Agriculture Bill

Lord Burnett Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I should begin by declaring the interests I declared earlier during the passage of the Bill. I shall speak to Amendments 89ZA and 93 and to the gist of the arguments behind others. It is important that UK agriculture and the UK public should be confident about the marketplace for food in this country.

UK farming—using those words in a wide sense—is operating in a global marketplace and needs to be sure that it will be playing on a level playing field not only because of the food implications of its activities, but because of the implications the revenues from food production will have on the delivery of all other public goods, using that word in a general sense, that we have been discussing during the currency of the Bill. That differentiates the debates that we are having from the arguments that pertained at the time of the repeal of the corn laws. I am afraid that as an individual I think that it is invariably the case that reassurances from any Government today are no guarantor of government actions tomorrow. Under our constitutional system, the best guarantor of such things is a specific provision in an Act of Parliament.

From the food perspective, for the entire population the problem is summarised as what has come to be known as the chlorinated chicken issue. It seems to me that chlorinated chicken, which may or may not be disagreeable, is not the issue. The problem is that the place where that chicken originates is so rife with damaging disease and practices that it is necessary to apply those techniques to it. That being the case, it is surely better not to have food from those sorts of places in the first instance. Finally, environment, welfare and other land use factors are important for the globe as well as for the United Kingdom. Encouraging and promoting bad practices elsewhere is something we should be ashamed of doing and we should not do it.

[Lord Burnett (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who brings ministerial and practical experience as a farmer to this debate. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I shall speak to Amendment 89ZA and Amendment 93, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Krebs, my noble friend Lady Bakewell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.

I spoke on food standards and other matters in my contributions at Second Reading and in Committee. I remind the House that I farmed on my own account for more than 20 years and had the honour of representing the rural constituency of Torridge and West Devon from 1997 until I retired from the other place in 2005. I still live in the constituency. In 2001, the constituency was probably the most adversely affected in the country by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Since 1976, and particularly since 2001, I have observed first-hand the agricultural industry making substantial investments in time and money in improving animal welfare, protecting and enhancing our environment and complying with rightly stringent provisions relating to food safety and hygiene, traceability and plant health. British agriculture is justifiably proud of the high standards it has attained in responding to all these challenges and of its ability to provide to good and safe food for the British people. I am aware that some Ministers have declared that the Government will not enter into agreements with countries that dilute these high standards. At Second Reading I stressed that Ministers come, and Minsters go. I gave other compelling reasons why the British public and the agricultural industry should have assurance of statutory protection in relation to high standards for all the matters covered in Amendment 93.

This was all before the Government took the momentous and deplorable decision to provide, or endeavour to provide, powers to renege on the international treaty with the EU, which they had negotiated and agreed less than one year ago. This has shocked most of us in our House and also the British public. In the past, this country has rightly been respected for our commitment to the rule of law and our compliance with international law.

This proposed legislation—which enables this country to resile from its treaty commitments—is outrageous and undermines the good faith of this Government, whose cavalier approach to the rule of law is the most compelling reason why this new amendment on food standards should be enacted. The British people and the agricultural industry must all have all the protections we can provide. Thank you.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 89ZA, 93 and 103, and I simply ask the Government to honour their election manifesto commitment that

“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”


Amendment 93 would ensure, on a statutory basis, that import standards cannot be lowered to below equivalent domestic standards as part of free trade agreements. Such agreements cannot be a race to the bottom; environmental, animal welfare and food standards need to be protected and improved over time. Imported products produced to lower standards than required from UK farmers would undermine our farming industry and create unfair competition. Import standards have not been addressed in the Trade Bill, so they need to be addressed here. I do not accept the belief of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the Government can be trusted to stand by their word; we need statutory assurance.

For example, a few weeks ago, I was one of a number of Peers briefed by the Trade Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who said that such standards issues would be best dealt with by differential tariffing against substandard imports. I remain unconvinced that tariffs alone would effectively prevent the import of substandard products. However, I am very interested in Amendment 103 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which would ensure that tariffing, combined with other measures, also worked in the interests of maintaining standards. It would be a useful, but not sufficient, condition.

Others have talked about labelling, but, with regard to standards, this will not work. If you are poor and hungry, cheaper food will be attractive irrespective of standards. To enshrine the Conservative manifesto commitment in primary legislation is, in my belief, entirely in line with World Trade Organization rules, which allow countries to put in place non-discriminatory measures designed to protect human, plant or animal health or a limited natural resource. The Government need to use fine UK ingenuity and leadership to design and justify sensible import restrictions, which could be made compatible with WTO rules; that is what Governments and trade negotiations are for.

We know that the US negotiating mandate for a free trade deal sees harmonising standards as a central objective, and this means harmonising them to their standards. We know that statutory instruments introduced using European Union (Withdrawal) Act powers have already deleted from the statute book considerable amendments governing, for example, antibiotic levels in foodstuffs. That is just one example of what can happen if we do not keep our eye on government commitments.

Once the transition is over, the Food Standards Agency adjudicates on the risks of foods and treatments, but its chief executive officer has recently said that Ministers have the final say on whether food produced to lower standards can make it onto UK supermarket shelves. I think that UK supermarkets will have a view on that. Maintaining high standards is supported by farmers, by 75% of the public and by major retailers across the board, and they are responding to the concerns of their customers. They will not stock produce that they believe their customers do not want to see on their shelves.

I know that the Government will want to maintain wiggle room in the trade negotiations, but, to be frank, the more they wiggle, the more they will reap the wrath of the people they are here to serve, who are committed to high food, environmental, employment and human health standards.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Burnett Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I have had quite a long wait as I am the 40th speaker, but I have heard all the other 39. We have had varied contributions, but there has been a remarkable degree of consensus supporting the amendments in general and in particular Amendment 270, so ably moved by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, and Amendment 279, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness.

As I listened, it seemed to me that, as this is the longest and most important Agriculture Bill in my parliamentary lifetime of 50 years, we should ask: what is and should be its prime purpose. It should be twofold. It should be to protect British farming and agriculture. There have been debates on other days, some of which I have taken part in, where there has been talk of public benefit and public good, rather avoiding the central purpose of farming, which is to produce food for our people. It is therefore to protect farming. But I was also much taken by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, when he talked about the need to promote farming.

As I listened to the noble Earl and others, it seemed to me that we could produce a fairly good group of people from your Lordships’ House to protect and promote British farming. I thought of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, who made a notable speech, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who always speaks with a quiet and almost magisterial authority on these things, and the ever-wise noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, now a non-aligned Peer, so he can indulge in being semi-detached, which I am frequently accused of being myself.

I was taken, too, by the speech of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who talked powerfully about the importance of Scottish lamb and its French market. He echoed what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said a few days ago in a slightly different context when he talked about 90% of Welsh lamb going to the European Union. We must face up to the fact that, as we have left the European Union and the transition period will come to an end on 31 December, we must do all that we can to protect that market for our agricultural goods. It is absolutely incumbent on the Government to do everything they can to negotiate a deal that achieves that purpose.

I am not suggesting—no one should—that British farming practices are perfect. There were disturbing pictures a few weeks back of the River Wye, perhaps the loveliest river in England, polluted by the effluent from intensive chicken farming. It is nowhere near as intensive as what goes on in America, which is why the birds have to be washed in chlorine before we can eat them. Just this week we had a graphic reminder from the Prime Minister’s personal campaign, which he launched yesterday, against junk food, much of which is either produced here or has some British ingredients. So we are not perfect, but we have high standards. I do not always take a lot of notice of manifestos, but the Conservative Party manifesto in December made a total commitment to ensure that our standards would be enhanced rather than diminished. If the Bill does not create a situation whereby that can happen, it is, in the immortal words of the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, not fit for purpose.

The Government have themselves acknowledged the value of a commission, but a commission whose recommendations can easily be set aside and whose life is very limited will not really deliver for British farming and the British people. That is why I believe that my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, indicated the right way to go: the establishment of a permanent body that we can all respect, whose judgments and pronouncements will carry weight and which will itself fulfil something of the purpose I referred to a moment ago of both protecting and promoting British farming.

I end by echoing the tributes to my noble friends Lord Gardiner and Lady Bloomfield, because they have certainly borne the burden of the heat of the day. But seven days is not too long to devote to the preliminary scrutiny of the most important Bill of its kind in half a century. The Government will have to show enormous flexibility if they regard our powers of scrutiny as real and important when we come to Report. The seven days will certainly be equalled, or even exceeded, and there could be quite a lot of contact with another place as a result of Report. But my noble friend has great talents of diplomacy. He has a quiet, persuasive ability and I hope he will bring the Bill back on Report incorporating much of what has been proposed in Committee. It would therefore have a speedy and triumphant progress through your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Burnett (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 271 and declare my interests as set out in the register.

At Second Reading, I stated that for various reasons, which I gave in my speech, if we crash out of the EU at the end of the year without an agreement, there will be overwhelming pressure on the Government to compete a trade agreement with the United States as soon as possible. I also gave reasons why this might take more time than has been anticipated. However, from recent press reports, it appears that the Government are leaning towards negotiating what Matthew Parris, in his excellent article in the Times on Saturday 25 July, described as “a new status with the EU as an economic satellite but excluded from its decision-making.” Other reports support this opinion. The EU will make some concessions and such a free trade agreement would, according to Mr Parris, leave us still able to enjoy relatively frictionless trade with our former EU partners as long as we essentially copy the EU’s level playing field rules, but do so voluntarily as a sovereign nation.

However, this is still speculation. We must protect the British people and ensure that they have safe and high-quality food to eat, produced in accordance with high animal welfare and environmental standards. These are the standards we currently follow or exceed. We must retain our vital EU markets and, as emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie, in their compelling speeches, Amendment 271 largely follows the wording of another amendment put down in the other place by the honourable member for Tiverton and Honiton, Mr Neil Parish, chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and a highly respected Member of the other place. He put his amendment to the vote and although it was lost, a number of Government members and MPs voted with him, as did the opposition parties.

Over the past few months, a number of Ministers have stated that whatever the pressures, the Government will adhere to the high food safety, environmental and animal welfare standards that we have achieved within the European Union. This should be reason enough to enshrine these standards in our own primary legislation. Ministers come and Ministers go, as I said at Second Reading. If it is not in primary legislation, there are real problems.

I commend to the House an article dated 12 September 2019, written by Chloe Anthony, a lecturer in law at the University of Sussex, and Dr Emily Lydgate, a fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory—a partnership between the University of Sussex and Chatham House—entitled UK food safety Statutory Instruments: A problem for US-UK negotiations? Referring to the statutory instruments created under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, these authors argue that some provide extensive scope for Ministers to make future changes to food and safety legislation without the parliamentary oversight that primary legislation would provide. We in this House and the other place are aware of the problems of overseeing secondary legislation and the power it gives to Governments. Much of the existing legislation on food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards can be altered by statutory instrument. One statutory instrument can deal with a number of different matters and, save in exceptional circumstances, it is not amendable by either House. The only exception to that rule is when the parent Act provides otherwise. This is not the case in the legislation we are debating. Matthew Parris reminds us in his article that our largest trading partner is the EU, at 47% of our trade, and our second largest is the United States of America at 15%.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Burnett Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, for all amendments on which I may speak today, I declare my interest as on the register.

When we concluded last Thursday, we had heard some excellent speeches on nature-friendly farming and agroecology, and I will comment on the amendments in this group that speak about those subjects. They are not the same thing, as I recall my noble friend Lord Caithness saying in his speech. As an aside, he also mentioned an anecdotal indicator that highlights the severe decline in our biodiversity. Like him, I cannot recall when I last saw bugs or moths squashed on my car windscreen—at least 20 years ago. Where there are no bugs and beasties, birds will be in decline also.

I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, kept referring to “nature-friendly farming” in her excellent speech. I have had the benefit of looking at examples of farms in the agroecology network and the Nature Friendly Farming Network and, while both do excellent work, it is important that we get it right if we build either of these terms into legislation.

I am grateful to my friend Professor Michael Winter of Exeter University, the UK-renowned expert on this subject, who is also on the board of Natural England. He has briefed me as follows: “There is a significant difference between the Nature Friendly Farming Network and Agro-Ecology. The Nature Friendly Farming Network is a broad grouping that includes organic and the Linking the Environment And Farming the LEAF/integrated approaches. Agro-ecology dates back to the 1980s and the term was coined by a Chilean scientist (now a professor at Berkeley) called Miguel A. Altieri. It is resolutely organic and anti-GM, and closely linked to the food sovereignty movement. In the UK, agroecology has been adopted by the Landworkers’ Alliance. There are many things to commend agro-ecology but it is not easily compatible with mainstream broadacre UK agriculture, and I am sceptical about the hegemony of organics and the wholesale opposition to mainstream food retailers.”

Professor Winter goes on to say: “I advocate three things in this space: 1) more policy attention and encouragement to agro-ecology as just one part of the tapestry of ensuring faming becomes more nature-friendly; 2) a pragmatic acceptance that most UK agriculture for the foreseeable future is not likely to radically divorce itself from the conventional food chain (as advocated by the Landworkers’ Alliance), and therefore that LEAF/integrated and nature-friendly approaches are needed within the mainstream food system; and 3) the need to encourage research that bridges the gap between the agro-ecology-based approach and the conventional Research Council/Sustainable Intensification approach.” In light of that, I am content that any amendments that mention nature-friendly farming are opposed to those that advocate agroecology, unless they are part of a nature-friendly farming system, which I passionately support.

Finally, I will comment on the speech on pesticides from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which has tempted me to say something. On Thursday, we heard the excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. He described how new robotic technology now makes it possible for machines to travel down a field and place a tiny drop of pesticide on a single weed leaf and kill it. No pesticide touches the food crop or soil. I do not want Roundup sprayed by aerosol over everything—weeds, food, trees, humans and animals—but we must look again at some of these banned pesticides, if they can be applied in the future in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. We must not demonise all pesticides and herbicides. If someone invented a herbicide that killed Japanese knotweed or the fungus that destroys ash trees, would we not grab it with open arms, provided it did not harm humans or wildlife? So let us keep an open mind on pesticides and be prepared to change our mind if the technology changes.

[Lord Burnett (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I shall speak to Amendment 38, in the names of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall. This amendment adds implementation of comprehensive integrated pest and weed management measures, based on an agroecological approach, as an additional criterion for financial assistance.

Before I speak to Amendment 38, I shall say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to whom the previous speaker referred. She made a compelling and valuable contribution last Thursday evening in support of her Amendment 259. She was powerfully supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, a co-signatory to the amendment. I have considerable sympathy for the principle of a periodic review of the safety of herbicides and pesticides.

Reverting to Amendment 38, I start by declaring that of course I understand that competition is valuable when it is fair and based on common rules and standards. I think that all noble Lords will agree that British agriculture has high standards of animal welfare, and that farmers and growers strive to protect the environment and our landscape. They rightly strive to produce healthy and safe food, not only for human consumption but also for animal consumption. I remind noble Lords that much of the grain produced in the UK goes toward animal feed, and that some of those animals are slaughtered for human consumption.

The experiences of foot and mouth and, prior to that, BSE vividly illustrate the consequences for individuals and this country when standards are allowed to slip. Our growers produce much-needed high-quality vegetables and fruit for human consumption and, to grow the crops, there has to be a system of pest, weed and disease control. This process should be

“based on an agroecological approach”,

in the words of Amendment 38. Unfortunately, when the transition period ends on 31 December this year, many of our likely new trading partners will not be inhibited from using methods and chemicals that are toxic and potentially damaging to human physical and mental health. These products are also potentially damaging to animal health. Some of them have carcinogenic side-effects. Even exercising rights of way by walking or running near crops sprayed with toxic sprays would be a danger to health from inhalation.

There are reports that British consumers face being exposed to toxic chemicals linked to serious health problems if they buy food imported from, for example, America, under the terms of a new trade agreement being negotiated with the USA. Experts say that supermarkets and restaurants will be flooded with cheap produce that has been sprayed with toxic pesticides which are currently banned in Britain and the European Union. I have seen a list published in a respected national newspaper of 70 pesticides that are widely used in the USA but banned in Britain and the EU.

A Toxic Trade study also shows how US farmers use vast quantities of pesticides compared to producers in Britain. If we allow these products to be imported into this country, the price will include a significantly increased risk to human health, which will be borne by the British consumer. It is my hope that Members from all parts of your Lordships’ House will come together to enact legislation in the Bill to ensure that the British consumer is protected from this threat. With the financial assistance provided for in this amendment and with other statutory provisions, we should go some way to keep our standards high and our food safe.

Finally, the Government have manoeuvred us out of the European Union on terms yet to be agreed. This leaves all businesses scandalously and perilously short of time to plan and prepare. The Government themselves have rightly been manoeuvred away from a reliance on the People’s Republic of China. We are not in a strong bargaining position. It is up to Parliament to ensure that the Government comply with the commitments they have repeatedly made to farmers, growers and the public to keep our food safe.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am so pleased that the question of good soils found its way into this edition of the Bill. We have Rebecca Pow MP to thank for that improvement to the earlier editions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said last Thursday, in a mere teaspoonful of good soil there should be over 1 billion bacteria and probably, among those, over 1 million different species of bacteria, of which we can identify clearly only about 10%. Nevertheless, it is the bacteria that, with the help of water and sunshine, produce our crops and food. We ignore their health at our peril, so I support all the amendments on maintaining healthy soils and the continuous monitoring of the soils of our nation.

I support the principle of Amendment 117, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others, on the protection of meadows and other semi-natural grasslands. Meadows and semi-natural grasslands are very important habitats, first because of the amazing variety of flowers that exist there, especially rare orchids and other wildflowers, some of which have wonderful names—such as chalk milkwort, lady’s bedstraw, cuckoo flower, common toadflax, et cetera. These meadows and ancient grasslands also hold a wide diversity of fauna—rare moths, butterflies, beetles, crickets and grasshoppers—which in turn attract a large variety of birds trying to eat them. All this biodiversity specialness is not to underplay the important historical significance of these meadows and semi-natural grasslands.

I have already declared my interest as chair of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. Some noble Lords may have noticed, last week, that our satellite survey indicated that 8,000 square kilometres of meadows and other grasslands have been lost from Britain’s farms and public land over the last 25 years. That is about the size of Cornwall. When you consider that the previous statistic available was that we had lost over 90% of our ancient meadows and grasslands since World War II, it is really important to keep the ones we still have.

My only comment on the amendment is that, while I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, knows a semi-natural grassland when she sees one, I am not sure that all farmers and landowners necessarily do, particularly if they have just bought the land in question and it is midwinter, when it might not be so obvious what a jewel they have. It would be best if local councils and/or Natural England designated all such meadows and semi-natural grasslands where they have not already done so—a lot of them are, of course, already registered—to make it clear to all and sundry what incredibly valuable heirlooms these places really are.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Burnett Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to speak at Second Reading; I was not sworn in to your Lordships’ House due to illness. I am having trouble with my broadband, so I will make this incredibly brief. I will comment on Amendments 106 and 103, which I see as key.

On Amendment 106 in particular, I am very much opposed to the money going to the person who is not taking the risk in managing the land on a day-to-day basis or in occupation of the land. During my two spells as a Farming Minister, in MAFF and in Defra, I did many farm visits. I remember on more than one occasion being taken to one side privately by a farmer to spell out the fact that they were doing certain things that were improving income and diversifying but the landlord had started to interrupt and take a slice. I would be very much opposed to the National Trust, for example, being a big recipient of this money on behalf of tenant farmers. We should be quite ruthless about where the money goes. It is essentially farm income; it is not for other bodies. I am not singling out the National Trust, but I can think of two or three examples where it was the main culprit.

I very much agree with Amendment 103. I would like to make a couple of points that impinge on the next group, on which I will not speak because there is an overlap. First, on the monitoring of animal health and welfare, farmers have to be proactive. There is of course a fear that leaving the CAP might mean less form-filling and more of a free-for-all. We cannot afford that; there has to be really proactive monitoring of animal health and welfare, and farmers have to be encouraged to do that. Secondly, in respect of public access, better paths around field margins to replace unsafe lanes, deliberately creating circular routes rather than single routes, have to be of great benefit to the public.

I will give the Committee a good example to go and look at. In the Langdale valley in Cumbria there have been massive changes in recent years to allow access on the floor of the valley to wheelchair users. What has happened there has been quite dramatic. I would say that that example, above all the others that I came across, is absolutely fantastic. I will conclude there.

[Lord Burnett (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. He was a distinguished Farming Minister and it is good to see him back with us.

I declare my interests as set out in the register. I will speak to Amendment 2 in the names of my noble friends Lady Scott and Lord Addington. The effect of the amendment would be to limit financial assistance to those involved in agriculture, horticulture, forestry and land management. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to continue to maintain financial support for agriculture and other activities specified in the amendment. Farmers, growers and others are, like so many other businesses, extremely apprehensive about the future, especially when the transition period ends on 31 December this year. They understand from media reports that the Brexit negotiations seem to be going nowhere, and it is becoming more likely by the day that we shall leave the EU on WTO terms. The financial shock to our whole economy of such a crash-out will be immense, and farmers, growers and others described in the amendment will need all the support that they can get. I mentioned at Second Reading the likely disastrous effect on stock prices, especially in the sheep sector but also quite possibly in the beef sector.

Over the years, farmers and others have wholeheartedly embraced policies to protect and enhance the environment and the countryside, to farm extensively and to achieve high standards of animal welfare. They have diversified as much as they can. Our farmers are aware and proud that they are the custodians of our landscape, including the uplands and the vast bulk of the landmass of the country that is turned over to agriculture and forestry. Farmers strongly resist the cheap and dangerous solutions practised elsewhere, such as the use of growth hormones and toxic pesticides. They value our landscape and our countryside. Farmers and growers embrace their role in producing the bulk of the food to feed our country. However, all this comes at a high cost, not only a high capital cost but often a cost in the diminution of future income.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Burnett Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Burnett (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I live in a rural area and for many years I used to farm on my own account. I had the honour to serve as Member in the other place for Torridge and West Devon, where I still live. It is one of the most rural constituencies in England and part of it comprises a large swathe of the Dartmoor National Park. I have observed over many years how the United Kingdom’s agricultural industry has made substantial investments of time and money into animal welfare and environmental protection. We rightly have high animal welfare and environmental standards. We concentrate whenever possible on the extensive rearing of livestock and we produce high-quality products.

Given the time constraints in the debate, I shall concentrate on the beef and sheep sector. If there is no agreement with the European Union by the end of this year—and media reports suggest this is likely; even the Governor of the Bank of England has warned banks to prepare for no deal—then the prospects for UK agriculture are extremely bleak.

The sheep sector faces a very damaging period, lasting for years. Approximately 40% of our total sheepmeat production is exported to the European Union. We import very little sheepmeat from the European Union. If we leave the EU without a deal and on WTO terms, our exports to the EU will carry an ad valorem tariff of between 40% and 60%. This product is very price sensitive. Exports will be severely cut and there will be chronic oversupply in the UK. The price of sheepmeat will plummet, leaving our sheep farmers’ stock values decimated. The continuation of the basic payment scheme and other support will not even start to make up the difference.

As to beef, we are net importers from the EU. I understand that we are proposing an ad valorem tariff of approximately 12% on imports of beef into this country from the EU, whereas our exports of beef to the EU will carry an ad valorem tariff of between approximately 40% and 60%. This means that we shall be in the ludicrous position of subsidising imports. Trade in beef products will be severely disrupted, and with dire consequences for our farmers. Stock values may drop substantially.

The pressure will be on the Government to make alternative tariff-free or low-tariff arrangements with non-EU countries. There will be overwhelming pressure on the Government from other sectors of the economy to complete a trade agreement with the United States. My understanding is that any trade agreement would have to be ratified by both Houses of Congress. Senators and members of the House of Representatives from rural areas could refuse to ratify the agreement if the necessary access for their constituents to agricultural products from the UK was not included. The pressure on the Government to conclude an agreement with the US will be overwhelming. Despite their fine words, Ministers come and go. Unless we impose the most compelling and robust statutory prohibitions on the Government, we shall be flooded with cheap, hormone-fed beef that is reared with scant regard for animal welfare and with other products that are equally substandard. For example, there are many crop sprays permitted in the United States which have been outlawed in the EU, and therefore in Britain, for years.

The Government should agree an extension on the transition period until satisfactory arrangements between us and the EU have been agreed, for all businesses in the country not just the agricultural sector. It is not in our interests to import substandard food that will be damaging to the British people. Agriculture in the UK employs, directly or indirectly, approximately 4.1 million individuals. If the Government do not heed those of us who counsel caution, there will also be substantial consequential losses for rural and urban Britain, of jobs, business and other opportunities.

Our farmers produce, and should be encouraged to produce, the basic necessity of life: namely, food.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

Please can I remind the noble Lord of the speaking limit?

[Lord Burnett [V]]

We owe it to everyone in our country to ensure that we maintain an agricultural sector that continues to provide high-quality, safe food and which continues to respect the environment and animal welfare.

Brexit: Farm Support

Lord Burnett Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I agree with the noble Lord because it is important to note, not only in Westminster but in the devolved Administrations as well, that there are very distinct agricultural systems, whether we are talking about uplands, lowland grassland farms or farms that are really important in terms of landscape. In all of this we can have a more distinct system to encourage ways of sustaining and enhancing our environment and our landscapes.

[Lord Burnett (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register of interests. In any trade agreement, the United States will insist on unfettered rights to export to us pigmeat, beef and sheepmeat. What effect will this have on farmers’ livestock values?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

These are all going to be matters for negotiation in the future and I am not in a position to talk about hypothetical situations. As I said, it is clear that we will not be compromising on our animal welfare standards—it is very important that the British brand should be adhered to. It is all very well, but if countries think that they can deliver lower-quality food, that is an enormous mistake. We should be negotiating from a position of strength, and I think that the British brand has a lot of strength to it.