Direct Payments Ceilings Regulations 2020

Lord Duncan of Springbank Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the considered way in which he has presented these regulations. After all, they enable those payments to be continued for this year to the end of the transition period. Coming from Northern Ireland, where we benefited considerably through the common agricultural policy, I regret leaving the EU—but I face the fact, and have accepted the fact, that we are leaving.

The provenance and sustainability of the food we eat are important to us all. That is why it is so important that all legislation surrounding the agricultural sector is robust and fit for purpose. We need to legislate to continue these payments for this year. The farming industry is also rightly looking forward to next year and beyond, by which time we will have left the EU. Our farmers face uncertainty and have a degree of concern about that, and we have a duty to address their concerns.

The future payments regime must respect the needs of farmers and sustainable production. It has to address climate change and allow our farming sector to do its job and produce the food we all eat. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, referred to the need to support active farmers. I suppose the way to do that is by supporting sustainable production in any future payments regime.

There is also a need for food security and to ensure accessibility to supply as we still grapple with the problems caused by Covid-19. We have to think about what the Agriculture Bill—which we will discuss in Committee next week—will provide for us from next year onwards and how that payment regime will play out. As I said before, it is important that the payments are based on sustainable production and ensure a steady and accessible supply of food. Reporting on food security should be done annually, not every five years as suggested in the Bill. I ask the Minister to address, in advance of Committee, his view and the Government’s of changing from every five years to annually.

There should also be scope for Ministers to carry over any money left unspent at the end of a budget year. Does the Minister agree? What steps will the Government take to ensure that any financial assistance scheme encourages sustainable food production? What plans does the Minister have in that regard?

I believe that farmers throughout the United Kingdom need to be treated fairly. Disparities in farming incomes must not be accentuated by the availability, or otherwise, of direct support payments or equivalent forms of financial assistance across the UK. Like other noble Lords, I want to hear about the degree of collaboration with the devolved institutions and how that will play out in terms of future agricultural policy, our future agricultural regime and, above all, payments to farmers—including whether it will support food production or some other means within farming.

Also, what is the possibility of using genetics in sheep and beef production and linking that to climate change?

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

I understand that the audio of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, may be a little shaky, but we will try our best.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Duncan of Springbank Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th June 2020 Lords Chamber

For those reasons, I could not recommend the amendment to your Lordships. I sense that the noble Baroness may well want to test the opinion of the House, but I say in all honesty that we see complications and difficulties with this amendment. Therefore, as is normal, I ask the noble Baroness if she would feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

I have received a single request to speak after the Minister so, to ask a short question for elucidation, I call the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney.

[Lord Kilclooney (CB)]

My Lords, I have a short question. I certainly understand the objective of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and sympathise with it, and I note the importance of the role of devolution. However, the amendment says there would be consultation with the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers but it does not mention the Northern Ireland Minister, just the department. The department had a role when there was no devolution in operation in Northern Ireland but devolution is now operating day by day and there is a Fisheries Minister. Why is the Fisheries Minister not mentioned in the amendment, like those of Scotland and Wales?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the Minister wish to respond?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

This is not my amendment, so I suggest that the clarification is for the noble Baroness.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 28 agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 29. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press the amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 29

Moved by

Agriculture Bill

Lord Duncan of Springbank Excerpts

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

[Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I broadly welcome the Bill, which is timely. I have several questions on which I would like some clarification, if I may. At present, my noble friend will recognise that the agriculture funding system within the EU works to a seven-year timetable, allied to the multiannual financial framework. How will the future funding cycle then be determined within the UK itself, and how shall the devolved nations be involved in the determination of that cycle?

I note the important contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bew. In his review of farm payments north of the border, he was able to restore a degree of amity between Scottish farmers and those in the rest of the UK. It will be recalled that this was simply because the then Secretary of State for Defra mistook his UK role for his English farming role. There will need to be greater clarity to ensure that this does not happen again.

I have only a few specific points. Coming this late in the debate, I am afraid that several noble Lords have raised them; I will therefore echo those points. First, I echo the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. Will there be a primary stage impact assessment? It will be important, given the scale of the change that the Bill represents, to have a full appreciation of how it will interweave with the future development of policy.

Secondly, I welcome strongly the notion of delivering support for public good. But public good is a nebulous concept and the measurement of it will be a challenge. Noble Lords will be aware that one of the great criticisms farmers have had of the common agricultural policy is its bureaucratic base, along with the measurements and involvement of bureaucracy in establishing conformity to policy. It is often this part that has caused the greatest frustration for farmers, so it would be useful to get some sense of how this public good will be measured and what sanctions might be anticipated for the failure to deliver public good.

My final point rests on perhaps the greatest question yet to come, that of climate change. Farmers will be at the forefront of decarbonising, so I would welcome my noble friend’s comments on how he anticipates the evolving agriculture support policy interweaving with the UK Government’s ongoing commitment to net zero. These elements will become very important and critical in helping farmers themselves to move in this direction. Those are my points.

Food Supply and Security

Lord Duncan of Springbank Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)]

My Lords, this is a timely debate and I echo the thanks that noble Lords have expressed to the noble Baroness. I was struck by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, when he spoke of the berry bus that toured the estates in Scotland. I too was a victim of its pursuit—although in my case it was a berry van—and many was the morning I woke up praying for rain and being disappointed by sunshine.

Picking raspberries is never a pleasure, I am afraid. It is a serious job. Over the last few years, we have relied on the migrant workers who come to do it. Latterly however, even before Brexit reared its head, it was becoming harder and harder to bring people across the water to pick those berries. The principal reason was competition from countries such as Germany, Italy and Spain, which were offering incentives for migrant workers to do exactly the same thing, with not berries but hops, grapes or other market garden products.

We had a challenge and we now have a new challenge, namely the Covid virus. The test we therefore have to meet is how we will harvest into the future. We have a trial run this year because of Covid, but the simple questions remain: who will pick our raspberries in the future and how will we ensure that they are harvested well? It is no longer enough to rely just on hope and wish; we need to pull together a plan. This plan must encourage people to undertake labour in this area and recognise the value that it has to local communities. It will not be an easy plan, because some of these tasks are simply not as pleasant as they might sound to those who occasionally pick a raspberry for a nice spot of lunch. For those who do it all day, it is a seriously challenging endeavour. Will the Minister give serious thought to how we might achieve such a strategic plan to help harvest this area?