish Government’s approach to this Bill has given them extra concern and worry?

Jonnie Hall: We do have members who farm in different parts of the United Kingdom under the same business and it has always been something of a challenge in terms of which Administration deals with which component—whether it is land inspections, the payment claims and so on. I suspect that the lack of a publicly clear strategy from the Scottish Government poses some doubt and questions in the minds of those farmers who straddle borders, but equally it probably poses a lot of uncertainty for any farmer in Scotland, not just those who straddle the border.

One thing that will be vital—it goes back to common regulation—is that when you have cross-border farmers, you have to apply the same regulatory approach in terms of pesticide use, animal traceability issues, food hygiene, feed rules and all the rest of it across the United Kingdom in a uniform fashion. That goes back to the statement that all farming unions have always agreed: we need a commonly agreed regulatory framework. We are playing to the same rulebook, but we are not necessarily supporting farmers in the same way; the support requirements for a hill farmer in Argyll are different from those of someone growing fruit and veg in Lincolnshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Q Mr Clarke, the Government are under pressure from the other Mr Clark around the table, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, to give consideration to an amendment that would enable some transfers of levy payments between levy bodies, but only with the agreement of the relevant Governments or of the Secretary of State and the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. It is a bit problematic in the absence of a legislative consent motion, because it would explicitly affect something that Scottish Ministers could do. If that amendment were to get some support, should the Scottish Government bank that advantage and grant the LCM on the Bill?

Alan Clarke: I made the point earlier, when I was asked whether there was a particular vehicle that could be used, that I thought the amendment was a really good vehicle, because it is timely and it is opportune. The reality is that we need a solution.

We have shown that the three organisations can work really well together, but we are not maximising our potential. If we can get the full £1.5 million back to Scotland, and the same value back to Wales, using a mechanism that the three organisations would agree, we will have a real opportunity. If that amendment were made to the Bill, and a process was put in place to make it happen, that could happen very quickly. That would be a real benefit, particularly to us in Scotland, and to Wales. We can show evidence of what we have done working together over the last 18 months, and, as I said earlier, we would continue to do that.

George Burgess: The Scottish Government have been seeking an amendment to deal with the red meat levy issue, as Mr Clarke said earlier, and have been asking for the Agriculture Bill to be used for that. I prepared a detailed policy paper on the subject more than a year ago and I have been discussing it with DEFRA officials since.

We do not yet have a commitment from the United Kingdom Government to use the Bill as a vehicle to deal with the red meat levy, but we hope that that commitment will be forthcoming. I have heard that two amendments deal with the subject, and we will look at those with great interest. It is certainly something that the Scottish Government have been seeking.

Jonnie Hall: May I add the weight of NFU Scotland to that, to support the Scottish Government and Quality Meat Scotland? The Bill is a clear opportunity to resolve an issue that has been ongoing for several years. We have waited for the right legislative vehicle. This is a clear moment to get the right amendment in the Bill and make it happen.

[Deidre Brock]

Q I have a question about Northern Ireland for Mr Ferguson and Mr Aston. There is a geographical conundrum in your market, given that some production chains straddle what may be a UK border with the EU. What kind of support are farmers in Northern Ireland likely to require after Brexit? What impact might the different possible outcomes have?

Ivor Ferguson: The level of support we need in Northern Ireland will largely depend on our trade deals. That will be a big deciding factor. If the trade deals are against us in some way, we will certainly need more support. A lot of the support will depend on that. The difference in livestock between north and south does not really come into it. In Northern Ireland, we produce under the Red Tractor quality assurance scheme. As I said, we supply more than 80% of our product to the UK mainland market. That is not complicated by southern Irish livestock, because the standard is not the same as in Northern Ireland. I am not saying the standard is any lower than ours, but the Bord Bia standard is completely different from Red Tractor assurance.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Is there any other support you might be looking for?

Ivor Ferguson: We have £300 million of support in Northern Ireland. We certainly would like to continue to avail ourselves of that level of support. If the trade deal went against us, we would probably need more support than that. We are taking the opportunity with our new framework document to look at the system differently. We think we can develop a more efficient system than the CAP system in Northern Ireland. As I said, we would like to retain a small amount of area payments, but looking forward, we want to give opportunities to progressive farmers who are efficient and do a good job. That is one of the changes we would like to see. Of course, we would also like to increase our share of the UK mainland market. We see opportunities there for us as Northern Ireland farmers.

Wesley Aston: My president has outlined the key issue—we will not be sure what type or level of support we need until we see the outcome of a trade deal. However, in a scenario in which existing market access continues, we see scope to regionalise agricultural policy in Northern Ireland. As I mentioned, the schedule to the Bill that deals with Northern Ireland gives us scope to do that; there is sufficient scope in the Bill. We are keen to take forward measures that are best suited to the Northern Ireland circumstances. We are also keen to pilot ideas.

In broad terms, we are keen to look at two broad aspects. One is to encourage more young farmers into the industry. We see this as an ideal opportunity to do that. We also have a particular issue in Northern Ireland with land tenure and the ability to develop and improve land. We have an 11-month conacre system, which is a short-term let of land, and there is no certainty for either the landowner or the tenant that they will be dealing with the same person the following year. From that point of view, there is no investment in that land. About a third of all Northern Irish land is farmed on that basis. We see that as coming within the scope of developing our own agriculture policy. We would like to address those two broad areas fairly quickly.

We are keen to pilot ideas. Northern Ireland is a small region. We are flexible and we talk to one another. The document my president keeps referring to was drawn up in conjunction with our own Government and our industry, including environmental stakeholders, so it has high-level agreement. We are very keen to implement that. In fact, that is one of the recommendations in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report about Brexit that I mentioned. That Committee states that it is keen to support such measures and for Northern Ireland to pilot them.

There are some things we can do of our own accord within the scope of our abilities, but there are others—particularly fiscal measures—for which we do not have devolved powers. We are keen to look at whether we can do something in those areas through measures such as tax incentives for longer-term land tenure, which would not be direct support. That is a fundamental issue in the restructuring we need to become the changed industry we ultimately need to be.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much. Mr Hall, Mr Clarke, Mr Burgess, Mr Ferguson and Mr Aston, you have come a very long way for a relatively short time, but I hope you feel it has been time well spent. I am certain that it has been of value to the Committee. We are indebted to you. Thank you very much.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Iain Stewart.)

Agriculture Bill (Third sitting)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Dunne]

Q Thank you. I have one question for the Environment Agency. At the moment, you have responsibility for monitoring water quality but not soil quality. As water, soil and air are the three primary tests of environmental benefit, should the Bill give you powers to do that? Or who will have responsibility for soil monitoring?

Professor Fox: We currently have little responsibility for monitoring and reporting on the state of soils. We are aware of the importance of soils to the production and productivity of our whole landscape, and we are worried about the scale of soil loss, particularly that emanating from farming. It has a large cost associated with it, as well—water companies clearing up the soil and the dredging of rivers that is required as a result of soil loss.

So we would strongly support a greater focus on soil if this Bill could provide it, and more opportunities to help and support farmers to maintain that core productivity. It is absolutely in everybody’s interests that we keep soil on the farmland. I think that greater focus on soil would be entirely beneficial.

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

Q This is for the Environment Agency, really. In your experience, does paying people to change behaviour work, or do you think there are better ways to do that? Also, what happens if payments get stopped by future Governments?

Helen Taylor: In answer to the question whether payments or other mechanisms change behaviour, I believe that we need a variety of mechanisms working together. At the moment, regulations are set to prevent pollution from occurring, for example from the water side of things, and then payment is given to raise that standard and deliver more for the environment and the public goods that we want to achieve. Those things together, or combined, have a better effect than either one or the other.

Alongside that, there are all sorts of mechanisms for providing advice and guidance and showcasing how people could best carry that out. I firmly believe that a combination of mechanisms is needed for the future.

Professor Fox: I support that very strongly. The role of the supply chain and producer organisations in helping to promote and assure good environmental practice is a fantastic adjunct to any enforcement effort, and also helps support and promote the delivery of public goods. It is about that mixture of carrot and stick, if you like, to achieve the right outcomes for society and the industry.

[Deidre Brock]

Q What happens if those payments get stopped by future Governments? What would you envisage happening then?

Professor Fox: I am not sure I can provide you with a view on that. Clearly, what we have in the Bill is a sensible transition period covering a number of years to allow the industry to move into a new framework of payments. I think that is entirely helpful; it will allow the whole industry to adapt to a new way of thinking for the public. The scale of investment will be a matter for Government.

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

Q Two quick questions, if I may; the first is to Professor Fox. You mentioned flood mitigation. The commercial forestry sector is a very important industry in this country. Do you see commercial forestry playing a part in flood mitigation?

Professor Fox: Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Tracey]

Q My question follows on nicely from your last point, because, as you say, the Minister has emphasised the importance of soil health. Measures to promote it are covered by the purposes of clause 1(1)(c) —I think it is in the additional provisions. What sort of specific interventions do you think would best deliver improvements in soil health?

Helen Browning: Jack may want to come in on this as well. Generally, it would be about moving into more rotational farming systems, which is usually integrating grassland with growing cover crops. Reducing tillage can sometimes help, although it is not always the way through. Some of the agroforestry opportunities are there too. Rotational farming systems usually improve soil health.

Another is making sure that manures and other inputs are going back on to the soil. One of the things that I have a complete hysteria about is the burning of straw for fuel, when it should be going back to the land—that carbon should be going back to the land. It is about making sure that carbon-based inputs are being recycled into our soils and that we are not damaging those soils by over-heavy machinery, which is a big problem—I am looking forward to the days of little robots running around doing our work for us, rather than all the great machines that are crushing our soils to death—or about leaving soils bare over the winter or even during the summer months.

There is a whole host of well-known factors. A lot of those come together, obviously, within an organic farming system, which is demonstrated to have much higher levels of soil organic matter on average, which is the key indicator that we are looking at in our soil. We know how to do some of those basics.

Moving towards targets for soils at a farm level is difficult, because every soil type is different and will have different capabilities, so we need to be careful about how we use the metrics. We know enough about what husbandry methods we need to be encouraging, however. Good mixed farming is a good place to start.

[Deidre Brock]

Q I have two questions. First, for Mr Ward, with the difficulty in getting a seasonal workforce here nowadays, which we can expect more of in the future, does moving away from subsidising food production to supporting public goods make the production of fruit and vegetables more or less economic? What impact do you think that will have on overall volumes?

Secondly, for the Soil Association, I met your associates in Edinburgh, and they suggested that part of the problem with food security is the lack of security of supply of things such as fertiliser, and that true food security depends on a supply chain. Is there anything in the Bill that suggests to you that food security issues are being addressed?

Jack Ward: Most horticultural production falls outside the common agricultural policy, and traditionally it hasn’t been supported. It is very much about what sort of income you can generate from that production. I think that changes in the CAP and in funding, and the switch to public goods, probably will not impact that very greatly. The demand for seasonal labour will be there all the while people are sufficiently confident to keep investing in production in the UK.

[Deidre Brock]

Could you repeat that last bit?

Jack Ward: One of the big issues about the availability of seasonal labour is the continuing investment in production in the UK. What is happening at the moment is that, because of the uncertainty, everybody is just holding back on what they are prepared to invest and what they are prepared to do in the future. The last thing we want is to see some of that production move to where the labour is, whether in another part of Europe, northern Africa or wherever it happens to be.

Helen Browning: There is lots of talk about food security, and it is used in a number of ways by a number of people. I do not think food security is the same as saying that we need to produce it all here; sometimes food security might be sourcing from a number of different places, because they might not have the same climatic disaster at the same time. It might be about storage. I think that we need to use that phrase with some caution.

At the same time, the Bill de-links the production of food from the funding that will come to farmers—that is a very important dislocation that is being made. Currently, if you are in receipt of public money, you are required to produce food, effectively. You will no longer be required to do that, as I understand it from the Bill. The import of that needs to be thought through clearly. I think it is the right approach, because I do not think you should force farmers to produce food that people are not paying an adequate amount for—they would be running loss-making businesses. Over time, we need to take a view as to what sort of food system we want, how much food we should produce here, and how much we are prepared to offshore our environmental or social responsibilities to other countries in order that they feed us. These are big societal debates that we need to have, but we need to be very clear that what the Bill does is saying, “We pay you for environmental goods; you don’t any longer have to produce food to claim those payments.”

[The Chair]

A quick, final question from Chris Davies, and a quick answer, please.

Agriculture Bill (Second sitting)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. A final question from Deidre Brock.

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

Q On the points you were making earlier regarding the free movement of goods and produce around the UK and ensuring that that is not hindered, is it not so that in some cases there are already quite significant divergences of approach in regulations in the four countries of the UK?

Andrew Clark: I did not hear the middle part of the question, sorry.

[Deidre Brock]

Q In regard to the point you made earlier about the free movement of goods and produce around the UK and that not being hindered, is it not the case that there are already quite significant divergences of approach in regulations in the four countries of the UK?

Andrew Clark: I do not want the Committee to go away with a misunderstanding. I am not saying that there should be the same policy measures in every part of the UK. There are issues such as food labelling or the use of plant protection products, for example. There is a series and I could provide a minute or an extra piece of evidence about that. There are areas where we think there is an opportunity for agreed approaches across the UK land area that would not conflict with the absolutely correct divergence of policy practice and measures in each part of the UK.

[Deidre Brock]

I note you used the word “agreed”, not “impose”.

Andrew Clark: I emphasised the word “agreed”. We agreed an approach between the UK farming unions. Minette Batters, my president at the NFU, chairs a UK farming roundtable, and we agreed the type of approach that we would like to see for a common UK agricultural policy, and the topics that should be subject to that, around a table with 15 different organisations and all the UK farming unions.

[The Chair]

Thank you. I am afraid we must draw this session to a close. I apologise to those colleagues who did not get called. I have made a note and will try to give you priority next time round. [Interruption.] No, I am sorry.

Mr Clark, thank you very much indeed for taking the trouble to come. The Committee is indebted to you for answering the questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Q On the concern about the RPA, at the moment it is responsible for things such as carcase classification. Although its brand may have been tarnished by trying to implement a very difficult and bureaucratic EU scheme, it has a breadth of knowledge about everything from school milk schemes right the way through to carcase classification. If the GCA were to do it, it would be funded by a levy, which would have to be funded by the industry itself. What is your concern about the RPA specifically?

George Dunn: You are right that the RPA runs certain supplier schemes, so we are not saying that it is completely unsighted on this stuff, but it has got no history or skill, in terms of contracts, so how do we see it playing a role within the contract environment? It has got no skill or expertise in looking at how supply chains operate from field to plate. Although it might have had a glimpse of certain aspects of it, we do not think it has got the expertise across the piece.

Christopher Price: In addition, the powers that the Secretary of State proposes to give himself under the Bill are really quite strong. I cannot think of many other areas in which a Minister has such powers as the Secretary of State will gain under the Bill. We were pleasantly surprised that the Government proposed taking them. It seems to us that the powers are so significant that it is unreasonable to say that they should be exercised by a non-departmental public body. I would have thought that they are so significant that they are the sort of thing that a Minister ought to be deciding, not someone further down the hierarchy.

[Deidre Brock]

Q We could talk about that for a long time—that is very interesting. You mentioned the drop in rents. Does that imply that you expect a big drop in rural land values?

George Dunn: No.

Christopher Price: No. A couple of per cent.

George Dunn: For the reasons that I stated earlier, the return on capital is only 2% from agriculture anyway, so there are other things driving the capital value of land.

Christopher Price: If you compare changes in the CAP with changes in land values over the last 30-odd years, there is very little correlation, which you would expect there to be. Also, the European Commission has done two reports on this topic in the last 15 years and both said it was impossible to show any direct link between the two.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Mr Price and Mr Dunn. I am sorry to bring this to a slightly early conclusion, but I am reliably informed that the Division Bell will ring fairly shortly. We will bring in the next witness and at least get him installed.

Examination of Witness

Jason Feeney gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Drew]

Q We know about the differences between Ulster and the Republic, but there are places where farmers farm on both sides of the English-Welsh border. If there is a different system, what problems could that present?

Huw Thomas: I do not think that those problems have to be insurmountably difficult. We have different regimes for TB cattle controls, which can sometimes cause problems. There are cross-border holdings, but the England-Wales border is pretty well integrated in terms of farms, especially compared with the Scotland-England border. We have had different arrangements, which does cause problems from time to time—farmers on the border often face a delay in receiving their payments—but if the Governments of England and Wales work together more closely, I think a solution can be found. It does not have to be a problem; it just requires the political will to work closely together.

Dr Fenwick: As Huw pointed out, we already have different systems—very different, in many respects. That has been the case since 2005. What we see as the prime problem is not the difference between the systems, but—I am afraid to say—the implementation of the system on the English side. Our members who have land in England invariably face delayed payments because of delays in the Rural Payments Agency sending data to the Welsh payment agency.

[Deidre Brock]

Q The CAP payments operate to a seven-year cycle. Could you share your thoughts on the suggestion that future payments might be tied to the Westminster budgetary cycle? If farmers are lucky, that might be three to five years, but the Government might change and the money flow might stall as a result. Can you tell us about your concerns on that issue and set out your thoughts on what sort of mechanism might be used to resolve it?

John Davies: Obviously, we need a long-term, multi-annual framework to deliver support, because farming is not a short-term business. For instance, sheep that are going to the tup now will be sold in a post-Brexit marketplace. That is very short-term. We plan in generations, not years, so the longer it can be and the more robust model we can have to allow that would be useful. We are not entirely clear on any solution, because we recognise that future Governments are not bound by the previous Government, but that is a real issue for farm support going forward, because it is a long-term business.

Dr Fenwick: I agree. We have been dealing with multi-annual EU budgets for a very long time and they tally far better with farming calendars. The risks that having fluctuations on an annual basis would bring would be huge.

[Chris Davies]

Q First, may I declare that Mr Davies is a constituent of mine and that the Builth Wells office of NFU Cymru is based in my constituency?

If I may, Mr Thomas and Dr Fenwick, I will just pick you up by saying that there are not that many cross-border issues. Given that Brecon and Radnorshire share 65 miles of Offa’s Dyke, there is a lot of cross-border and I hear of great difficulties that arise on both sides of the border, with both systems, so I would not necessarily say that it is all one way.

Dr Fenwick: I am afraid to say that, on an annual basis, in terms of the payments, it is routinely the RPA that fails to provide data to the Welsh payment agency and that causes delay. Wales has an exemplary record when it comes to payments. It releases about 95% of payments on 1 December annually. I think we are the best in the UK, maybe apart from Northern Ireland, so I am afraid to say that that is not our experience. Many of those 600 cross-border farmers are members of ours and they are the ones who phone me when they do not receive payment, and they are struggling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Q Would you say that the provisions in the Bill give a great opportunity for farmers in Wales to take advantage of this sort of scheme, which will then extend markets and take on the competition that may be coming in from abroad?

John Davies: Absolutely. We need to look to each and every lever we can pull, and there is scope within the Bill to utilise those opportunities.

Dr Fenwick: It requires the political will to use those levers appropriately, and I am afraid to say that in the past, we have not seen that political will when it comes to some co-operatives and some farmer-owned businesses. We have seen bodies broken up, effectively, because it is perceived that they have too much power, and that is the opposite of what we would like to see in terms of empowerment of the industry. We need to make up for that huge imbalance that has developed over the last 30 or 40 years in terms of the supermarkets.

[Deidre Brock]

Q I have a quick question about the consultation that the Welsh Government are conducting at the moment. Does it include proposals around the capping of payments?

Dr Fenwick: Only with regard to the capping of basic payments during a transition period in order to move money over to a public goods scheme. If I recollect correctly, there is no reference to the capping of payments, which is something that we have raised repeatedly. Indeed, some have told us that there should be no cap on payments, which is a huge concern because we saw capping as a great movement forward in terms of the reputation of what is currently the common agricultural policy and in terms of the reputation of the industry.

Sadly, when we see headlines in newspapers about millionaires or racehorse owners getting huge payments, we are all tarred with the same brush. People do not realise that in Wales they took the progressive move back in 2014 to cap agricultural payments. We appreciate that the CAP legislation was not designed as well as it could have been in terms of making it possible in every country; we appreciate that England had problems from that point of view, but it is a massive backward step not to have capping.

[Ben Lake]

Q Another quick question. We have spoken a lot about what is in the Bill today. Is there anything you would like to see that is not there? I have in mind the meat levy. There was some discussion in Wales about the possibility of including that in the Bill. Do you have any views on that particular omission and is there anything else you would like to see in the Bill?

Dr Fenwick: Certainly, there has been a lot of discussion about how this could have been an opportunity to take account of the fact that Wales is currently losing money through the red meat levy legislation. We appreciate that some moves have been made to address and correct that, but it is far from ideal. We lost hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds when a single slaughterhouse closed a few years ago, and that hamstrung our meat marketing body hugely in terms of how it could market its meat, whether in England or on the continent. So it absolutely needs addressing. Certainly an opportunity has been lost there.

In terms of other elements, I am afraid I am more concerned about what is in it than what could have been in it.

John Davies: We want to see agriculture in the Agriculture Bill. We want to see a real, strong focus on the active farmer and how that comes through in terms of a sufficient degree of self-sufficiency. That would be useful. We see food security as a public good or a public right. That is vital. So there are a number of issues there. We want a safe and traceable domestic food supply. We want equal standards for imports and a level playing field, so that needs to be tightened up. There is an opportunity around public procurement. There is a real, strong opportunity around better labelling. It is vital that consumers are properly informed about their purchasing decisions. So there are a number of places there where we can see room for tightening and more detail. It is broad enough. We just need to focus in on that.

Agriculture Bill (First sitting)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 23 October) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 23 October;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 25 October;

(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 30 October;

(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 1 November;

(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 13 November;

(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 15 November; and

(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 November;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:

TABLE

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

I would like to make a point to the Minister about this. Regarding the witnesses, I was very disappointed to see that the National Farmers Union, Scotland had not been called in to give evidence. Given that the Bill is the subject of some dispute between the UK and Scottish Governments, it would have been appropriate at least to have Scottish Government officials down to explain some of the finer points of that.

[George Eustice]

The Scottish Government have not yet signalled that they wish to be part of the Bill. Indeed, our understanding is that they intend to pass their own Bill, which is why it was decided at the time that this Bill would not apply to Scotland. We now have a list of witnesses and a programme motion for the evidence sessions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Does that mean, Chair, that when Scotland produces its Bill it will ask for evidence from English farming organisations? Is that the logic of what is proposed?

[Deidre Brock]

The point is that elements of the Bill affect devolved legislation and competencies, so it is appropriate that at least Scottish Government officials should be allowed to put those points across to us. As MPs, surely we want to get the full picture. The Bill is the subject of some dispute between the two Governments, so surely it is appropriate that we hear about that.

[George Eustice]

I do not really have anything further to add. The Bill is predominantly for English farmers and there is a schedule for Welsh farmers as well. There is a more limited schedule for Northern Irish farmers because the Northern Ireland Administration asked for a minimalist addition to enable them to continue to make payments.

As the Scottish Government have been clear that they do not intend, as things stand, to invite or ask us to add a schedule on their behalf, we have agreed the set of witnesses that we have. I have nothing further to add.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(George Eustice.)

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(George Eustice.)

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

Q I do not know whether you have had the chance to read the report on the Bill by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, but it is pretty scathing. It describes it as a skeleton Bill and refers extensively to its lack of detail. It states:

“The central purpose of the Agriculture Bill is to provide a framework that confers on Ministers extensive powers…with correspondingly few duties…exercisable indefinitely and without sunset clauses. They include…the ability to create criminal offences punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment”.

What areas of your organisation are you most concerned about, in view of the extensive powers that Ministers will have under the Bill and the lack of detail that the report criticises so heavily?

Thomas Lancaster: I am not sure that I have any particular concerns about our organisation as such, but we do have concerns about the lack of duties in the Bill. We think that that is a big gap.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Can you give us some examples?

Thomas Lancaster: Yes. We want to see a duty in the Bill to have an environmental land management scheme in England. At the moment, it provides the powers for that, but there is no certainty about whether Ministers will choose to use them. That is one of the few backward steps from the common agricultural policy, which through its rural development programmes requires member states to have an agri-environment scheme. Because of that requirement, there are four agri-environment schemes across the UK.

A second duty that we have called for is an annual assessment of the funding required, particularly to meet the purposes in clause 1. A third is for current and future Ministers to use the powers in the Bill to improve transparency in the supply chain and strengthen the position of the farmer in it.

Patrick Begg: I back up what Tom says. I am not sure that our organisation is worried about the powers, but we will certainly be asking for duties to fill the gaps, such as a duty to create multi-annual payment settlements. That is not exceptional; the Highways Agency do it and the Environment Agency do it for flooding. It is a question of creating confidence and certainty within the farming industry that it will stick and that people can invest with confidence. We would also wish for a duty to get an independent assessment of the quantum of money required to deliver the aspirations set out in clause 1.

Martin Lines: There are lots of powers in the Bill, but the concerns for farmers in the network are about who can use them and how, and what triggers them. Some of those powers should be duties. It is about the long-term view of how we need to manage and be managed as farmers.

Gilles Deprez: My two main concerns are about points that I have highlighted. The first—I am not sure whether it is right or wrong—is about being competitive, not only with UK farmers but worldwide, because we are a very fragmented market.

My second concern is that innovation is not really highlighted in the Bill. In chemistry, for example, there is a kind of mutual recognition: if one country recognises something as an innovation, it goes through the system a lot more quickly. I do not see that in the Bill. We must not block innovation; it needs to be key in business, in order to look at the future and be competitive.

[Colin Clark]

Q ADAS produced a report in 2016 that stated that a

“‘Public Money for Public Goods’ approach…would be a radical change and one that would certainly need to be tested for efficacy before adoption.”

Do you agree that the seven-year transition will be adequate for testing? We have heard from Mr Lines that people already have good practices. Is seven years enough time to activate a policy, considering how long it takes to grow hedges, trees and cover? Or will we have to come up with policies like those that you are already using, Mr Lines, on your farm? Patrick Begg, you mentioned the public good.

Patrick Begg: Yes. Seven years is actually a little bit longer than we have called for, but I can see why that was done; the last thing we need is a cliff edge. If you think about it, it is in fact 10 years from now—a seven-year transition is effectively 10 years from today, give or take a month or two. If you consider change programmes—this might be one—generally speaking, you need to get going with stuff, and the sense of urgency is a good stimulus for things to happen well. I think the balance of seven years is probably about right in the end.

DEFRA has a programme of tests and trials work that starts next year. That will start to land on the ground, and we will be able to test mechanisms. On seeing outcomes, we have plenty of evidence of the things that work; I do not think we necessarily need to test the outcomes. We know how to deliver the things that have been set out in the Bill; the issue is just the mechanisms by which the farmer is adequately supported to make the change and to deliver those in an effective way.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

Q Briefly, because I know we are tight on time, our understanding of farm animal welfare has developed somewhat over the past 15 years or so from the traditional five freedoms—freedom from hunger, pain, and so on—to much more of a notion of a life worth living and animal wellbeing. Do you share that view, and what are the implications for the types of schemes we should be incentivising, versus the types of approaches we should take to a regulatory baseline?

David Bowles: Absolutely. The uptake of the RSPCA Assured scheme, which the RSPCA sets standards for, is patchy. It covers about 55% of egg production in the UK, about 23% of pig production and about 30% of turkey production, but for the sheep, beef and dairy sectors, uptake is under 1%. However, as part of the scheme, the RSPCA has been doing welfare outcome assessments for the past 10 years or so, which started off with laying hens, dairy and pigs and is also now moving into chickens. We have got a lot more skilled in working out what the animal is thinking and what its welfare outcomes are. The RSPCA knows from its schemes—this is a commercial scheme—that those systems are easy to put in, that they are fairly easy to measure and inspect as part of the audit trail, and that they work. The farmers appreciate them because they need feedback in terms of how their animals are feeling as well.

We already have a lot of the science there to enable us to look at this. We would certainly welcome using those measures as part of any scheme going forward and, of course, welcome anybody coming to any of our farms to see how those welfare outcome assessments work in practice.

ffinlo Costain: A sustainable farm is, in our view, a happy and healthy farm. It is one where the animals and farmers are making progress and are both having a life worth living. It is not just about the animals; it is about the farmers as well.

I used to run a regional branch of the National Farmers Union. For many of the members that I represented, the main time that they came across metrics was when they sent an animal to the abattoir and were told that it did not quite achieve the grade that they expected it to. That was the feedback they got, and they got less money. That is really negative. We need to change that so that there is a much more positive relationship with metrics.

I take the example of my neighbour’s farm. He has big challenges with his lamb production. We would like to see an assurance scheme that measures his farm in the round—that there are what we might call iceberg metrics that are measured by the Government, partly on a farm and partly at slaughter, where we are looking at low levels of lameness, low levels of ailments such as liver fluke and low levels of antibiotic use, and measuring those things together.

My neighbour is putting in place some really interesting measures around hedgerow management, carbon sequestration and water management, which will improve sustainability at the same time as improving the health and the welfare of the sheep on that farm. If he was achieving against those three measurements together and improving year on year, he would be happier with the farming system that he has, would be earning more money and would have increasing yield at the same time as feeling good about his farm, being able to communicate that with his community and also earning additional money in relation to those public goods. That is the sort of progress that we would like to see, which is very much along the lines that the Minister is thinking of at the moment.

David Bowles: Of course it is a balance. You have to make sure that you do not make any scheme too complicated. You have to have measurements that are easy to measure and quick to measure as part of the audit scheme. It is a balance between getting that data out and making sure that the audit scheme works properly.

[Deidre Brock]

Q A lot of doubt has been expressed around the Government’s commitment to the maintenance, or indeed the improvement, of animal welfare standards in the face of future difficult trade deals. What concerns do you have about that? What commitments might you might like to see placed in the Bill?

David Bowles: The RSPCA, like the previous witnesses, has huge anxiety about future trade deals. Let us look at the number of countries that we are looking to do trade deals with. At the moment we are obviously looking to do a trade deal with the EU. We have broadly a level playing field with the EU, because we have had animal welfare standards since 1974 and they cover most of the species in the EU. Of course we would like to see them higher, but they are pretty good. The EU and the UK have probably some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, so that means that anybody else that we are trying to do trade deals with has lower standards—the only exception is New Zealand. The USA has hugely lower standards. Not only is it still using methods that are illegal in the UK, such as beef hormones or ractopamine, but it is also using standards that are illegal in the UK, such as the conventional battery cage and sow stalls.

The RSPCA would like to see an amendment to the Bill that was rejected by the House of Commons on the Trade Bill—that any trade deals would allow in only products that are produced at least to the standards in the UK. If we do not have that, we have a race to the bottom; we are just exporting our good animal welfare standards to somewhere else and we do not want to see that. We want to see a vibrant, healthy farming community in the UK, producing at higher welfare standards and giving the consumers what they want, not the bringing in of products and food that are produced to illegal or worse standards than here.

ffinlo Costain: I echo what David said, but I would also say that, in my meetings with Ministers and officials at DEFRA, I think there was a genuine commitment to improving farm animal welfare. I have been really heartened by that as we have been going forward. At the same time, there are some really challenging balances, exactly as David said. However, at the heart of this is what is the market in the UK, not only for our farmers at home, but abroad, and it is about quality. If we have lower standards coming in, it undermines our marketplace and our rural economy. It is essential that we recognise that we are never going to win a race to the bottom; we cannot. We can win a race to the top. We already have good quality products that could be much better quality in terms of welfare and the environment that we can sell as a story, as a whole product, whether that is branding, as Tom was talking about before—Cumbrian lamb or whatever—or whether it is selling branding at home; whether it is building the business case through public goods to our local communities and to the taxpayer for additional assistance in terms of land management and public goods; or whether it is underpinning the British brand and selling and promoting that quality around the world.

In addition, if we are building a market based on quality and reviving our rural economy, whether it is small, medium or large farm businesses, we will be developing new technologies and new machinery that we can also export. We want to see not only a growth in improved welfare and environmental standards, but a revival in the countryside. The Bill is a fantastic step in the right direction, but it is just framework legislation. We need to see more work in the future—for example, the gold standard work that DEFRA is engaged in.

Simon Doherty: I agree with the two previous correspondents entirely. I will not repeat everything that they have said. We have had some very encouraging, strong lines from DEFRA. The disappointment has been that there have been weaker lines from the Department for International Trade. We need to make sure that there is a join-up across Government to make sure that we are all singing off the same hymn sheet in relation to welfare, so that we do not have one part of Government saying one thing and another part doing another. Obviously, I will say this as the president of the British Veterinary Association. We feel that we are absolutely at the juxtaposition of animal health and welfare. We are here today because the role of the BVA is to represent the veterinary profession to Government. We hope that one of the outcomes across the board will be a recognition of the role of vets in veterinary public health, in animal welfare, in animal health, and ultimately in food security for the country.

David Bowles: Of course, the other way to stop this, apart from in trade deals, is to give the consumer information. At the moment we only have one mandatory method of production label, which is on eggs, and we know that that has worked. It has driven the market up to 55% now for free range eggs, because the consumers wanted that. We hope that in the Bill we get some mandatory method of production labelling going into other areas. There is a chance of getting that. I know the Government share some of that enthusiasm, and that would be really good. The consumers always say they want higher animal welfare, but some of the time they are confused because the label does not show that.

ffinlo Costain: The evidence shows that, where method of production labelling exists, at least 50% of consumers choose the higher welfare option, which is often a little more expensive. Method of production labelling is not only important in terms of helping to drive that market, but is really about improving communication. There is a big disparity between, particularly, people who live in the city, but also often people who live in the countryside as well, and the way that food is produced; I do not know whether that is driven by CBeebies. I have a four and a six-year-old and they constantly see one model of farming that does not necessarily reflect the way that farming is. Labelling and communication in general builds the case for improved prices and for commitment to local farmers, or farmers at a British level, and across the board. I think it is really important.

[Jenny Chapman]

Q I note what you say about the positive comments from DEFRA on the animal welfare that we have at the moment, but the Bill needs to be future-proof, and not all future DEFRA Ministers might be as cute and cuddly as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth. You talked about a level playing field with the European Union. We need to make sure that we maintain at least that. I am told that we have probably the best animal welfare standards in the world. How can we make sure that the Bill stands the test of time and that we maintain that position? Some people argue that we ought to be almost pegging our standards to those of the EU so that we do not fall behind, and future Governments might experience pressure in the light of trade deals that might come in future years.

David Bowles: One of the most exciting things about trade deals at the moment—if I can use the words “exciting” and “trade deals” in the same sentence—is that we are starting to see language in them about equivalence on animal welfare standards. The EU has been a driver for this. It started with South Korea and has now got it with Chile, and it is looking at getting it with Mexico as well. That is a real incentive. We want to see similar language on equivalence with the EU, as well as with others. RSPCA Assured has shown that raising animal welfare standards can be done on a commercial basis—consumers will vote with their purses if they are given the right information and if there is enough transparency on the retailer market shelf—but some specific language on equivalence needs to be put into trade deals.

ffinlo Costain: Being in the lead is not something that continues unless you keep working at it. There are areas in which other countries are catching up with the UK, and possibly one or two in which they are starting to move ahead. It is therefore critical that we have metrics to measure the inputs and outcomes, and to understand at a national level where we want to be and how successful policy is at making that progress. We should be leaders—this is our opportunity. We will not win the race to the bottom, but we can win on quality by selling at home and selling abroad.

Look at Origin Green in Ireland. It is a unique national brand, although its climate outcomes are nowhere near as strong as what I would like to see. If we had a national brand based on metrics for climate change and biodiversity, with farm animal welfare used as a critical indicator of progress in both areas, it could be part of our gold standard work. It would underpin our progress and ensure it continues, and be a national brand that we could sell abroad. Origin Green is a really good place to look for an opportunity that we could quickly overtake and surpass in export and home production.

Simon Doherty: There is a huge commercial advantage from other parts of the world opening up to exploring improved animal welfare. We have consultancy firms such as FAI Farms that are working globally to help other jurisdictions to raise their standards towards those that we work at in Europe and in the UK.

I mentioned the underpinning research and development that is going on in the field of animal welfare. There are certainly other parts of northern Europe that are working on curly tails on pigs, for example, or improving health indicators such as mastitis or lameness in dairy cows. We have that world-class expertise across the board, and we need to continue to build on it. We also need to ensure that the funding is there to underpin that research.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. The Government have been setting out technical notices to explain more about what needs to be done in readiness for a no deal scenario. Yesterday, along with the Secretary of State, I met the Food and Drink Sector Council. We are working hard to increase engagement with businesses on the back of those technical notices.

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

This year we saw the highest-quality fruit and veg grown on these islands rotting in the fields because there were not enough workers to pick them. Yesterday the chair of the Migration Advisory Committee said that the fruit and veg sector would shrink if its policies were followed—that would mean farmers going out of business. Does the Minister agree with him that that is a price worth paying, or does he agree with me that ending freedom of movement is a huge mistake?

[David Rutley]

I am not sure that that really fits in with the question, but an important pilot is being taken forward on seasonal workers to address the issues that the hon. Lady raises.

Agriculture Bill

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to see so many members of the armed services here to observe the debate—I hope that the Secretary of State was not so alarmed by the prospect of my speech that he called them in.

The Bill lacks a foundation, because as yet there is no Brexit deal and no trade deal. No one here knows what rules will have to be followed in order to allow agricultural produce into the European single market. No one even knows where the UK’s borders will be—perhaps in the middle of the Irish sea. It is that uncertainty that is causing the most concern to farmers and other food producers.

There is a need to be prepared, and I acknowledge that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has to try to guess the future framework that will be needed. I appreciate that Ministers have to bring forward proposals for consideration. Being prepared for what is to come seems sensible at first glance. I have to observe, however, that preparing for Brexit is a wee bit like someone blindfolding themselves before jumping off a cliff: they cannot see the horror, but it is still going to hit them pretty hard. I appreciate where Ministers are coming from, but they seem to have gone off a little prematurely. However, that is not all that is wrong with the Bill.

I think it is important that we talk about what agriculture is for, and what it has been for since the first sod was turned: food production. Agriculture is about producing food or it is about nothing. The advantages to the human race of being a species that can produce its own food rather than just hunt or gather it have been immense. There have been some downsides, not least the environmental damage that some farming practices wreak, but agriculture is what has allowed us to build the civilisations and lifestyles that we now have.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Lady, my colleague, will of course be aware that during the recess the British Government appointed a food supplies Minister, in preparation for a no deal Brexit—such is the panic at the heart of the British Government. Is it not somewhat incoherent that in agricultural policy there is not that focus on food production that she mentioned, either from the British Government in relation to England or from the Labour Government in relation to Wales? The Scottish National party Government in Scotland, however, will maintain basic payments to help farmers produce food.

[Deidre Brock]

I thank my friend the hon. Member for that intervention. I will be coming to that point shortly.

It is agriculture that gives those of us who are worried about the environmental effects the time and space to do that worrying. Agriculture is what lies behind civilisation, because food production and food security—the nourishment of people who can be productive in other ways because they do not have to find or produce their own food—is what underpins the modern economy. Take away the food supply and we destroy the rest of the economy.

[John Redwood]

Of course, once we leave the EU we will be able to settle our own schedule of tariffs, including those, if any, that we might wish to impose on European continental food. What level of tariff would the hon. Lady recommend?

[Deidre Brock]

I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman is speaking about, because we will also have tariffs imposed on us as a result of these discussions, and they are alarming. Lamb farmers in Scotland are certainly very concerned, and a tariff of something like 46% has been suggested to me.

With the stark warnings about chaos in the chain for imported foods post-Brexit, one would think that domestic food security would be top of the agenda in DEFRA just now. As my friend the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) has just said, the situation is serious enough for a Minister to be appointed to oversee food supplies. That is the kind of ministerial brief we associate with wars in the middle of the last century. With that kind of concern, which is clearly a feature of Whitehall’s panic after failing to plan for Brexit, one would think that domestic food production would be getting a look-in now.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

During the recess a constituent of mine was in a care home and saw a poster that said:

“Rationing means a fair share for all of us”.

Does my hon. Friend think that was nostalgia or forward planning?

[Deidre Brock]

I certainly hope that we will not get to that situation, because it is an alarming thought. I thank my hon. Friend for that point.

Food production is missing from this Agriculture Bill. We have a Bill to regulate agriculture that is silent on the very essence of agriculture. I appreciate that not every aspect of a portfolio area can be present in every piece of legislation and that there will be times when things are missed, but surely we cannot miss out the core point of the legislation. We really cannot talk about how to regulate or support farming unless we also talk about producing food. Agriculture is not agriculture if it is only land management and form filling.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, that famous farming constituency, is making a powerful speech.

“The Scottish Government’s climate change ambitions…pose a bigger threat…than Brexit”.

They are not my words, but those of Jim McLaren of Quality Meat Scotland. Would she care to comment on that?

[Deidre Brock]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, although I do not really appreciate the snide remarks about Edinburgh North and Leith, because people there actually eat and they are interested in food.

Returning to my subject, which was food, there is plenty in the Bill to allow Ministers to gather information about food chains and to interfere where they see fit, but nothing about how it will change the structures or the framework around producing food or how Ministers might want to protect, improve and increase food production, food security or food quality. We really need to know a bit about the direction of travel. There is nothing in the Bill that tells us, and the public pronouncements of the DEFRA Secretary suggest a move away from support for food production—or farming, as I like to call it—towards a style of support that would be perfect for managers of large estates, but not those with less land. Grouse moors could benefit, but farmers will not.

None of that detail is in the Bill. There is nothing even to suggest a route map, far less lay out the steps that the Government intend to take. There is nothing about the proposed support mechanism. That is massively important. A farm in Cambridgeshire is very unlike a farm in the Yorkshire dales and even more unlike a farm in Sutherland, where my parents-in-law live, let alone one on Scotland’s islands. Promises were made to Scottish farmers that Brexit would not see them losing cash, at the same time as convergence cash intended for farms in Scotland was being distributed elsewhere, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) mentioned.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has spent a lot of time criticising this Government’s legislation. I would like to ask the question that many of my constituents who are farmers are wondering about: what is the Scottish Government’s plan for farming post Brexit? We have not got a clue.

[Deidre Brock]

I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not yet read our very sensible proposal for stability and simplicity, which sets out the route map. Let us not forget either that the Scottish Government were the first UK Administration to set out detailed plans for the short and medium term after Brexit. I suggest that he goes online and has a look at our proposal.

Where now are the pledges and promises that were made? Where are the guarantees for Scottish farmers that they will not lose out? Where in this Bill is the guarantee that the cash going to Scotland for Scotland’s farmers will not fall under some newly invented Barnett guillotine or that the additional support that has been available for less favoured areas, which is so important to Scotland, will not simply vanish, like so much else that Scotland is due but Whitehall absorbs? Perhaps we should be looking for a red bus with some numbers on the side and a promise to Scotland’s farmers of untold riches to come. Without that certainty from Whitehall and the news that the funding for Scotland’s farmers is secure, protected from the Brexit meltdown and protected in the long term, farmers in Scotland cannot start planning for the future, and not even the near future.

I looked at the National Audit Office’s report card on DEFRA’s progress in preparing for Brexit and it did not make for pretty reading. It was in fact quite stark, saying:

“DEFRA has not been able to make progress in supporting business in their preparations,”

although it makes it clear that this is partly the fault of the Department for Exiting the European Union for choosing to restrict Departments’ ability to engage with their stakeholders. But whose fault that is will not concern farmers, nor will it be a great concern for those who would like to see food continuing to appear in their shops. The NAO goes on to point out that no information was available on the DEFRA website about the EU exit or any potential changes following Brexit and that, almost ironically, stakeholders such as farmers had to look to the EU agencies’ websites for information about what was likely to follow. The warning about lack of preparedness was pretty stark:

“there is no guidance on Defra’s website for businesses exporting food products to the EU. Some of these may have to apply for an export health certificate for the first time and change trading routes so that their products enter the EU through a border inspection post.”

The most damning part of the report, though, might be the observation that

“DEFRA does not have a clear vision either for the new services and functions it has to introduce or for the organisation as a whole post-EU Exit”.

No clear vision, no plan and no action, but here we are with a Bill to set the future direction. In spite of a 37% increase in the number of legislative staff in the Department, the portfolio board heard in June that

“DEFRA is at high risk of being unable to deliver a full and functioning statute book by end March 2019”

if there is no deal, due to the number of statutory instruments that need to be drafted, but here we are with a Bill that will need further secondary legislation.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

I am slightly surprised by the hon. Lady’s criticisms of DEFRA. I understood that agricultural policy was devolved in Scotland.

[Deidre Brock]

Which is of course the very point we are making. I thought that everyone would welcome the opinions of the Scottish National party and the people of Scotland, because of course in this precious Union surely we are all equals, although I will come to points that directly affect Scotland shortly.

DEFRA admitted to the NAO that it will be unable to handle the increase in export health certificates needed for farmers to carry on exporting their produce to the world’s largest single market because it is currently done on a spreadsheet that only one person can operate at a time. The Department’s long-term ambition is to get up to the same standard of e-certification that other nations use, but the Treasury has not yet seen the business justification document in order to approve it. I will lay odds that the costs of sorting that out will be more than the spare change down the back of the DEFRA sofa.

If anyone thought that animal exports getting done over was enough bad news, they had better not look at animal imports. The UK will lose access to the EU’s TRACES, or trade control and expert system. Data on animal imports will have to be entered manually at border inspection posts, so we can expect higher error rates, delays at borders while manual checks are carried out and an increased biosecurity risk, according to DEFRA’s report card from the NAO. Potentially, we will have high-quality beef sitting on one side of the border waiting for its turn on the spreadsheet to get a health certificate for export, while the supermarket lasagne is sitting on the other side waiting for a border guard to punch its information into the system. In the meantime, farmers will be watching their livelihoods disappear, while every truck in the game is held up at the border.

There are two points, parallel to those issues, that are vital to Scotland’s food production and marketing. The first is the need for seasonal workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will go into our concerns about that at length, but I will quickly add that the pitiful pilot scheme announced recently for seasonal workers would have been laughed at, had we not already seen crops rotting in the fields this year for want of workers to pick them. The other issue is the need for protection in global markets. Those needs are being ignored in Whitehall.

The position on geographical indicators and other protections is similar. The EU currently protects Scottish produce in international markets, including Scotch whisky, Scotch lamb, Scotch beef, the cheeses, Stornoway black pudding, and so on. There are similar products elsewhere—the Melton Mowbray pork pie springs to mind, along with Fenland celery and Yorkshire rhubarb. The Minister of State for Trade Policy gave evidence to a Committee of the Scottish Parliament last month, and said that Scotch whisky would continue to be protected because of the importance of Scotch whisky exports to the UK economy, but that the others were basically up for grabs. He said:

“PGIs present quite serious difficulties in free-trade negotiations because some nations regard them as unfair protection or non-tariff barriers to trade.”

He went on to say that the issue is not straightforward in trade negotiations because we would have to demonstrate market penetration or recognition. In other words, protections in international markets for goods produced here will be negotiating chips on the table in each new trade deal that the UK looks for. Scotland’s farmers, having built a reputation for quality and traceability that helps to sell their products across borders, are about to see their market share threatened, even if they can get through the border posts, because they will be losing easy access to the world’s biggest single marketplace, but also because the protections that the machinery of the EU afford will be stripped away as the UK struggles to learn once again how to negotiate trade deals and negotiates away any protection that our unique products might have had.

It is notable that the briefings on the Bill that I have received from organisations in England are broadly in favour of it, while the briefings from organisations in Scotland are not.

In this, as in so much else, Scotland and England are different, and the differences cannot be easily reconciled. There was a time when Ministers in Whitehall acknowledged and accepted those differences and to an extent celebrated them as part of the diversity of the UK they sought to govern. Acknowledging that diversity and respecting its history could be achieved by respecting the devolved Administrations. There is no need for a power grab. There is no need for the centralisation of responsibility in Smith Square. Indeed, we know, and I am sure the Secretary of State will concede, that the plans being made for agriculture in England and the policies already being implemented would not suit Scotland; they will be harmful to Scottish food producers.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

The hon. Lady speaks about briefings. Does she agree with the National Farmers Union Scotland, which said in its briefing that the Scottish National party Scottish Government should accept the offer from the Westminster Government to include a schedule for Scotland? Why is the SNP refusing to do that?

[Deidre Brock]

I note the selective quote from the hon. Gentleman. The NFUS also said that any such schedule should be one that comes from the Scottish Government. One could ask whether the DEFRA Secretary would be willing to accept Scottish Government amendments.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is very important that we hear from the SNP, because the Bill does pertain to Scotland. However, as the hon. Lady has just said, a large part of this area is devolved. Is it not then fair that the SNP abides, as we all have to, by the eight-minute limit, instead of taking twice that amount of time?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) is her party’s Front-Bench spokesman. She is therefore not subject to a time limit. I am quite sure that, being an hon. Lady and a good orator, she will not take more time than is suitable, but it is up to her to decide what that is.

[Deidre Brock]

Thanks for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always a delight to hear just how warmly we are welcomed by Members in this place from other parties, especially those on the Government Benches.

Returning to my point, these are plans made by England’s Ministers for England’s industry: policies created by English Ministers to be English solutions to English problems. The sensible approach, I would argue, is to embrace Scottish solutions to Scottish problems and Welsh solutions to Welsh problems. Ministers in the Scottish and Welsh Governments should be in full control.

[Michael Gove]

Why is it that the Welsh Administration are capable of providing a schedule to the Bill for Welsh needs, but the Scottish Government are not? Why are the Scottish Government silent on future policy for Scotland’s farmers? Why is it that we are providing certainty for farmers in the United Kingdom, as the Welsh Labour Administration are doing, but the hon. Lady is so recklessly negligent of rural Scotland’s interests?

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

I am afraid that, unlike Welsh Labour Government Ministers, our Ministers are prepared to stand up for Scotland rather more forcefully. Ministers in the Scottish and Welsh Governments should be in full control of environmental, food and rural affairs policies, including agriculture. Let England be England; let Scotland be Scotland; and let Wales be Wales. There are fully functioning Administrations ready to take up the reins.

The Bill should be taken away and thought through again, so that there is something resembling sensible proposed legislation to be considered. We have a Bill that came prematurely: a lack of focus on the actual purpose of agriculture, a senseless and damaging power grab, the absence of any indication of a financial underpinning of Scottish agriculture and the protections that Scottish produce currently enjoys being stripped away. The Secretary of State is not a stupid man and he will know that the Bill is not fit for purpose. He has a leadership campaign to consider, no doubt, but legislation made here affects people who are trying to work, earn a living, get ahead and plan for the future. It should be done with care and a great deal of thought.

Finally, once upon a time, there was a Prime Minister called David Cameron, who started his term of office by visiting Edinburgh and then Cardiff to promote a respect agenda. He said that he wanted to make sure the UK was a partnership, not a dictatorship, and that he was determined to make devolution work. His Government, which contained many of the members of the current Government, promised to uphold the devolved powers to make sure that Scotland’s Parliament was properly respected. That agenda has vanished in the rush of blood that characterises the current Government’s planning for Brexit. Instead of respect for Scotland’s democracy and instead of upholding devolution, this Government are guilty of a centralisation of power the likes of which has not been seen in Europe for a lifetime. The political equivalent of an asset-stripping raid on the powers and responsibilities of Scotland’s Parliament and Scotland’s Government is breathtaking in its scope. Perhaps more breathtaking, however, is the truly outrageous determination of Ministers to pretend that there is nothing to see here, that nothing is being removed and that everything is being done for our own good.

The truth is that this is an assault on Scotland’s democracy that bears parallels to a previous Tory Government’s assault on Scotland’s industrial base. The ramifications of that assault are still being felt in Scotland and the ramifications of this one, if it is allowed to proceed, will hold Scotland back for decades to come. No decent Scottish MP could stand by and allow that to happen, no matter what party rosette they wear. No Scottish MP should be supporting a Bill that is part of that command-era-style centralisation. Every Scottish MP who wants to protect Scotland’s democracy, Scotland’s Parliament and the right of the Scottish people to choose their own Government will not be voting for the Bill today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

As a rural Northumbrian for more than 20 years, I have been closely involved with the trials and tribulations of the local farmers and land managers, whose livelihood is determined by the health of our rural economy. It is a physically hard life, and the Northumbrian weather—perhaps even more dramatic than that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax)—is a constant companion, with financial rewards sometimes feeling scarce.

The understanding of taxpayer support for farming is a fundamental underpinning of our food supply system, and it is a support that taxpayers buy into, as long as it reaches its intended target and meets its stated aims. The EU’s common agricultural policy did not do that. The voice of UK farmers has too often been drowned out by the demands of French or Spanish farmers. We have been stuck in a system not aimed at investing in the best land use in Northumberland or anywhere else across our islands.

With our departure from the EU and this Bill, we can stop the EU CAP funding bias against our own farming communities and put our own more effective and targeted land-management choices first. This reflects the optimistic outlook that Brexit brings—despite the depression on the Opposition Benches that has positively brought me down to earth—about the fact that we can and should determine our own land-management policy.

At a local level, my caseworker Jen spends a great deal of her time dealing with concerned farmers who have yet to receive last year’s payment, or are wondering whether this year’s will ever materialise. Mapping disagreements, disputes over hedge lines, common land use and cross-border issues with the Scots—not helped by the SNP’s current position—are just some of the challenges that the EU-based system, and perhaps historically our own delivery teams in Whitehall, have thrown up, causing months of financial and emotional challenges for Northumbrian farmers.

In addition to the funding disparity with other EU nations, years of working with our upland farmers in Northumberland has brought to my attention too many stories of wasted time and energy that could be better directed. One of the biggest gripes, as the Minister well knows, is the multiple visits by officials to ensure that EU rules are being followed, each visit adding stress and taking time, when one visit could cover all the issues—like an Ofsted visit, perhaps. Farmers would face one short window of pain, but would then be trusted, left alone to get on with their job. The vast majority of our farmers want to look after the land they are stewarding.

The undue pressures placed on our rural communities have always worried me. Farmers have been asking for help to ease the burden for years, but until now there was nothing we could do. That is why the Bill is so exciting: we will at last be able to create management and financial incentives to suit our needs and this Government’s long-term commitment to looking after our whole environment. We will be designing a system that does not funnel funds to our farmers’ foreign competitors, but frees up our land stewards to innovate; a system that supports a holistic perspective of land management, which puts long-term soil health, food production and water basin management with tree planting; and a system that incentivises long-term investment for public and economic good—the two are not mutually exclusive. Most important, public good is not an empty phrase: it means that we can join up long-term urban and rural health and security needs with the way we use our land—for everyone.

The Bill is based on inherent fairness, whereby farmers are rewarded for what they do and produce, rather than for the size of their landholding. Crucially, it offers rewards for those already working hard to improve the environment and to ensure that their methods of production are sustainable. That will begin to drive change for good across the countryside.

As the MP for one of the most sparsely populated constituencies—albeit the most beautiful, and I will take on anyone who wants to fight me on that—I am pleased that is not just farmers who grow food who will benefit from the new system. I have spoken many times about trees, and this debate offers an opportunity to do so again. As the Minister is aware, I believe we need to be planting at least one tree for every citizen, not one for every five, but the target of 11 million needs at least to be met to allow the long-term thinking we need for land management and water basin stabilisation, to support the timber industry’s needs and to reduce long-term reliance on imports for biomass, for housing frames and for furniture. We must aim to be able to become self-sustaining in timber.

[Deidre Brock]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Trevelyan]

I will not. Timber absorbs carbon dioxide as it grows and then holds that carbon a second time as wood products. I ask the Minister to consider, as part of the Borderlands initiative, planting a borderlands forest as part of our meeting our tree-planting targets—not so much a wall dividing us from our Scottish colleagues, but a biodiverse habitat that the English and the Scots can nurture together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

I welcome—patiently—the Bill, which puts in place the necessary changes as we leave the EU. I am truly delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). She may represent a beautiful county, but of course I represent the most beautiful constituency. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a conventional farmer—an organic farmer—I am a producer and I receive the single farm payment. This gives me an intimate knowledge of the industry.

The Bill focuses mainly on public money for public goods, and we are evolving from a common market. The Bill and future legislation will create a framework and support specific to the UK and the devolved Administrations. I welcome that. Like other Members, I want to see food production and farming in the Bill. Financial assistance for environmental purposes is laudable, but I believe that productive agriculture and the environment are mutually inclusive.

We have moved past the grubbing up of hedges and updated our pesticide and chemicals usage. In 30 years in agriculture—yes, it is hard to believe—I have seen leaps and bounds. I do not recognise some hon. Members’ characterisation of what farming is. We have moved a long way in 30 years. Farmers are the guardians of the land and the countryside. The longevity of that land is so important, and family farming, on whatever scale, looks to hand it on in a better state than it was received in. Upland farming must be protected by the Bill.

Part 1 of the Bill focuses on public money for public goods, encompassing the importance to rural and urban populations. I recognise that. I also take comfort from the Secretary of State’s words on food security and access to wholesome, well-produced and affordable food. I hope to see the Bill evolve.

On that point, I would like to mention schedule 3. It is very important that two SNP MPs, fellow Scottish MPs, are here. Schedule 3 is a very important provision, which relates to Wales. I hope that the Scottish Government see sense and follow Wales by being included in the Bill. There is scope to provide flexibility. Carping about a power grab fools no one: they are neglecting farmers and crofters in Scotland. They are compounding the rural payment disaster that sees Scottish farmers totally confused about payments. They still have not received their 2015 money. The Scottish Government should embrace the Bill, make provision for payments—if they do not do that here, they cannot do it in Holyrood—and work with DEFRA to add a Scotland schedule.

[Deidre Brock]

Specifically on the payments point, the hon. Gentleman may not have seen the press release today, which clarifies that, under proposals in the Scottish continuity Bill and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, existing European law will be rolled over, ensuring that the Scottish Government retain the legal ability to make the farm payments beyond March 2019. To suggest otherwise is inaccurate.

[Colin Clark]

There is the contrast: the Welsh Administration are trying to work for their farmers and the Scottish Government are politicising the deal.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome the introduction of the Bill by the UK Government, as do many farmers in my constituency, as well as NFU Scotland and Scottish Land & Estates, to name just a couple of organisations. As we come to the final stages of leaving the EU, the Bill offers security and a framework alongside guaranteed continued payments until 2022. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to, and action on, ensuring that the United Kingdom maintains the highest possible food and livestock welfare standards, as well as his commitments to public money for public goods, and financial assistance for

“the purpose of starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity.”

The opportunities contained in the Bill are the reason why it has been so warmly welcomed in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom, with both Wales and Northern Ireland—unencumbered by nationalist Administrations—accepting the Government’s offer to be included. Scotland can only rely on the SNP Administration in Edinburgh to be strong for nationalism, with not one single provision for agriculture included in their recent programme for government.

To be fair, the SNP has launched a consultation on the matter—the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) held it up earlier—and I have read it. Almost all of it is just a restatement of current EU policy, with no new policy recommended, but if one reads between the lines and follows the pointed questions, one finds a lot in the consultation that agrees with the Bill. Look at some of the sections on greening, for example—questions 5, 6 and 7 talk about more productive farming, tackling climate change and improving the greening of agriculture in Scotland. Much of that is included in the Bill. I also agree with some of the consultation points—again, these are included in the Bill —about specific support for rural communities and economies. Both the consultation and the Bill are about establishing frameworks.

The briefing from the NFUS is clear: it wants Scotland included in the Bill. It wants a schedule similar to the one for Wales, with associated provisions that protect devolved Ministers’ powers to adjust for devolved policy areas while preserving the UK market. The NFUS is not alone: Scottish Land & Estates, the SRUC Scotland’s Rural College, the Countryside Alliance and many of my local farmers share that view. All afternoon, we have heard from Members from England, Wales and Scotland about how their upland farmers face challenges and how they have less favoured areas, just as we do. So we should be working together in this House to find the areas that we have in common, work on common policy and have a Bill that works for the entire UK. I think we can do it if we just try.

Finally, I also want to talk about young farmers and what we are doing to encourage young people into the agricultural sector. The Bill includes measures to support farmers who are planning to leave or retire from the industry, and I hope that it will also help with the transition to a new generation of farmers, through supportive grants and loans for younger people to come into farming. That should be included in the final draft of the Bill. As well as the financial incentives for younger people, there should also be incentives to encourage investment in new equipment and in innovation in agriculture.

[Deidre Brock]

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that until very recently Scotland was the only part of the UK that had a scheme, under the CAP, to support new or young entrants? We have supported more than 1,000 new and young entrants since 2015, which surely shows why we need to keep our powers over funding and policy in Scotland.

[Luke Graham]

That shows the gross misunderstanding here. I am not saying anything against that; I am saying that in this Bill we should encourage young farmers and work together. Why have SNP Members not put this forward? Why have they not put a schedule forward? It is because they do not believe in the United Kingdom and in Scottish farming. They just believe in nationalism and the break-up of the United Kingdom. The different parts of the UK do face different challenges in agriculture, but there are also many, many similarities. As the Bill progresses, I hope that Members from across the UK can focus on the commonalities between the different parts of the UK so that we produce a Bill that delivers for our farmers and our rural communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

It would be reckless of any Government to do anything that would imperil the ambitions and aspirations exhibited by the exemplary constituents whom my hon. Friend serves so well.

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

The White Paper makes it clear that the Government do not intend to change the method for allocating existing quotas. Two thirds of UK fish quotas are controlled by three huge companies, and small boats are being squeezed. Is it not time for the Government to admit that Scotland’s fishermen will see absolutely no benefit from Brexit, but will lose access to the world’s biggest marketplace?

[Michael Gove]

Almost everything in that question was wrong, but that does not surprise me because almost everything in the Scottish National party’s position on fisheries is wrong. It wants to stay in the European Union and therefore in the common fisheries policy and yet it wants Scotland’s fishermen to enjoy all the advantages of being outside the common fisheries policy. Some Members of this House have been accused of wanting to have their cake and eat it. I am afraid that SNP Members want to have a whole chain of bakeries and eat everything in them. If hypocrisy were a term that was allowed to be used in this House, then it would fit the Scottish National party like a bunnet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I suppose that matter would be entirely appropriate for him to include in the submission to the Procedure Committee as perhaps a reason why the House might want to change its procedures on this issue.

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

3. To ask the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, what recent estimate the Commission has made of the cost of repairing and refurbishing the Palace of Westminster.

[Tom Brake]

The Commission has made no such estimate. It will be for the sponsor board and delivery authority, which the two Houses agreed earlier this year to establish, to develop a proposed scope of works and budget for agreement by Parliament.

[Deidre Brock]

With the eye-watering bill estimated so far for here, the similarly-eye watering bill for Buckingham Palace, and the biggest bill of all, the bill we will pay for Brexit, is it any wonder that the public are losing confidence in politicians? Is there not still time to decide to move out of London to a purpose-built modern Parliament with sensible things such as electronic voting? If not, is there at least a team looking at how to cut the cost of this nonsense?

Sustainable Fisheries

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

When my right hon. Friend was a DEFRA Minister, he contributed significantly to improvements to the common fisheries policy, and fishing and coastal communities throughout the United Kingdom owe him a particular debt. He is right on both his points: in or out of the CFP, we have to make sure that conservation measures are at the heart of our future policy, and it is also right that we do more, particularly for coastal communities where they use inshore vessels, to ensure that opportunities are reallocated to benefit them and the communities and businesses built around them.

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

We have heard so much about red lines since 2016, but those red lines might now be considered red herrings. I have read the documents issued this morning. Given the commitment to

“continue to work with our European partners to regulate fishing and to set harvest rates”,

will the fleets still be subject to the CFP, but without a Minister at the table when decisions are being agreed? Given that maximum sustainable yield has been established and the Secretary of State has already made it clear to the Danish fleet that it and all others will still be welcome to fish in UK waters, will our fleets continue to be subject to the same quotas as they currently are?

Given that the UK Government

“will consider whether and how to replace”

the European maritime and fisheries fund, is there a possibility that the fleets will receive reduced funding, or that funding might be redistributed on an uneven footing to suit a Government’s political ends? Is there even a possibility that the fleets will no longer receive funding at all? I note the point about the World Trade Organisation wanting to see an end to fisheries subsidies, but wonder whether raw, unfettered competition is really best for Scotland’s fishing fleet.

On partnership working, the Government say that frameworks will “not normally” be changed without the devolved Administrations’ consent. That “not normally” bothers me. May we have a guarantee that frameworks will not be put in place without the explicit agreement of the Scottish Government? Welsh and Northern Irish Members will no doubt press a similar case. May we also have a guarantee that no future changes will be made without unanimity—that no Administration will be overruled?

Finally, before Mr Speaker’s eyes turn disapprovingly upon me, I note the establishment of an English marine management reserve; will that have Barnett consequentials?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady’s anxiety was misplaced, as she had 14 seconds to spare. She was a model citizen and will now be esteemed throughout the House.