Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I support the fatal amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Grender. This fatal amendment rightly calls on this House to decline to approve the Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations, on the grounds that they accelerate the reduction of delinked payments without adequately establishing alternative funding schemes.

I will not repeat the arguments that have been made by my noble friend Lady Grender and others. We are all aware of the proposed dramatic acceleration in the reduction of delinked payments for 2025, and how this has come on top of the completely unexpected and sudden withdrawal of SFI payments. These two factors leave thousands of farmers who were in the process of applying—some 6,600 applications—frozen out of the payments system, and this is unacceptable.

This double blow of slashing established payments while closing the door to the replacement scheme has thrown thousands of farming businesses into disarray. It creates severe cash-flow crises for farmers across the country and has damaged the bond of trust between our farmers and this Government. It is particularly crippling for those who are yet to enter the agri-environmental schemes, and particularly impacts our upland and small-scale family-run farms, which are still largely excluded. The average English less-favoured area livestock farm could see its profits fall by almost half. The Government claim that the money saved from delinked payments will stay within the sector and I welcome the Minister’s guarantee to say that today.

I turn now to the arguments for the need for the fatal amendment before us today. Of course, these procedures should be used rarely or reserved for the issues of utmost importance. However, if the imminent collapse of so many of our family-run farms—which are the backbone of our farming businesses—due to unhelpful bureaucracy that is causing them to go bankrupt does not fit these conditions, I do not know what does.

The Conservative Benches have their own regret amendment on the Order Paper today. A regret amendment is too little and too late to offer our family farmers any hope of real, meaningful change that will save their livelihoods in time; it will not accomplish the meaningful change we require. The Conservative Benches have already made the argument that they do not support fatal amendments by convention. A simple look at history shows that this is simply not correct. The House of Lords Library briefing that I asked for shows that there have been 21 Divisions on fatal amendments since the start of the 2014-15 parliamentary Session.

Equally, the notion that the Conservatives do not call votes on their own fatal amendments is also historically incorrect. I remind the Conservative Benches that they called a vote on a fatal amendment—and won it, by the way—in response to the Blair Government’s proposals to prevent non-Labour candidates having an official election address at the first London mayoral elections. Other votes have been called: the noble Baroness, Lady Young, called a vote on the Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Amendment (No. 3) Order; Lord Dixon-Smith called a vote on the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations; Baroness Miller of Hendon called a vote on the Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations; Baroness Blatch called a vote on the Education Act 2002 (Modification of Provisions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations. So I appeal directly to the individual Members of the Conservative Benches to put aside their current perceptions of parliamentary procedure and stand behind our farmers in their hour of need. Vote in favour of the fatal amendment before us. As the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, regret is too gentle a word.

The dire financial situation our farmers face undermines the very foundations of British farming. It puts Britain’s food security at further risk and impacts our ability to fight climate change. It disproportionately affects smaller farmers, hill farmers and our vulnerable tenant farmers. Concerns have also been raised about the competitive disadvantages of our farmers against their Scottish and Welsh counterparts. It is shocking that the Government proceed without a comprehensive impact assessment that looks at the collective effects of these changes, and their cumulative impact on our farming communities. Farmers are essential custodians of our land, producing our food and caring for our environment. They need certainty, stability and fair financial support for the vital public goods they provide. The Government’s current approach offers none of this. Approving these regulations would endorse a flawed and damaging transition. I urge all noble Lords to support the fatal amendment and send a clear message to the Government that this approach is unacceptable and they must urgently change course to support our farmers properly.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I preface my remarks by thanking my noble friend Lord Rooker for his comments. They resonate so much with me in terms of how this Government have approached the farming sector, which is to be regretted. I will go on to say much in support of my noble friend here on the Front Bench.

I always remember that my father—who was not a farmer, by the way—used to say that the Treasury does its best to strangle every good initiative at birth. I very much concur with his comments.

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her explanation of the regulations before us today. I also thank her for her Answers to Written Questions on 3 April, where she laid out the Government’s plans for the reinterpretation of the sustainable farming incentive. I declare my interest as being in receipt of payments regarding a dairy farm.

However, after I submitted Written Questions to the Table Office, they were separated into distinct Questions. One became redrafted and reinterpreted and was thereby lost. However, in her Answers, which I am grateful for, she stated:

“Every penny of the reductions to delinked payments will stay within the sector”.


I know that was one of the concerns at the time of the SFI closure announcements, and I am glad she has reiterated it tonight. Her other replies on the Government’s intentions regarding SFI were extremely useful.

I have today resubmitted the Question and if I may will ask my noble friend tonight, so that it completes the picture regarding the intentions of the Government. This period of transition initiated on Brexit has been extremely long and arduous for farmers and growers. I was extremely critical of the previous Conservative Government cutting back on support payments under BPS over this transition period long before there was any clarity from government on environmental schemes ahead. That these have now been worked up and brought forward by this Government is to be welcomed.

The payment for environmental benefits has been made worthwhile and meaningful compared with the cost of the enterprise to undertake them. This has been reflected in the successful uptake of the sustainable farming incentive, leading to a full budget allocation, in contrast to the lack of uptake in the previous Conservative Government’s allocation.

My noble friend and her colleagues in the other place are to be congratulated. Now that there are meaningful programmes for environmental improvements, I can understand and appreciate that the Government wish to move ahead to these ELM schemes and hasten the change from the legacy systems of BPS in the transition. Now that there are these schemes, I cannot support these regret amendments.

However, the timing of the progressive withdrawal coincides with a pause in the success of the SFI scheme in bringing forward an oversupply of applications. It is imperative that this temporary pause is short-lived and that there is clarity on the way ahead, especially for the 3,000 to 6,000 applicants who were preparing to join the scheme.

So, my question which was overlooked and which I would now like to ask the Government is: is it their intention to maintain and continue with a universal scheme open to all farm types on an equal basis? We cannot and must not lose sight of the role of all farms in hitting environmental and sustainability targets. Can my noble friend the Minister assure the committee that any reinterpretation of SFI will continue to be available to all farms and continue to be worthwhile to bring the necessary changes and benefits to the UK’s agricultural land management?

The agricultural transition must continue to be inclusive. There has been a lot of complexity to navigate and the contemporary problems of overspend must not detract from fulfilling the promise of bringing forward a more sustainable agriculture, and I commend the department on how simple it is to enter the scheme.

Many of those in the process of an application may have been subject to the complex rules of the transition between an ELM or mid-tier Countryside Stewardship scheme, which were subject to five-year agreements, and the SFI incentive. Those farmers will need answers.

I realise that there are further dimensions around the policies that must be assessed with the forthcoming road map and the land use framework. However, I urge my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues in the department to bring forward a continuing and meaningful scheme as soon as possible.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, the present financial crisis that farmers face was an inevitability the moment we voted for Brexit—I said so at the time. It was a question only of when it was going to happen. HM Treasury knew that there was a budget set in Brussels and that it could get its sticky mitts on to it; once they did so, the farmers were going to be in trouble —and in trouble they are.

My noble friend Lord Fuller was absolutely right to say that it is a much bigger issue than the SFI and the basic payment system; it is across the board. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said that Defra’s reputation is at its lowest in living memory—that is a sad thing to have to say in this House for all the farmers.

The SFI was a victim of its own success; it was too good to be true, and it was inevitable that it had to be ended or changed. Perhaps that could have been done much better, and there should have been advance warning, but, given the way it was structured, it was inevitable that the benefits were not distributed evenly.

The basic payment system, for all its faults—here I chide the Minister for portraying the beneficiaries of the basic payment system as, I think, large and wealthy landowners—was for every farm business. There was equality; it went right across the board. That is not the case for the SFI, which is one of its faults. If you look at the figures for the SFI, you will find that there are 7,800 agreements in the south-west and 1,000 agreements in the north-east. That is not an equal distribution across the country. On top of that, one needs to remember that over half of the land in England is tenant farmed—they are not large, wealthy landowners.

The need for equal distribution is an important feature for the Government to consider when adapting the scheme. We have a great opportunity now for the Government to come forward with a revised SFI scheme, but two important changes need to be made to the current scheme: first, it must be available to all on a fair basis, and, secondly, it must benefit nature.

One of the problems of the existing SFI is that it has not necessarily benefitted nature. It benefited some farmers who got in there early and made a lot of money, but the figures that I cited for the distribution of the SFI show that there were patches where nature was going to be improved and patches where nature was not getting any benefit at all. That is perhaps the only thing that I would add to my noble friend Lord Roborough’s regret amendment. I am sad that he did not include “and nature and biodiversity”, because that was part of the SFI. Yes, the farmers were going to benefit, but it was public money for public goods, and that includes biodiversity.

I will outline my particular fear, as I think this is bound to happen. A whole lot of farmers signed up to the middle tier of the Countryside Stewardship scheme in 2020, which was to last for five years. I believe that there are about 14,000 farmers in that category—the Minister might correct me if I am wrong, because it is important to get it right. Those people were the good farmers: they were ahead of the game, and they took the difficult decision to go into something that was a new idea—and new ideas tend not to work terribly well to begin with—in the expectation that, at the end of the five years, there would be another scheme for them to go into. However, what they will now find is that the doors have slammed shut: there is no scheme for those people to go into.

You can drive around the countryside, which is looking particularly good in the spring sunshine at the moment, and look at those areas of bird seed where the drills have gone down you have bird seed, leys and areas set aside for nature. Next year, they are not going to be there because those farmers have no option but to plough up all the good they have done in the last five years, put it down to corn and put the combine in. That would be a tragedy.

Wild Atlantic Salmon

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, for introducing this popular debate. I declare my interest as owning a property with my sister in Dumfries and Galloway in south-west Scotland. My sister is a keen fisher, and my interest is in seeing a healthy population of wild salmon in the upper Cree tributary, which, along with the Annan, Nith, Bladnoch and Luce, flows ultimately into the Solway Firth.

My contribution today is informed by many years of support from and conversations with Mr Jamie Ribbens, senior fisheries biologist at the Galloway Fisheries Trust, a charity set up to monitor environmental conditions and encourage good practice to restore river health. I also have regular conversations with Forestry and Land Scotland’s environment office at Newton Stewart.

These five river systems still support Atlantic salmon and brown trout, unlike most areas of south-west Scotland. Of the 11 upland lochs studied, six are now fishless. Most of the tributaries are designated as special areas of conservation—SAC—and come under the jurisdiction of SEPA, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

Peatlands are common within many of the acidified areas in Galloway, and their importance cannot be overemphasised for carbon storage, given the urgency of combating climate change. They also carry out several other ecological services, including water purification, improved climate resilience, flood control and acting as unique habitats for flora and fauna. The degradation of many peat bogs has occurred from large-scale commercial planting of Sitka spruce, with resultant drainage. It is important that new planting schemes are not allowed in deep peat—they still are—with commensurate drainage. Impacted areas need to have a faster rollout of riparian trees, using hardwoods to produce sufficient shade, and to have peatlands restored to help water quality. The Riverwoods initiative needs greater uptake.

Climate change impacts are the major threat to salmon. High water temperatures are already a problem and will only get worse. Oh dear, I had not realised the time—I had better skip straight to a conclusion.

While this specific area and context are subject to the Scottish Government, I imagine that the problems will be more widespread. I ask my noble friend the Minister to challenge and encourage SEPA, Forestry and Land Scotland, and the Scottish Government to do more to restore peatlands, especially where they are so important for water quality, natural flood management and water flows. Healthy peatlands are vital for healthy salmon.

Environment and Climate Change Committee Report: An Extraordinary Challenge: Restoring 30 per cent of our Land and Sea by 2030

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on her excellent chairmanship of the Environment and Climate Change Committee and thanking her for her excellent introduction to the committee’s report. I declare my interests as a member of the committee and, as on the register of interests, a farmer with experience of food supply chains.

Needless to say, this report was assembled under the previous Conservative Government. I welcome my noble friend the Minister to her place at the Dispatch Box and look forward to possible new approaches to tackling the long-term decline of biodiversity in the UK. I fully endorse the committee’s report. With the UK being one of the most nature-depleted countries, it is to be welcomed that, in 2022, at COP 15 on biodiversity in Montreal, the Government joined the international commitment to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030 through halting species decline and restoring nature in a sustainable environment—and here, alongside others, I pay tribute to the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the previous Administration in securing this agreement.

The UK has a plethora of conservation designations across a wide range of habitats that have arisen since the introduction of national parks and various site-specific measures since, resulting especially from being a member of the EU. As the report underlines, it is not merely the extent of land and sea; it is the quality of effective conservation and management across the various designations. It must be recognised that national parks were initially set up in legislation to protect the natural beauty of an area rather than its biodiversity. Boundaries were defined in this context where, often, a multitude of activities were being conducted to differing criteria and objectives, reflected in the governance arrangements.

I will pick up two key features contained in the report. With the quantity of designations of protected areas, coupled with the quality of monitoring and the variety of management across these designations, it will be important for the Government and Natural England to identify key partners. This will be extensive and will include the devolved Administrations, councils and utility companies regarding infrastructure and water, as well as associations and their memberships involved in ownership and land management. Arguably, one of the key stakeholders will be farmers, who are involved in managing 70% of the UK’s total land area.

It is opportune that the alternative support system is still under construction following Brexit and is being reflected in environmental public goods. Programmes within the scope of ELMS must be utilised to help the development of the 30% by 2030 policy. It is puzzling that Defra continues to price environmental activity in terms of income forgone instead of paying the appropriate price for the work cost and benefits of public goods; the Government have not recognised food as a public good. I would further argue that this payment formula perpetuates the thinking that food production and conservation are competing priorities.

It is now more important than ever that nature, its conservation and benefits, must work alongside thriving agricultural production and management, to mutual benefit. It was hardly encouraging that previous Conservative Administrations reduced BPS payments progressively and in a short timeframe, before developing credible and effective ELM programmes to lead the transition. These programmes need to be extensive, as well as focused on desired features, to underline the importance of biodiversity and conservation. In addition, it is important that all land management must comply with basic standards and not be made voluntary with regard to opting out to avoid undertaking environmental responsibilities.

I also underline the importance of the 30% by 2030 policy across all departments of government of both the UK and devolved Administrations. We should not categorise the policy as merely the responsibility of Defra. In this regard, biodiversity and nature conservation are recognised across government, to some extent—as reflected, for example, in the stipulation of biodiversity net gain within planning and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The challenge is to take the culture and outlook across the silos of government and not simply put differing concepts into differing departments without joining them up. I welcome that Natural England is now undertaking a multifaceted approach known as “whole-feature assessment” as it monitors management across the various protection designations.

My second key feature of the report concerns the land use framework. I declare here the added interest of being a member of the Land Use in England Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. My noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, among others speaking in today’s debate, was a member of that committee.

The report strongly recommended setting up a land use commission, underlining the importance of the multifunctional aspects of land. This will necessarily recognise all the competing challenges in land use across government. It is vital that the thinking of the previous Conservative Government to constrain land use to Defra jurisdiction only must not persist into the new Administration. If the 30% by 2030 policy is to be fully embraced and implemented, competing claims for land can be recognised and, I hope, integrated from this multifunctional approach to land use. This has been recognised to a certain extent—for example, in nature recovery strategies within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The pressure on land must be integrated across competing uses and seen to work together, so that land can achieve the best outcome between uses including housing, infrastructure, transport, energy distribution and leisure. Not the least of this is to fulfil the pledge of achieving 30% of land being effectively managed for nature over time.

I conclude by drawing attention to the Crown Estate legislation currently going through your Lordships’ House and to the benefits that the Crown Estate could bring, being the third-largest landowner in the UK, with responsibility for ownership of coastal marine areas. The Crown Estate could provide valued leadership in furthering biodiversity and nature conservation.

Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I too warmly welcome these regulations. It is interesting and rather ironic that the farmers are protesting in Parliament Square while we are addressing this topic. When I saw the tractors outside, I felt rather envious. I wished I had brought my own tractor from Northumberland, although it might have taken most of the weekend.

This has been an issue for a very long time. I have been involved in trying to encourage better relationships within the dairy and other sectors for at least 25, if not 30, years. This is an important development. I welcomed it when the then Agriculture Bill came into the House. It was a big step forward for the Government to bring this in as part of that Bill.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, did the Government seriously consider whether to extend the existing GSCOP and Groceries Code Adjudicator to include the elements contained in that Bill? There have been at least two reviews of the scope of GSCOP during the years. Many of us have been keen that that scope should be extended down the supply chain to provide greater protection and support for primary producers.

Secondly, if the answer to that is, “Yes, we have considered it but have decided to go it alone and establish our own adjudicator within the dairy sector”, are the Government likely to extend that scope to other sectors? Many of the issues dogging the dairy sector dog other sectors too. Relationships within supply chains are nothing like as good as they should be and, in many cases, degenerate into confrontational relationships. In my view, it is important to look at other sectors. When the adjudicator is appointed, it should be made clear that—if it is government policy—the remit is likely to be extended to include other sectors.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation to the House today. This is an incredibly important measure to help resolve deep-seated problems at the producer end of the milk supply chain.

I declare my interests and experiences from being involved in a supply chain, as I have owned a dairy farm and received payments for over 40 years. I supplied milk in the beginning to Milk Marque and subsequently to several other processors, as well as chairing a producer group and the milk co-op Dairy Farmers of Britain. I was also a shadow Agriculture Minister in the Lords during the passage of what became the Agriculture Act, opposite the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner. I thank him for committing Section 29 into the Act.

The milk industry is extremely competitive. It has evolved with the rise and consolidation of supermarkets. Their dominance in the grocery trade has migrated milk away from doorstep deliveries. The consolidation of the top, supermarket end of the supply chain has driven consolidation in the processing sector. I liken it to the challenge of playing musical chairs, whereby the number of processors is successively reduced by the expanding supermarkets, which channel the supply chain towards expanding processors. An example of this business is the Co-op, which, at that time, expanded by acquisition. It reduced its milk suppliers from two to one, whereby the Co-op’s amalgamation costs of £6 million were, in effect, paid for by the dairy supply chain competing to be the one supplier of milk, without much regard to fair dealing.

By contrast, the service sector can be equally unstable and volatile, supplying milk to outlets such as Starbucks and others. In the other place, the debate mentioned the possibility of waste. I agree with the Minister in the other place, Mark Spencer, that there is virtually no waste in the milk chain. The recent example of so-called waste, when Covid shut down such outlets, resulted from those dairy suppliers being suddenly told that there would be no collection of their milk for the foreseeable future, and they faced the problem of safe dispersal immediately, with full tanks and cows needing to be milked again. I pay tribute to Dairy UK and Defra, led at that time by the Secretary of State George Eustice, for rectifying the situation.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2023

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]

My Lords, I shall follow the comments that we have just heard. I declare a new interest as the president-elect of the Suffolk Agricultural Association, where we see the issues that have just been described in the uplands similarly in small family farms in Suffolk.

By and large, the farmers that I speak to want to embrace the ELM scheme and many of them are doing so. What those who are embracing it are saying to me about those who are not yet doing so is that somehow the scheme needs to be made more attractive, the incentives need to be increased—particularly for the smaller family farmers—and the process simplified in some way so that they can gain access to the scheme. I understand that His Majesty’s Government are seeking to achieve 80% take-up of ELMS by 2030. I ask the Minister where we are with that at the moment and what he sees as the possibilities of accelerating and incentivising the take-up by those who, as we heard earlier, might need hand-holding in that process.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register, being a farmer in receipt of payments. I shall speak from a grass-roots perspective and perhaps be a little more critical.

On 26 January this year, the Minister in the other place introduced the Government’s agricultural transition plan with the words:

“We will learn from the past”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/23; col. 1191.]


I regret that the Conservatives are slow to do so. The errors of the common agricultural policy will not absolve them of their mistakes, repeatedly made. That is not to say that I am not in favour of the new approach towards payments for environmental benefits; it is the poor way in which they are being introduced that I regret.

I regret that Conservatives still insist on basing environmental payments on the income-foregone model, long discredited since the start of Pillar 2 payments many years ago. I had thought that, under the new post-EU system, farmers were to be rewarded for the value of the benefits for the public good of enhancing the environment. Under the cross-compliance features of the CAP it made some sort of sense, but it makes no sense where schemes replace elements of agricultural production and payments go nowhere near the value of cropping, hence the poor uptake in many of the schemes under Countryside Stewardship.

I regret that the Conservative Government paid little attention during the passage of the Agriculture Act to calls that payments need to be worth while under new ELM schemes and that it would be foolish to reduce payments aggressively during the transition before there were meaningful ELM alternatives that could be understood and planned for in future farm business plans. This approach is not a way to build confidence. Conservatives tend to like to reduce, restrict and restrain rather than to undertake positive provisions for growing the market and providing inclusive initiatives.

Against the background of climate change, energy price rises and the war in Ukraine, food security and the lack of certain products on supermarket shelves have highlighted the reduction of support to, and confidence of, farmers. The disastrous trade deal with Australia and New Zealand, agreed by the discredited Liz Truss as Trade Secretary, is not welcomed.

The CAP was an agricultural policy, not an environmental one. Payments were made only to farmers. NGOs and environmental charities were envious that they did not qualify. The Government will say that the same budget of £2.5 billion is still being maintained, but it no longer goes only to farmers. No wonder the NGOs are enthusiastic in their praise. While the money is cut from BPS payments to farmers, can the Minister give the figure for the amount returned to farmers—as distinct from NGOs—from environmental land schemes? Is he able to break down that amount between farm types to clarify the effect of reductions to the uplands, perhaps the most stressed and vulnerable agricultural sector?

I will use another word beginning with R: could the Minister “refrain” from saying it is up to farmers to apply for the new schemes that were introduced in late January? The Minister’s department set itself the ambition of attracting all 80,000 farmers under the BPS to be involved in environmental land management schemes. The department would also need to include tenants, now able to take part under the Rock reforms. That would show the Government’s full commitment to have the countryside in a better state as we drive our ambition to achieve net zero by 2050. As a baseline, can the Minister say how many farmers—not NGOs—participated in schemes last year?

I urge the Minister to learn from the past and develop schemes that are simple and effective. Farmers do not want 100 pages of bureaucracy. Could communication be improved and directed at each qualifying farm in a determination to be inclusive and encouraging, as part of the 30 by 30 commitment? The ambition must be to include all the farms, with their farmers, in schemes at the end of the transition period that began in the Agriculture Act 2020.

Getting the wider 30% of land well-managed for biodiversity by 2030 is a huge challenge. I draw attention here to the fact that all farmers would want to be included, respond positively to challenges and can bring huge benefits across all types of land, in addition to those already protected under designated protections.

Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the Government intend the 2023 claim year to be the

“last year of the … Direct Payment scheme”.

In the new system for 2024, will the Government repeat the mistakes they committed previously, with a lack of timely detail, a lack of funding and the same philosophy of reduce, restrict and restrain? Perhaps the Minister can be encouraging this evening

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I find myself in the entirely familiar position of agreeing with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, particularly her reflections on the stranglehold that supermarkets have over farmers’ lives in this country. However, I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with both the Liberal Democrats’ fatal amendment and the regret amendment from the Labour Benches. At base, that is because, if we were not to take the steps that this SI delivers, the shift away would see £770 million—as calculated by the RSPB—taken away from helping farmers to take action on climate change, reduce water pollution, plant trees and restore nature.

It is worth noting that, under the Environmental Improvement Plan, 90% of the funding for tree planting —to meet the target of 16.5% of England being covered by trees by 2050—depends on ELMS funding. Some 80% of progress on nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution from agriculture depends on ELMS funding. Of course, that is not to say that there are not huge problems with where we are, as the right reverend Prelate, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and others pointed out. The Carbon Brief website has a useful interactive table that lists the 270 activities that farmers can undertake to earn payments, particularly from SFI and CS schemes; 39 of those 270 are still at the planning stage, yet the base payments are being cut away.

The Minister will be surprised to hear that I will pass a small bouquet in his direction: the Soil Association has just acknowledged that payments for organic farming are rising by an average of 25% via the Countryside Stewardship scheme, which is a recognition of the benefits of organic production. But, picking up the points about small farms, it is worth noting—perhaps the Minister can write to me about this—that in Wales they are looking to reduce the size of farms eligible for farm payments to three hectares, or, alternatively, to farming businesses that rely on 550 hours of labour per year. Will the Government look at helping those smaller producers, particularly in horticulture, and perhaps small-scale livestock producers, to do that?

But—I suspect the Minister knew there was a “but” coming—my reason for regretting the Labour regret amendment is, as the Minister identified, the fact that farmers and land managers in the UK now need certainty about the future for long-term plans. If you are going to plant trees or herbal leys, you need to know what is happening not just this year or next year but in the long term. Given where we are in the electoral cycle, the Labour regret amendment will deliver to farmers a degree of uncertainty about where they might be in two or three years, in terms of the schemes that the current Conservative Government introduced—

Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for setting out the detail of and background to the regulations before us today. I simply want to probe him on a couple of points, if I may, including on how these regulations will apply, especially to English farmers, and particularly tenant farmers.

The guidance was published in March 2022, and the path to sustainable farming was set out earlier. Has the guidance been updated since 2022? I do not see that in the Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 11. If they are just technical changes, that may not be so important.

Why was no impact assessment done? As my noble friend said, this is year three of the seven-year transition and where the finances will start to bite quite dramatically. I state at the outset that English farmers will feel unfairly treated. My understanding is that the direct payments will continue in Scotland, so those farms in North Yorkshire, Durham, Cumbria and Northumberland will look across the Scottish border and see a slightly more familiar scheme to that which they have now and which is being taken away from them. Is that something that concerns my noble friend the Minister?

My real concern is the transition from basic farm payments to ELMS. My noble friend concentrated very heavily on the advantages to the environment. I press him on how this will impact on hill farmers, upland farmers and small farmers everywhere, in particular those who produce grazing stock such as spring lambs and, indeed, fatstock cattle.

In a Financial Times article on 5 March, it is calculated that a drop in farm business income—a measure of net profit—of almost two-thirds is expected in this financial year. That amounts to a drop in profit of £16,300. When I was an MP next door—as indeed was my noble friend—I worked very closely with the graziers. I would hazard a guess that that £16,000 per grazier was their total income. The question is this: what alternative money will they seek? They tend to have the rights in perpetuity but they tend to be tenant farmers elsewhere. If they do not get direct farm payments because the landowner, where they farm elsewhere, is taking it then obviously they will not be getting any compensation.

My noble friend the Minister will be familiar with the work of Julia Aglionby, a Professor of Practice at the University of Cumbria’s Centre for National Parks and Protected Areas. Her projection is that income will recover to £22,900 in two years before slumping back to £16,700; this would place it at just above a third of its 2021-22 level. I understand that of particular concern to the president of the NFU is the fact that at the heart of this squeeze on government payments is the decision to calculate payments on the basis of income foregone plus costs, meaning paying for green improvements at rates aimed at recompensing farmers for the resulting fall in agricultural income.

According to the president of the NFU, Minette Batters, for some farms that took part at the pilot stage, the work was simply not cost effective. As my noble friend the Minister will be aware, upland farms are particularly affected because they tend to produce less food than lowland sites, meaning that they are considered to have foregone less income and are paid lower rates. As I understand it, most farmers will receive £151 a hectare for managing grassland with minimal fertiliser, but those doing the same work in so-called severely disadvantaged areas or upland farms will be paid only £98. That is a severe drop in income and this is only the third year of seven.

Can my noble friend the Minister address those points? How are these farmers meant to survive? What are the department’s projections for the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh years? Where the farmers in the uplands are tenant farmers, as many of them will be—I appreciate the fact that, in North Yorkshire, where I served as an MP, and in County Durham, where I grew up in the Pennines, probably 50% of the farming community is made up of tenant farmers—what hope do they possibly have of farming in future if they are not eligible for food production grants going forward? I realise that they will get money for stonewalling, which is a tradition that we want to keep, but they are hardly contributing to food security or sourcing more food—as the Prime Minister would like them to do—for our schools, hospitals and local garrisons. What future does my noble friend see, even in this coming year, for upland farmers and, separately, for tenant farmers?

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I declare my agricultural interests as recorded on the register, in that I own agricultural land and am in receipt of payments. I thank the Minister for his introduction to the regulations before the Committee and welcome my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent to her new Defra responsibilities.

I had thought that we would be debating two instruments today: this one and the one on direct payments to farmers. The disastrous mess being created by the Government on food production is evidenced by the loss of that second instrument today; it is to be debated later this month through separate fatal and regret Motions.

These amendment regulations, albeit seemingly on technical administrative measures, have the potential to add greater confusion for food producers while taking away parliamentary oversight and giving more powers to Ministers. The regulations will minimise the references to specific financial assistance schemes and definitions in the original 2021 regulations to allow future changes to be made to the design of specific schemes, seemingly without due consideration and process and without the need for amendments to have parliamentary approval. Seeming to be subject to constant flux cannot instil confidence in the agricultural community to align long-term business planning with the perceived lack of consistency of government objectives on environmental sustainability. Are there are guidelines regarding the duration period? How many reinterpretations of schemes might the Minister’s department pursue without necessitating a fresh mandate? Will the Government commit to undertaking consultations on every change?

The instrument proposes extending exemptions for agricultural holders, under animal and plant welfare measures, to have to publish certain information. This administrative ease brings added complexity if an agreement holder is only partly involved in such schemes, as well as others. Can the Minister give an assurance that all agreement holders will be notified in advance of all the information to be published? Will that notification be subject to challenge?

On the wider issue, will changes of personnel within an agreement holder—for example, in the case of farm partnerships—necessarily have to be notified to Defra for legitimacy and the maintenance of agreements? I presume that this would have implications where the Secretary of State is required to publish the aggregate of financial assistance paid under the schemes, necessarily adjusted for exemptions.

Government Food Strategy

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Viscount raises a really important point: our food industry and food distribution network is one of the 13 items listed in our critical national infrastructure. It was shocking, in 2010, when we came into government to find that there was no national infrastructure database and no drawing together of all the important points, including the ones made by the noble Viscount. I am sure that it is not right yet; we have to connect up where we need things to be in this country with the best and most sustainable means of getting there. This will continue to mean that we will have to move things on roads. Hopefully, we will move things in a much more environmentally friendly way in years to come, but there are alternatives as well. We should be building for the future to fit in with our net-zero ambitions.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I declare my interests as set out in the register. It is to be welcomed that the Government recognise the importance of food, but the strategy should be more dynamic. There are widespread problems throughout the food system which Henry Dimbleby has done well to identify and express in his report, but they have not been dealt with adequately by the Government. There is great anxiety from the widespread uncertainty engendered by government policy across many areas.

I will concentrate on one area for integration across government—quality food—and say that farmers are very good at responding to opportunities, once co-ordinated into quality marketing schemes. How is the Minister’s department working with farmers, growers, processors and the food chain to ensure that domestic initiatives—such as quality branding, product of designated origin schemes and other marketing schemes—are better integrated with the Department for International Trade to develop export opportunities in food and trade deals, where deals are not to be focused merely on opening up the UK to imports? Will Defra set up a new taskforce to build on this integration, reducing emissions and adapting to climate change? These are both key challenges for sustainability.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. We need to ensure that we are not only feeding ourselves, and maintaining the dependability of what we grow ourselves, but looking at markets abroad. There are a number of shining examples of our export potential, including exports of quality food from these shores. I hope that, in the years to come, we can see exports—not just to the European Union but to the rest of the world—benefitting from a new trading environment where farmers can benefit as a result. I am not sure that it requires a new taskforce to be set up, because I consider that taskforce to be the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs working with the Department for International Trade. However, I am open to any ideas that will oil the wheels of export potential for our farmers and growers.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords & Ping Pong (Minutes of Proceedings): House of Lords
Thursday 12th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

What a delicious irony, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said. We were told that this Bill could not be amended by ourselves due to devolution—look at all the amendments here—and now we have found out the United States can change this Bill but we cannot. It is a great irony, and interesting arguments about territoriality are coming out. What is interesting is that there is no better ammunition than this to show, if we have a trade deal with the United States, that we should not be having chlorinated chicken or the other things we talk about, given that we have had to concede on seal welfare—not that I do not welcome sea welfare.

What I welcome in particular is the transparency element that comes in. This is important for making it absolutely clear who receives grant schemes or other schemes to help the industry, as any other industry, and how those are received, so we can have a good audit of that process. I welcome that very much.

In terms of the landing in north-west waters, that is an illustration where I agree with the Government. There has to be pragmatism around how we operate the landing of fish. That is why making the detail of that in future, as we discussed in the last group, will be quite complex but essential. Do I take it from that that the exemption is for only one year? Is that exemption there only until the Government have decided what the broader landing rules are? That is my real question.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction to this group of amendments and for the letter dated 3 November explaining the Commons amendments to your Lordships’ House, where the Bill started. Many of these amendments followed up on suggestions and inquiries initiated here, which the Government have had time to consider further during the Summer Recess, including in several consultations.

Once again, this House had a serious impact, delivering improvements to government legislation. These amendments provide examples of that work and could be categorised as important but may be more minor policy changes, drafting improvements and corrections.

Amendment 2 is one such amendment where, following probing, the initial provision for publication of the joint fisheries statement was set at 18 months after Royal Assent. The new proposal is to extend this to 24 months, as the noble Lord said. The pandemic and a succession of pre-election purdahs have resulted in slippages. I am glad that the Government have been able to be realistic—something it is often difficult to praise them for. However, having said that, it is frustrating that we will not get to see the outcome of that process for quite a while. Perhaps the Government will not need all the extra time that they have given themselves; we remain ever hopeful.

Amendment 5 is another example where, following debates and then amendments in the Agriculture Bill, the Government have come forward to provide explicit clarity that this extra provision does not contravene compliance with data provisions in the GDPR. We welcome this consistency and Amendment 66, regarding Scotland, Amendment 67, regarding Wales and Amendment 68, regarding Northern Ireland, which follow up with the devolved Administrations.

Amendments 13 and 27 and new Schedule 9 in Amendment 77 on the conservation of seals would strengthen protections to comply with the US Marine Mammal Protection Act, as necessary before 1 March 2021 to be able to export fish products to America. While this provision gave rise to some controversy concerning seals specifically, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, pick up on the fact that to encourage exports the UK is prepared to change how it does business. However, when challenged on maintaining standards provisions on imported food in the Agriculture Bill, the Government claim that they cannot require compliance with UK provisions for imports. The shadow Secretary of State, Luke Pollard, mentioned trade from New Zealand, which does not have these added protections and from where we will continue to import product. Does the Minister see any double standard here?

He might like to dance on the head of a pin—we will enjoy that—saying that this compliance is with conservation of seals provisions, not food standards. What if there is any re-export of food products to the US? Alternatively, I recognise Monday’s conversion in the Agriculture Bill that, under CRaG amendments, it is now recognised that there will not be a non-regression of standards and the Government should no longer be peddling that line.

Amendment 17 is a further amendment of second thoughts on drafting. It would make a small change to the definition of “minimum conservation reference size” to specify individual fish in terms of their maturity size and not the size of the marine stock. We support this amendment and also support Amendment 8 in relation to sea fishing of boats. I note that Amendment 28 in this group removes financial privilege from the legislation as the Bill started in your Lordships’ House.

The remaining amendments are technical corrections and additions to Commission-delegated regulations, which will avoid further secondary orders. With those comments, we are entirely content with the amendments proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction to this group of amendments and for his explanations. I am also grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. This group relates mainly to the carve-out for the Faroe Islands temporary foreign vessel licences and other minor technical provisions. Amendments 9, 70, 74 and 76 are technical and replace references to the devolved Ministers in Clause 41 with “sea fish licensing authorities” instead.

Amendment 11 and the consequential Amendment 26 update compliance with the 1999 treaty with Denmark and enable the Scottish Government to manage this shared area and issue licences to permitted foreign vessels as the Faroes, while in the UK’s exclusive economic zone, are exclusively in Scottish waters. I am not sure that there should be the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, envisages, but I await the Minister’s reply.

Amendment 44 and the bulk of the amendments in the sequence in the middle of this group concern the definition of “temporary foreign vessel licence” and how this will apply on a contingent basis when the UK becomes an independent coastal state with an agreement with the EU concerning the UK’s exclusive economic zone and licensing arrangements. Necessarily, this could take some time—meanwhile, fishers need to be able to continue activities. I agree that the flexibility this provides is commendable. In the Commons, the shadow Secretary of State Luke Pollard asked whether secondary legislation would need amendment to specify these arrangements. The Fisheries Minister Victoria Prentis said that she would need to check this position. Will the Minister be able to confirm today that this has indeed been done and that no further orders are required?

The point of these provisions is made on the assumption that the UK will be able to negotiate a continuing relationship with the EU after 31 December this year. That is not that far in front of us. Many of us are beginning to count down the remaining parliamentary sitting days, during which timetable the various relevant trade treaties will need to be examined and approved by Parliament. On an earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke on the likely outcome of the way forward in relation to the landing requirement. The Minister replied that the Bill is neutral on any outcome of negotiation. I will not pursue this any further, as I sympathise with him when he says that any comment from him may not be helpful at this stage.

The remaining amendments are technical, tidying up various provisions. For example, Amendment 64 concerns the timing of differing legislation at different times of the tortuous Brexit debates. Amendments 21 and 42 concern provisions in Schedule 4 regarding the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the extent of Section 2 of the Fishery Limits Act, as the Crown dependencies did not confirm their approach until the beginning of August. I am very glad that this bit was achieved with them. The remaining amendments tidy up retained direct EU legislation. This and all the amendments in this group are agreed.

We will all look forward to the necessary announcements on the conclusion of successful negotiations with the EU. I contend that they should now become easier following the amendments to the Agriculture Bill to secure a non-regression of standards so necessary to the attainment of a level playing field with Europe.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Grantchester. We are into a technical range of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the Faroe Islands. While the 1999 treaty permits either party to license foreign vessels to fish in this small section of shared sea, it does not mean that there are no rules. Many of the licence conditions will be similar for either party issuing a licence. The UK will still exercise standard control and enforcement. The 1999 treaty also includes a commitment by both parties to co-operate on marine protection measures which further preserve this area.

Considerable work has been done. Certain discussions could obviously be undertaken only once we had left the EU, so negotiations with the Faroe Islands Administration have been taking place this year. I reassure your Lordships that in no way does this mean that there is not proper responsible control. As I said in my opening remarks, we are working with the Faroe Islands because both countries share an ambition for strong governance and custodianship of what is a very small but very important part of our UK EEZ. We should be consistent throughout.

I will look at any further points, but I am not going to embark on any commentary on negotiations and standards. This has been well and truly aired. Standards are supreme.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 9th November 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Grantchester]

At end insert “and do propose the following amendments to Amendment 18C—

18E: In subsection (1) leave out “the Secretary of State has first laid a report complying with subsection (2) before Parliament” and insert —
“(a) the Secretary of State has laid a report complying with subsection
(2) before Parliament, and
(b) the House of Commons has approved that report by a resolution on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”

18G: In subsection (7) insert ““Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;””

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, the Agriculture Bill is before your Lordships’ House once more. We do not apologise for that, as food standards remain a clear priority for the great British public. I declare my interest and my farming background as recorded on the register.

I start by thanking the Minister and the Minister in the Commons, Victoria Prentis, for the extensive discussions conducted with me and my colleagues, my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the shadow Defra Secretary of State Luke Pollard and the shadow Minister for Food and Farming Daniel Zeichner, which were conducted immediately before the tabling deadline for amendments in the Commons. They were difficult discussions because the Government would not share the text of their amendment with us, as well as deeming it non-negotiable. We all know that Governments do not conduct negotiations. It was a bit like wandering around in the dark looking for a bag to be able to release the cat. When the full light of day came, there was no cat to be found. However, those discussions identified what the cat should look like, and it was very disappointing to discover that the amendment did not resemble what we thought had been agreed between us.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

I now call then noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, to press or withdraw Motion A1.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) withdrawn.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak also to Motions E, E1, G and G1.

It is entirely right and proper that your Lordships should sometimes ask the other place to think again about a given issue. However, the House of Commons has voted on this matter twice already. An amendment with a similar effect to Amendments 12 and 16 was rejected by the other place in its earlier deliberations on Report, and its view on the noble Lord’s amendment has been made equally plain more recently.

We have looked very carefully at Amendment 16B in lieu, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, which seeks that we ask trading partners to demonstrate equivalence across a range of policy areas. The intention here is well understood, but this amendment still amounts to seeking additional, and potentially expansive, conditions from trading partners. Conditions such as these are not a feature of any other country’s trade policy. I was very struck by this when I took further advice—because obviously this is not my specialist area. I repeat that conditions such as these are not a feature of any other country’s trade policy.

Demonstrating and agreeing equivalence of rules is a complex, technical and resource-intensive task. For example, agreeing equivalence of a range of animal health and food safety rules with New Zealand has taken years. So, in theory, it is possible. However, we believe that doing so in the manner set out here would be disproportionate and in practice would likely mean adding years of such processes ahead of any ratifications. So this amendment could result in pressure to pursue an unrealistic negotiating objective.

On Amendment 18 and Amendment 18B in lieu—Motion G1—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, like Amendment 16B, this raises the subject of parliamentary scrutiny. Once again, I make it clear that, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, trade deals under negotiation now and in the future must be laid before Parliament. As was confirmed by the International Trade Secretary in a Written Ministerial Statement on Monday 12 October, there will be a full scrutiny process. I have now read it in full, and I urge noble Lords to read it after this debate, because I thought it was a very comprehensive statement. This includes publishing objectives and initial economic assessments prior to the start of talks, and providing regular progress updates to Parliament; updates on the conclusion of negotiation rounds with the United States and with Australia are recent examples.

We will share a full impact assessment covering the economic, social, environmental and animal welfare aspects of each trade deal. This will be independently scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee. We will also engage closely with the relevant Select Committees and will endeavour to ensure that they have at least 10 sitting days’ advance sight of all agreements, on a confidential basis. The final agreement text will be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days, giving Parliament time to scrutinise deals.

I am also pleased to be able to say that the Government are already conducting extensive consultation beyond Parliament, with a range of groups in place to advise on trade policy. These include the Department for International Trade’s agri-food trade advisory group, which was renewed in July and which includes over 30 representatives from the food industry, and Defra’s supply chain advisory groups. Of course, this scrutiny is enhanced by the Trade and Agriculture Commission. Recently, the commission launched a call for evidence to 200 relevant parties, covering several questions, including how standards can best be upheld while securing the benefits of trade.

Finally, I should also mention the important role that the FSA and FSS play in regulating imports. Indeed, I concentrated on some of this at a meeting last week with the chair and others in the FSA. The FSA draws on the expertise of 100 scientific experts and support staff and has recruited 35 additional members to its advisory committees. It also takes wider consumer interests into account, such as the impact on the environment, animal welfare and food security, drawing on appropriate expertise and stakeholders to do so.

I can therefore confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, that the approach envisaged in Amendment 18B is already under way. With these remarks, I beg to move.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

First, my Lords, I apologise to the House that I was not present at Third Reading; I was engaged in Committee on the Trade Bill. I would also have liked to have thanked the Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for the patient and receptive way in which they guided the Bill through the House. I also pay special regard to Nathalie Sharman and her Bill team for the excellent advice they gave us on the many calls the Minister facilitated to fill in the gaps in our appreciation.

We are now down to the final key issues on which the future of British agriculture must be built. Once again, I declare my interests as having been in receipt of EU funds, and with interests as recorded in the register.

I thank the Minister for his introduction to this group of amendments and for explaining the Commons’ reasons why it has chosen not to agree with your Lordships’ House. However, the reason given is to misunderstand the amendment. I do not consider the amendment to create new requirements for imports to meet particular standards. Is that really the right answer, when the Government claims that the withdrawal Act puts into UK law all the present standards inherited as a previous member state? Of course, they can no longer claim that, as future standards can be changed through technical statutory orders. This reveals the direction of travel the Government wish to take in agreeing to a US trade deal. We seek to put in primary legislation what the Government have claimed is in the withdrawal Act. The answer comes back, “Why do you wish to legislate for what the Government have no intention of doing?” Well, that is the stated intention. We are all warned of unintended consequences, and it is not the intention of the previous amendment to be misinterpreted. So we have drafted the amendment in lieu for your Lordships’ consideration.

It is clear that the amendment does not exclude cheaper products. It is open to other countries to sell food to the UK, provided that it meets the same legal thresholds in standards that presently pertain in the UK. Certainly, we can raise standards in time, but we cannot lower them. Price is for the market and for consumers to consider.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Grantchester]

At end insert “but do propose Amendment 16B in lieu—

16B: Insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to seek equivalence on agri-food standards in relation to future trade
(1) When negotiating any international trade agreement containing provisions relating to the importation of agri-food products into the United Kingdom, it shall be a negotiating objective for Her Majesty’s Government to secure terms that provide for equivalence with standards applicable to domestic producers in the areas of—
(a) animal health and welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health.
(2) Before an international trade agreement can be laid before Parliament under section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”), a Minister of the Crown must lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement confirming—
(a) that Her Majesty’s Government has, in the Minister’s opinion, fulfilled the requirement under subsection (1),
(b) whether equivalence with domestic standards has been achieved,
(c) any exemptions provided for individual products, and
(d) in relation to subparagraphs (b) and (c), the Minister’s reasons for this being the case.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply if—
(a) the international trade agreement is a continuation or revision of an agreement to which the United Kingdom was a party prior to IP completion day, whether as a direct signatory or by virtue of membership of the European Union, or
(b) the international trade agreement is with one or more least developed countries and, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, seeking equivalence on standards would present an unfair impediment to trade for the country or countries.
(4) In addition to the requirements under the 2010 Act, chapters of a relevant international trade agreement may not be ratified unless the conditions in subsections (5) and (6) have been met.
(5) The condition in this subsection is that the chapters have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.
(6) The condition in this subsection is that a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the chapters has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and—
(a) the House of Lords has debated the motion, or
(b) the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the first Lords sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in subsection (5).
(7) In this section—
“chapters” means any individual section or sections of an international trade agreement;
“international trade agreement” means—
(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—
(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii);
“least developed countries” means any country on the United Nations Committee for Development’s List of Least Developed Countries, as amended from time to time;
“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
“ratified” has the same meaning as in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.””